+

Biden Goes to Extremes to Appease Tehran

The world has truly turned upside down when a U.S. president begs America’s allies to have a United Nations agency go easy on a terrorist nuclear proliferator. The Biden administration’s reported pleading on behalf of Iran isn’t merely a tactical error about yet another biodegradable U.N. resolution. It’s a persistent strategic blindness that existentially threatens key U.S. partners and endangers our own peace and security.

Iran’s largely successful effort to conceal critical aspects of its nuclear-weapons complex from scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Western intelligence services is nearing culmination. IAEA reports about Iran’s uranium-enrichment program—and Tehran’s disdain for IAEA inspections, extending over two decades—finally have the Europeans worried.

Instead of welcoming this awakening, President Biden is reportedly lobbying European allies to avoid a tough anti-Iran resolution at this week’s quarterly IAEA board of governors meeting. The administration denies it. But limpness on Iran’s nuclear threat fits the Obama-Biden pattern of missing the big picture, before and after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, including cash-for-hostages swaps with Iran as recently as last year.

Mr. Biden has two objectives. The first is to keep gasoline prices low and foreign distractions to a minimum before November’s election. The second is the Obama-Biden obsession with appeasing Iran’s ayatollahs, hoping they will become less medieval and more compliant if treated nicely. Both objectives are misguided, even dangerous.

Election worries about gas prices have also weakened U.S. sanctions against Russia, which are failing because of their contradictory goals. It simply isn’t possible to restrict Russian revenue while keeping U.S. pump prices low. The ayatollahs don’t worry about elections, but they know weakness when they see it, including Mr. Biden’s relaxed enforcement of sanctions on Iranian oil exports.

Mr. Biden’s greater mistake is refusing to acknowledge Iran’s “ring of fire” strategy to intimidate Israel and achieve regional hegemony over the oil-producing monarchies and other inconvenient Arab states. The foundational muscle for achieving these quasi-imperial aspirations is Iran’s nuclear program, precisely the issue at the IAEA. Starting in his 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden repeatedly alienated Gulf Arabs, especially Saudi Arabia, which felt particularly threatened by his zeal to rejoin the failed 2015 nuclear deal. Mr. Biden’s willingness to exclude Israel and the Arabs from negotiations with Tehran, as Mr. Obama did, convinced Arab governments that Washington was again hopelessly feckless. Israel concurred.

Arab leaders privately see the need to eliminate Tehran’s terrorist proxies. Saying so publicly, however—even quietly—requires political cover, which Washington has failed to provide. The Biden administration could have sought to destroy, not merely inhibit, the Iran-backed Houthis’ capacity to close shipping routes in the Suez Canal and Red Sea. Since the U.S. failed to do so, rising prices from higher shipping costs increase the risk of a de facto Iran-Houthi veto over freedom of the seas. Not surprisingly, Iran now threatens to blockade Israel itself.

Mr. Biden decided to concentrate world attention on Gaza rather than on Iran as the puppet-master. Doing so has helped obscure that Gaza is only one component of the larger ring-of-fire threat. Many Israelis, including several members of the war cabinet, have long focused on the close-to-home threat of Palestinian terrorists rather than the existential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. This joint failure enabled Tehran’s propaganda to outmatch Jerusalem’s, leaving the false impression of a moral equivalence.

Had the U.S. and Israel explained the barbarity of Oct. 7 in such broader strategic terms, they would necessarily have concentrated attention on Iran’s coming succession crisis. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is old and ailing. President Ebrahim Raisi’s still-unexplained demise has already launched a succession struggle that could transform Iran. The U.S. and its allies should help the Iranian opposition fracture the Islamic Revolution at the top. Instead, Mr. Biden, who couldn’t conceive of overthrowing the ayatollahs, has dispatched envoys to beg Iran not to stir things up further before November.

Sending Tehran what diplomats call a “strong message” from the IAEA isn’t much, but treating Iran as if it calls the shots is far worse. Praying that Mr. Biden wakes up to reality may be the world’s only hope.

This article was first published in the Wall Street Journal on June 4, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

+

The ICC and the ICJ Manage to Make Things Worse

Intervening last week against Israel’s self-defense actions toward Iran and Hamas, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice made resolving the war harder.

The courts’ actions are fundamentally illegitimate, and their meddling portends further involvement, which could be even more unhelpful. Despite the troubles the ICC and ICJ are causing, Israel and its allies should not be dissuaded from destroying Hamas’s politico-military capabilities.

The United States is not a party to the ICC’s foundational treaty, having unsigned it in 2002. And over time, Washington has renounced the ICJ’s major jurisdictions, leaving only treaties where the court has never been invoked. Similarly, Israel never joined the ICC and has rejected ICJ jurisdiction on Gaza and West Bank matters. One immediate lesson for both countries is to withdraw completely from any remaining ICJ jurisdictions.

