Biden to Trade Nukes to Terrorists for Election Day Bribes

An actual impeachable quid-pro-quo that could get Americans killed. 

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

The Biden administration and the Saudis are reportedly cooking up a deal.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Saudis will get nuclear capability, defense guarantees and a terrorist state inside Israel. And what will the United States get? Temporarily lower prices.

The Saudis are not offering to boost oil production to bring down prices as a favor to America, but to Biden. And it’s an election quid-pro-quo that may cost millions of Americans their lives.

After draining the strategic petroleum reserve ahead of the midterms, Biden has been unable to refill it because his environmentalist allies and the Saudis have kept prices high. The Saudis had rejected requests to lower oil prices for anything short of assistance in building their own nuclear program. Shortly before the Hamas attacks of Oct 7, the Saudis had offered to temporarily boost production if it would make it easier to sell Congress on a defense agreement.

Back then the Saudi deal had been portrayed as an extension of the ‘Abraham Accords’ and offered ‘normalization’ of diplomatic ties with Israel. Whether the Saudis were ever serious about normalization is debatable but since Oct 7, any such agreement has been conditioned on an internationally recognized.Islamic terrorist ‘Palestinian’ state affiliated with Saudi Arabia.

The current expectation is that a deal between Biden and the Saudis will drop the Israeli component and focus on a defense agreement and nuclear power in exchange for cheap oil.

Whether Israel is or isn’t on board, a Saudi nuclear agreement is a bad deal for America.

The United States is more than capable of producing its own oil. The only obstacle in the way of American energy independence is Joe Biden and his party who are determined to push ‘green energy’ that only makes us equally dependent on Muslim terror states and Communist China.

Nuclear energy could help solve our energy problems, but the Saudis, who are the world’s largest oil producers, certainly don’t need to go nuclear to fix any energy shortfalls. Nor do they care about the environment. A civilian nuclear energy program makes about as much sense for Saudi Arabia as it does for Iran. And the only reasonable argument for enabling the Saudis to go nuclear would be to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but rather than averting a nuclear attack, that could double the risk and the possible vectors for nuclear armageddon.

The trouble with letting either Iran or the Saudis go nuclear is not just the direct nuclear threat, but the indirect one that will come from Islamic terrorists getting their hands on either nuclear weapons or materials. Saudi Arabia has made some progress under the MBS monarchy, including allowing women greater rights and backing away from some of the terrorist groups and movements that the kingdom has traditionally supported, and even purged some of the old guard who oversaw the Jihadi war against America (this led to Jamal Khashoggi’s death).

But the Saudis have always played multiple angles and there’s still plenty of money going to Islamist groups and terrorist organizations from the kingdom’s wealthy elites. Even if the Saudis were to truly clean up their act (an unlikely scenario since financing terrorism remains one of the most reliable power plays in the region), it will only take MBS being overthrown to change that.

Had the coup advanced by Jamal Khashoggi, Qatar and other regional players succeeded, the same political figures who financed Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would once again be in control. A nuclear deal cannot be based on reforms implemented by one man and opposed by significant elements in the Saudi power structure. What happens if that one man goes?

Nuclear capability is a threat for generations. It should not be an agreement made lightly.

Biden is proposing to swap nuclear capabilities in exchange for the Saudis providing cheap oil for his election. The Saudis have made it clear that they can’t offer long term price guarantees which means they’d be doing little more than providing a temporary market fix long enough to get a presidential candidate his second term in in office.

After all the talk of impeachable quid-pro-quos, here’s one that could get millions killed.

Nuclear materials in the hands of Islamic terrorists is the ultimate nightmare and Biden is risking mass death, the destruction of entire American cities, in exchange for an election day bribe.

By emptying the strategic petroleum reserve to bribe midterm voters, Biden already dangerously endangered our economy and our national security. The cost of his illegal student loan debt bribes is already approaching an estimated $1 trillion and that may just be the beginning.

But there’s a big difference between stealing money to bribe voters and making a deal with an enemy nation that can cost the lives of millions. One is corruption while the other is treason.

The safety and security of the United States of America depends on keeping nuclear materials as far away from terrorists as possible. Biden’s proposed quid-pro-quo deal with Saudi Arabia risks putting nuclear materials in the hands of Islamic terrorists for his own political benefit.

