There is a majority of Americans who want the war against Iran to continue

According to polling data commissioned by Tea Party Patriots, it turns out that, contrary to what even phony "conservatives" like those at the Federalist would have everyone think, many Americans do want the war on Iran to continue until its Islamofascist regime is defeated:

A recent survey has revealed that the majority of Americans support continuing the war in Iran. Sixty-two percent of surveyed general election voters agree with the statement “The United States must finish the job once and for all to protect the United States and our allies — which means ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon and can no longer threaten American lives” data from Tea Party Patriots Action found.

The poll also asserted that the numbers found in the survey should be a “reality check” for the media.

“72% of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — agree that Iran cannot be allowed to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is consistent with President Trump’s policy,” Tea Party Patriots Action Chairman Jenny Beth Martin told Breitbart News.

Martin continued, “And 62% of Americans — including 56% of Independents — believe that we need to ‘finish the job’ in Iran. … There is no split in the conservative movement on this issue. … Conservatives are overwhelmingly sticking with President Trump and the American people as a whole agree with the president’s strategy.”

If the Federalist doesn't comment on these findings, that'll speak volumes about what they're really like. It's good to know there are realists in the USA now who recognize the threat Iran's regime poses if it isn't taken down entirely, and surely recognize that if a ground operation is what it inevitably takes to complete the job, just like in Iraq, it'll have to be done. So we must give the military all the backing they'll need in order to keep morale high, which helps tremendously in order to achieve vital results.

USA administration cannot abandon the Iranian people who're oppressed

Jamie Fly and Katie LaRoque at Freedom House make a vital point why it's wrong for the USA administration to take any steps that would enable a sadistic dictatorship to remain in place and continue subjecting its citizens to horror stories:

In early 2026, when Iranian surgeon Alireza Golchini saw protesters with gunshot and stab wounds from the regime, he did what doctors are trained to do: he treated them. For that, Iranian authorities arrested him, charged him with “waging war against God,” and threatened him with a sentence that can carry the death penalty. His alleged crime was not violence or espionage; it was providing medical care to wounded Iranians.

His story is a reminder of a simple reality: the Islamic Republic is one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Just recently, a woman was sentenced to 74 lashes for singing in a YouTube video without a hijab, and a 17-year-old swimmer and boxer was sentenced to death for participating in a protest. The regime just executed another dissident, bringing the total number of political executions in 2026 to at least 45.

[...] For the Iranian people, however, the US-Iran deal as currently formulated is likely to deepen repression. It will strengthen the authorities that only months ago were imprisoning, executing, and killing Iranians in the streets for demanding basic freedoms and improved living conditions.

Late in 2025 and early 2026, millions of Iranians took to the streets in the most significant challenge the Islamic Republic has faced in decades. Authorities answered with a crackdown that left thousands dead and tens of thousands arrested. The regime also imposed a near-total internet shutdown that lasted for months, cutting Iranians off from one another and from a world that might otherwise have witnessed the scale of the violence. Yet reports indicate that a final agreement could bring this same regime sweeping sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, and billions of dollars in new investment. For Iranians who risked their lives demanding change, the likely outcome is not a more moderate government, but a more entrenched and repressive one.

[...] At a minimum, the United States should make any relief conditional on five things: the release of Iran’s political prisoners, an end to the executions handed down in protest cases, a binding guarantee against another nationwide internet shutdown, and the return of the Americans now imprisoned in Iran or barred from leaving—six by the assessment of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation. Tehran should also be required to come clean about the fate of kidnapped former FBI Agent Bob Levinson and help his family recover his remains. These are among the clearest and most immediate signs of whether Iranian authorities are prepared to act in good faith.