Although Israel is bearing the ICC and ICJ’s wrath for now, Jerusalem has long served as a canary in the coal mine for Washington, giving advance warning of pending threats America may experience later. Faced with Iran’s “ring of fire” strategy, implemented through attacks by Tehran’s terrorist proxies, Israel is acting in self-defense to eliminate Hamas as a fighting force.

Hamas’s barbaric policy of using Gaza’s civilian population as human shields, hoping to spare itself, has incalculably increased the inherent difficulties of urban combat. The terrorists believe that by sacrificing enough civilians, they can mobilize international pressure to stop Israel from achieving its objectives. Provoking investigations by the ICC’s rogue prosecutor and inducing international allies like South Africa to initiate ICJ cases, Hamas aims to increase the political pressure under ostensibly legal guises. Iran and its terrorist allies thereby seek to make Israelis feel increasingly isolated internationally and thereby pressure Jerusalem to back down.

Israelis should not fear being isolated for defending themselves. Who else will defend them if they do not? Jerusalem need not comply with political decrees by courts so illusory they cannot enforce their decisions. Indeed, scrutinizing the ICJ’s May 24 decision and its obtuse, international-legalese wording, Israel concluded it need not change its Gaza military operations. Although widely reported as ordering Israel to cease the Gaza offensive, the ICJ’s operative language actually demands only that Israel “halt its military offensive … which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Since Israel’s operations target Hamas, not all Palestinians, Israel sees its current approach as legitimate even by ICJ standards. That interpretation may sound Jesuitical, but it also demonstrates yet again why judicial intervention in wars is fanciful at best.

Unfortunately, however, the propaganda consequences look far different. Immediately after the ICC prosecutor announced he sought an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reporters asked German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s press spokesman if Germany would execute the warrant. The aide replied, “Of course. Yes, we abide by the law.” While Scholz himself later tried to soften the blow, the point had been made.

Propaganda by Iran, its terrorist surrogates, and its leftist supporters worldwide has outmatched Israel’s during this conflict, except for the weeks immediately after Hamas’s Oct. 7 barbarities. Undoubtedly, ICC and ICJ actions will now take center stage in that propaganda, fueled by each new utterance from The Hague.

But the problems are far deeper than mere public relations failures. In America, for example, university protests and surprising polling results show astounding support for Hamas, especially among younger voters. Faculty prejudices have obviously grown worse over time, even as baby boomer professors reach retirement age. Reform of faculty selection and tenure decisions, among other things, is essential in public and private universities alike. This means little near-term, but could be dispositive for the U.S.-Israel special relationship in the long term. In Europe, if anything, anti-Israeli sentiment and outright antisemitism are even worse.

In a perfect world, Israel’s information statecraft and that of its allies would have been more effective from the outset. Surprise attacks, however, do not give targets time to prepare in advance. Media coverage of the ICC and the ICJ has proven the urgent need to explain why their actions are illegitimate. The broader imperative is to explain more effectively, and with greater resources, why Israel is exercising its legitimate right of self-defense against Hamas and Iran.

This article was first published in the Washington Examiner on May 29, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

+

Repercussions of Raisi’s death

President Ebrahim Raisi’s May 19 death in a helicopter crash has the potential to shatter Iran’s regime and the 1979 Islamic Revolution itself.  Raisi’s obviously unexpected demise was so unnerving and the stakes so high that we cannot yet fully discern the frantic maneuverings and vicious political infighting underway behind the scenes in Tehran.

The critical next step is the regime’s official, definitive statement on the cause of the helicopter crash.  So far, authorities have said only there was no evidence Raisi’s aircraft was attacked (https://apnews.com/article/iran-statement-helicopter-crash-raisi-a19ed365f5f4813c31b3d696acc0a6cb), and the investigation continues. This obviously incomplete explanation is likely intended to buy time and reduce destabilizing speculation, but it cannot be the final word.

Huge political consequences flow from whatever cause is ultimately chosen.  The reality was probably some combination of bad weather, mountainous terrain, pilot error or mechanical malfunction.  Former Foreign Minister Javaid Zarif quickly blamed US sanctions for the lack of spare parts, which is laughable.  Iran has earned hundreds of billions of dollars in international oil sales since Ronald Reagan imposed America’s first sanctions, enough to finance ballistic-missile and nuclear programs and arm countless terrorist groups.  Iran didn’t have enough money to buy new helicopters from its Russian and Chinese friends?

Beyond the obvious non-political causes, Iran could choose to blame the usual foreign suspects (Mossad, CIA) or domestic political, ethnic, or religious opponents.  Assignment of blame could thereby prefigure the leadership struggles already underway, which could explain the delay in saying anything conclusive.  When truth is manipulated, elaborate preparations are often required to destroy conflicting evidence and counterfeit new “evidence.”  Outsiders can only await the final word to assess its impact, if any, on the succession battle.  Meanwhile, in the hours and days after the first reports of the presidential helicopter’s “hard landing,” military and security forces have shored up their defenses against potential unrest or interference from domestic or foreign source (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/world/middleeast/iran-raisi-helicopter-crash.html).

