A little more than 8 years ago, during June 2009, the Iranian people who were peacefully protesting against the fraudulent Iranian Presidential election, were met with armed murderous Iranian Regime gangs who shot and murdered dozens of protesters.

Then, shockingly, President Obama sanctioned the Iranian Regime’s murderous repression by stating he didn’t want to be seen as “meddling” in Iran’s internal affairs. Among those unarmed peaceful protesters murdered by the motorcycle-mounted Iranian Regime Basij, or para-military militia, was Neda Agha-Soltan.

Today, whle this article is being read, there are dozens of massive spontaneous demonstrations of thousands of Iranians – raging throughout Iran. One wouldn’t know it because the media doesn’t want you to know that the brave Iranian people are reacting to President Trump’s explicit criticisms of the megalomaniacal and genocidal Iranian Theocratic Regime. Today’s protesting Iranians see in President Donald Trump a true liberator from the tyrannical and murderous Iranian Regime. All President Trump needs to do in 2017 to reverse Obama’s 2009 catastrophic sanction of Iranian murder is tweet “We remember Neda Agha-Soltan” and attach the following video of her bloody murder.

(Viewer discretion advised.)

or the shorter version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zFslcGmZnM

But, first, let’s learn a little about the Iranian martyr Neda Agha-Soltan. She was the 26 year-old child of an Iranian civil servant.  She had divorced her first husband in her early 20s because “his family’s social conservatism grated against Neda’s more liberal background, and the couple drifted apart” according to the Guardian.  It added, “Neda enjoyed new fashions and make-up, she went to the gym and loved dancing. She was fiercely independent and a voracious reader whose favourite novel was Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights.”

“…She was always very brave and defended herself,” says Rostami. “She was given the nickname Tayeb [after a 1970s South Tehran street tough]. All the children in the streets were afraid of Neda, because she was so strong. Even her older sister, Hoda, deferred to her.””

In short, Neda was beautiful free-spirited apolitical young Iranian with a mind of her own who just believed she should stand in a peaceful protest for her candidate Mousavi, who was seen as a little more moderate then the rigged Regime choice.

Tthen-President Obama’s clearly protected the Iranian regime.  While French President Sarkozy properly called the 2009 Iranian Presidential election a “fraud,” Obama took a mild, if not approving,, tone.  Neda was murdered on June 15, 2009.  The next day, on June 16, Obama spoke. We will let Obama’s despicable sanctioning of the Iranian Regime’s murders of peaceful protesters speak for themselves:

“It’s important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.  Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons.  Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know – I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it’s important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have – nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling – the US president, meddling in Iranian elections.”

That is how Obama gave the green light to the murderous Ayatollahs to murder at will.

Now, a little more than eight years later, the same murderous Iranian terror-state armed with the 150 billion dollars Obama gave it has spread bedlam and mayhem across the Middle East and endangered the world,with its evil-twin relationship with the North Korean nuclear maniac Kim Yong-Il.  Instead of investing the 150 billion in the people of Iran, the Iranian terror-state has planted seeds of terror, mass-murder, and genocide all over the world.

Iran will blithely murder hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Syria to achieve what it sees as its empire-making gateway to the Mediterranean Sea.

It’s the classic gambit for a terror-Nazi state, invest in guns to murder people rather than in butter to feed your own citizens.  And, without the Obama-safety-net, Iran’s guns-over-butter choice has come crashing down on the Iranian terror regime’s heads. Massive popular spontaneous protests have sprung up complaining about high-prices, shouting “Death to high-prices,” “Death to Rouhani,” Death to the Dictator.”  The “Dictator” is none other than Iran’s terrorist-in-chief “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

And, while we are are on the subject of Iran’s Supreme Terrorist Khamenei, let’s take a look at a recent Khamenei tweet against America:

The war of tweets

We are repeatedly scolded for not agreeing to the opinion that “Islam is a peaceful religion,” that “the Islamic Radical Terrorists don’t represent true Islam” and so on and so forth.  Except when it comes to Israel, Islam proves it is not a religion of peace, but a religion of pure unadulterated terrorism.  Take, for instance, the Islamic reactions to President Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  Virtually every Islamic or Arab leader’s reaction is laced with threats of extreme violence against anything and everybody.  The Islamic reaction to President Trump’s “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital” declaration exposes the true face of Islam as a religion of extreme violent terrorism.

