(May 6, 2022 / JNS) The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected the Biden administration’s outline for a deal with Iran. Members voted 86-12 to approve a motion that opposes the lifting of terrorism sanctions on Iran to limit cooperation between it and China. Senators also voted 66-13 to approve a motion to block the delisting of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The lawmakers also demanded that any final deal must address all of Iran’s destabilizing activities.

The United States has been engaged in a controversial debate over removing the IRGC from its FTO list and only keeping its foreign operations arm, the Quds Force, under sanctions. Iran has rejected a partial removal of sanctions and insists that all designations be removed.

Commenting on the vote, Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tweeted: “Biden Iran policy has failed. No pressure led to no deal. Most of Iran’s nuke expansion since Biden election. Iran sensed weakness & made maximum demands re IRGC. Senate just overwhelmingly rejected deal they offered Iran. Change policy now. Change personnel now.”

Dubowitz recalled a CNN article in September 2020 in which U.S. President Joe Biden argued for a “smarter” way to be “tough” on Iran.

“May 2022, his ‘smarter’ Iran policy has spectacularly failed,” wrote Dubowitz. “Time for new ‘tough’ policy and new personnel with credibility to execute.”

The Biden administration’s policy, which relies mainly on appeasing Iran in Vienna to achieve any deal, appears to be faltering as the talks have largely stalled over the IRGC issue. Now, there are murmurings of the talks breaking down completely with no deal to be signed at all.

‘An escalation in Israeli actions?’

According to Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, if no deal is signed, “there is greater legitimacy for acting against the Iranian nuclear program and its branches.”

Inbar suggested to JNS the possibility that we may see “an escalation in Israeli actions, primarily covert. We may also see U.S.-Israeli cooperation in such endeavors.”

In the event this becomes reality, he said, Israel’s new friends in the Gulf “will get even closer to Israel,” and this level of cooperation “may be enough to prevent [Iran’s] race to the bomb.”

A lot depends on what happens in Vienna.

The Vienna talks, which began in April 2021, aim to return America to the 2015 nuclear deal made under the Obama administration, including through the lifting of sanctions on Iran, and to ensure Tehran’s full compliance with its commitments.

The United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reimposed economic sanctions in May 2018 under the Trump administration.

Until March 11, Tehran had been engaged in negotiations with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia directly, and the United States indirectly, to revive the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Iranian and U.S. negotiating teams have been exchanging messages through the European coordinator of the Vienna talks, Enrique Mora. Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian on Tuesday stressed that Tehran and Washington are still exchanging messages through Mora despite the halt in Vienna talks.

“We urged the American side to be realistic,” said Amir-Abdollahian. “Removing sanctions in all areas and receiving economic guarantees are among the most important items on our negotiating team’s agenda.”

Talks broke down after Iranian negotiators demanded removing the IRGC from the FTO.

Russia also demanded guarantees that Western sanctions imposed against it after its Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine would not damage its trade with Iran.

The 2015 deal provided Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program to ensure that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon—a goal Iran has long denied.

But last week, former Iranian politician Ali Motahhari told Iran’s ISCA News: “When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said.

And even though the United States is aware of Iran’s destabilizing regional activities and its continuing work on the nuclear front, it insists on negotiating with Iran.

‘Less money to fund and conduct terrorism’

On Monday, U.S. Department of Defense Spokesman John Kirby told reporters that “Iran continues to be a malign actor in the region. They continue to support terrorist groups; they continue to develop a ballistic-missile program. They obviously, even as they sit in negotiations, continue to develop certain nuclear capabilities.

“And they are harassing shipping and clearly pose a threat in the maritime domain. You pick it. There’s an awful lot there that Iran is doing in a malign way in the Middle East region. … No problem in the Middle East is easier to solve with Iran having a nuclear weapon. So, we continue to support the work of our diplomats as they try to get a new agreement here on their nuclear development.”

Last month U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the House Foreign Relations Committee that the breakout time for Iran to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon is just “a matter of weeks.”

Pushing back against Blinken’s argument that Iranian aggression is a result of Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, former special adviser for the Iran Action Group in the Trump administration Gabriel Noronha advocated tougher sanctions, tweeting: “As U.S. sanctions are enforced more, the Iranian regime has less money to fund and conduct terrorism.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS “we’ve seen this play before. References to a diminishing breakout time by the administration have often been ways to justify the next round of concessions to Tehran or justify the current JCPOA-centric approach.”