See, these are vital reasons to topple a savage dictatorship, along with exiling monsters from what you would think civilized countries. I notice that Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously took disturbing positions that put his supposed understandings of reality under question marks, is now seemingly making valid points about the state of Europe while discussing SCOTUS' defeatist positions on birthright citizenship in the USA:

In countries like France and Britain, which have large numbers of Muslim migrants, this means multigenerational communities of non-citizens with a totally different cultural and political worldview — one that’s openly hostile to the host country. They will eventually, as they are beginning to do now, carve out their own insular polities within the nation, Balkanizing the country and destroying the possibility of republican self-government or even the possibility of national survival. An Islamified Britain will no longer be Britain, but something else.

Obviously, this can't go unopposed, but then, why did Dumberson oppose the war against Iran? Considering their Islamic tyrants were financing jihadism overseas, they could also be financing infiltration into the USA through illegal immigration, and does that sit well with Dumberson? Does it sit well with him that an innocent and defenseless woman could already have been tortured over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime? If he's not willing to approve of taking serious action against sadists in Islamofascist countries like Iran, then this current editorial of his rings totally hollow. That's why what he's saying now should be approached with caution, because it's not enough to defend just your home country, and to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the plight of innocent foreigners in distress is offensive, morally or otherwise.

If the Trump administration continues to allow the Islamofascist dictatorship in Iran to continue governing, it's always possible that could ruin election chances in mid-term. And if that's what happens, it'll make clear that when serious action isn't put to use, no matter the turnout, you cannot be surprised if the public will ultimately be disillusioned with the notion certain movements like conservatives really support responsibility, and applying equal standards everywhere. Also note how the Daily Caller is writing reports that're potentially hostile to Israel, which seem to be lamenting that Israel's military wanted to terminate "negotiators" from Iran, and you know something's wrong. If those very "negotiators" harbor Islamofascist beliefs themselves and are loyal to the dictatorship, why are they considered valuable? There are no doubt movements in the country that can be considered far better candidates for replacing the tyrants, and refusing to consider them only worsens the situation.

Long after the 1st and 2nd world wars, Americans unwilling to consider freedom isn't free

A poll was taken revealing a sad double-standard in the USA when it comes to Iran's dire situation:

New polling conducted by J.L. Partners provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows Americans, especially Republicans, by and large support toppling the regime in Iran but are unwilling to put any American lives at risk to do so.

The stunning new data shows that, yes, Americans do not like the regime in Iran and would love to see it wiped out. But it also has bright warning lights for the White House as the president considers his options because the data suggests that Americans broadly, and Republicans specifically, do not want to risk even a single American life to accomplish that.

J.L. Partners is one of the few pollsters to nail the outcome of the 2024 presidential race, correctly predicting that President Donald Trump would win the national popular vote against Democrat Kamala Harris.

Overall, the new poll obtained by Breitbart News exclusively shows, more Americans support the U.S. toppling the regime in Iran than oppose doing so, with 36 percent supporting such an action — 18 percent strongly supporting and 18 percent somewhat supporting — compared to just 21 percent opposing. Eleven percent strongly oppose and 10 percent somewhat oppose, with 24 percent of Americans indifferent offering neither support nor opposition.

Among Republicans specifically, support for the U.S. toppling the Iranian regime goes up even higher with 60 percent—36 percent strongly and 24 percent somewhat — supporting the move. Just 8 percent are opposed, 4 percent apiece somewhat and strongly, while 21 percent of Republicans are unsure.

While that seems strong on both accounts — among Americans broadly and among Republicans specifically — it’s in the follow-up questioning where things get dicey. Almost everyone who supports the U.S. toppling the Iranian regime only does so if zero American lives are at risk in so doing.

When asked how many American fatalities are an acceptable number to stomach for the U.S. to topple the regime in Tehran, a majority of all Americans and specifically Republicans said zero. Among all Americans, and among Republicans specifically, 51 percent of each group said they would tolerate no American casualties to achieve the mission. Among all Americans, an additional 5 percent said they would tolerate less than 10 American casualties and another 6 percent said they would tolerate less than 100 American fatalities.