That’s not a deal Congress should approve, it’s a deal that Congress could impeach him over.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.  Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

The Patriotic Threat – Obama’s Hatred for General Mike Flynn

By Col Jim Waurishuk, USAF (Ret.), National Security AnalystMay 26th, 2020

In the eyes of the key senior leadership of the Obama administration, Michael Flynn posed and still does a real and viable existential threat to the presidency and the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama. 
 
It was after the Russia Collusion ordeal story surfaced, in May 2017, when most of us learned that Barack Obama had warned President-elect Trump, without explanation, against hiring Michael Flynn.  It was Nov. 10, 2016, just two days after Donald Trump won the 2016 Election. From that meeting, Trump told staff aide Hope Hicks that he was bewildered by the Obama’s warning. Of all the important things Obama could have discussed with him, the outgoing commander in chief wanted to talk about Michael Flynn.

Of course, this raised many questions as to why Obama was so focused on Flynn. As we are well aware now, two weeks ago the Justice Department filed to withdraw charges against the retired three-star general Mike Flynn, for making false statements to the FBI in a January 24^th 2017, interview regarding a phone call with a Russian diplomat..............

Why? Because Obama saw Flynn as the signal biggest threat to his legacy which was rooted in a number of Flynn’s positions on Obama national security policies from radical Islamic Terrorism, Benghazi, weapons transfers to Syrian rebels, to the massive abuses of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, the single gravest concern for Obama was Flynn’s inside knowledge of Obama’s July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran⏤the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). ...........To Read More.....

Does Obama Want Iran To Have Nukes?

Caroline Glick Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Obama never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.  It isn't surprising that the US and the other five powers signed a deal with Iran last Saturday (11/23). Over the past few weeks, US President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that they were committed to signing a deal with Iran as quickly as possible.

And it isn't surprising that the deal these overeager leaders signed with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism makes the world a much more dangerous place than it was before the agreement was concluded.  While the deal isn't surprising in and of itself, Obama's decision to conclude it now makes clear the true goal of his foreign policy. To understand that goal, it is first necessary to consider an aspect of the deal that, on the surface, makes little sense. Read more for free...

The Other-Worldly Fanaticism of ... the Western Nuke Negotiator

By Diana West on Monday, November 25, 2013 6:36 AM

Today, Andrew Bostom notes for the record: "Nuke Deal Ignores Iran's Genocidal Islamic Jew-Hatred." Quite. He proceeds to fill in these gaping holes in both the deal itself and, almost worse, in its schematic reporting with a historical/religious overview of the past half-millenium of theocratic Shiite rule. This was interupted by 54 years rule of by Pahlavis, father and son, whose Western-oriented and secularizing regime (1925-1979) would be overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini, the inspiration of Iran's current leader, Rohani.  Bostom writes:  The so-called “Khomeini revolution,” which in 1979 deposed the secular, Western-oriented regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was in reality a mere... Read More »

Underneath the Deal

November 26, 2013 by Shoshana Bryen

Another Jimmy
Moment

The Obama administration is entitled to be furious with Israel. Although the U.S. got bragging rights for its (one-sided-not-in-our-favor) deal with Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu remains determined publicly to say what the President wants to hide: Iran’s nuclear program could not be negotiated away, rolled back significantly or inspected properly. The only means to a signed document was for the U.S. to abandon its principles and pressure its allies. The U.S. has done that.

 

It was hard to oppose negotiations, it always is hard. Churchill said, “Its better to jaw, jaw than war, war” (you need the accent to make it work). But a deal that is not a capitulation by one side requires two conditions: the parties must equally value the process; and there has to be a compatible endgame. The West invested the process with much more value than did Iran, providing the mullahs with instant leverage, but most important, there was no agreed-upon end game…..To Read More…..

The Prospect of World War Three

By Alan Caruba

This appeared here and I wish to thank Alan for allowing me to publish his work. RK

Let me begin by saying that the deal the U.S. struck with Iran on November 24 is so criminally stupid that mobs with torches and pitchforks should be surrounding the White House and Department of State demanding that the President and Secretary of State resign.

How many times does the United States have to make really bad deals with really bad nations? And then call it progress!

In 1994, former President Clinton announced that a deal with North Korea had agreed to “freeze the major elements of its nuclear program.” A new round of talks was scheduled—in Geneva—to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Virtually the same language was used by President Obama in his late evening announcement of a fundamentally useless, but extremely dangerous agreement with Iran.
 

Worse than accepting Iran’s deception, it is as if Obama knew nothing of the North Korean deal that subsequently resulted in its development of a nuclear weapon despite some costly bribery exacted for promises it never intended to keep. The worst part of this is Obama’s deception of Congress and the American people. Efforts to grant Iran the status of a new nuclear power had been secretly going on for a year behind the back of Congress.

