Franks: Iran May Give Nukes to ISIS

Rep. Trent Franks, one of the most ridiculous people in Congress, went on Fox News and hit the wingnut trifecta: Obama’s letting terrorists cross the border, won’t do anything about ISIS and Iran is going to give nuclear weapons to ISIS to attack the United States.

“This president has ignored the intent of enemies like ISIS to exploit our porous border and if they ever gained the capacity to hurt us, with Iran on the cusp of potentially gaining a nuclear weapons capability, we could see a situation where terrorists could gain access to nuclear weapons and the shadow of nuclear terrorism could fall across this world and if that happens this president will be remembered in history as the one who stood by with a golf club in his hand and let it happen,” he said.

And now, a word from reality: ISIS is Sunni; Iran is Shiite. ISIS is, in fact, a real threat to Iran and Iran knows it. Iran supports Assad against ISIS. These are “facts,” but I doubt Franks will recognize them. He never has before. The only thing they have to sell is fear itself.

httpv://youtu.be/D3qNOLmRpyI

"It's best to keep it vague.This has always worked for God and Trump, but I ..."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
"Technically, neither does hers, but it doesn't seem to have slowed her down."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
"I was trying to remember whether she was on marriage #4 or #5. I think ..."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
"You're very wrong!You guys conveniently forget that in Jesus' lifetime, Jews and Christians were the ..."

Yes, the Bible Does Say to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    I may give ISIS a nuclear warhead mtself. I have just as many as Iran does.

  • John Pieret

    This president has ignored the intent of enemies like ISIS to exploit our porous border

    Those kids crossing the border have all the hallmarks of ISIS terrorists! … They’re BROWN!

    ISIS is, in fact, a real threat to Iran and Iran knows it. Iran supports Assad against ISIS.

    But ISIS will just wait until Iran develops a bomb and then invade Iran and take it away from them and then give it to their sleeper cells in Honduras to be carried across the border by a teenager in his school backpack.

    Imagination is usually a good thing … until you substitute it for reality.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Sunni? Shiite? For Franks they’re all brown non-Christians. Can’t tell them furriner’s apart, can you? They’re all heathens out to destroy Our American Way Of Life™ and our precious bodily fluids. They’re all the enemy so they must be working together.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Does anyone on Fox care about Facts? It seems like you can just say whatever you want, so long as it bashes Obama, without caring whether you have any evidence to back it up.

  • colnago80

    This ignorant moron also fails to point out that the Iranian Government threw former Iraqi Primier Maliki, who is the one most responsible for the success of the ISIL in Iraq, under the bus and is supporting the Kurds in Northern Iraq, in addition to the Iraqi Government. Furthermore, the Syrian Government, which is heavily supported by Iran and their wholly owned subsidiarity in Lebanon, Hizbollah, is currently engaged in a life and death struggle with the ISIL and its compatriots in Syria. The ISIL recently captured a Syrian air base in Eastern Syria and the Quneitra border crossing between Syria and the Israeli occupied Golan Heights.

    Iran and the Shiites in the Arab World are the mortal enemies of the extremist Sunnis who populate the ISIL forces. In fact, it appears that the ISIL has replaced Israel as the Ayatollah’s favorite bete noir.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    What a ridiculous stories. An Iran-ISIS alliance? Come on! They’re both just pawns of The Gays!

  • Phillip IV

    These are “facts,” but I doubt Franks will recognize them.

    Of course not, that kinda comes with the territory – he sees everything in terms of “Us vs. Them” and he automatically assumes that everyone else, including “them”, employs the same simplistic style of thinking.

  • karmacat

    Even if Iran and ISIS were on the same side it would be incredibly stupid to give ISIS nuclear weapons. Because as soon as ISIS gets rid of everyone else they are going to turn the weapons on Iran.

  • felidae

    I’m sure in Frank’s fevered mind, he could imagine ISIS terrorists dragging a nuclear bomb across the Southwestern desert by aided by Mexican drug smugglers with cantaloupe calves to plant in in Times Square

  • sugarfrosted

    A temporary coalition to defeat ISIL seems way more plausible. Even if they were both Sunni I highly doubt Iran would side with them. You know, power structures not wanting to cede power and all that.

