Trump Administration Should Not Block The Iranian Foreign Minister From Speaking To The United Nations

The Trump administration is reportedly barring Iran’s top diplomat from entering the United States this week to address the United Nations Security Council. If true, that would be an entirely unjustified and unwise move. We host the United Nations and, as long as we intend to do so, we have an obligation to allow travel to the United Nations, particularly by the leading diplomat for a foreign country. We can restrict his movements in the United States, but this should have been approved immediately in line with our agreements.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif requested a visa a “few weeks ago” to enter the United States to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting. Zarif has a more pressing interest now in speaking to the United Nations after the Jan. 3 drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani.

We can always debate the long-standing question of our hosting of this body. I think it is a point of pride for our country. However, so long as we are the host, we cannot use that status to regulate who speaks to other countries. The United Nations was founded to allow dialogue and exchange, including between countries which might not otherwise speak directly.

139 thoughts on “Trump Administration Should Not Block The Iranian Foreign Minister From Speaking To The United Nations”

  1. No we should not block him. That is lawless and stupid. The USG does not abide by our Constitution or international law and it needs to be made to do so forthwith.

    Last night we all were about to be blown to heck because our citizens and our allies will not bring the USG to heel. The USG is killing innocent people (not to mention that we keep refusing them trials) in Gitmo. We are working with the UK to kill Assange. We just shot down a govt. official of one nation in another nation. We have fomented coups and removed legitimate leaders around the world. We have acted illegally in Iraq by refusing to withdraw our forces and killing a diplomat/soldier who carried a message of peace in the region. Our president has committed multiple war crimes and is threatening even more. Yet we will do nothing. Our allies will do nothing. This is shameful and it is this inaction and worse, even cheering on of lawless brutality that will end in getting many people killed and laying waste to this planet.

    This is not about Iran. This is about the USG. For this, we the people are responsible. I understand that powerful forces are arrayed against the people of the US but we must demand that our govt. stop being murderous, unjust and lawless. Otherwise, we are good Germans. Demand your govt. be a good govt. Do not accept, let alone cheer on evil. I say this to Obama and Clinton supporters as well as Trump supporters. We are Americans, we are citizens of the world and we are creatures of a living planet. If you will not peacefully protect these things which are life itself, we are all lost.

  2. New Twitter post from Rep. Iran Omar, Democrat from Minnesota and military advisor to the Iranian regime:

    ‘Trump needs to immediately divest from his businesses and comply with the emoluments clause. Iran could threaten Trump hotels *worldwide* and he could provoke war over the loss of revenue from skittish guests.

    His business interests should not be driving military decisions.’

  3. Trump should block everyone from the UN, and seize the entire property. A giant meeting place for global terrorist (including the US).

  4. And now a Ukrainian airliner has crashed near Tehran with supposed “mechanical” problems. Care to imagine how this will be played by the state run media?

  5. Looks like the Iranians are like their Dim counterparts here – lots of bluster and then only firing missiles into the desert. Won’t work. Trump will win at home and abroad. Put one right down both their pipes!

        1. Mespo previously predicted with similar certainty that Pelosi and the Democrats would not go through with impeachment. He is delusional enough to imagine his wishful thinking is a winning argument.

            1. Mespo is now apparently staking his credibility on the Democrats not pursuing Trumps removal in the Senate. Anyone in personal proximity to him should take that bet and even give him odds.

                1. Says the guy lacking even the confidence to engage in discussions of fact with those with opposing viewpoints.

                  Bravery is not provable on the internet, but fools are all too transparent.

                  1. “Says the guy lacking even the confidence to engage in discussions of fact with those with opposing viewpoints.
                    … but fools are all too transparent.”
                    Let me know when you get some facts not spoon-fed to you from some Leftwing lie machine. BTW you’re right; we all can see right through you.

              1. We’re still waiting for Pelosi to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Mespo727272 seems to be at least partially vindicated (we have an impeachment which the Speaker of the House won’t allow to result in a trial unless she’s given un-Constitutional power to usurp the Senate’s role in trying Trump).

          1. Anon, That is not delusional. That is clear thinking. He just didn’t recognize that the Dems hated America so much that they would drag American values into the sewer. I kept looking for Pelosi’s magical escape from this disaster but it only seemed to get worse.

            Mespo’s logic was A+. Logical thinking doesn’t guarantee what people acting stupidly will do. You don’t use logic rather you use hopeful guesswork and that leads to you being wrong almost all the time.