I'm guessing the Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson is quite likely of the crowd that's strongly hinting they refuse to even so much as go to war themselves. Let's be clear. Of course it's always terrible when even a single innocent life has to die in battle. That's what happened over here in the past 2 and a half years since October 7, 2023. But if nobody's willing to make sacrifices for the sake of other less fortunate people, then how does anybody expect in the long run to prevent Islamofascists in Europe from gaining the ability to build additional nuclear arsenals over there? Something vice president J.D. Vance warned about as well a short time ago. Now, we have a most disturbing situation where it's the WW2 isolationist stance all over again. And that's going to be costly in the long run. Especially if the same crowds in America who don't want to go to war against tyranny also don't want to get adherents to Islam to stop practicing the religion.

This devastating mentality is also why the war against racism was lost in the 19th century, even after slavery was abolished by Lincoln. It's also why China was taken over by communism, leading to the dire situation they're in now, with a collapsing birthrate. Most disgusting thing about such commies is how in contrast to the Religion of Peace, they don't want many children, if at all. Now, almost a century after WW2, it's sad to discover we have another case of whole generations who don't want to show the courage it takes to make a difference, and it's not just leftists, but also rightists who're balking.

What makes this additionally sad is that the USA public, Republican or otherwise, are letting down even figures like Reza Pahlavi's family, whose daughter Noor wrote an article about how he hopes to restore a civilized leadership. And while of course nobody should have to rely solely on the USA for backing against evil entities, that doesn't mean anybody in America should act like it's literally wrong to aid the persecuted. What matters is whether they have what it takes to make clear anybody who's practicing Islam can't do so anymore, and not be embarrassed to make the vital point. The same goes for Communism.

Trump's been sending military forces to the area near Iran to practice for any possible attack on Iran's horrormeisters. It's to be hoped he doesn't let these pollings get in the way of better judgement if the soldiers who've deployed are themselves ready to enter battle. But somebody must make clear to the public that, if they're not willing to recognize that moral sacrifices have to be made when darkness is looming, how will anybody be able to defend the USA itself properly if, in the future, Islamists take over Europe and gain access to nuclear technology? And, do they take a naive view to the point they believe it's virtually impossible for jihadists to penetrate the USA's defenses in such a way? No doubt, many leftists do. But if rightists also buy into naive visions, then they too have failed from an altruistic standing, and nothing's going to be solved.

The point is: freedom isn't free. Will the conservative movement begin to understand that, and if they do, will it be too late?

Iranian native criticizes Democrats for siding with Islam

Bill Maher's HBO program interviewed a woman reporter from Iran who's rightly disappointed with the Democrats for only caring about Islamophobia, not about women's rights:

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” Iranian journalist and activist Masih Alinejad said that liberals in the West tell her that if she talks about how women are treated in the Middle East, “you’re going to cause Islamophobia.” But “my fear and the fear of millions of Iranian women” is rational because she was told growing up in Iran that “if you show your hair, you’re going to go to jail. You will receive lashes. You will get killed like Mahsa Amini.” She also criticized the Combating International Islamophobia Act passed by Democrats by stating that it’s those who beat and kill women and those who leave Islam that create the phobia, not those who speak out against it.

More at the page. It's definitely offensive and deplorable how the Democrats have succumbed to this over all these years. Their ignorance of women's rights is extremely offensive.

Westerners cannot continue to allow Iran or any other Muslim countries to use hijab for oppression

A writer named Ben Cohen makes a case regarding the wrongness of Iran's forcing women to wear hijabs, although he unfortunately also puts in some very questionable claims along the way. The topic stems from the latest protests in Iran, following the murder of a woman who wasn't wearing a hijab:

The immediate trigger for these latest demonstrations was the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, 22. Amini was arrested in Tehran by the regime's so-called "Morality Police" – uniformed thugs whose job would correctly be understood as engaging in sexual harassment in a western context – for the crime of wearing her hijab, or headscarf, improperly.