  • dingojack

    SLC – I was going to quote specific parts of your #5, but meh, why bother, the request* is the same —

    Citations (from creditable sources) is required.

    Dingo

    ———

    * and, sadly, the likely response

  • Alverant

    Conservatives in the USA don’t care about the difference between Sunni and Shitte, they just see terrorists.

  • dingojack

    Alverant – nah — ‘They see brown people’.

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #11

    Which particular claims that I made are you questioning.

    1. Iran threw Maliki under the bus? It was reported on numerous news sites that the Iranian Government withdrew support from him. He walked the plank the next day.

    2. Maliki was most responsible for the success of the ISIL in Iraq? Reported on numerous news sites that his failure to integrate the Sunni Muslims into his government alienated them and caused them to be susceptible to the ISIL.

    3. The Assad Government is in a life and death struggle with the ISIL? The capture of the Syrian air base and the loss of the Quneitra border crossing with the Israel occupied Golan Heights? Both widely reported in numerous news sites.

    4. Shiite Muslims and extremist Sunni Muslims are mortal enemies. What the fuck do you think is going on in Iraq?

    5. The ISIL has replaced Israel as the ayatollah’s favorite bete noir? Maybe a bit of an exaggeration. Depending on the day and events on the ground in Iraq, they may be more or less equal.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border (it’s always south, not north) so they can then infiltrate the US, and why they would bother doing so? Last I checked, their goal is to carve out an Islamic state in the Mid-East.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Area Man “Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border (it’s always south, not north)…”

    First, they get Ebola. Then ObamapPlane (like ObamapPhone, but with free planes) will fly them right over, for the free Obamacare.

     

    “…so they can then infiltrate the US, and why they would bother doing so?”

    Because they hate our Freedom [to make up crazy stories].

     

    “Last I checked, their goal is to carve out an Islamic state in the Mid-East.”

    And after they take over the Mid-East, they’re going after the Mid-West. That’s right: Ohio is next!

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Area Man,

    Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border (it’s always south, not north) so they can then infiltrate the US

    I have no opinion on whether they are likely to infiltrate our southern border. However, this is no argument. While not an expert by any means, I suspect that terrorists do not usually fund their own travel. It is clear that ISIS does have some significant financial backers, based on what they have acquired and carried out to date. Do you really think “they couldn’t afford the bus fare” is a reasonable point?

    and why they would bother doing so?

    As to why they would bother doing so–again I have no expertise, but the potential goal of creating terror within the US, seems, at the very least, plausible.

  • eric

    Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border (it’s always south, not north) so they can then infiltrate the US

    Camels on cigarette boats, just because I like the imagery.

    And it’s not north because of mounties and beavers and bears, oh my!

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Do you really think “they couldn’t afford the bus fare” is a reasonable point?

    Last I checked, you can’t take a bus from Iraq to Mexico. Also, you need more than just getting there, you need some means of getting weapons, some way to navigate a country whose language and culture you don’t understand, some detailed plan for getting over the border and executing an operation, etc., all without raising the suspicions of Mexican or American authorities. In sort, we’re talking about a massive, high risk, and very expensive operation.

    …but the potential goal of creating terror within the US, seems, at the very least, plausible.

    You’re starting to sound like Franks, beveling that these people are irrational, crazed animals who lack any motive other than murder. What ISIS actually wants is to control their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria, etc., and their hands are full fighting the moderates and Shiites in their own lands. “Creating terror” in a country on the other side of the world would be a huge distraction. It would represent a major diversion of resources for little chance of success and virtually nothing gained.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Why would ISIS need to sneak terrorists across the Mexican border when they have recruits who are US citizens with American passports and can re-enter the country directly?

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Last I checked, you can’t take a bus from Iraq to Mexico.

    Duh.

    In sort, we’re talking about a massive, high risk, and very expensive operation.

    Sorry, I don’t see why I should trust your analysis that this is beyond their ability to finance. You know, just because you say so.

