Many of the previous foreign policy makers of our country have turned a blind-eye to the evil that has emanated from Iran over the years. A glance back helps to explain where we are now, how we got here, and what we need to do moving forward.
The year was 1979. Fifty-two of our people were being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Our own would be forced to endure captivity for over a year.
The Iranian regime had claimed that Americans were being held by a group of "students."
This would be the first of many falsehoods to come. The truth was the real hostage takers were actually armed personnel who reported to dictator Ayatollah Khomeini.
Iran adopted a strategy of attacking the United States and her allies in an indirect manner, thereby making things appear to be something other than what they actually were.
Plotting continued over the years via the application of a deceitful formula that used proxies, militias, terrorist organizations, and the like as covers behind which the country could slyly hide.
The scheme ultimately expanded into an enterprise of indirect warfare led by international war criminal and terrorist Qasem Soleimani. It would tragically remain in place.
But thanks to action taken by President Donald Trump, which culminated in a precision drone strike, Soleimani’s sinister reign came to an end.
For those who dispassionately examine the facts, the take-down of Soleimani is good news, not only for the Mideast, but for the world. As the architect of the Iranian effort to exert influence outside of the country’s borders, under his diabolical direction roadside bombs were provided to Sunni terrorists, support was supplied and advice was given to the terrorist group Hezbollah, a civil war in Yemen was fomented, and Shiite militias were used to attack U.S. personnel and interests.
Soleimani planned and implemented almost all of the terrorist attacks of the Iranian regime and its proxy groups across the globe. The Shiite terrorist organizations throughout the Mideast were under his control.
He and his proxy groups were behind the flow of IEDs to Iraq and Afghanistan, he used rooftop snipers in both Iran and Iraq to kill protesters who were demonstrating, and on and on it went.
Much as it did with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in labeling him an "austere religious scholar," The Washington Post called international terrorist Soleimani a "most revered military leader." Rather than revered, the overwhelming majority of Iranians viewed him as a brutal participant of an oppressive regime.
Mere days before Soleimani was removed by the American military, he appeared to be trying to conjure up a sequel to the above referenced hostage crisis of 1979.
But this time around, instead of "students" Soleimani used "protesters" to attack a U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
President Trump’s action in removing Soleimani stands in stark contrast to the feeble policies of past administrations toward Iran. This, in part, may explain why Democratic lawmakers and former Obama administration officials displayed such inexplicable and over-the-top public reactions to President Trump’s Iranian action.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., used language that implied a war crime had been committed. She additionally used a legislative session to pass an unconstitutional resolution to place restraints on presidential power.
Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in the promotion of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, came forward to claim that President Trump’s action would lead to war. He wrote via his Twitter account that the drone strike on a terrorist leader "is a really frightening moment . . . "
Former Obama Defense Department official Kelly Magsamen tweeted that she was "honestly terrified" and sent up an additional prayer petition of "God help us."
While at a recent campaign event for Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, former Obama secretary of state John Kerry weighed in with his assessment of President Trump’s decision, characterizing it as a "tragedy," declaring: "If this develops into a tit for tat increased effort, it will become a war that is needless, it didn’t have to happen, and it will be a reckless war of choice by the president of the United States."
Interestingly, in a recent appearance on CBS’s "Face the Nation," Kerry was asked about his role in releasing billions of dollars to Iran while serving in the Obama administration.
He responded to the question with a non-responsive reference to the president’s tweet on the subject.
He had admitted to CNBC back in 2016 that "some" of the money would end up in the hands of "entities, some of which are labeled terrorists."
Fast forward to 2020.
When asked in the above referenced CBS appearance why he believed the release of the money was a risk worth taking, Kerry failed to respond, choosing to attack the president instead. He never did explain why he authorized giving a lawless regime an extraordinary amount of money without knowing where the funds would end up.
President Trump has been remarkably consistent. He has shown a great deal of restraint in his use of limited targeted action, while still displaying strength and resolve. It is clear from Iran’s failed missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq that the regime has a healthy fear of the Trump administration.
And so it should.
In the aftermath of the Soleimani saga, a healthy fear is precisely what is needed to keep our country and the world solidly on the brink of peace.
James Hirsen, J.D., M.A., in media psychology, is a New York Times best-selling author, media analyst, and law professor. Visit Newsmax TV Hollywood.Read more reports from James Hirsen — Click Here Now.
© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.