Since the major wave of anti-regime protests in 2009, many Iranian women have consciously pushed the envelope on the Islamic Republic's austere, misogynistic dress code, adjusting their hijabs to show strands of hair or applying light makeup to their faces. Since Amini allegedly did something along these lines with her head covering, she was savagely beaten while in police custody, losing consciousness and dying of her injuries on Sept. 16, having spent three days in a coma.

The regime's official explanation is that Amini – by all accounts, a healthy young woman with no pre-existing respiratory or cardiac conditions – died of a heart attack after "suddenly" developing a problem. Few people are buying that, of course, least of all Amini's family. In a heartbreaking interview with the BBC's Persian language service, Amini's grieving father, Amjad, accused the regime of "telling lies," adding, "No matter how much I begged, they wouldn't let me see my daughter."

When Amjad Amini was finally allowed to see Mahsa's lifeless body, it had been covered entirely from neck to toe, although he noticed the bruising on her feet. "I have no idea what they did to her," he wept, with the unique agony of a bereaved parent.

Obviously, the poor woman's murder was concealed as much as possible by the vile mutawas. And then, we get to the part about what's wrong with how the west approaches all this:

So far, hundreds of protestors have been wounded and several killed during the demonstrations that erupted in the wake of Amini's death, but as in the past, the regime's methodical violence against its own citizens hasn't yet quelled their spirit. While the regime's President Ebrahim Raisi – known as the "Butcher of Tehran" for his service to the regime's terrifying post-revolutionary "Death Committees" – was attending the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, during which time he denied the Holocaust in an interview with "60 Minutes" and petulantly canceled an interview with CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour because of her refusal to wear a headscarf, back home protestors were chanting "Death to Raisi" and wishing the same fate on other regime figureheads, such as Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the ailing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his potential successor.

The willingness of the Iranian people to confront the regime has been on display time and again during the last 13 years. Sadly, Western publics, who should really be inspired by such scenes, have tended to look the other way, while our governments have been dutiful about expressing verbal solidarity without doing anything meaningful to help dislodge the ruling mullahs.

There are many reasons for this. On the Left, there is a strong sense of colonial guilt, emanating from the 1953 CIA-backed coup against the nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, that leaves Western liberals nervous about criticizing domestic repression, even when the victim is a young woman. On both Left and Right, in recent years there has been a greater acceptance of cultural relativism, with both "woke" and conservative rationalizations readily available, alongside a broader disillusionment with the idea that liberal democracy should be a universal system.

Oh yes, it's offensive when allegedly good people do nothing, which enables bad things to happen. But now, here's that part where he undermines his arguments more, when he says:

The hijab, in particular, has proved perplexing. In America and Europe, where Muslim communities often face racism and discrimination, the hijab has virtually become a civil rights symbol, because many Muslim women freely and proudly wear one despite countless cases of physical assaults upon those who do. But in the hands of the Iranian regime, the hijab is a symbol of repression, something imposed on all women regardless of whether they are Muslims or whether they come from the Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, Baha'i or other religious minorities.

I'm afraid this dampens the impact of the op-ed. It obscures how there's women in the west who've experienced violence by Muslims, supposedly for not wearing hijabs, though even if they did, it's a forgone conclusion they'd still face horrific assaults. And to act as though it's perfectly normal for a woman to wear a head covering like that, which obscures much of her identity, is offensive. This is exactly why I cannot accept the Christian concept of a Catholic nun wearing a wimple outfit: it denies her an identity, and makes her out to be a sexual being in every way that has to suppress her God-given physique. I also cannot accept the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox way of dress, as that too is more or less the same problem.

This also ignores that even in the west, there's Muslim families who force their daughters to wear such a reprehensible outfit, and Muslim women who've paid a price for not wearing it. Not to mention that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, there have been terrible incidents where Muslim women were raped and the victims punished, while their rapists got off with nary a slap on the wrist. That Cohen would obscure such issues does a terrible disfavor to women everywhere. And for that, seriously, I think he owes an apology for acting as though nothing's wrong with dressing in such a way, religiously or otherwise, or pretending that in the west, this isn't an issue.