Source: https://www.jns.org/biden-administrations-iran-policy-failing-as-senate-rejects-appeasement/

The post Biden administration’s Iran policy failing as Senate rejects appeasement first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Frederick Douglass called freedom of speech “the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they, first of all, strike down. They know its power.”

Back in the day, tyrants could gag those they ruled, but in free nations people were free, their rights protected. Once Alexander Solzhenitsyn arrived in America, once Natan Sharansky was in Israel, the Kremlin could silence them no more.

Today, tyrants are increasing their reach, attempting, not without successes, to restrict speech everywhere.

What brings this to mind: As a congressional staffer, a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction at the U.S. National Security Council, Richard Goldberg has for years been making the case for a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign on the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to their illicit nuclear weapons program, sponsorship of terrorism and domestic oppression.

So last week Iran’s rulers announced they were “sanctioning” Mr. Goldberg, who is now back at FDD. A year ago, they “sanctioned” FDD in general and, by name, FDD’s Mark Dubowitz, a recognized expert on the Tehran regime, and international economic statecraft, calling them “the designing and executing arm of the U.S. administration” on Iran policy.

Since FDD isn’t contemplating opening an office in Tehran, and no FDD employees plan on vacationing in Shiraz anytime soon, such sanctions may appear symbolic. But they carry a threat. This was made explicit in the statement accompanying the 2019 designations: “[T]his measure will be without prejudice to any further legal measures that the other administrative, judicial or security institutions and organizations may take in order to counter, prosecute or punish” FDD.

How serious is this threat to “punish” (which led to bipartisan condemnation, including from Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton administration officials)?

According to the U.S. State Department, the theocratic regime’s overseas “campaign of terror has included as many as 360 targeted assassinations” in more than 40 countries. “Iran leverages its well-earned reputation for extrajudicial killings to try to silence civil society through death threats against activists, dissidents, and journalists.”

One definition of war: the use of violence to impose one’s will on others. It is within that context that such murders should be viewed. Iran’s rulers won a pivotal battle back in 1989 when Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie, British author of “The Satanic Verses.”

One can only imagine how differently history might have unfolded had the response of free nations been robust; had they, for example, recalled their ambassadors from Tehran and sent the regime’s envoys packing. Instead, only the U.K. broke diplomatic relations, and only for about a year.

The tyrants of the world learned a lesson. A report by the British Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, about which I wrote last month, estimates that 14 Russian dissidents have been murdered on British soil over recent years.

The rulers of North Korea and China have found nefarious ways to limit speech critical of them, intimidating and manipulating what we might otherwise consider powerful and independent individuals in Hollywood, professional sports, and the news media.

The crime for which Tehran has found Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Dubowitz, and FDD guilty is “economic terrorism against the interests” of the Iranian government and citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In part, this is an attempt to strike a blow for false moral equivalence. Tehran has long been designated by the United States — Republican and Democratic administrations alike — as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.

One example: According to the French government, the Iranian intelligence ministry was behind a 2018 plot to bomb a large gathering of Iranian opposition supporters in Paris. “This extremely serious act envisaged on our territory could not go without a response,” read a rare joint statement from France’s interior, foreign and economy ministers. In truth, their response — e.g. freezing the assets of two suspected Iranian intelligence operatives — barely amounted to a slap on the wrist.

More to the point: Equating the murder of dissidents with the imposition of economic sanctions on murderers is risible. The United States has a right — as does any nation — to decide with whom it will and will not maintain commercial relations. As for other countries and the corporations based in those countries, they are free to choose to do business with America or with those who vow “Death to America!” Establishing that they may not do both hardly qualifies as terrorism.

This raises an interesting policy question. For decades, it was widely believed that treating tyrants as respected “stakeholders” in the “international community,” trading with them, providing them aid, welcoming their participation into international organizations, and getting them to sign multilateral treaties would put them on a path to liberalization. That belief, we now know — or should now know — was misplaced.

Perhaps the free nations of the world might consider an alternative: building their own international communities based on comprehensive free trade agreements, while leaving the rogue regimes to manage on their own.

Disabusing ourselves of the comforting notion that commerce and engagement are transformative also should make clear why it is essential that free nations maintain defensive capabilities and mutual defense alliances sufficient to deter adversaries. Bellicose regimes we cannot deter; we will need to defeat. (How do the isolationists and “restrainers” not get this?)

Finally, we should always support, as much as we can, those fighting for freedom and human rights in foreign lands, in the hope that sooner or later they emancipate themselves. “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass said that, too.

• Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/11/tyrants-including-rulers-of-iran-china-and-north-k/

The post Tyrants, including rulers of Iran, China and North Korea, threaten free speech in all countries first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Perhaps this is even more crucial.

Iran has used the cover of Russia’s support for the Syrian regime to strengthen its presence in the wider Middle East.

There are now real concerns that Iran and Israel are on a collision course.

We have already seen the first shots fired.

In February, Iran sent a drone into Israeli airspace, Jerusalem responded by hitting a Syrian air base used as an Iranian command and control centre.

Just last week, the same air base was struck, killing Iranian military advisers.

Israel is believed to have carried out the attack, but there has been no confirmation or denial.

Middle East analysts are fearing a full-blown war between the two.

Syria ‘starting to resemble a world war’

Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has warned of what he says, “could be the ugliest Middle East war of the 21st century”.

Last week, he told ABC News program Matter of Fact the Syrian conflict was beginning to resemble a world war.

Writing in The New York Times, columnist and longtime Middle East watcher Thomas L. Friedman is warning Syria, “is going to explode”.

He says the region is, “heading for a high noon shootout in Syria over Iran’s attempts to turn Syria into a forward air base against Israel, something Israel is vowing to never let happen”.

Friedman adds: “Israel and Iran are now a hair trigger away from going to the next level — and if that happens, the US and Russia may find it difficult to stay out.”

PHOTO: Israeli warplanes have already hit Iranian-linked targets inside neighbouring Syria (AP: Ariel Schalit, file)

Despite the bellicose rhetoric, Russia and the US have carefully managed the Syria tensions. Washington gave Moscow a heads-up about the weekend military strike to allow Russia to remove any sensitive targets and avoid an unnecessary accident or miscalculation that could escalate between the two powers.

But a broader war against Iran would muddy the waters: it could dangerously and quickly escalate.

Iran ’emboldened’ after nuclear deal

Friedman says Iran is, “the biggest ‘occupying power’ in the Arab world today”.

It is already fighting a war in Yemen, supporting rebels, that pits it against another of its declared foes, Saudi Arabia.

It supports militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon that has fought wars against Israel and continues to pose a threat.

PHOTO: The flags of Syria and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia fly from a military vehicle in Western Qalamoun, Syria. (Reuters: Omar Sanadiki)

And, of course, it is mired in the Syrian conflict.

Critics of Iran say it has been emboldened after striking a deal with the Obama administration and European powers to shelve its nuclear program in return for the West lifting economic sanctions.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to tear up the deal.

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime. All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their “pockets.” The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!

That position has strengthened with the appointment of America’s former UN ambassador, John Bolton, as the new White House National Security Adviser.

Mr Bolton has in the past advocated for pre-emptive action against Iran.

Before being appointed to his new role, Mr Bolton told Fox News Mr Trump should reinstate sanctions, back opposition forces in Iran, and work with Saudi Arabia and Israel to isolate Tehran.

He said simply: “Our goal should be regime change in Iran.”

The military strike over the weekend was aimed at Syria but its aftershock will be felt in Iran.

Mr Trump declared “mission accomplished”, but the real mission could already be underway.

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!

Matter of Fact with Stan Grant is on the ABC News Channel at 9 pm, Monday to Thursday.

---

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-16/iran-and-israel-on-a-collision-course-as-syria-burns/9662154

[Disclaimer]

The post Iran and Israel on a collision course as Syria burns first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

State sponsor of terrorism Iran has reportedly erected another permanent base in Syria capable of bombing Israel, considered Tehran’s public enemy number one, according to Fox News, citing Western intelligence sources and satellite images.

Last December, Israel reportedly destroyed a similar base, warning Tehran against building any military installations. Israel and Syria share a border.

Fox News reports:

Iran has built another permanent military base outside Syria’s capital city complete with hangers used to store missiles capable of hitting all of Israel, according to Western intelligence sources.

Exclusive satellite images from ImageSat International obtained by Fox News show what is believed to be the new Iranian base, eight miles northwest of Damascus, operated by the Quds Force—the special operations arm of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  The photos show two new white hangars, each roughly 30 yards by 20 yards, used to store short- and medium-range missiles.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has sanctioned the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

During an event sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged the Trump administration to “push back” against Iran-allied Shiite fighters destabilizing Iraq and Syria, namely the IRGC.

The congressman, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has introduced bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on Iranian-backed Shiite militias in the Middle East.

