Obama’s Scheming With Iran Shows Up After Soleimani Death
Print Friendly and PDF

Evidence of President Obama’s dirty dealing continues to be uncovered. Author Lee Smith appeared on the Ingraham Angle show recently to discuss odd reactions among Democrats regarding Trump’s removal of Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani after Smith published an article with details of Iran negotiations, posted below.

It seems Obama’s much touted arms deal with Iran was only a postponement until the next administration—which would have been a bad surprise for Hillary, although it didn’t work out that way.

Here’s a video of Smith explaining the scheme with Laura Ingraham and Victor Davis Hanson:

The zinger about Obama’s collusion with Iran occurs at around four minutes in:

LAURA INGRAHAM: Now, before we get back to Victor, you said in this new piece of yours that the goal for the Obama administration was never to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It was to stop them from building it during the Obama term. That’s quite an accusation.

LEE SMITH: Well, I mean if you look at what happened — if you look at the sunset clauses meaning the different provisions built into the deal that were set to expire sometime after Barack Obama left the White House, that’s very clear. It tells you what they were doing. They were passing it on to the next administration.

The Lee Smith article that got Laura Ingraham’s interest is linked below:

Obama Passed the Buck. Trump Refused to Play. by Lee Smith, Tabletmag.org, January 13, 2020

The Iran deal was never meant to stop Iran from building a bomb—it was supposed to delay it until disaster happened on someone else’s watch

In the wake of the targeted killing of Iranian terror master Qassem Soleimani, an interesting fight has broken out—after Donald Trump failed to brief them in advance of the strike, Democrats began fulsomely criticizing the president. This led Republican lawmakers to accuse their counterparts across the aisle of pro-terrorist sympathies. Maybe Republicans are still sore that Barack Obama compared them to Iranian hardliners like Soleimani for denouncing his signature foreign policy initiative, the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Or maybe it’s something else.

Because the fact is that the Democrats are not pro-terrorist. They’re simply intent on protecting the historic agreement that legalized the nuclear weapons program of a terror state.

Democratic leadership is angry it wasn’t briefed before the operation, as were some Republican lawmakers critical of the scant information in the White House intelligence briefing on the attack. But there is reason to believe senior Democrats would have leaked it to the press, as they’ve done repeatedly over the last three years to prosecute their anti-Trump campaign. In particular, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and his staff have used CNN as a platform to push the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Why would Democrats endanger U.S. national security by leaking highly classified plans of a major operation against a terror leader? Because Soleimani was the centerpiece of the nuclear deal.

The JCPOA was the instrument Obama used to secure the administration’s ultimate goal—realigning U.S. interests with those of Iran. For the U.S. to be able to minimize its footprint in the Middle East, the Obama White House needed a proxy force—much like the Iranians use proxies to advance their interests. Soleimani managed Iranian proxies and Obama, who praised the late commander, believed he was capable of stabilizing the region on behalf of America.

In 2015, when the JCPOA went into effect, Soleimani was removed from the U.N. sanctions list, a provision that, according to press reports at the time, the Iranians saw as “nonnegotiable.” That’s how Obama wanted it, too.

As I explained in Tablet last week, Obama had subscribed to the myth that U.S. policymakers had built up around Iran over 40 years—that the third-world obscurantist regime was in fact a formidable power that the U.S. dare not challenge lest it risk an apocalyptic war. Seen from Obama’s perspective, a nation this powerful was—unlike the incoherent Arabs, OR tiny Israel—singularly capable of maintaining order. (Continues)

Print Friendly and PDF