If we accept the principle that it is for Muslim women themselves, and not the state authorities, to decide whether or not they cover their heads, then we cannot fail to be moved by the protests in Iran – and particularly the spectacle of women of all ages tearing off their hijabs and waving them defiantly at armed security forces.

The US government has expressed its support for the protests, although President Joe Biden's address to the UN General Assembly was disappointingly thin on Iran, saluting the "brave women" who had taken to the streets, but saying no more. Last Thursday, the US announced sanctions on the Morality Police, citing the killing of Amini, as well as sanctions targeting specific officials who "oversee organizations that routinely employ violence to suppress peaceful protesters and members of Iranian civil society, political dissidents, women's rights activists, and members of the Iranian Baha'i community," according to a Treasury Department statement.

Well, what can one expect from such a leftist-influenced "administration"? Biden's already proven useless when he and his "administration" allowed the Taliban to overtake Afghanistan again, in the most catastrophic ways possible. And the UN's no improvement. But if Cohen really wants to prove he's a realist, then he won't obscure how even in the west, hijabs can be a very bad influence along with Islamofascism itself, and again, he should apologize for acting as though Muslims in the west can't possibly be sexist/racist/antisemitic themselves, and also for obscuring the danger of jihadism in the west to boot. All that does is water down the seriousness of the issue, and then, we get nowhere as a result.

R.I.P. GARY E. LEE

From the obituary in the Washington Post:

Gary E. Lee, 67, a State Department officer in Tehran who in 1979 was taken hostage by Iranian militants and braved mock executions, beatings and near starvation during 444 days in captivity, died Oct. 10 at his home in Fulton, Tex. He had cancer.

Mr. Lee was one of 52 Americans held inside the U.S. Embassy until they were released Jan. 20, 1981. Another hostage, Richard Morefield, who was U.S. consul general at the time, died Oct. 11.

[...]

Mr. Lee was kept in isolation for weeks at a time. He later told how he "made friends" with a salamander that crawled around his room and how he teased ants with a pistachio, nudging the nut along the floor to keep it out of their reach.

When the guards fed him raw chicken, he dreamed of steaming pork chops. He lost 30 pounds.

To keep himself alert, Mr. Lee designed a patio in his head to add on to his home in Falls Church.

Mr. Lee was blindfolded and beaten and subjected to three separate mock executions. He recalled imagining that he "could feel the bullets in my back."

"I bought it," Mr. Lee later told Time magazine. "I thought I was a dead man."

Upon his return home, Mr. Lee received more than 300 letters - and several cases of beer. He responded to every piece of mail.

Mr. Lee continued to work for the State Department and did not rule out working abroad again. There was one exception.

"I won't go to Iran," he said. "But I'll go anywhere else."

[...]

Mr. Lee retired to Texas after federal service. He was often seen among friends at the 301 Bar and Grill, where he sat on a stool draped in the U.S. flag.

Reached by phone at the establishment one recent afternoon, his friend Patty Asack said that the flag had been removed from Mr. Lee's usual seat at the bar and that the stool had been ceremonially tipped forward to mark his absence.

On the bar in front of Mr. Lee's spot, bartenders placed one shot glass upside down and another filled to the rim with scotch.

PRO-ISRAEL NEWSPAPER IN IRAN HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN IN IRAN

I didn't think it was possible to find a pro-Israeli paper in Iran, but until now, there was one. Now, sadly, it's been shut down by Ahmedinejad's dictatorship:

(IsraelNN.com) The director-general of domestic media at Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance announced Wednesday that the Karjozaran newspaper was shut down for portraying the State of Israel positively.

And at the end of the article, there's something that's disturbing but unsurprising:

According to Jewish Agency spokesman Michael Jankelovitz, Iranian Jews live from day to day in mortal danger. As were the Jews in Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, they are forbidden to learn Hebrew or freely practice their faith. Jewish children are required to attend the state schools on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, and all Jewish day schools have been closed down.