    You’re starting to sound like Franks, beveling that these people are irrational, crazed animals who lack any motive other than murder

    Bullshit. I didn’t say anything about their motives let alone that it was “only murder.” I said nothing even remotely along the lines of calling them “irrational, crazed animals”. Don’t put words into my mouth–that’s a scumbag tactic. I said that it is plausible that their motives might include acts of terrorism against US targets.

    It would represent a major diversion of resources for little chance of success and virtually nothing gained.

    Do you have some special insight as to what their slot analysis tells them? I have no reason to believe that you do, or that you have any expertise in this area. How do you know, with any certainty, that they would consider a successful act of terrorism in the US as “virtually nothing gained”?

    You need to learn how to construct a rational argument.

  • matty1

    They could enter the US over the Canadian border, which I believe is less heavily guarded. Or as D. C. Wilson points out they could use recruits who can simply stroll through immigration at any airport.

    Incidentally it seems all of the 9/11 hijackers entered on visas that were perfectly legal and issued in the normal way. Some of those visas had expired by the time of the attack so technically immigration enforcement could have stopped them but not of the ‘seal the Mexican border’ type.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    d. c. wilson,

    Why would ISIS need to sneak terrorists across the Mexican border when they have recruits who are US citizens with American passports and can re-enter the country directly?

    I have no answer to that other than, again, to suggest that dismissing the idea out-of-hand is not as obvious as you suggest. I can speculate as easily as you. It could be that they would be concerned that their recruits who are US citizens, while having the ability to return to the country, would immediately be tracked. It could be that they believe they have a better chance of getting whatever operational materials (and people) they need into the country across the border and under the radar.

    I don’t know any this speculation to be true–I just know that I don’t take these cavalier dismissals of the threat as being substantive.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Sorry, I don’t see why I should trust your analysis that this is beyond their ability to finance. You know, just because you say so.

    “Analysis”? I offered no detailed analysis. I merely pointed out that it makes no sense prima facie. Since understanding context is obviously not your strong suit, let me remind you that this was in response to a guy (a Congressman no less) who claimed, without any evidence or analysis of his own, that ISIS was poised to invade us from the south using nukes that don’t exist. Detailed analysis is not necessary to counter that; it’s enough to point out that his premises are unwarranted.

    Now, if you have any argument whatsoever as to why it does make sense that they’d invade us from the south, or that anything I said is in some way wrong (“I don’t believe you” is not a valid counter, and it’s childish), then please share. Until then, you’re a waste of time.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    Area Man,

    Detailed analysis is not necessary to counter that; it’s enough to point out that his premises are unwarranted.

    Sorry, but stated as you did “Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border” does not counter his argument. There may be many ways to counter Franks’s argument–but that ain’t one of them, unless you can actually demonstrate that they lack the finances–which seems unlikely (that you can demonstrate it.). Nor is “and why they would bother doing so” meaningful.

    I seriously doubt (just guessing here) that the Obama administration is dismissing the possibility because their analysts have assured them, “come on, how would these poor villagers make it to Mexico?” If they have concluded that Franks is wrong, I hope it was on the basis of more substantive analysis.

  • eric

    South or north, neither makes sense in the nuke context. Once you get it on a legitimate cargo ship, you just detonate it next to Manhattan or Baltimore or Long Beach or whatever, before it even goes through inspection.

    Area Man is right in saying this is just an incredibly silly scenario that Franks is conjuring (out of rectal extraction). So, let’s think about this. You’re going to greatly increase the risk to your operation by trusting a mexican cartel with something incredibly valuable, and by going through a route involving multiple possible checkpoints, and an area where CPB is actively looking for smuggling operations in order to get your bomb into El Paso. And you’re turning down the plan that lets you hit NYC without having to trust anyone and without having to pass through any regulated border at all.

