Tuesday, June 17, 2014

John Kerry Calling For Alliance With Iran? Does Sen.Graham Agree?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

John Kerry thinks the US should work with Iran to solve the crises in Iraq.

Was Senator Lindsay Graham, R-SC, advocating that same sentiment when he told CNN News, "We need to coordinate with the Iranians' over the Iraqi crises."

Christians and conservatives have grown accustomed to Republican leadership suggesting we compromise the social values such as marriage, abortion and other "distracting" issues. Or at least being silent about them so the Republican Party can "win."

We have also become accustomed to saying no. And refusing to compromise on biblical values.

We all understand there must be some compromise in the political process and foreign policy, but many Christians and conservatives are wondering about the wisdom of creating some form of alliance with Iran to help us control the situation in Iraq.

While this is likely an idea that our President would wholeheartedly embrace, I was not surprised to hear Senator Lindsay Graham tell CNN News last Sunday, "The lack of residual [US] force...this stubborn-headed delusional, detached president we have who thinks he knows better than every body else, who withdrew [American] troops and exposed this country to the inevitable, needs to change his policies quickly."

Agreed. Most of us get that.

However, I was surprised to hear him suggesting the "US should coordinate with Iran."

Should we be forming alliances with Iran?

Fox News is reporting that ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is well funded and on the way to developing a Shariah caliphate in Iraq and Syria. In fact, Fox says they looted $429 million from the central bank in Mosul recently. This in addition to seizing vaults of cash and gold bullion has made ISIS the richest terrorist organization in the world.

We are now learning that the terrorist group has seized US made tanks, Black Hawk helicopters, cargo planes and an unknown quantity of guns, all part of a $14 billion arsenal the US sold or gave to the rag tag Iraqi security forces.

President Obama, who was playing golf in Palm Springs yesterday, sent a letter to Congress explaining that he is sending about 275 military personnel to protect the US Embassy in Baghdad.

This is a disaster.

But is the answer to create an alliance with Iran?

Christians are being killed because they are Christians. Christian women are being are forced to wear Islamic garb, Christian churches are being burned and plundered while the terrorist group ISIS are on a rampage across the Nineveh area headed for Baghdad.

The goal? To create an Islamic State--a caliphate.

Money is also flowing to the ISIS through the central bank in Kuwait.

There is no doubt this is a crises. But do we have to align ourselves with Iran in order to solve the problems?

Secretary of State John Kerry agrees with Graham's suggestion. He said yesterday, "We are open to discussions if Tehran will help us end the violence and restore confidence in the Iraqi government."

In fact, Kerry said he would not rule out "anything that will help."

Graham is right. This is delusional.

Can we think that Iran, who shares many of the same goals of the terrorists, will suddenly come along side us in getting the terrorists under control?

After they agree to "help" us--wink, wink, one wonders how much money they will extort from the US taxpayers under the guise of bailing out our president and his policies.

This is a formal invitation to Iran to take over Iraq, which has been their goal for years.

Most of us average Americans understand that Iran is not looking for ways to assist the United States and the badge on their shoulder is not an award for telling the truth or good behavior.

While it is said common enemies create strange bedfellows, it is also said that compromise is subtle and deceptive.

I'm sure there are lofty reasons why America should be in bed with Iran to create community and peace in the Middle East, but the path of history is littered with the causalities of compromise.

Here is one profile of compromise and how it worked out 2500 years ago. A man named Ezra most likely wrote the report found in II Chronicles.

I'll be talking about this profile of compromise on the radio this morning. Join me live at 9 AM PDT or 7:30 PM PDT from anywhere in the world. Here's how.

A Biblical Profile of Moral Compromise

The damage of moral compromise is often not immediately apparent in one's personal life, in the church or in the culture.

The story of Jehoshaphat is one of a good man, who did much good, but made some terrible choices in his foreign policy. Choices that negatively impacted his country, his family and himself.

1. All of us are vulnerable to compromise.

We can do many things right, but compromise, even with right motives, can trip us up---with disastrous results.

2. Compromise is always subtle.

The subtlety is often linked to a good cause or solution to a pressing problem. Or to better relationships.

3. Compromise creates wrong relationships.

Subtlety draws us in, wrong relationships lock us in.

4. Compromise always has consequences.

Consequences are most often not immediate. Sometimes, especially in cultural compromise, the consequences can come over years and even generations.

Conversely, the consequences of non compromise also often come over time.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Strong. Be Patient. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


  1. I have always suspected the Valerie Jarrett - Iran connection...

  2. And here we are, because....what or why? Did we ever hear weekly on the news how America has been helping Iraq form the basic structure of it's new constitution, which will be of the people of Iraq, and for the people of Iraq, with the help and support of the people of Iraq, because it is working to form just laws which are free from oppression by any particular group, and will be able to protect itself from outside assault against their new found freedoms?

    Or if after a lot of patience, and diplomacy, the powers in place were simply not willing to go that route, did we hear our government speak up against such powers and talk to the people of Iraq, telling them of the benefits to all of them if they will go along with a new form of government by the people of Iraq, and that among them there are some honest, willing people, able to work through problems, with a vision for a better Iraq...etc?

    We certainly had plenty of time to do this, and we could have even offered to help them restore the oil industry there and make deals which would be good for both parties, the U.S. and Iraq, to help fund the new government and build up new infrastructure for the new deal, and if they would not be willing to go that route, we could have told the world and kept pleading, making the case for a better deal for the people of Iraq.

    We could have been hearing about such a thing weekly for years, many years, for things like this don't often change for the better in a day.

    America could have been there and we could have stayed the course, if we would have been different.

    I say it's not too late for change.

  3. It seems to me that if one is determined to overthrow a power, it should first be the will of the Lord to do so, and secondly, that something much better should be put in it's place, something much better, and just as strong, if not stronger.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.