Iran and President Trump

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Peter said:

We could put a bounty on the Iranian top religious scamster and terrorist who was recently interviewed by Chris Wallace but we might end up harming the bounty hunters. So. Does this count as their retribution? Once again it shows they should have no way to gather cash, they should have no way to significantly harm our allies or Americans, and they need to have their toys taken away from them. We should shut down their oil wells, sink any ship doing business with them, double tap any Iranian who tries to harm an American.     

When push comes to shove Objectivists sleep with the neo-conservatives. True of Rand in her day. We both default to the nation-state, which is true of everyone not an anarchist. However, the basic ptactical question is freedom yes or freedom no? Then we have to know where we are to change it to more freedom or less freedom? This is not the birth of a nation.


not a war-monger

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought you were a war mongrel, Brant.

Brant wrote about a conflict with Iran: Then we have to know where we are to change it to more freedom or less freedom? 

Higher taxes to pay for a conflict do detract from freedom. Like President Trump and Rand I would not rush into war. I remember Rand thought defending South Vietnam with money and lives was not wise when we did not first do the same for Russia and the other countries absorbed by The Soviet Union. So war requires an emergency and a threat to America’s interest to be justified.  

I don’t think Trump will stay in Iraq if they want us out, as their legislature just voted. But he has promised sanctions if they do not pay us for the billion dollar base we built there. And what if they are dominated by Iran, infiltrated by a new Isis, or ruled by another Saddam? What would they expect us to do . . . again? I think our ultra - Americano El Presidente would let them suffer and mull over their own stupidity for a bit. Then we would save their bacon if it is in our interest or for humanitarian reasons. Peter


PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights. end of “Playboy” interview quote

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has

initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quote

To Atlantis in 2001, George H. Smith wrote: . . . A state of war, including one declared for just reasons, is a public acknowledgment of a serious conflict of interests. (This relates to my earlier insistence that the U.S. should formally declare war against the individuals responsible for 9-11.) If -- or more precisely, *when* -- those who pursue a just war (i.e., one waged the legitimate purpose of self-defense) are responsible for the unintentional killing of innocents, then they have indeed violated the rights of those victims. As I argued at some length previously an exchange with Bill Dwyer, the rights of innocent people do not vanish because it may be in our rational self-interest to violate them -- so we are under a moral imperative to *minimize* civilian casualties as much as is humanly possible. (A moral theory that demands the impossible is useless.) Nevertheless, despite the inevitable violation of rights, a just war renders such violations morally justifiable in the name of legitimate self-defense.. This is what a *just* of war is all about. A state of war differs fundamentally from a state of peace, primarily because in a legitimate state of war the immediate issue of *survival* is paramount over all other concerns. This clearly distinguishes U.S. intervention in Vietnam from current actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting letter from Patrick Stephens at The Objectivist Center. Has Patrick been proven correct? Peter

From: "Patrick Stephens" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: The Roots of Peace Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:08:21 -0400. Following is an excerpt from my response to Lance's letter regarding my commentary with some additional comments.  >>My point was not with the morality of humanitarian or charitable aid, but with the question of whether terrorists would make the fine distinction that you do between the actions of a government and the actions of its citizens. The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center showed, by their actions, an unwillingness to discriminate between the guilty (of whatever) and the innocent. Even should the U.S. adopt a non- interventionist foreign policy, I believe terrorists would still target America for its citizens' support of Israel.

As to the morality of interventionism, I would argue that the world has fundamentally changed since the 18th century. Forming alliances and occasionally intervening are both now necessary for the defense of the nation. It would be absurd to claim that our right of self - defense allows us only to respond to attacks and prohibits us from preventing attacks. Just as the government is fully authorized to take steps to reduce crime within its borders (through investigation, surveillance and policing) it is fully authorized to intervene in foreign affairs when a foreign government or organization poses a threat to its citizens.

