Iran and U.S. forces aligned

By Jim Killebrew

[June 18, 2014]  It is almost unbelievable to hear the President even suggest he is thinking about inviting Iran into Iraq in an effort to help the Iraqis drive out the ISIS terrorists in the process of toppling the Iraqi government. As if that is not bad enough, the Administration is talking like they will side with the Iranians as allies to share in the fight. Keep in mind it was the Iranians who held American hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration releasing them on the day Ronald Regan was inaugurated. Additionally, from that time forward the radical theocratic leaders of Iran have sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and world. They have repeatedly called for the elimination of Israel's existence and death to the "Great Satan" America.

As the Administration is contemplating a response to the rapid fall of the Iraqi government, the US Secretary of State John Kerry said recently, "We're open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran." What in the world can Iran contribute in any constructive manner? The leaders of Iran have not shown any consideration to Americans, or any of their enemies, for the last thirty-plus years. Their goal is to eliminate their enemies or anyone who disagrees with them because anyone who does not agree with them is considered and "Infidel" and is deserving of death in their opinion.

Iran has already sent thousands of troops into Iraq along with a high commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. As it teams up with the Iraqi-led Shiite government Iranian troops and commander will fight alongside the Iraqi troops. The President has sanctioned the collaboration between the United States and Iranian diplomats as they met in Geneva recently in how together they can "de-escalate the ongoing crisis in Iraq." Needless to say, there has been pushback from leading republicans regarding the teaming of U.S. forces with Iran in Iraq. The most notable are John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Elliot Engel (D-NY). Both of these men in Congress disagree with the President's movement toward pairing up with Iran in a fighting war in Iraq against the sectarian insurgents.
 

One major problem with this arrangement is the past precedent and behavior of the President. He has demonstrated time and again he is willing to say and do one thing but then change his mind later and act differently from his initial stand. The very problem we have in Iraq now is the timing of the withdrawal of our fighting forces from Iraq. There were warnings from all levels of Pentagon and Department of Defense officials that leaving a war theater prematurely would create a vacuum that could only be filled by the enemy. Leaving a standing military force has been the practice in America since the second world war. We have forces intact throughout Europe and Asia. One has to question the President's motives for not leaving a force significant enough to shield against such as is happening in Iraq presently. Even the person on the street recognizes that leaving a fight early only emboldens the aggressor; most people learn that from the school-yard bully in grade school.

The proof that the President intends to repeat the actions and policies he practiced in Iraq is that he has already done the same thing in the war theater in Afghanistan. Not only do Americans now know that the troops are being pulled out of that war by the end of this year, but only a small contingent group of ground support will remain after 2015. Is the danger of terrorist activity ending simply because the President packs up and leaves? It signals to Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists they only need wait for a few months until all the Americans are gone before they re-load their efforts to re-establish their launch platform in that country as well. It seems the President and his advisors seem consistent in making decisions and implementing policies that go against all military convention from past practice.

Another major problem seems twofold, first it seems like some of the decisions the President makes repeatedly in regard to the foreign affairs standing throughout the world is a result of the promises he has made and continues to make during his campaigns for political office. Secondly, as a result of that his options are falling on the side of political expedience rather than the safety and security of the citizens of the United States. Not only can that be seen in his projecting end dates for withdrawing from the war on terror, but in other decisions like disregarding notification to Congress by negotiating away to the Taliban the five most dangerous high-ranking Taliban members to the Taliban at their request. Additionally, we see the gathering of thousands illegal immigrant children and some of their parents crossing the U.S. Southern border under the protection of his policy not to turn them back.

Not only is that a violation of the federal law to establish a policy of non-deportation, but it is further exacerbated by having the federal agents pick up from the original "transportation coyotes'" bringing them to the U.S. border and transporting them across state lines into Arizona.

This action on his part cause the American people to lose faith in his ability to provide the security and protection needed for the American people. That kind of behavior scares a lot of people into thinking that the President is actually purposely engaging in these policy decisions a part of a wider, master plan to fundamentally change America in a way that weakens America's standing in the world and on the domestic side as well. The attack on the infrastructure alone for years to come as a result of opening up the borders of America will create hardship on the entire country with security breach and economic impact.

Establishing an alliance with Iran may not be the President's best idea, especially with a chance it will only entrench Iranian forces in Iraq long-term. Not to mention Iran gaining access to the sophisticated American military weapons systems. Congress needs to take action to prevent that.

[By JIM KILLEBREW]