        2. Mespo, I think those “articles” are in the WaPo, the New York Times, MSNBC, and similar publications.
          Maybe that’s enough for Nancy, and she won’t bother sending them to the Senate.

          1. Mespo does his usual bit, trying to substitute insults and predictions he can’t back up for rational thought. Meanwhile, looks like Allan also thinks the Democrats won’t pursue Trumps removal in the Senate.

            Easy money.

            1. “Meanwhile, looks like Allan also thinks the Democrats won’t pursue Trumps removal in the Senate.”

              Anon, you are a fool but sometimes even fools deserve an answer. I don’t know how the Senate Republicans are going to act. The situtation is very fluid and dependent on too many things. My opinion is that what would be best is the shortest possible action by the Senate finding Trump innocent and ending something that should never have occurred permitting our government to do what it is supposed to do.

              Anon find’s it easy to provide fact and conclusions because he is wrong most of the time and feels all he has to do is change his alias. That is the way a fool acts.

    1. Not long after his book America’s Savage Wars of Peace in which he rhapsodized about America’s long history of fighting undeclared wars. Now, without retracting that book, which I read and found banal if well-researched, he’s against undeclared wars. He just never spoke up while Obama got us into hairpulls in Libya and Syria, and got us out of Iraq only to get us back there by (a) funding what would become ISIS and (b) letting them waltz from Syria into Iraq unopposed.

  6. “Iran Fires Missiles at Two U.S. Bases in Iraq: Live Updates”

    “The Asad and Erbil bases were targeted by Iran in retaliation for the killing of a top Revolutionary Guards commander in Baghdad.”

    “American military officials said that Iran had launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against United States military and coalition forces.”

  7. Events seem to have settled the matter. He might be vapor by sunup. I hope so.

  8. It is expected sadly that none of the self-righteous infidels, hypocritical, narcissitic left-wing bubble (Peter Shill that would be ewe) prigs as well as the “conservative” sanctimonious, “save our nation from aliens!” morbidly obese, bored sh!tless in their mancave internet addicts, would once, just a passing URL link, video or Christian, Jewish, Islamic, (VooDoo would do!) prayer that would reference the destruction, turmoil, panic and fear being experienced by Americans in a US Territory that was hit twice by 6.4 and 5.2 earthquakes this morning. Puerto Rico, particularly the south side of the island, is on red alert with dozens of aftershocks, buildings collapsed or structurally compromised and hence abandoned homes, without electricity and refugees….refugees without homes near Ponce, the 2nd largest city in Puerto Rico

    You Americans put the fugly in the exquisitely appointed Ugly American label

    You people suck.

    1. The leadership of Puerto Rico has made it abundantly clear that they are perfectly capable of handling the outcome of natural disasters. They weren’t happy with the aid offered for hurricane relief so there is really no point in getting in their way while the tend to things they must know how to accomplish best since no other help was up to their standards.

    2. Estovir, what are you babbling about?? I saw something about shirtless infidels, then there was an abrupt transition to earthquakes in Puerto Rico. Are you drinking, or what?

  9. I agree that, having formally agreed to host the deliberations of the United Nations, we should, as much as our national security permits, allow member nations access to that forum.

    Whether we ought to continue our membership in the United Nations is another question, and one we ought to debate formally in this country. The balance between damage and benefit to our national interests due to our membership in the United Nations is sometimes unclear.

    I don’t mind criticism of my country in the United Nations, but the United Nations Human Rights Council is a clear case of corrupt regulatory capture by some of the worst human rights offenders on Earth. A world government which appoints the Sudans and Syrias of the world while they commit outrages against their citizens at home is a corrupt government which does not deserve to make international law. The repressive measures approved by the UN toward free speech are a prime example of why the United States of America should reconsider its membership in the United Nations.

    But until we formally sever ties with the UN, we are morally bound to admit every member nation’s diplomats when they seek to represent their nations, and when the diplomats concerned haven’t abused their diplomatic status,

  10. Hopefully, the Trump who posted these tweets still holds the same views for himself.

  11. If you need an ab workout, see Matt Walsh’s recent article on Kaepernick chiming in on the killing of Soleimani:

    “Kaepernick, of course, pounces on every opportunity to highlight the systemic racism and bigotry in our culture. But now he has taken a look at the problem with a wider lens and discovered that America is plundering the world by killing a war criminal. His accusation of imperialism is especially appropriate here, given that Iran was an imperialist empire for 15 centuries — and through proxies, still pursues its imperialistic ambitions today. This is all the fault of the United States, for reasons that are simply too obvious to bother explaining. Indeed, even the Persian invasion of Greece in 492 can be tied back to America. Ours is a country so meddlesome that it manages to meddle even when it doesn’t yet exist.