And since Barack Obama is unlikely to take action against Iran when he becomes president, there's no telling how those left in Iran can be saved.

US-IRANIAN JOURNALIST TAKEN PRISONER IN IRAN

Parnaz Azima, a journalist of dual US-Iranian citizenship, has been taken prisoner in Iran by Ahmedinejad's dictatorship (H/T: One Jerusalem and Markedmanner):

PRAGUE, Czech Republic: The U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty said Saturday Iranian authorities have prevented one of its journalists from leaving the country.

Parnaz Azima, who is based in Prague where she works for Radio Farda — RFE/RL's Persian service operated jointly with the Voice of America radio broadcaster — arrived in the capital, Tehran, on Jan. 25 to visit a sick relative, the broadcaster said in an e-mailed statement.

On arrival, authorities seized her Iranian passport and so far have failed to return it to her, it said. It was not clear what the reason was. The statement said Azima was once asked to cooperate with Iran's intelligence services, which she refused.

Azima has dual Iranian and U.S. citizenship, the radio said.

I think Britain can be blamed for this, as the hostage situation a few weeks ago turned out to be a true disaster and embarassment. Now, it would seem as though Iran is testing what they succeeded in doing with Britain on other countries as well. The US must not follow in Britain's footsteps and cave in. Azima must be freed immediately.

IRANIAN CHUTZPA: BRITISH VIDEOS OF THE BRITISH SAILORS IS PROPAGANDA

Are you kidding?

The interviews given by the British sailors seized by Iran are "British government propaganda," according to Kazem Jalali, spokesman for Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee. The capture of the British soldiers, who were recently released, continues to stir up emotions in the Islamic republic. On Tuesday morning, the Iranian parliament held a special discussion on the issue. Jalali said that the committee was "willing to hold a press conference for the British soldiers in Iran, in order to convince the global public opinion." He added that "the troops' remarks testify to the fact that they are being pressured by Britain.

Seriously? The Iranians committed an act of war by crossing international waters and capturing the sailors of a sovereign nation. Then violated international human rights law by humiliating their captives and parading them in front of cameras. They did this for the most venal propaganda purposes imaginable - and they have the nerve to complain when the sailors, after being freed, tell their story.

Read an extended version of this post at Mere Rhetoric...

IRANIAN HOSTAGES ARE THE U.S. FAULT?

No one on the Left or in the MSM ever blames the terrorists, the despot Dictators or the mass murderers, all the problems in the world are somehow the U.S. fault. Case in point:

The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis

Reliapundit adds: Jeanne Kirkpatrick called them The Blame America First crowd, aka "The SF Democrats." She was right then, and even more right now. EXCERPT:

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

But then, they always blame America first.

DEMOCRATS: wrong then; wrong now. DEMOCRATS: they abandoned South Vietnam and South East Asia to Marxist tyranny then; they want to abandon Iraq and the Middle East to jihadist tyranny now. DEMOCRATS: wrong then; wrong now.

IRAN: THE BARBARY PIRATES OF THE 21ST CENTURY

WASH POST: Terrorists by Another Name: The Barbary Pirates

They considered us infidels -- and easy targets. They committed atrocious acts against civilians. They provoked war with America.

"They are odious for the constant violation of the laws of nations and humanity," as one writer put it. We saw them as bloodthirsty fanatics, sanctioned by Islamic despots, and we believed their behavior threatened the future of the modern world.

Thus the president found it necessary to launch America's first military campaign against state-sponsored terrorists. Except he didn't call them that, because 200 years ago, everyone called terrorists by another name: pirates.

For all the talk in Washington that the current battle against global terrorism represents an entirely new kind of war, against a different kind of enemy, historians say America's seen this before. Back when the nation was largely untested in the arena of foreign entanglement, we found ourselves in an extended, exasperating campaign against various Muslim states in North Africa, which harbored the notorious Barbary pirates. By most reckonings, that battle lasted 30 years.