On hearing of the deal, Rep. Mike Rogers said “That’s the one thing the whole world was trying to stop them from doing,” referring to the permission granted to continue enriching uranium. “We made this mistake in Pakistan. We made this mistake in North Korea. History is a great judge here and great teacher. Why would you make the same mistake to a nation that will proliferate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if they are successful at getting a nuclear weapon?”

It is important to keep in mind that not just the U.S. is a signatory to this agreement, but also the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China. It was facilitated by the European Union. The lessons of history were totally ignored. The sanctions imposed by the United Nations on Iran were ignored.

Another Jimmy
Moment

For years many have taken comfort in the knowledge that, in the past, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactors that were being built in Iraq and more recently in Syria. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was assumed to have the support of U.S. military power in the event that Iran would retaliate either directly or through its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

It is clear now that Obama has abandoned Israel as well as Saudi Arabia which also regards Iran as its enemy. Obama has embraced America’s enemy since the Islamic revolution in 1979. He has not brought us closer to peace. He has brought the world closer to World War Three.

I am not a military strategist, but one need not be to understand Israel’s peril or the limits on its ability to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, many of which are underground or heavily defended.

Here are some comparisons:

• Iran has a population of 78,868,711. Israel has a population of 7,765,700.
• Of these, those fit for military service are 39,556,497 in Iran and 2,511,190 in Israel.
• Comparing active military personnel, Iran has 545,000 and Israel has 187,000.
• Iran has 650,000 in military reserves. Israel has 565,000.
• Iran’s annual defense budget (in USD) is $10,687,000,000 and Israel’s is $15,209,000,000.

The comparison of their military capabilities is equally daunting. A sobering analysis is offered on the website of the Jewish Virtual Library.

Even if Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would also have to fend off massive rocket attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.

What defies Obama’s reasoning is Iran’s long history of attacks on the West. It has specialized in taking hostages, initially in Lebanon from 1984 through 1992. It seized the American embassy in 1979 and held American diplomats for 444 days. It holds an American cleric as this is being written.

In 2011, the U.S. discovered that Iran had conceived and funded a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. At the time, the State Department said that the thwarted plot “underscored anew Iran’s interest in using international terrorism—including the United States—to further its foreign policy goals.”

Obama’s ability to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its intent to become a Middle East hegemon through diplomacy does not exist.

A race to acquire nuclear arms has begun in the region where Israel and Pakistan already have them, as does India and China. Saudi Arabia has announced its intent to secure nuclear weapons.

One can only conclude that this interim agreement is a repeat of the appeasement that occurred in Munich when European nations sought a similar agreement with the Nazi regime. The lessons of history are unforgiving.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come

November 26, 2013 by Robert Spencer

Another Jimmy Moment

Among the many who decried the Obama Administration’s catastrophic capitulation to the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, none spelled out its potential consequences as trenchantly as Israel’s Economy Minister Naftali Bennett: “We awoke this morning to a new reality,” he said Sunday. “A reality in which a bad deal was signed with Iran. A very bad deal. If a nuclear suitcase blows up five years from now in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning.”….To Read More…..

Iran deal increases risk of terrorists detonating 'nuclear suitcase' in America, Intelligence panel member says

By JOEL GEHRKE | NOVEMBER 24, 2013

President Obama's latest diplomatic effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon raises the danger of such a bomb being detonated by terrorists in the United States, according to a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In the short term, "we've got young men and women all across the Middle East who will come back with their legs blown off by [improvised explosive devices] that were built and manufactured in Iran with the very same money that we're going to release to the Iranian regime," Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., told the Washington Examiner during an interview Sunday afternoon…..To Read More…

One Key Thing the Obama Administration Isn’t Telling You About the Iran Deal

November 25, 2013 by John Hinderaker

Under the agreement reached in Geneva over the weekend, Iran is permitted to keep one-half of the uranium it has enriched to the 20% level, and is required to dilute the remaining one-half to 5% U-235. It is allowed to continue enriching uranium, but agrees not to take that process beyond 5% U-235 during the next six months. No doubt many people who hear about those terms will be reassured, thinking that 5% enrichment, and even 20%, represents only a small percentage of the total effort needed to create the materials for a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

A reader points out this valuable September 2012 report by the American Enterprise Institute, and comments:…To Read More…..