The point is not so much that the America government must defend its citizens' interests abroad, as much as that it must defend its citizens at home. The attacks to which my commentary was responding occurred in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The U.S. government is morally permitted, and has a moral obligation to protect and defend its citizens against future such attacks. It seems clear that that defense will require--at a minimum--the destruction and elimination of the terrorist threat, which may in turn require the elimination of those governments which support and enable terrorist activities. >>

Addressing Lance's assertion that "If a certain activity is moral for a gov't to do then it is necessarily true that it must be moral for individuals as well. This does not necessarily hold in reverse, however. Just because an activity is moral for an individual to do, it is not necessarily moral (or even permissible) for a gov't to do."

There are a number of activities that a government is permitted to engage in that are forbidden to individual citizens: enforcing and issuing subpoenas, indictment, criminal sentencing, pass law, building and deploying nuclear weapons, stockpiling biological weaponry, certain types of surveillance, and issuing warrants are but just a few. I would also ask the following question, "So long as the financing is voluntary, what actions, moral for an individual, would be denied an organization?" Since it is not moral for individuals to tax one another, I don't see how any legitimate action allowed to one man may be rightly denied to an organization of many men. Note that I'm not addressing the issue of taxation, I am simply questioning the supposition that organizations are constrained in ways that individuals are not. It is also good to remember that taxation is not the defining characteristic of government--if it were possible to finance government through entirely voluntary means, then what ~moral~ action would be denied it? Patrick Stephens Manager of Current Affairs The Objectivist Center 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The neo-conservatism that many Objectivists have in the past (maybe still?) defaulted to, was the slide away from objective value in favour of intrinsic value/disvalue ( --i.e. "evil" by revelation.) I remember my shock by pronouncements by Peikoff and other O'ists to "nuke" Tehran, bomb that mosque, thinking I'd arrived on a neo-con site . That was 10 years ago, when I was new to the forums and blessedly innocent of internal rifts. Rand had the clearest idea of objective value and the nature of objective evil, which I believe was superficially imitated and mashed into the appearance of neo-conservatism. (This was the tussle between intrinsicist vs. subjective values which Kelley and Peikoff accused each other of when they "split". That breakup and the loss of Kelley's intellectual influence in ARI leaving the field to Leonard alone, i reckon has had effects until today. Now I wonder if many Arians, post Peikoff, haven't defaulted the other wrong way, to subjective value and subsequent Leftism).

A statement Peter presented, by one Patrick Stephens "... I believe terrorists would still target America for its citizens' support of Israel".

As well as being counterfactual, concrete bound and anti-conceptual, imo here's an example of having subjective values.

Ditch Israel and the troublesome Jews and "they will love us", kinda. But it's an identical intrinsicism by Iranian leaders and terrorists, from which followed their hatred for anything and anybody Western (and Jewish). That's fixed and impossible to deal with reasonably..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony wrote: Ditch Israel and the troublesome Jews and "they will love us", kinda. But it's an identical intrinsicism by Iranian leaders and terrorists, from which followed their hatred for anything and anybody Western (and Jewish). That's fixed and impossible to deal with reasonably.. end quote

Here is a political twist that may not be of much interest to non-Americans? Leftist commentators are saying, “See? This shows President Trump is out of his depth.” Ironically, the assassination of the leader of Iran’s haters and terrorists, and the escalation in the war of words that has followed, will be a factor in the 2020 elections. Trump’s political opponents for his job in 2020 could NOT have orchestrated a better scenario that ups their chances of winning. Current events, events to come, and The President himself have contributed to his dilemma.