Iran has deployed thousands of Shiite fighters, including members of the terrorist group Hezbollah, to fight on behalf of the Russian-backed dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Although U.S. Gen. Joseph Votel, the top American commander in the Middle East and Afghanistan, told lawmakers this week that Tehran “remains the major threat” to regional stability, he also said, “Countering Iran is not one of the coalition’s missions in Syria.”

The primary focus of the estimated 2,000 American troops in Syria remains the destruction of ISIS.

During the FDD event on Wednesday, Melissa Dalton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) who recently traveled to Syria with Gen. Votel, said there are still “some hardened cells” associated with ISIS in Syria.

Gen. Votel told lawmakers the group has lost “more than 98 percent” of its so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

He noted that Iran is “increasing” the number and “quality” of the ballistic missiles it is deploying to Syria.

The nuclear agreement reached in July 2015 has allowed Iran to “enhance” funding to proxy forces in the Middle East, pointed out the top American general.

Support from Iran and Russia have allowed Assad to remain in power and continue waging war.

The United States military and its Kurdish allies have recently been forced to repel an attack from troops loyal to the Iranian and Russian-backed Assad regime.

According to the Pentagon, U.S. troops will not hesitate to respond to an attack from Iran-allied militias in Syria.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/01/report-iran-builds-another-permanent-base-syria/

The post Report: Iran Builds Another Permanent Base in Syria first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump’s decision to remain in the nuclear agreement with Iran while working to fix its numerous flaws has temporarily put to bed an ideological debate, which I discussed in a recent NRO piece, between the two main conservative camps, known as “the Walkers” and “the Fixers.” The fix-it approach adopted by the president was developed in think tanks such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Institute for Science and International Security, and it involves a comprehensive strategy called “decertify, pressure, and fix.” With the writing on the wall, the Walkers, who favored withdrawing from the agreement, have joined with the Fixers, albeit skeptically, and they reserve the right to say “I told you so” later.

Mark Dubowitz of FDD recently wrote that the president’s choice “moved the debate on the fatally flawed nuclear deal from ‘keep it or nix it’ to ‘fix it or nix it.’” The problem, however, is that movement is discernible only on the political right. Across the political aisle, no such debate or internal discussion is taking place. To grasp why, it is crucial to understand that for “the Vanguard,” the leading camp on the left, the Iran deal was always about much more than the nuclear file. The reason that they and “the Believers” they spawned are so vocal in their opposition to tinkering with the agreement today is that Trump was elected, which gives him the authority to kill their deal and shine a light on its shortcomings. In the meantime, they are simply regurgitating the old lines without taking stock of their handiwork two years on.

The Underpinnings
From the outset, the Obama administration set out to lessen the American footprint abroad — especially in the Middle East. Part of that endeavor included trading traditional alliances for new ones that could bear the burden of the Middle East maladies in America’s absence. To that end Barack Obama, shortly after taking office in 2009, began a process designed ultimately to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran.

For the Vanguard, reaching a nuclear accord with Iran was identified as the means to lock in America’s strategic shift. In that sense, the deal was about transforming Iran so that it could “take its rightful place in the community of nations” and become a constructive regional player as America withdrew. Iran and its proxies were seen as a more cohesive and capable unit to inherit the Middle East than the mix of Sunni states, most of whom were working at cross-purposes. The years of Arab upheaval that began in 2011 only reinforced that notion.

Adopting this new approach, they believed, would help bring stability to the Middle East, allowing the U.S. to correct its unfortunate plague of foreign-intervention, which sprung from “a mindset out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy.” Doing so would “restore America’s standing in the world,” which was a promise that candidate Obama made in September 2008. It was to be “the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy,” as Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, told progressive activists in January 2014. “This is health care for us, just to put it in context.”

Marketing Snake Oil
Of course, flipping Iran from the dark side wouldn’t be easy, nor would convincing skeptical Americans that the deal they were cooking up would be in their interest. It required a group of core believers who could carry the Obama administration’s message, which was initially based on the fiction of an ongoing struggle between Iranian moderates and hardliners, epitomized by the 2013 election of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s president. He defeated the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. According to the Vanguard’s logic, anyone elected short of Caligula could be considered a moderate compared to Mr. “wipe Israel off the map” Ahmadinejad.

That election served as the pretext that Obama needed to sell America on the idea that the winds of change were blowing in Tehran, allowing him to keep his goal of a grand bargain hidden. In reality, the Obama administration sat on the sidelines a few years earlier in June 2009 and watched the regime brutally crush the Green Revolution with techniques that it later exported and perfected for Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian slaughterhouse.