"I've picked up a lot of parallels," says Capt. Glenn Voelz, a history instructor at West Point. "Maybe we are still fighting the same war. ... "

WIKI:

...in 1785, when the Dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks. His objections fell on the deaf ears of an inexperienced American government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say "no", although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn. A largely successful undeclared war with French privateers in the late 1790s showed that American naval power was now sufficient to protect the nation's interests on the seas.

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.^[1]

... On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

... The turning point in the war came with the Battle of Derna (April-May 1805), after a remarkably daring overland attack on the Tripolitan city of Derna by a combined force of United States Marines and Arab, Greek and Berber mercenaries under the command of ex-consul William Eaton, who went by the rank of general, and US Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon. This action, memorialized in the Marine Hymn — "to the shores of Tripoli" — gave the American forces a significant advantage.

THE SECOND BARBARY WAR:

After its victory in the First Barbary War (1801–1805), the attention of the United States had been diverted to its worsening relationship with France and the United Kingdom, culminating in the War of 1812. The Barbary pirate states took this opportunity to return to their practice of attacking American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and holding their crews and officers for ransom. Unable to devote military resources and political will to the situation, the United States quietly recommenced paying ransom for return of the prisoners.
...

At the conclusion of the War of 1812, however, America could once again turn its sights on North Africa. On March 3, 1815, the US Congress authorized deployment of naval power against Algiers, and a force of ten ships was dispatched under the command of Commodores Stephen Decatur, Jr. and William Bainbridge, both veterans of the First Barbary War. Decatur's squadron departed for the Mediterranean on May 20, 1815. Bainbridge's command was still assembling, and did not depart until July 1, thereby missing the military and diplomatic initiatives which Decatur swiftly and decisively handled.

Shortly after departing Gibraltar en route to Algiers, Decatur's squadron encountered the Algerian flagship Meshuda, and, after a sharp action, captured it. Not long afterward, the American squadron likewise captured the Algerian brig Estedio. By the final week of June, the squadron had reached Algiers and had initiated negotiations with the Dey. After persistent demands for recompensation mingled with threats of destruction, the Dey capitulated. Decatur agreed to return the captured Meshuda and Estedio while the Algerians returned all American (and a significant proportion of European) captives along with $10,000 in payment for seized shipping. The treaty guaranteed no further tributes and granted the United States full shipping rights.

Shortly after Decatur set off for Tunis to enforce a similar agreement, the Dey repudiated the treaty. The next year an Anglo-Dutch fleet, under the command of British admiral Viscount Exmouth, delivered a punishing nine-hour bombardment of Algiers. The attack immobilized many of the Dey's corsairs and coerced from him a second treaty which reaffirmed the conditions imposed by Decatur. In addition, the Dey agreed to end the practice of enslaving Christians. ... Algiers and Tunis became colonies of France in 1830 and 1881 respectively, while Tripoli returned to the control of the Ottoman Empire in 1835 and became a colony of Italy in 1911. Europeans remained in control of the government there until the mid-twentieth century.

WE NEED TO BE AT LEAST AS HARSH AND KINETIC NOW AS WE WERE THEN. THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO DEFEAT THIS ENEMY AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE PEACE - ON THE HIGH SEAS AND GLOBALLY.

PEACE TROUGH VICTORY.

Is War With Iran Coming Soon?

I know I've been saying it for a long time. And, I must sound like Chicken Little, but I really do think it is necessary, and it looks like it may be finally about to happen.

Three articles I've noticed in the past few days, the first from the unreliable DebkaFile:

US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave

The advice came from officers with US Central Command 5th Fleet HQ at Manama, who spoke of security tension, a hint at an approaching war with Iran. Arab sources report the positioning of a Patriot anti-missile battery in Bahrain this week; they say occupancy at emirate hotels has soared past 90% due mostly to the influx of US military personnel. They also report Western media crews normally employed in military coverage are arriving in packs.