And if this becomes a hot war his political opponents chances of winning “could increase.” It will influence unaffiliated and undecided voters on the fence changing President Trump’s chances of re-winning the job from 60 to 49 percent (imo.) But I will wait for the polls and future events to confirm this. Fox News was saying there are, or were, 19 places where Iran was creating “hot spots” to increase their influence in the region. Instead of seeking a full blown war with Iran it is possible President Trump is stamping out the fire in those 19 places. Peter   

Notes. Retired General David Petraeus who is also the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Face The Nation Sunday show: "This is bigger than Bin Laden, it's bigger than Baghdadi," Petraeus told CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan, referring to the U.S. military operations that killed the former head of al-Qaeda in 2011 and took out the self-proclaimed caliph of Islamic State in 2018. Petraeus called Soleimani, who commanded an elite unit within Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, "the equivalent, in U.S. terms, of the CIA director, CENTCOM commander, JSOC commander, and presidential envoy for the region." Soleimani was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday. Iran called the move an assassination and an act of terrorism, and vowed to retaliate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian President in the silly hat, is “suggesting” Utilities, banks, and companies are fair game for cyberattacks. Is that an act of war? Well, if Rouhani crashes my computer . . . .

Odd but Hannity is sounding like the Iranian Muslims in the following speech which brings in Christian mythology. From Fox News Sean Hannity . . . . Hannity then delivered a message directly to Rouhani, comparing him to Soleimani. "Mr. 'Death to America, death to Israel' radicals like President Rouhani ... You now dare to threaten the United States of America again," Hannity said. "You have zero territorial integrity in the country of Iraq. And Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of thousands, including our fellow Americans. You are the leader of the number one terrorist state in the world. You, Rouhani, are a mass murderer, just like Soleimani." "There is a special place in hell that awaits you," Hannity added. end quote

I think I am right about America stamping out the Iranian fires in 19 places around the globe. See the quotes below.

From The Hill, President Trump. “I have deep respect for the Iranian people. They are a remarkable people with an incredible heritage and unlimited potential. We do not seek regime change; however the Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end and it must end now."

From Politico, Trump and other quotes: “Let this be a warning to terrorists: if you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our citizens,” Trump declared at the beginning of a campaign event with evangelical leaders in Miami . . . “Under my leadership, America's policy is unambiguous to terrorists who harm or intend to harm any American. We will find you. We will eliminate you,” he said, estimating that “hundreds” of American civilians and service members were victims to Soleimani’s “ruthless” rule.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, expressed support for Trump's directive. "Just as Israel has the right of self-defense, the United States has exactly the same right," he told reporters.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's main congressional advisers on matters of foreign policy, echoed the White House's characterization of Soleimani's killing Friday, calling it a "preemptive, defensive strike planned to take out the organizer of of attacks yet to come." Graham, a South Carolina Republican, also revealed that he was "briefed about the potential operation" while visiting Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., where the president has spent his holiday vacation . . . .

But unlike Graham, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was not informed of the strike ahead of time, complaining in a statement  late Thursday that the deadly action "was taken without the consultation of Congress."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter said:



Here is a political twist that may not be of much interest to non-Americans? Leftist commentators are saying, “See? This shows President Trump is out of his depth.” Ironically, the assassination of the leader of Iran’s haters and terrorists, and the escalation in the war of words that has followed, will be a factor in the 2020 elections. Trump’s political opponents for his job in 2020 could NOT have orchestrated a better scenario that ups their chances of winning. Current events, events to come, and The President himself have contributed to his dilemma.



That's going to dampen the belief of they who call "Trump, an unprincipled pragmatist, out for himself" etc. etc. He (and they) know fully that this action, and the possible "events to come", is not exactly fantastic for his re-election prospects. But he went ahead anyway. Therefore has placed the long term security of country over any ambitions. Upshot, I believe he will emerge stronger. (Not to rub salt and revive the past, but what if he'd told his advisers what someone once told another politician: Let's cool it until after the election when I'm in a better position...?)

It is very much of interest to me, Peter. Not least because Israel's exposure. As important, defeating the Dems again is a must in my view, for the sake of the USA. I predicted some sort of incendiary actions by Iran in election year, to undermine the president: so make him either look weak or a war-monger. The only US party that Tehran wishes to deal with in future, and why,  is too obvious to comment on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when North Korea’s Kim tried to get fried in a quick nuclear exchange?