  • colnago80

    Re matty1 @ #22

    This scenario is of great concern to the authorities, particularly in Europe. Intelligence agencies in Britain, France, and Germany for starters have already identified a significant number of individuals who were resident in those countries and have joined various anti-Assad militias in Syria. There have been a number of arrests of Arab Israelis who have been caught returning to Israel after fighting on the side of those militias. And if the Chihuahua wants sources, there have been a number of stories on the latter activity in the Israeli press. Try the Jpost, Ynet, Haaretz, and Times of Israel web sites for articles. This is not a trivial concern on the part of Western Intelligence agencies and is far more likely then ISIL fighters trying to enter across the Mexican border.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    There may be many ways to counter Franks’s argument–but that ain’t one of them, unless you can actually demonstrate that they lack the finances–which seems unlikely (that you can demonstrate it.).

    No, heddle, it’s enough to demonstrate that it would be very costly, which I hope even you aren’t inane enough to dispute. Absolute inability to pay for transport is not necessary. The fact that the only plausible method of getting to Mexico costs lots of money and maximizes the chances of getting caught makes that scenario quite unlikely, especially when so many closer targets and better methods exist. Really, how hard is this?

    Nor is “and why they would bother doing so” meaningful.

    Of course it’s meaningful. The extent to which a particular action furthers their goals is directly related to whether they’re willing to pay the price for that action. I’m sure they’d be happy to indiscriminately kill Americans. But it has nothing to do with getting them an Islamist state and putting down the moderates and the Shia.

    I seriously doubt (just guessing here) that the Obama administration is dismissing the possibility because their analysts have assured them, “come on, how would these poor villagers make it to Mexico?” If they have concluded that Franks is wrong, I hope it was on the basis of more substantive analysis.

    Gosh, me too. But the administration’s job is to test every possibility no matter how unlikely. The rest of us should not take seriously a scenario that is ridiculous on its face. Franks is whipping up irrational fear and paranoia, for among other things to attack Mexican migrants. That is both irresponsible and immoral.

  • Synfandel

    @15 Area Man wrote, “Does anyone wonder how the poor villagers who make up ISIS are going to magically transport themselves south of our border (it’s always south, not north)…”

    Sometimes it’s north, at least in the minds of the ill-informed:

    Securing the “Ontario-Vermont Border”: Myths and Realities in Post-9/11 Canadian-American Security Relations

  • Michael Heath

    Heads-up that the White House is supposed to issue its strategy regarding ISIS tomorrow. One of the more interesting premises President Obama will need to present is his Administration’s perception of the direct threat ISIS presents.

    In Mr. Obama’s interview with Todd Gregory Sunday, I recall that the president asserted ISIS poses currently poses no threat; though we shouldn’t presume that’s an immutable capability.

    I’d argue we pay them to not presume such. We should be concerned; but concerned doesn’t equal neo-con policy either, nor a dovish denial ‘not a threat’ means ‘never a threat’. I remain grateful we have a pragmatic methodical president.

  • colnago80

    Re Michael Heath @ #30

    Absolutely agree with you here. I just hope that the president can avoid the temptation to intervene in Syria, which he is under great pressure to do. The situations in Iraq and Syria are totally different. In Iraq, we thus far have limited ourselves to providing close air support to the Peshmerga and the Iraqi units fighting the ISIL forces, in addition to supplying arms to the former. In this, there seems to be common cause as Britain, France, and Germany have promised arms to the Kurds. We seem to have recognize that there is nothing to be gained by strategic bombing as the ISIL presents a paucity of targets for that strategy.

    In Syria, the only ground forces opposing the ISIL in Eastern Syria is the regular Syrian Army, supplemented by Hizbollah units. Do we really want to get into bed with Bashar Assad by providing his forces with close air support? Nothing will be achieved by strategic bombing in Syria, other then to alienate the population of that country, as in Iraq, there is a paucity of targets.

  • dingojack

    SLC – two things:

    1) You know how this works. YOU made the big claim, YOU provide the BIG evidence that supports that BIG claim.

    2) Times of Israel? Didn’t I say creditable sources? Why yes, yes I did.

    Dingo

  • Akira MacKenzie

    Area Man @ 19

    “Creating terror” in a country on the other side of the world would be a huge distraction. It would represent a major diversion of resources for little chance of success and virtually nothing gained.