The critical point is the need to select a new Supreme Leader, or at least devise a concrete process for that decision, sooner than anticipated.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is approximately 85-years-old and in poor health.  With only two Supreme Leaders since the 1979 revolution, Iran has no established procedure regarding succession.  Many believe the rigged electoral process that brought Raisi to the presidency was intended to establish a more-stable line of succession, with Raisi seamlessly replacing Khamenei at the appropriate time.

Not everyone accepted this ploy, least of all Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, who aspires to fill his father’s shoes.  Ironically, the father’s own concerns about establishing a hereditary line of succession, a criticism forcefully made by Mojtaba’s opponents, likely helped propel the notion that the presidency could serve as a stepping stone.  With new presidential elections now set for June 28, it is questionable whether the victor will automatically have the clout to be a top-tier contender to be Supreme Leader.  That means, inevitably, that there could be a plethora of candidates and intense infighting in government circles well ahead of the Supreme Leader’s death, which is likely the only way he will relinquish his office. 

Avoiding uncertainty over the succession is precisely what the regime’s top religious, civil, and military leadership wanted, but it now seems unavoidable.  Widespread politicking, conniving, and worse will widen already-existing splits within Iran’s top leadership and open new ones.  Competing centers of power among the ayatollahs;  leaders in the government’s legislative and judicial branches;  and Revolutionary Guards and regular military commanders already exist or are developing quickly.  The longer the struggle proceeds, the more bitter, more intense, and more protracted it will become.

In terms of raw power, the Revolutionary Guards already constitute a force that can easily resist the weak structures of civil government and even the regular military.  Many characterized the now-deceased Quds Force leader, Qassem Soleimani, as almost a son to Ayatollah Khamenei, with influence far beyond what his official title conveyed.  Given the regime’s unprecedented unpopularity across Iran, because of economic troubles, the discontent of the young people, the outrage caused by Mahsa Amini’s murder eighteen months ago, and longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, the Revolutionary Guards truly are the only reliably loyal shield for the ayatollahs and other regime leaders.

But what if the IRGC fragments?  If Iran’s opposition can drive wedges between Revolutionary Guard leaders, or even within the conventional military, the regime’s near-monopoly of lethal force could be broken.  Disaffected ethnic groups like Kurds and Baluchis could join in as well, raising the prospect of internal clashes, perhaps rising to levels approximating civil war.

Historically, outwardly imposing authoritarian regimes, such as czarist Russia, have often been hollowed out internally long before they fell.  Confronted with determined opponents, they collapsed swiftly.  It is too soon to tell whether the ayatollahs will meet the same fate, but, without doubt, their revolution is now in grave jeopardy.

This article was first published in Independent Arabia on May 28, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

+

John Bolton PAC Makes Major Spending Commitment In Maryland’s Critical US Senate Race: New Poll Confirms Strong Support for Larry Hogan

John Bolton PAC budgets $1MM towards a digital ad blitz in support of Larry Hogan as a new Bolton PAC poll shows Hogan with a clear path to victory.

Washington D.C. – Ambassador John Bolton’s PAC announced they will budget at least $1 million to independent expenditures in support of former Governor Larry Hogan’s campaign for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. The campaign will be entirely digital, focusing heavily on connected television and social media. The campaign will launch almost immediately, running statewide through Election Day. Since 2014, John Bolton has spent over $8 million on major independent expenditures in key battleground U.S. Senate races, including releasing over 60 television ads.

A new poll conducted by John Bolton PAC reveals former Governor Larry Hogan is in a tight general election race. Bolton PAC polled both the election and national security interests among Maryland voters. Key findings include:

  • Larry Hogan is extremely well-liked in the state, with a fav/unfav of 61-31. He is more popular than President Biden.
  • Hogan is overwhelmingly seen as a moderate – 40%, with only small numbers of voters saying they identify with the political extremes.
  • Maryland voters are pessimistic about the future, with nearly 60% saying the country is heading in the wrong direction.
  • Nearly half of Maryland voters think World War 3 is somewhat/very close, reflecting a huge level of anxiety.

Ambassador John Bolton on Larry Hogan:

“Maryland knows Larry Hogan. Now that he’s running for federal office, Democrats will do everything in their power to scare voters into believing he’s someone different than the person we all know and trust. The reality is, if America wants to stand tall against the likes of Russia, China, and Iran, it’s going to require competent and stable leadership at home, especially in the Senate. Larry is the obvious choice for Maryland.”

Characterizing the survey’s results, Ambassador John Bolton said:

“Our data shows that this race is winnable for Hogan. Maryland knows Larry Hogan and it would be wrong to simply treat him like another politician. It’s an uphill climb for Democrats, not the other way around.”

Ambassador Bolton was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland, and is a life-long resident of the state.