Remember when Syria’s Assad used chemical weapons just as the Americans were winding up and leaving anyway?

Remember when Iran’s Soleimani organized the next Benghazi in Baghdad? Of course you do, it was just last week.

Why would these outstandingly successful dynasties and forty year old theocracy behave so stupidly? You can keep ignoring that problem but it doesn’t go away — why would groups of people such as the ruling Kim family in their thousands who make consistently intelligent strategic decisions for generations suddenly and unnecessarily adopt a death wish when they deal with Trump?

Why would Assad, who is smart enough to still be in power as I write, be so stupid as to use chemical weapons at the end of a struggle he won?

Why would the clerics light Trump up with another Benghazi when he has less than a year left and is defending himself against impeachment at home? Trump was getting out, why give him the justification to stay indefinitely?

Those people would do those things only if they had guns to their heads. Who would put guns to their heads? Who else do we know who would do anything to destroy Trump? Who would love to see him caught up in a mess such as another Benghazi and forced to send in troops, new war, etc.? Not Iran.

Q’s explanation fits perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anthony said:

But he went ahead anyway. Therefore has placed the long term security of country over any ambitions. Upshot, I believe he will emerge stronger.

Well said Anthony. You do follow and understand foreign news and situations. In spite of my "oh no's" I also think he will emerge stronger. Iran is definitely preparing to do something evil. The Israeli leader Benji is in cahoots with us too and said the right thing, below. Another clue found in the quotes below? "President Donald Trump on Monday repeated his insistence that Iran will not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon . . . ." When the time is right we will destroy their nuclear labs and missiles. Peter

Read more at The Daily Beast. World, January 6, 2020, 3:57 PM EST Netanyahu Distances From Soleimani Slaying, Says Israel Shouldn’t Be ‘Dragged’ Into It: “The assassination of Soleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it,” he said, according to Israeli news outlets. In a statement released by his office, Netanyahu said, “Qassem Soleimani brought about the death of many American citizens and many other innocents in recent decades and at present. Soleimani initiated, planned and carried out many terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East and beyond. “President Trump is deserving of all esteem for taking determined, strong and quick action. I would like to reiterate—Israel fully stands alongside the US in the just struggle for security, peace and self-defense.”

Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump on Monday repeated his insistence that Iran will not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, amid mounting tension over the US killing of a top Iranian commander. Writing in all-caps, the US leader tweeted: "IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!" The tweet came a day after Tehran announced it was further winding down observance of parts of an international deal struck to ensure that the country does not secretly develop a nuclear weapon under cover of its civilian nuclear industry. Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 deal negotiated under his predecessor Barack Obama. Last year, Iran resumed uranium enrichment, reporting a tenfold increase in production. Tensions between the two countries spiked last week when a US drone strike in Baghdad killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force. While Iran has threatened retaliation for the killing, Trump has warned that the US will strike "very hard and very fast" at as many as 52 Iranian targets if the Islamic republic does attack US personnel or assets. Huge crowds turned out Monday in Iran for the 62-year-old commander's funeral, while in neighboring Iraq, parliament has voted to expel some 5,200 US troops stationed in the country. Trump's tweet did not add any details about steps he was considering to prevent Iran from reviving its nuclear program. Iran has always denied any military dimension to its nuclear project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that degenerate Iranian general doing in Iraq anyway? Here is an interesting scenario. After a years-long examination and recon of Iraq by their General, Iran invades an enfeebled Iraq, bypassing and ignoring the stronger Kurds, to make Iraq a province of Iran. Then the majority of Iraqi oil revenues will be siphoned off to Iran.

From The Blaze: 'These are rent-a-mobs': NYT bestselling author contends the people of Iran are celebrating Soleimani's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 6:23 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Q was saying the planes containing the pallets of cash landed in various places not in Iran and that the Deep State, in control of Iran, pocketed the cash. 1) DS controls Obama. 2) Make Obama make the deal. 3) Pocket the cash. One of a million population-bleeding programs that Trump’s victory brings to an end.