    If any of these claims seem dubious to you, remember that Kaepernick is an authority on persecution and you are not. Kaepernick was, to use his phrase, “sanctioned and besieged” with an NFL career that paid him almost $40 million. When he left, he was further sanctioned with a multi-million dollar Nike contract, which was exacerbated by the added insult of a $60 million payout from the NFL and a million dollar book deal. Truly, his plight makes the life of a low-wage Nike factory worker in Vietnam look positively glamorous, by comparison.”

  12. The Trump administration is reportedly barring Iran’s top diplomat from entering the United States this week to address the United Nations Security Council.

    The draft dodging, carnival barker and twitterer in chief’s (ie Donald J Trump) administration is a complete disgrace on all accounts.

    His worthless Secretary of State – Mike Pompeo – said it worst:

    I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.

    We lied, we cheated, we stole is the guiding dictum of the draft dodging, carnival barker and twitterer in chief – Donald J Trump.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from usatoday(dot)com a report titled:

    Podiatrist’s daughters say bone spur diagnosis that helped Trump avoid Vietnam draft was ‘favor’

    WASHINGTON – Two daughters of a New York podiatrist say that 50 years ago their father diagnosed President Donald Trump with bone spurs in his heels as a favor to the doctor’s landlord, Fred Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

    Trump received five deferments from the draft for military service during the Vietnam War. He received four education deferments while he was a college student and a fifth deferment in 1968 for a medical exemption after he graduated.

    Donald J Trump is synonymous with being a cowardly lowbrow troglodyte and uncouth bum.

    1. As fear oozes from her pores…fear of losing abortion, generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, food stamps, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, free retirement stipend and healthcare from other people’s money, mortgage assistance, infinite benefits and entitlements, etc., etc., etc.

      Thou Shalt Not Covet, parasite.

    2. “His worthless Secretary of State – Mike Pompeo – said it worst: I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole.”

      Perosona… It’s good to know that some grown-ups still don’t recognize that there are nasty people in the world that wish to kill you and wish America to perish. Yes, our spy agency in order to protect America sometimes lies and thank goodness for that.

      You are a lucky person to live the innocent life of a child.

      1. “Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
        George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism”, 1945.

    3. JFK’s dad got him a ski boat in paradise until the incompetent “skipper” and general idiot got it cut in half by an enemy destroyer in the dark of night (Oh, and JFK’s transgressions against America were so egregious that the Deep Deep State changed his mind for him a la Abraham Lincoln – talk about “worthless” from an actual American perspective).

    4. Education deferments were usual.

      According to your own article link, She and her sister are both Democrats who oppose Trump, according to the newspaper.

      If they are to be believed, their father abused his medical authority and broke the law, giving a false diagnosis in order to avoid the draft. Then, he broke patient confidentiality and told his family about it. The goal – to get access to a landlord to get things fixed in his building. So…put his medical license on the line to get rapid handyman services.

      Is there proof? No. Is there political bias? Yes.

      Without proof, it’s gossip. It’s “family lore” like Elizabeth Warren is a Native American due to her high cheekbones and increased the diversity of her university and her employer.

      I have no idea if Trump had a bone spur diagnosis at the time, or not. Neither do you. But you seem keen to pass on vicious gossip.

      I have had bone spurs, and it was excruciating to walk. Absolutely no way could I run. If I was a guy under draft, a deferment would have been warranted.

      Geez. You guys just turn over every rock and bring out every piece of gossip you could find to go after Trump. Why not impeach him over bone spurs?

      What are you going to do? Is the doctor alive to verify the story? No. They say their father committed ethical misconduct, and breached patient confidentiality. Bill Clinton received education deferments. Then he got more deferments by enrolling in, but never joining, the ROTC. He wrote a letter thanking the ROTC for “saving him from the draft.” His uncle tried to get him in the Navy Reserves to avoid being deployed. He eventually joined the draft and got a safely high lottery number. ( This is all proven. There’s even the letter mentioning avoiding the draft. What we have with Trump is hearsay.