These findings are based on a survey conducted on behalf of John Bolton PAC of likely general election voters in Maryland was taken between May 8-10, 2024, by Torchlight Strategies. Sample Size n=644, conducted using live surveys, text, and online panels (324 Live + 173 Text +148 Online Panel).  The survey of general election voters has a margin of error of +/- 3.9% at a 95% confidence interval. A polling summary can be found online at:  https://www.boltonpac.com/2024/05/maryland-us-senate-race-live-text-benchmark-topline-results/

About the John Bolton PAC (www.boltonpac.com): Through his PAC, SuperPAC and Foundation, Ambassador John Bolton defends America by raising the importance of national security in public discourse and supporting candidates who believe in strong national security policies. Ambassador Bolton has worked hard to restore conservative leadership, which must reverse the recent policies of drift, decline, and defeat. America must rise to the occasion and acknowledge the indispensable role we play in the world. Through 2022, Ambassador Bolton has endorsed over 250 candidates and raised nearly $30 million for his organizations.

 

###

 

+

Maryland US Senate Race Live/Text Benchmark Topline Results

Maryland US Senate Race

Live/Text Benchmark Topline Results

Sample Size n=644

Method: Live/Text/Panel (324 Live + 173 Text +148 Online Panel)
Target Field Dates:   May 8-10, 2024
Margin of Error at 95% Confidence Level: +/-3.9%

Today we are conducting scientific survey research in your area about the upcoming elections.  We are not selling anything, and your responses will be kept confidential.

  1. First, are you or any member of your immediate family a member of the news media, a Public Relations company, or an active participant in any political campaign?
    1. Yes   0%
    2. No  100%
  1. Are you currently a registered voter in Maryland?
    1. Yes  100%
    2. No 0%
  1. How likely are you to vote in this year’s election for US Senate?
    1. Extremely Likely   3%
    2. Very Likely    0%
    3. Somewhat Likely  8%
    4. Not Very Likely  4%
    5. Not Sure or Don’t Know  7%
  1. What would you say is the number one issue that will decide your vote for US Senate in this year’s election?
    1. Illegal Immigration 8%
    2. The Border  2%
    3. Crime   9%
    4. National Security  7%
    5. Economy and Jobs   5%
    6. Inflation  2%
    7. Debt and Spending  7%
    8. Abortion  0%
    9. Other 5%
    10. Don’t Know / Refused  4%
  2. What do you think is the number one threat to our national security?
    1. China 7%
    2. Russia  1%
    3. Iran or Hamas  8%
    4. Cyber Attacks 6%
    5. The border 4%
    6. A bad economy    7%
    7. Terrorism  4%
    8. Something else  5%
    9. Don’t Know / Refused  8%

6. Now I am going to read you a list of names of people.  After I read each one, please tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of that person.  If I read one you have never heard of, just tell me and we’ll move on to the next one. The (first/next) one is…

    1. Joe Biden
    2. Very Favorable  8%
    3. Somewhat Favorable 9%
    4. Somewhat Unfavorable 5%
    5. Very Unfavorable 9%
    6. No Opinion 7%
    7. Don’t Know / Refused 3%

Total Favorable               55.7%
Total Unfavorable           42.3%

    1. Donald Trump
    2. Very Favorable 4%
    3. Somewhat Favorable 2%
    4. Somewhat Unfavorable 7%
    5. Very Unfavorable 6%
    6. No Opinion 7%
    7. Don’t Know / Refused 4%

Total Favorable               30.6%
Total Unfavorable           67.3%

    1. Larry Hogan
    2. Very Favorable 8%
    3. Somewhat Favorable 5%
    4. Somewhat Unfavorable 0%
    5. Very Unfavorable 0%
    6. No Opinion 2%
    7. Don’t Know / Refused 5%

Total Favorable               61.3%
Total Unfavorable           31.0%

7. Do you think things in the United States are heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?

    1. Right Direction 1%
    2. Wrong Direction 3%
    3. Don’t Know/Refused 6%

8. What word would you use to describe Larry Hogan?

9. Do you consider Larry Hogan to be

    1. Very Conservative    0%
    2. Somewhat Conservative   6%
    3. Moderate    8%
    4. Somewhat Liberal    2%
    5. Very Liberal    5%
    6. Don’t Know / Not Sure / Refused 8%

Total Conservative                      38.6%
Total Moderate                            40.8%
Total Liberal                                 13.8%

10. Do you consider yourself to be <rotate choices 1-5 top to bottom/bottom to top>

    1. Very Conservative 2%
    2. Somewhat Conservative 0%
    3. Moderate 8%
    4. Somewhat Liberal 9%
    5. Very Liberal 6%
    6. Don’t Know / Not Sure / Refused 5%

Total Conservative                   28.2%
Total Moderate                         35.8%
Total Liberal                              34.6%

Now changing gears a bit …

11. How close do you think we are to the start of World War 3?

    1. Not close at all 1%
    2. Unlikely to start anytime soon 1%
    3. Somewhat close 1%
    4. Very close 1%
    5. Don’t Know / Refused 6%

12. Over the course of a regular week in your life, where would you most regularly see or hear news about government and politics?

