A final nuclear agreement is to be set with Iran no later than November 24. How do things look? Reul Marc Ericht and Mark Dubowitz lay out here four scary scenarios. The four options offered in the pages of the WSJ are, to be kind, terrifying.
Be forewarned that the ominous analysis appears courtesy the rabidly neoconservative Washington think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. When you read the names Gerecht and Dubowitz, I want you to immediately connect to the names Adelson and Haim. Next I want you to click to Two Losers for America II, which will allow you to connect the dots of a billionaires boys club/think tank hookup that should send a chill down your spine. And as bad as this grizzly tie in is, what concerns me more is that this hype is promoted in the pages of the WSJ. Be warned if you have been operating under the premise that you are getting the straight skinny on what is best for We The People of the Federal Republic of The United States from either the WSJ or Fox News, you will be in bed with the same crowd that got America into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria in the first place.
For counterpoint that will set you on a straight and narrow non-intervention course, click to richardcyoung.com to any of the posts featuring the analysis of the Cato Institute’s Chris Preble, Justin Logan and Doug Bandow, as well as former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Sheuer, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer and Pat Buchanan. The more America meddles in the national affairs of the Muslim world, the less safe all Americans will be. As I have seen in multiple research trips to Paris, the French have found this out and are paying the price with mass street rioting in the suburbs and, even today, no-go zones for the police.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Crisis at Vanguard: Part I - December 9, 2016
- Intelligence on Retired Marine Gen. Mattis from Cato’s Chris Preble - December 8, 2016
- Islam Poses a Huge Risk to the U.S. - December 8, 2016