Either the ‘79 revolution was really rogue western intelligence or they subsequently took control of Iran from the top. The actual puppet master of Iran on the other end of the puppet strings is Western. The same Western cabal Trump and Boris Johnson is up against everywhere. All above same for North Korea.

The events we see in the news are not dangerous, because this is not live action. They lost and Trump won, quite a while ago. This is a play for public consumption, that is one of Q’s top messages. This is a dangerous time in that the cabal is nearing its end, but Trump already won in Iran.

We need for the Iranian people to experience it as them overthrowing their evil and domestic rulers. That will play out now. Their rise and retaking control. 


“The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3 billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred.“


“The administration is also withholding key details about the payment from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month.

“The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice all failed to respond to the inquiry by Monday’s deadline, according to congressional sources tracking the matter.

"The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the Iranian regime last January 16th," Cruz said to the Free Beacon. "If this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost America more to contest, why all the secrecy””

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the best investigative journalism ever? The picture of that humongous pile of cash sitting on a pallet on its way to Iran, should have won a Pulitzer Prize. I would have preferred the traitors be executed via La guillotine over a firing squad. What traitors. What monsters.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of news items.

From The Blaze:

Pelosi sidesteps on Iranian protesters, citing 'different reasons why people are in the street'


In the wake of Iran's admission that the country shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane, many of the Islamic republic's people have taken to the streets in protest of the regime. Video from the weekend's demonstrations show some people shouting "death to the dictator," in reference to the ayatollah, and others refusing to step on U.S. and Israeli flags.

. . .

When asked whether or not she supports the anti-regime protests on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Pelosi felt it necessary to say that there were "different reasons why people are in the street" and tried to draw parallels between these protests and the demonstrations and the regime-backed funeral mourning that took place after the Soleimani strike earlier this month.

Pelosi is a bad joke.


From the Washington Examiner:

Top Iranian reporter apologizes 'for lying' and quits government TV after plane crash


An anchor for Iran's state-run TV resigned today because of "lies" surrounding Iranian airstrikes that downed a Boeing 737-800 passenger plane above Tehran last week.

"Iran State TV's anchor resigns saying, 'It was very hard for me to believe the killing of my countrymen. I apologize for lying to you on TV for 13 years,'" it was reported.

If only the top anchors in the American fake news mainstream press would follow suit... 

btw - I tried to find the name of the Iranian anchor, but it's so unnecessarily difficult with modern search engines, I gave up. If I persisted, I know I would finally get it, but who has an hour and a half just for a detail like that?

Besides, this is the job of the press. I thought the basis of all good news articles was Who When Where What Why and How. But you don't see that much anymore. Certainly not in this case.


Now for some fun. From the Babylon Bee:

CNN Reporter Informs Iranian Protesters They're Supposed To Be Shouting 'Death To America'



TEHRAN—As Iranians protested their government's downing of a passenger jet, a frantic CNN reporter ran through the crowd lecturing them on how they were actually supposed to be shouting "Death to America!"

The CNN reporter arrived at the protests, excited to cover another anti-US protest but quickly realized they were actually shouting "Death to the dictator!" and blaming their government for shooting down the plane.

"Guys, you're ruining the narrative!" he cried through a megaphone. "We can't run with this! You're willing to assign blame to Iran more readily than the media and the Democrats were! This isn't good for our viewership! Are you guys in league with Fox News?"

"Please guys, please shout 'death to America,' just for a few minutes so I can get some B-roll!"

His efforts weren't having any effect, so the reporter began trying to start up the chants himself. "Come on, people! Death to America! Death to America! When I say 'Death to,' you say, 'America!' Death to!" A shoe was thrown in his direction, though, and he scattered, fearing for his life.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the video of 99 percent of Iranians avoiding / not walking on the "painted on" American flag on the sidewalk as about five shills for the administration yell at them to tromp on our flag. Perhaps there will be a change there, if so many of the people despise their rulers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now