      Some of the rudest people I’ve ever read disparage Trump for rudeness.

      It’s funny. I vehemently opposed Trump when he ran for the nomination. I didn’t know anything about him, really. He’s done far better than I imagined he would. I’ve repeatedly found myself defending him from false accusations and gossip.

      I actually don’t blame anyone who had the opportunity to be excused from Vietnam for a legitimate medical reason. It was a meat grinder. Politicians fought that war and led to more people dying than should have. The average survival time was quite short for some of those actions. I’m safe, as I admire those who fight in our wars. Many of my relatives have served. It’s mostly 18-25 year olds who fought in Vietnam. Most of them knew friends who died. It’s a lot safer to criticize someone for taking a medical exemption or school exemption offered, from our point in time and place.

      1. Karen, the only people who take those women seriously are people whose reasoning abilities are limited to motivated reasoning. The whole thing is blatant yarn-pulling. There’s no point in discussing it with him.

  13. Trump Obliterates Return To Negotiations

    Efforts To Contain ISIS Could Suffer

    Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it’s still ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to negotiations. “His maximum pressure policy has failed,” Nasr said of Trump. “He has only produced a more dangerous Iran.”

    Meanwhile, ISIS benefits from the breach between Iraq and America. “ISIS suicide and vehicle bombings have nearly stopped entirely,” said Brett McGurk, who until 2018 was special presidential envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS. “Only a few years ago, there were 50 per month, killing scores of Iraqis. That’s because of what we have done and continue to do. These networks will regenerate rapidly if we are forced to leave, and they will again turn their attention on the West.”

    Edited from: “The Nightmare Stage Of Trump’s Rule Is Here”

    The New York Times, 1/6/19

  14. Abraham Lincoln irrationally conducted cruel, brutal and atrocious Total War against the entirety of the South to illogically, psychotically extract vengeance for its natural desire to be free.

    “In 1861, Jefferson Davis made it quite clear in his resignation from the Senate and again in his inaugural address that all the Confederate States wanted was to be allowed to leave in peace. He stated this point explicitly and after so doing he took no action that would have indicated otherwise to the Union or to its president. No troops were called up. No extraordinary military appropriations requested. No belligerent rhetoric from Davis’ office or from his Cabinet. The South feared invasion, but never threatened it—not even implicitly.

    Why, then, did Lincoln call for 75,000 troops “to defend the Union?” Why did he begin immediate preparations for war? Why did he insist on dispatching troops to Fort Sumter when a majority of his Cabinet advised against such a rash move and when he knew that South Carolina and the Confederacy believed the fortress to be legal­ly and Constitutionally theirs?

    While Lincoln’s dispatch of troops left South Carolinians no choice but to defend their soil against an invader, Lincoln had a number of options open to him other than military action. For exam­ple, he might first have brought the whole matter of secession before the Supreme Court, seeking some legal right to Fort Sumter and in­deed to the entire Confederacy. But then there is good reason to be­lieve the Court would have ruled that Southerners had every legal justification to leave the Union. Then war would have been illegal and Lincoln’s incipient dream of a “refounding” would have gone a’glimmering.

    A second choice would have been to refrain from ordering troops to relieve Fort Sumter and instead to have dispatched a diplomatic team to Montgomery, or better yet, gone himself for a “summit” with Davis. Given Lincoln’s prowess in debate, his love of discourse, his persistent appeals to “reason,” such a course of action would have seemed not only prudent but in keeping with the new president’s character—decidedly Lincolnian.

    Yet apparently such an idea never occurred to the man who had been so eager as a young man to engage in amateur forensics and still later to meet Stephen Douglas in public debate. Historians can give credible reasons why Lincoln did not take his case to the High Court, but their voices trail off in weak apology when they take up the question of diplomatic negotiations. It all boils down to the supposition that, for his own reasons, Abraham Lincoln felt the situation was beyond the hope of dialogue—though no one can say exactly why he believed such a proposition.

    Lincoln’s third choice—the most likely of all—was simply to do nothing, to wait until the South made some overt move and then to react accordingly. For the sake of more than 600,000 killed on the field of battle, one wishes that he had been just a little more circum­spect, a little less sure of his own ability to read the minds of his op­ponents. Wait a month and see. Then another month. Then another. Surely the South would not have marched against the Union. Few believe that Davis would take such a drastic step. And all those young men would have grown old and wise—perhaps so wise that they would have found a way to reconcile their differences and to re­-establish a Union they were born under. But, as I’ve already said, Lincoln did not approve of that Union. He wanted to found a new one. And the only way to accomplish such an end was to risk war.