    1. Fox News, Newsmax or OANN 7%
    2. CNN or MSNBC 7%
    3. Morning or evening broadcast TV news 2%
    4. Newspapers 9%
    5. Radio 2%
    6. Social media apps like Facebook or Twitter 1%
    7. YouTube 1%
    8. Google News, Apple News, or other 0% news sites on the internet
    9. Don’t know / Refused 2%

13. Who did you vote for in the 2020 Election for President?

    1. Joe Biden 5%
    2. Donald Trump 0%
    3. Someone Else 3%
    4. Didn’t Vote 0%
    5. Don’t Know / Refused 2%

And, finally for demographic purposes only,

QGEN: What is your gender?

    1. Female 3%
    2. Male 8%
    3. Don’t know / Refused  9%

QAGE: What year were you born?

    1. 18-34 9%
    2. 35-54 7%
    3. 55-64 9%
    4. 65+ 9%
    5. Not Sure/Don’t Know 7%

QMAR: What is your marital status?

    1. Single 2%
    2. Married 2%
    3. Divorced 7%
    4. Widowed 4%
    5. Don’t Know / Refused   6%

QETH: What is your Ethnicity?

    1. White or Caucasian 7%
    2. Hispanic or Latino 0%
    3. Black or African American 4%
    4. Asian 4%
    5. Another not listed 3%
    6. Don’t Know / Refused 2%

QED: What is the highest education level you achieved?

    1. Some or no college 0%
    2. Bachelor’s degree 7%
    3. Masters or Doctorate 8%
    4. Don’t Know / Refused 4%

QPAR: What political party do you consider yourself affiliated with?

    1. Republican 6%
    2. Democrat   0%
    3. Other 7%
    4. Don’t Know / Refused 7%

QVHG: Vote History (Not Asked/Coded from file)

    1. New Voter 7%
    2. 1 of 4 0%
    3. 2 of 4 2%
    4. 3 of 4 4%
    5. 4 of 4 6%
    6. Panelists 9%

QCO: DMA (Not Asked/Coded from file)

    1. Baltimore 9%
    2. Pittsburgh 5%
    3. Salisbury 9%
    4. DC 8%

052124 MD Sen Benchmark TOPLINES

 

+

Hamas is just a part of Iran’s multi-front war against Israel and the West

Since Oct. 7, Hamas has been the tip of the spear in Iran’s “ring of fire” strategy against Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has not yet finished Hamas off militarily, largely because of intense White House pressure, now approaching a crescendo, not to do so.

But Iran has other options it can dial up, most worryingly Hezbollah, its most potent terrorist surrogate. The death of President Ebrahim Raisi, whatever its effects domestically in Iran, which may be significant, will not in the near term change the ayatollah’s regional aspirations or strategies.

Several recent developments have highlighted Tehran’s non-Hezbollah options, which, together or alone, pose significant risks for Israel, the United States and their allies. Whether Washington and Jerusalem are paying adequate attention is unclear. Biden seems intent on begging Tehran to resile from the “ring of fire,” as evidenced yet again last week. Iran has no reason to take these entreaties seriously.

Instead, Iran is actively recruiting local Palestinians in Jordan to aid Hezbollah and Hamas in destabilizing King Abdullah. Jordan was the second Arab country, after Egypt, to make peace with Israel, and its security and stability are vital interests for Jerusalem and Washington. Jordan’s fragile economy and endangered monarchy have over the years survived serious pressures, as during the Gulf Wars against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. has important military facilities in Jordan and the at Tanf garrison in Syria, astride the Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian borders. Amman was critical in the war against ISIS, and has long defended itself from Iranian threats. King Abdullah first underscored the threat of an Iranian-led “Shia Crescent,” reaching from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. In April, Jordan played a critical role against Iran’s missile and drone assault on Israel, downing dozens of drones and allowing Israeli and other friendly air forces to conduct operations in its airspace.

The worst-case scenario would be Jordain’s monarchy falling to Hamas or other pro-Iranian terrorists. A hostile regime in Amman, mobilizing Palestinians on both sides of the Jordan River, would be far more threatening to Israel than the current Gaza strife. Iran and its surrogates fully appreciate this vulnerability, which is why undermining King Abdullah is so attractive. Perhaps Israel, the U.S. and Gulf Arab states have significant measures underway to help steady Jordan’s monarchy and economy — but, if not, they should begin immediately.

Another little-noticed increased threat is the mounting pressure on Israeli targets by Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. Israeli officials decline to comment on these attacks, and so far most of the drones and missiles launched against Israel have apparently been intercepted. The militias have also struck sites in Jordan, most notably the U.S. base near at Tanf known as “Tower 22” in February, where three Americans were killed and dozens wounded. Washington’s retaliation against the militias and their Iranian patrons resulted in attacks on U.S. positions declining, and likely redirected their attention to Israel.