Arutz Sheva reported that “Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the supreme Islamic institution of Sunni Muslims, on Tuesday warned that “the gates of hell” will open if the United States goes through with plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy to Jerusalem.”  So, here you have the “Grand Imam” of the “supreme Islamic institution of the Sunni Muslims” proclaiming a clear grotesquely violent terroristic threat against everyone and  everybody if Jerusalem is declared Israel’s capital.  This is the Grand Imam of Egypt, a country that is supposedly at peace with Israel!

One would think the Grand Imam would have been more concerned about the hundreds of Sufi Muslims who were just murdered in the name of Sunni Islam in the northern Sinai a week or so ago.  One would have thought the Grand Imam would have wanted to use this Trump Jerusalem Declaration moment to show how peaceful and non-violent Islam was so as to set a good example for all Muslims.  But no, the Grand Imam shows he is just as much a bloodthirsty Muslim terrorist as the Muslim terrorists that murdered over 300 praying Muslims in a mosque.

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t represent mainstream Islam?

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t directly represent Islam itself?

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t really understand Islam or the Koran?

All this proves is that we were fed a steady pablum of lies by President Obama, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster that ISIS and al Qaeda and all of other Islamic terrorists “aren’t following Islam,” and that “we are not at war with Islam.”  The Islamic reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration proves that al Qaeda and ISIS are not the exceptions of Islam, but its central pillar.  It proves that peaceful Muslims are an imaginary exception that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, the Islamic hysterically violent and extreme reactions to Trump’s declaration prove we are at war with all of Islam.  When it comes to Islamic leaders, it appears incontrovertible that the lunatic terrorists are in control of the Islamic asylum.

But, most of all, the Islamic reactions to Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration prove the Two-State solution is, has been, and always will be a total fraud and lie from the start.  Islam will never allow any Palestinian leader to share any part of Jerusalem with Israel.  Any Palestinian Arab leader who compromised on any part of Jerusalem would have “Betrayed Islam” and quickly become a dead Palestinian leader, just as Sadat became a dead Egyptian leader.

Forget the katyusha rockets from a Palestinian Arab ‘West Bank’ State, forget that entity stealing all of Israel’s water, forget Iran taking over the ‘West Bank’, and forget the millions of Palestinian Arabs pouring into the ‘West Bank’, pushing to pour into pre-1967 Israel.  Israel’s presence in any part of Jerusalem, or any part of the Muslim Wakf of the Levant, would always have been the raison d’etre of th Muslim world to  continue satisfying its blood lust to murder every Israeli west of the Jordan River.

“The Man in The High Castle” is the name of a Phillip Dick dystopian alt-history novel based on the “what if” idea that in World War II Hitler obtains nuclear power first and uses it to destroy several American and British cities to force an American surrender.  The “book” has become more widely known because Amazon has made a TV series very loosely based on it.  But the book presents us with a very interesting theoretical problem that shines a bright light on the questions we face regarding the current North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs.

The question raised by the book is: To what lengths should the allies have gone to stop Hitler from acquiring a nuclear stockpile? Specifically, would the Allies have used nuclear weapons to pre-empt a Nazi nuke?

The question of today is: If the only real US military option available to President Trump that offers the possibility of a quick immediate American victory without millions of South Korean casualties and tens of thousands of American casualties is to pre-empt North Korea by nuking North Korea first, is this pre-emption a a legitimate and necessary strategy?

The second question brings us back to the first question raised about the book describing the possibility of Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich being armed with a nuclear arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  What should FDR and/or Winston Churchill have done in the 30’s and in the midst of World War II if Hitler would have been suspected to be on the cusp of developing a nuclear bomb?  Would America have blithely allowed the “rational actor” Hitler to acquire nukes based on the deterrent theory of “Mutually Assured Destruction” – or should we say MAD?

Here the question breaks down to two time-period questions: The first is what if Hitler had developed the nuke before WWII began, and the second is what if Hitler had developed the nuke after WWII began.