Marketing this new formula under the guise of a nuclear deal necessitated an avoidance of any back-and-forth discussion of the merits of the agreement itself, a willingness to attack all those who raised important questions about its shortcomings or sought to improve the deal, and the circumvention of Congress, which, if presented with it as a treaty, would surely have voted it down. Most of all, once the Vanguard caved on all of the promises it had made regarding what would be in deal, it had to rest its case on the bottom-line assertion that those who were opposed to it offered only war as a solution.

For this monumental task, Obama turned to Ben Rhodes, who developed, ran, and subsequently bragged to David Samuels of the New York Times about his creation of an echo chamber designed to sell their alternative facts about the Iran deal to the American people. Rhodes handpicked newly minted experts who then began popping up at think tanks. They didn’t think like the American foreign-policy establishment — “the blob,” as Rhodes called them — they simply acted as parrots. To spread their centralized hot takes, the Vanguard relied on “hundreds of often-clueless reporters,” as Samuels described Rhodes’s understanding of them. As Believers, they were only too willing to oblige. Together, they generated a feedback loop of misinformation, amplification, and reiteration.

And it all worked brilliantly.

Barack Obama and his Vanguard’s echo chamber sold the JCPOA lemon in 2015 as an exclusive choice between the deal they cooked up or war. Those who opposed the agreement were smeared as warmongers who shared a common cause with the Iranian-regime hardliners. They scolded and undermined the Fixers then as they do now and then bypassed Congress to seal the deal at the United Nations. And they did so claiming that they had reached the best agreement possible, having exhausted the limits of U.S. leverage in search of a deal, and that to turn down what was now available would leave America with no other option besides war.

All of that is garbage.

Reality Strikes Back
The choice in 2015 wasn’t between the Vanguard’s deal or war but between its proposal and a better deal that it had promised to obtain but had failed to deliver. Sure, the agreement requires fixing or nixing, but 2015 was the right time to do it — before parting with America’s ample leverage when they frontloaded all of the financial rewards for their grand bargain in order to ensure that the deal could not be undone.

No, Barack Obama didn’t lack the leverage — he lacked the will to demand a better deal in 2015, because it wasn’t about the nuclear issue. If it was, he would have followed the urgent advice of those who were sitting on the fence, including some congressional Democrats, many in the think-tank community, and even former officials who had since left the Obama administration. They urged him to immediately work with Europe to define a set of penalties for Iranian infractions that would automatically snap into place to avoid precisely the kind of impasse that we now see emerging. If the deal was just about nuclear prevention, then Secretary of State John Kerry wouldn’t have spent May and June of 2016 trying to “drum up business” for Iran in Europe, undermining the Treasury Department and Congress. Nor would he have continued his “awkward push” in London later that year, in October and November.

America’s lack of leverage today — and the need to reestablish it to fix the deal — stems not from the ticking clock that started two years ago when Obama began to warn of Iran’s shrinking breakout time. Its breakout time decreased dramatically during his watch, even as he opposed, in 2012, the very economic sanctions that had finally brought Iran to the table. America’s lack of leverage today is a result of the decisions that Team Obama made at that time to shred the six U.N. Security Council resolutions painstakingly put in place over some twelve years. Indeed, history will record the bankruptcy of the echo chamber’s claims.

Mark Dubowitz of FDD has it right; the debate today should be over whether to “fix it or nix it,” despite the Vanguard’s continuing attempts to kneecap the efforts of those trying to strengthen the agreement. Contrary to its stale talking points, it is the Fixers who are doing all they can to prevent war by strengthening the ill-conceived deal. That leaves the Believers with an opportunity to cast off the spell of the echo chamber and join their effort. It is akin to the climactic moment of truth at the end of Return of the Jedi, when Darth Vader must choose between the Emperor and his son, Luke. But in this case, the Emperor has no clothes.

Make no mistake, if in the future the stark choice boils down to one between war and acquiescence because the U.S. lacks the necessary leverage, it will be a result of the bet the Obama administration placed and lost that fateful summer of 2015, when it surrendered to a terminally flawed deal of its own making. It will be because the Obama administration succeeded in foreclosing better future options when it sold snake oil to the American people.

— Matthew RJ Brodsky is a senior fellow at the Security Studies Group in Washington, D.C., and a senior Middle East analyst at Wikistrat.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453117/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-administration-jcpoa-ben-rhodes-%20war

The post On the Left, the Missing Debate over the Iran Deal first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.