To date, the Shia militias’ direct threat to Israel has not been large, but the prospect exists for more sophisticated and more effective weapons aimed at both Israel and Jordan. At a minimum, these developments enhance Tehran’s tactical flexibility, increasing the overall strain on Israeli air-defense capabilities, and heightening risks to U.S. personnel and facilities. Strategically, utilizing the Shia militias outside their Iraq and Syria base areas increases the overall integration of “ring of fire” proxies to Iran’s advantage. Coordinating with Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Syria’s conventional military strengthens the Shia Crescent threatening both Israel and Jordan.

Also receiving relatively sparse media attention are attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, which the State Department warns are “resulting in enormous impacts on international shipping.” The Iran-Houthi strategy to disrupt freedom of the seas is particularly noteworthy for how targeted it is, with attacks largely exempting Chinese and Russian carriers, concentrating instead on barring Israeli, American and European shippers.

Rising transportation costs and higher insurance rates for oil and other cargoes diverted around Africa have significantly increased prices in Europe, and have advantaged Russia and China, notwithstanding sanctions against Russia for its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The differential targeting of Houthi interdiction efforts not only signals Iranian control over Houthi operations, but the Beijing-Moscow alliance’s increasing importance in Middle Eastern affairs.

Moreover, Houthi attacks on U.S. and U.K. naval vessels and drones pose a direct challenge to Western military efforts to defeat the “ring of fire” strategy. Of course, American-led airstrikes have destroyed Iranian-supplied missile and radar capabilities used by Houthis in the Red Sea campaign, but the Biden administration’s retaliation has been quite limited.

The White House has made no effort to eliminate the Iranian-Houthi disruptive operations, nor has it considered the consequences of their discriminatory maritime targeting, which simply encourages the attacks to continue. Their tactics not only cause real economic damage, but are daily violating fundamental U.S. and Western interests in freedom of the seas. Impunity only encourages other global predators like China to think they too can disrupt freedom of the seas with only a minimal American response.

The Biden administration is seriously mistaken to believe the Middle East’s only real conflict is in Gaza. Hamas is but one part of a larger Iranian-led provocation. Our persistent failure to see the greater picture only invites more trouble.

John Bolton was national security adviser to President Trump from 2018 to 2019 and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. He held senior State Department posts in 1981-83, 1989-93 and 2001-2005.

This article was first published in The Hill on May 21, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

+

Ambassador John Bolton Endorses Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick for U.S. House of Representatives for Pennsylvania’s First District

Washington D.C. – Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Ambassador John R. Bolton, announced the John Bolton PAC’s endorsement of Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick for U.S. House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s First District. Additionally, the John Bolton PAC will make a contribution of $10,000 to his reelection campaign.

Statement by Ambassador John Bolton:

“Brian Fitzpatrick is an FBI Agent turned Congressman who has worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the American people. I’m proud to endorse Representative Fitzpatrick in his reelection because he understands the importance of an uncompromised United States foreign policy.

Statement by Brian Fitzpatrick:

“We can only attain a lasting peace through projecting American strength and supporting our allies when freedom is on the line. We live in a dangerous world where belligerent powers like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are seeking to actively relitigate the post-World War II international system that the United States put in place to preserve peace. I will always stand on the side of liberty, freedom, and democracy, and I am proud to have the support of Ambassador John Bolton in my efforts.

About the John Bolton PAC (www.boltonpac.com): Through his PAC, SuperPAC and Foundation, Ambassador John Bolton defends America by raising the importance of national security in public discourse and supporting candidates who believe in strong national security policies. Ambassador Bolton has worked hard to restore conservative leadership, which must reverse the recent policies of drift, decline, and defeat. America must rise to the occasion and acknowledge the indispensable role we play in the world. Through 2022, Ambassador Bolton has endorsed over 250 candidates and raised nearly $30 million for his organizations.

 

###

+

Ambassador John Bolton Endorses Rep. Anthony D’Esposito for U.S. House of Representatives for New York’s Fourth District

Washington D.C. – Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Ambassador John R. Bolton, announced the John Bolton PAC’s endorsement of Rep. Anthony D’Esposito for U.S. House of Representatives in New York’s Fourth District. Additionally, the John Bolton PAC will make a contribution of $5,000 to his reelection campaign.

Statement by Ambassador John Bolton:

“As a former detective, Congressman Anthony D’Esposito has seen humanity at its worst, yet he’s never let that stop him from doing what’s right. He’s continuously stood up for our allies and condemned evil whenever it arises. I’m proud to stand alongside Congressman D’Esposito as he fights to maintain America’s strength in the midst of international strain.”

