Meanwhile, let’s take a break from the latest terrorist attack and remind ourselves of the biggest terror planner in the world and its plans. This week’s Louie Renault Award Winner is President Barack Hussein Obama. I’ve no doubt he is shocked, shocked(!), that Iran is threatening to walk away from the deal that is much of Mr. Obama’s legacy. The Free Beacon explains: 

Iran has threatened to walk away from the recently inked nuclear deal and stop rolling back its nuclear enrichment program, according to recent comments by Hassan Rouhani, the Islamic Republic’s president.

Rouhani, in comments on Thursday, threatened to break the deal if the United States imposes any new sanctions on Iran, even ones concerning the country’s human rights abuses and its ballistic missile program.

The comments are a direct response to promises by the Obama administration to continue pursuing economic sanctions targeted at Iran’s terrorist proxies and efforts to foment unrest across the globe.

The warning from the Iranian president was delivered amid bipartisan calls in Congress to increase pressure on Iran in response to its recent arrest of two Americans, one a dual citizen and one a D.C.-based permanent resident.

Iran ‘will not fulfill agreements’ aimed at curbing its nuclear program if any new sanctions are considered, Rouhani said, according to reports carried by the country’s state-controlled media.

But wait a minute. Hasn’t Iran’s Supreme Leader already said, multiple times, that Iran will not live up to the deal and won’t change its policies toward America? Why yes, he has. And hasn’t Iran stopped dismantling centrifuges, which violates the deal?  Why yes, it has. And hasn’t Iran, from the very beginning, violated the deal in multiple ways?  Why yes, it has.

But at least Iran isn’t asking for anything unreasonable or humiliating:



The Iranian president also demanded in his remarks that the United States ‘apologize’ for its past actions against Iran.

‘If they [the U.S.] modify their policies, correct errors committed in these 37 years and apologize to the Iranian people, the situation will change and good things can happen,’ Rouhani said.

Are there any adults left in the American government? Well, perhaps one:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a vocal opponent of the nuclear deal, told the Washington Free Beacon that the administration is intentionally ignoring Iran’s bad behavior in order to preserve the accord.

The Obama administration may insist that the nuclear deal is somehow isolated from other bad behavior on the part of the Islamic Republic, but the fact is that this is all part of the same ugly pattern,’ Cruz said. ‘Tehran understands perfectly well that the terrorist activities of the Revolutionary Guard, including the detention last month of American citizen Siamek Namazi and American resident Nizar Zakka, are part of the same anti-American hostility that also fuels their nuclear program.

No! I can’t believe it! I’m being sarcastic, of course. It’s easy to believe Mr. Obama will do anything–or nothing—to keep the illusion of the deal in place.


Trying to separate out their activities is a fool’s errand,’ Cruz said. ‘There can be no good-faith deal with a regime that is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and that has been targeting America and our allies for 36 years.

“No good-faith deal” with Iran? Just because it’s an Islamic jihadist state, and the world’s foremost terrorism sponsor and actor? What would make anyone think that? At least the State Department is tough on Iran, right?



The State Department explained to the Free Beacon earlier this week that it will not remove sanctions relating to certain elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, an organization responsible for waging terror attacks. Other sanctions aimed at curbing Iranian human rights abuses also remain in place.

However, the State Department has declined to go further with its sanctions against the corps, telling the Free Beacon that it is not considering designating the military group as a foreign terrorist organization, which could severely restrict its activities.

Well heck no! Why should we designate the foremost terrorist organization in the world, people that have murdered hundreds, perhaps thousands of American soldiers, as terrorists. That would be in direct contravention of seven years of Obama Administration policy.

Under the deal Iran always has a gun to America’s head,’ said Omri Ceren, managing director for press at The Israel Project, a D.C.-based organization that has been critical of the final terms of the deal. ‘Any time the Iranians don’t like anything the U.S. is doing, they can blackmail Washington by threatening to walk away from the deal. ‘

‘This time they’re telling Congress that lawmakers are prohibited from responding to the arrest of American citizens,’ Ceren said. ‘Who knows what they’ll ban the U.S. from doing next time?

Lawmakers aren’t actually prohibited; they—particularly Democrats–prohibit themselves, and if they didn’t, President Obama would.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said that these types of threats by Iran are a hallmark of the hardline administration.

‘It’s the traditional Tehran two-step: One step forward and two back,’ Rubin said.

Iran is comfortable issuing threats because it has already begun to receive sanctions relief granted under the nuclear accord. Tehran also has leverage over the Obama administration because of the way the deal is structured, according to Rubin.

‘Kerry’s team played into Iran’s hands by front-loading Iran’s rewards and removing any incentive for Tehran to adhere to commitments,” Rubin said. ‘Who besides Obama and Kerry would give a rogue regime and the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism a free pass against consequence for any of their actions?

Who indeed?

Kerry essentially handed Iran a get out of jail free card, and the Iranian leadership will respond by seeing how far they can push,’ Rubin explained. ‘Obama stays quiet on the arrest of reporters or businessman? Well, why not execute one or two and see what happens then? Obama ignores Iranian shipment of missiles to Hezbollah? Why not launch a few?

Oh, Mr. Rubin, worry not. Hezbollah will surely launch a few. For all we know, some—or all—of our hostages are already dead, or soon will be, and when Iran has nucs, they will set a few off. They’re pressing so hard to get them because they know that with Barack Obama in office, they can do whatever they want and get away with it. After all, the worst that will happen is he’ll issue sorrowful statements claiming Iran—like Vladimir Putin—is on the wrong side of history.

OK, so Mr. Obama is entirely delusional about Iran. He’s much better on ISIS, right? Right?

I don’t think they’re gaining strength,’ the president told Stephanopoulos in an interview at the White House Thursday. ‘From the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria it — they’ll come in, they’ll leave.

‘But you don’t see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain,’ he added, using the government’s acronym for ISIS. …

The president said his team has crafted a strategy that ‘contained the momentum that ISIL had gained,’ but said there will continue to be problems in the region ‘until we get the Syria political situation resolved.’

‘Until [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad is no longer a lightning rod for Sunnis in Syria and that entire region is no longer a proxy war for Shia-Sunni conflict, we’re going to continue to have problems,’ he said. ‘I would distinguish between making sure that the place is perfect — that’s not going to happen anytime soon — with making sure that ISIL continues to shrink in its scope of operations until it no longer poses the kind of threat that it does.

I could not, in my wildest imagination, have conceived that America, and western civilization, would be in such danger, and that we would have done it to ourselves.