Before Hitler invaded Poland and war was declared by England and France against Germany, Hitler was viewed by Europe and England as a “rational actor.”  To Chamberlain, Hitler was such a “rational actor” that Chamberlain forcibly surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler over President Benes’ strident objections for the chimera of “Peace in Our Time.”  Stalin was equally taken in by Hitler’s “rationality” as proven by Stalin’s agreeing to destroy Poland along with Hitler, while believing that no one, including Hitler, would rationally invade the Soviet Union for another decade.  Both Chamberlain’s and Stalin’s “rational actor” conclusions were ultimately found to have been grievous, catastrophic errors.

Before WWII began, had Hitler been deemed by the Allies a proponent of MAD theory, one would have to conclude that, before the war, the Allies would have lived with it and done absolutely nothing to definitively stop Hitler from acquiring nukes.  Can anyone imagine what Hitler would have done to the world if he and his Nazis had actually come to possess WMD before World War II broke out?  It is entirely fair to conclude that before the war started, the Allies would still have done absolutely nothing to stop him.  They certainly would not have nuked Nazi Germany to stop Hitler’s acquiring a WMD arsenal.  And the Allies failure to stop, at any and all cost, Hitler’s acquisition of nukes before the war started would have been the most irreversibly catastrophic decision that the world ever made – that is, up to the present North Korea and Iran issue.

Now, let’s ask what the Allies would have done if Hitler was on the cusp of developing a nuclear arsenal after World War II began.  And, for the sake of analogy, let’s assume the Allies had already developed a nuclear bomb.  If Churchill had a nuclear bomb, and the Luftwaffe was burning London to a crisp, does anyone think Churchill wouldn’t have used his WMD to stop Hitler even if Hitler wasn’t developing nuclear weapons?  Of course, Churchill would have nuked Nazi Germany to stop the blitz. and if Churchill knew Hitler was actually developing a nuke, there is no question Churchill and President Roosevelt would have pre-emptively nuked Hitler’s Nazi Germany to stop Hitler form acquiring a bomb.  Truman nuked Japan merely to avoid one million US casualties in attacking the Japanese mainland.  He surely would have used nuclear power to stop the threat to the US Homeland.

Which brings us squarely back to the questions of North Korea and Iran. Is Kim Jong-un more or less of a “rational actor” than Hitler was? Two months ago, Yong Suk Lee, deputy assistant director of the CIA’s Korea Mission Center, during a debate on escalating tensions, stated that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, but a “rational actor” focused on regime survival. He went on to say, “Waking up one morning and deciding he wants to nuke Los Angeles is not something Kim Jong-un is likely to do. He wants to rule for a long time and die peacefully in his own bed.” President Trump aside, the CIA appears to believe Kim Jong-un is a “rational actor” for MAD theory. And under the Deep State’s mad MAD theory, if you’re a “rational actor,” you can have a nuclear arsenal. And, if allowing Hitler to have nukes would have been insane, allowing Kim Jong-un to have nukes is even more insane.

WMD have become more dangerous. North Korea could trump MAD theory and asymmetrically, but “rationally”, use a tactical EMP nuke to paralyze the Korean peninsula and capture 30,000 US POWs that would effectively prevent any US nuclear retaliation. Kim Jong-un would have 30,000 living bargaining chips under which he would demand an American surrender of the entire Korean peninsula. Secondly, it’s entirely unclear how China or Russia could use North Korea as a nuclear proxy by promising the North a nuclear umbrella in the event of a nuclear war with America.

Hence, in the case of North Korea, while America should use nukes to pre-empt North Korea’s plans, it is not likely America will. It appears that President Trump will likely ultimately do nothing to stop North Korea because all the other military options are “ugly” and “unthinkable.”

In the Iranian case, the mad Ayatollahs in Tehran make Kim Jong-un look almost rational. However, this will not stop the same CIA analysts from likely still finding Iran to qualify as a “rational actor” for MAD purposes. And, therefore, it’s even more doubtful that the CIA will ever sanction America’s using a pre-emptive nuke strike to de-nuclearize Iran. The prognosis, therefore, on the Iranian nuclear front is not a good one.

Unless the American security establishment rationally discards its mad MAD theoriy of the “rational actor,” we would do well to bring those old bomb shelters up to date.