Statement by Anthony D’Esposito:

“Defending our homeland calls for an engaged United States on the world stage, and all Americans were proud of Ambassador John Bolton for his work advancing American principles and priorities during his time in public service. I am honored to receive his endorsement.”

About the John Bolton PAC (www.boltonpac.com): Through his PAC, SuperPAC and Foundation, Ambassador John Bolton defends America by raising the importance of national security in public discourse and supporting candidates who believe in strong national security policies. Ambassador Bolton has worked hard to restore conservative leadership, which must reverse the recent policies of drift, decline, and defeat. America must rise to the occasion and acknowledge the indispensable role we play in the world. Through 2022, Ambassador Bolton has endorsed over 250 candidates and raised nearly $30 million for his organizations.

###

 

+

The West will soon pay for Biden’s betrayal

Our global adversaries – China, Russia, Iran and its proxies – must be marvelling at their good fortune as President Joe Biden effectively endorses a terrorist veto over Israel’s right to self-defence.
The US President’s unprecedented open threat to withhold arms deliveries to Israel “if they go into Rafah”, and a State Department public report on Israeli conduct of the war, are self-inflicted wounds to a vital alliance. Israel has not yet publicly responded, but it faces critical choices over whether to proceed militarily in Rafah, or back down. Neither option is attractive given the potential consequences.
Biden’s stubbornness is wrong on many levels. First, close allies should always engage privately during wartime. Leaks undoubtedly occur, often intentionally, but preserving even minimal confidentiality is essential to later repairing damage done both at governmental and personal levels.
Piling on publicly in the middle of a war is imprudent, even juvenile, damaging the respect and trust allies must sustain during times of crisis and tension. The propaganda opportunities handed to hostile powers are immeasurable. And if Biden is prepared to cut loose one of America’s most valued partners, what does that foretell for those more-distant, less-favoured than Israel? How does Ukraine feel? Or Taiwan?  
Second, Biden’s motives are not so high-minded as he may have us believe. This is no profile in courage. Domestically, the US President is faring poorly in polls against Donald Trump, and defections to minor-party candidates could sink his re-election chances. In swing-state primaries like Michigan, large numbers of Democrats voted “uncommitted”, posing significant risks if they stay home in November. White House staffers have flagellated themselves to regain key Democratic blocks but they have so far failed. Elizabeth Warren, asserting Israel may be liable for “genocide” in Gaza, exemplifies the problem.
Ironically, while politics dominates Biden’s calculations, his gambit may backfire. Republicans uniformly rejected his approach, as did significant numbers of Democrats. Biden’s threat reflects weakness, coming just weeks after his frantic efforts to pressure Israel not to retaliate strongly after Iran’s missile-and-drone attack.  
The President’s supporters invoke Ronald Reagan’s withholding weapons when Israel struck Palestinians in Lebanon, but the two scenarios are entirely distinct. The US-Israel relation at that time was moral and historical, not strategic, as it is today. Indeed, Reagan later forged the Washington-Jerusalem strategic ties. Biden repeatedly pledged “ironclad support” for Israel after October 7, but subsequently swerved dramatically from that position.
Finally, and most importantly, the substance of Biden’s threat and the thoroughly unsatisfactory State Department report expose the administration as misguided and confused in ways that could haunt future US Presidents.
Close-quarters combat in complex urban environments, let alone in Hamas’s extraordinary network of underground tunnels, is something Western militaries prefer to avoid. Not surprisingly, the State’s report is incoherent and contradictory, doubtless reflecting anti-Israel sentiment in many Department bureaus, and schizophrenia within Biden Administration political ranks. The report lacks specificity, yet incomplete information is hard to assess without adequate context – which is why a fair and accurate reckoning would be most fruitful after the war, not while combat still rages.
The fact that civilians are present in combat areas requires that Israel, or any combatant, determine they are striking only military targets and that civilian casualties are no more than proportional to the importance of such targets. In Rafah, the IDF is seeking to eliminate Hamas’s highest command-and-control hierarchies and its remaining organised military units, all clearly legitimate objectives.
It is unacceptable that Israel may be prevented from achieving its legitimate self-defence goals because the terrorists are so barbaric as to sacrifice their own civilian population to save themselves. If that is what Biden means by saying he objects to Israel entering Rafah, then he is simply endorsing the terrorist veto. Yet it is Hamas that is morally culpable for Gazan civilian deaths, not Israel.  
We do not know what will unfold next, but the decisive choice now lies with Israel’s war cabinet. Biden’s ill-considered threat to cut the Jewish state loose will be at the centre of considerable debate. There is no debate, however, that Biden’s ploy will come back to haunt him, America, and all the West.
John Bolton is a former US National Security Advisor

This article was first published in the Daily Telegraph on May 12, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

+

What’s next between Iran and Israel?