Thursday, March 29, Gen. Khaled al-'Absi, Bahrain's chief of air defense operations disclosed that new alarm networks had been installed and air defense systems upgraded to handle chemical, biological and radioactive attacks.

The USS Nimitz and its support ships will be departing San Diego Monday, April 2, to join the John C. Stennis Strike Group in the Persian Gulf. The nuclear carrier is due to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower , but military sources in the Gulf believe all three US carriers will stay put if tensions continue to climb or if fighting breaks out involving American, British and Iranian forces. The mighty American armada is further supported by the USS Bataan and USS Boxer strike groups.

Earlier, DEBKAfile quoted intelligence sources in Moscow as predicting that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. Missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran's nuclear program several years back.

The second article comes from the BBC:

The capture of 15 British Royal Navy personnel by Iranian forces in the Gulf comes at a time when Tehran feels it is under unprecedented international pressure. The country is diplomatically isolated and feels under a constant and building US military threat.

Earlier this month the UN Security Council passed a resolution against Iran over its nuclear programme. Iranian diplomats worked very hard to convince some members of the council, such as South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar, to support Tehran's case.

But it failed, and the vote in favour of the resolution was unanimous, further convincing the Iranian leadership that they have few friends left at the UN and that diplomacy is not working in their favour.

Iran is now also militarily encircled by the US forces. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran - Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan. The US Navy has been conducting a series of exercises in the Gulf - the biggest war games in the area since the invasion of Iraq four years ago.

And then, finally, this news out of Israel:

Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Israel's Arrow anti-missile system is now capable of downing nearly everything in Iran's missile arsenal, including all of the Iranian missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

That according to Israeli opposition lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who is a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Steinitz told the AP that following its latest tests, the Arrow, which was jointly developed by Israel and the U.S., has proven itself able to deal with a very wide array of ballistic missiles ...

It looks to me like all the pieces are in place. The forces are amassing.

IRANIAN HOSTAGE SITUATION ESCALATES

The situation in Iran continues to get worse. Why? As Rush points out its because Iran knows that no one is going to have the guts to do anything. Here is an excerpt of his comments from yesterday's show:

The Iranians have guts. They just announced today, "Oh, guess what? We've changed our mind. We're not going to release the female prisoner that we've got, and what's anybody going to do about it?" They know nobody's going to do anything about it. They know the Brits aren't going to do anything about it, except officially condemn it via diplomatic channels. Yip yip, yahoo! You think that's going to excite or bother Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The Iranians have a history of not releasing hostages until a president in this country is elected that they fear. In the last case, it would be of course Ronaldus Magnus.

Read about Newt's solution that Rush talks about here.

I love all the liberals whining to high heaven about Geneva Conventions and how the U.S. should follow them but no one says a word when Hitler Jr. of Iran completely violates them.

I know I shouldn't be shocked but I can't believe the fact that liberals are defending Iran in all of this.

The latest from Tony Blair:

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Britain would not negotiate over British sailors and marines held hostage by Iran. In an interview with ITV News, Blair again called for the unconditional return of the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized by Iranian authorities last week.

This is what the UN is doing (pathetic):

Britain took its case to free its 15 sailors and marines held by Iran to the United Nations on Thursday, asking the Security Council to support a statement that would "deplore" Tehran's action and demand their immediate release.

But Security Council diplomats said the brief press statement circulated by Britain's U.N. Mission is likely to face problems from Russia and others because it says the Britons were "operating in Iraqi waters"—a point that Iran contests.

A press statement is the weakest action the Security Council can take, but the statement must be approved by all council members. Diplomats said Britain was also weighing a stronger presidential statement, which unlike a press statement, is read at a formal Security Council meeting and becomes part of its official record.

Previously:
Tony Blair Speaks Out Against Iran