    Wait, are you talking about ISIL, or the United States?

  • Nick Gotts

    According to the BBC, Obama intends to ask Congress to endorse arming Syrian opposition groups. I can only suppose that this idea is a result of the absurdist syllogism:

    1. Something must be done.

    2. This is something.

    3. Therefore, this must be done.

    The opposition to Assad is a mish-mash of squabbling factions, within which personnel and weapons routinely move between factions as their prospects look better or worse, as local alliances form and disintegrate, and inter-rebel battles occur. Any weapons sent to supposedly pro-western groups are likely to end up with IS or other extreme Islamists – just as many of those supplied to the Iraqi government did.

    IS, BTW, is rich. They would have no trouble funding travel to Mexico or direct to the USA if they wanted to send people to the latter. I doubt that they do, but it would be foolish to take this for granted.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #34

    The problem is that the neocons have forgotten what happened in Afghanistan after the former Soviet withdrew. The US supplied arms to what became the Taliban and what became Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden. In Syria, it is impossible to tell the bad guys from the not so bad guys (there ain’t any good guys). The neocons are like the French Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

  • colnago80

    Re Chihuahua @ #32

    I don’t have to do a fuckken thing. And by the way, the Times of Israel is probably at least as reliable as most of the lamestream media. It is certainly more reliable then any of the papers that Murdock publishes, low bar though that may be. The fact that it is an Internet newspaper in no way, shape, form, or regard detracts from its credibility. Thus far, you haven’t refuted or disputed a single item that I raised. Try refuting one of them instead of pompously calling for references.

  • colnago80

    Re Chihuahua @ #32

    Here’s a link to a news site that reports pending arms shipments to the Kurds in Iraq by Britain, France, Germany, and Italy.

    http://biznewsindex.com/news/u-k-to-arm-kurds-fighting-islamic-state

  • colnago80

    Re Chihuahua @ #32

    Here’s a news item about the capture of the Quneitra border crossing by Islamic extremists from the Syrian Army.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/al-qaeda-fighters-captured-quneitra-2014-8

  • colnago80

    Re Ckhihuahua @ #32

    Here’s a news item about the capture of a Syrian air base in Eastern Syria by ISIL forces.

    http://goo.gl/Z7gKtp

  • eric

    Michael Heath:

    One of the more interesting premises President Obama will need to present is his Administration’s perception of the direct threat ISIS presents.

    Like you, I would like to see a reasonable discussion of future potenitial threats…but I’m not sure even a future threat is needed to justify some action here. We have allies in the area, those allies are under attack, it’s perfectly within the norms of international relations to lend them military support. I’m not saying we must help, only that if we want to militarily support Iraq and Turkey against ISIS, we do not need to find some potential future threat to the US mainland to have a legitimate reason for doing so. The fact that they are our allies is reason enough.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Franks: Iran May Give Nukes to ISIS

    Iran = Shia,

    ISIL /ISIS /Islamic State = Sunni.

    Extremist Sunni who hate Shia and going around chopping their heads off and killing them with the same total lack of mercy the Yazidis, Christians etc .. all get and destroying their shrines and so on.

    So,

    Yeah.

    Not. Fucken. Likely.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @ Colnago80 : Thanks for the informative links. Appreciated.

    @32. dingojack : “Times of Israel? Didn’t I say creditable sources? Why yes, yes I did.”

    What makes you think that the Times of Israel is other than credible? Israeli newspapers and media are somehow worse than non-Israeli sources to you because … ???

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @29. Synfandel :

    Sometimes it’s north, at least in the minds of the ill-informed:

    I’d make that some places actually. From the South Pole specifically all directions must be north. (NE or NW and cannot be south by definition. Could be up and towards the galactic south or down towards the earth’s core mind you but those are different directions again!)

  • Synfandel

    Thank you, StevoR, for that tediously pedantic and mind-numbingly obvious observation, though I seem to recall that Area Man was referring to “south of our border”, we presumably being the United States, home of this blog.