John Bolton writes for “Independent Arabia” about the outcome of the confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv and issues a very important warning of the next six months

The first batch of overt Iranian attacks on Israeli territory has now concluded, along with the Israeli response, which constituted the first public attack inside Iran. Yet no one should imagine that Tehran’s mullahs have abandoned their grand strategy of hegemony throughout the Middle East and among Muslims, nor that their long-term covert war against Israel will subside and recede. For now, however, the focus should be on Israel’s imminent efforts to eliminate Hamas militarily and politically, and counter the future of Iran’s “Ring of Fire” battle plan.

It remains unclear whether Iran intends Hamas to launch a full “ring of fire” strategy during its barbaric attack on October 7, 2023, and this may remain unknown for some time as well. Whatever Iran’s aims, Israel’s harsh response has crippled Hamas’s conventional combat capabilities. Moreover, Gazans have begun to turn against Hamas, which is crucial for Israel and the Arab world alike. Tehran undoubtedly misjudged Israel’s internal political stability and global aversion to the events of October 7, 2023, but it is likely that Supreme Leader Khamenei believed that Hamas could be left to its fate in any case. Still, he should be concerned about the devastation inflicted on Hamas, even though Iran itself and its other terrorist proxies (the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iraqi and Syrian Shiitemilitias) have suffered little.

For now, Iran seems unwilling to risk losing more of these investments. The mullahs are likely to already recognize the Biden administration’s internal political weakness, as most Americans inevitably do. With the uncertainty that dominates Biden’s re-election, it may be justified and logical for Iranian ayatollahs to worry that any further attacks against Israel, directly or through allied terrorist groups, could trigger a strong U.S. response, at a time when Biden is trying to show support for Israel. The unexpected outcome of the U.S. election campaign, and what a second term for Trump might bring, may indicate a short-term pause on the Iranian side. Waiting for the fall of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government could also be a gift to Iran. No other Israeli leader understands the Iranian threat so clearly, or has Netanyahu’s determination that Israel does not fall prey to what his predecessor Ariel Sharon called a “nuclear holocaust.”

But whatever Iran prefers, it cannot ignore that a decisive Israeli victory against Hamas would irreparably weaken Tehran’s regional position. Israel is certainly not a receiver or merely responding, even if the Biden White House follows this approach. Indeed, Israel may then target Hezbollah’s vast missile stockpile and the quasi-existential threat it poses. If Israel believes that Iran fears enough of direct U.S. intervention, Jerusalem can take decisive action against Hezbollah’s arsenal without fear of major Iranian counterstrikes.

More importantly, the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. elections scheduled for Nov. 5 does not suggest a clear direction for Tehran. Despite Trump’s orders to assassinate Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, Emmanuel Macron almost convinced Trump at the Group of Seven summit in Biarritz to meet with then-Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Thus, even with the Biden administration’s apparent weakness and indecision, Iran’s mullahs can decide to wait for Trump to come again and his limited understanding of America’s core national security interests. Refusing to undertake major new military initiatives before Nov. 5 would avoid exposing the Houthis, Hezbollah, Shiite militias, and even Iran itself to punitive attacks by Jerusalem or Washington.

In this context, too, Iran is taking into account its growing alignment and rapprochement with the fast-growing Sino-Russian axis, a contemporary version of the Sino-Soviet alliance during the Cold War, with Beijing as its largest partner and Moscow as its vassal. Iran sells Russia drones to use against Ukraine. China has increased its oil and gas purchases from Russia. Iran is facilitating Russia’s evasion of international financial sanctions and is considering whether to take a decisive step against Taiwan, possibly before the U.S. election, at a time when Beijing (and Moscow) are still unclear whether to wait until the U.S. election is decided, or to take major steps before that time, with both positive and negative points. The mere fact that this is the subject of heated debate during a fierce US presidential campaign at the partisan level is extremely dangerous and uncertain, a major complicating factor for Russia, China, and Iran.

Meanwhile, public coordination between Iran and other partners in the Beijing-Moscow axis, such as North Korea, has become more apparent. Iran and North Korea have long cooperated closely on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but in secret, for reasons that are not hidden. Abandoning any claims about their relations is a sign of increased confidence in these two proliferator rogue states. Unfortunately, America’s adversaries all know that Trump’s desire to make “big deals” with his country’s enemies can easily override any rational calculation of America’s national interests.

The most likely scenario for the next six months would be this: Israeli attacks would leave Hamas a crumbling terrorist network, Jerusalem would increase its campaign against suspected terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza, and tensions along the Lebanese border between Israel and Hezbollah would increase. As the Nov. 5 deadline approaches, and the outcome and the overall picture may become clear, Iran and its proxies will have to make their own decision on whether to take major military action, or wait until a new president is installed. No one thinks the next six months will be quiet.

This article was first published in the Independent Arabia on April 30, 2024. Click here to read the original article.

ABOUT JOHN BOLTON

Ambassador John Bolton, a diplomat and a lawyer, has spent many years in public service. He served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in 2005-2006. He was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security from 2001 to 2005. In the Reagan Administration, he was an Assistant Attorney General.