    Perhaps it never occurred to him that 600,000 men would die. Perhaps he was certain that the conflict would be brief and benign, a skirmish or two on the outskirts of Washington, over in the twinkling of an eye, with a few Union dead, a few Confederate dead, and everyone embracing after the show. But if that is what he believed, such an opinion constituted an inordinate pride in his own pre­science, one that we can only forgive by a supreme act of charity (provided, of course, that our forgiveness is solicited).

    I will only add that despite his often quoted rhetoric of reconcilia­tion, he instituted a policy of total war—the first in our history—and saw to it that his troops burned homes, destroyed crops, and confis­cated property—all to make certain that civilians suffered the cruelest deprivations. He also refused to send needed medical supplies to the South, even when that refusal meant depriving Union soldiers of medicines needed to recover from their wounds. And finally, in the last year of the War, when Davis sent emissaries to negotiate a peace on Lincoln’s own terms, he ordered them out of Washington that the War might continue and the Republicans win re-election. As a result, 100,000 more troops were killed, North and South.

    Because of Lincoln’s policies the cemeteries of the nation were sown with 600,000 premature bodies, long turned to dust now, but in their time just as open to the promise of life as any young draft dodger of the 1960s. That they fought one another, willing to risk all for their countries, is something that Lincoln counted on. Indeed you might say he staked his political future on their sacred honor, and in so doing impressed his face forever on the American penny.”

    – The Imaginative Conservative

    1. “Tulsi Gabbard: “War with Iran would make Iraq/Afghanistan wars seem like a picnic.”

      Which is not an argument against prosecuting war with Iran if we must. The question is “must we?”.

      Buying Iran off in a corrupt manner, and against the will of Congress as Obama did only enabled them to multiply the mischief they perpetrated through the Quds Force.

      Deploring Iran’s sponsorship of violence and terror hasn’t stopped them from continuing to do it.

      Financial sanctions have only caused Iran to gamble on threats of violence, then on actual violence against us and our allies (while creating unrest and discontent in their country which is so far causing them to abuse dissenters among their own people).

      So, what do we do. Our forces were attacked by rocket and the walls of our Embassy to Iran were overrun by a militia controlled by Iran while the architect of their actions, General Soleimani, supervised those actions personally. That made him a leadership target personally present with hostile forces attacking US personnel.

      When Col. Thomas George.”Tex” Lamphier, Jr., USAAF, shot the aircraft carrying Admiral Yamamoto down, and he died of resulting injuries, it was not an assassination. It was the outcome of war. Iran has chosen to wage undeclared war on the United States. Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of my younger son’s death during an IED attack by persons probably sponsored by Iran.

      It’s not a question of wanting a war with Iran. They’ve chosen to be at war with us whether we chose to be at war with them for over 15 years. Our leaders have simply refused to admit it until now.

      1. ‘The question is “must we?”’

        That is the question.

        I’m very sorry about your son, loupgarous. The anniversary of a death is often particularly hard.

        1. And to answer the question: “Must we engage in war with Iran?”, we’ve tried not engaging in war with them. They attacked civilian shipping and our warships in the Persian Gulf. We’ve tried low intensity warfare, which went tragically wrong when an Iran Air passenger airliner violated the “bubble” of airspace around the US fleet, didn’t respond to interrogation by USS Vincennes, apparently didn’t have their radio transponder on and were shot down because they were a large, unidentified aircraft approaching our fleet. Low-intensity warfare can become high-intensity warfare fast (the Panay incident didn’t get us into war in 1937 because FDR determined we weren’t ready to fight that war and took actions to cover the attack on USS Panay up).

          Iran has been at low-intensity war with us for decades, off and on. We have had to have at least one carrier group in the Persian Gulf to defend our civilian shipping and miltiary bases there since the 1980s. That fact has to inform our decision whether to engage Iran by forcible retaliation against them, and at what level to retaliate.

          1. The Quds battalions are masters of low intensity conflict. See the book ‘tactics of the crescent moon.”

            and we just executed the general in charge of the Quds battalion

            hence, this to me seems like a pretty limited and yet skillful stroke. much as I too want to avoid general war with Iran, I see Sulemani as a completely legitimate target, which will be fully well understood by the adversary and the world in general, eventually

Comments are closed.