Why the Security Problem of Iran Won’t Be Going Away Anytime Soon.
Issue 3 of The Sanford Report
Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at odds. We’ll go into that whole mess at another time, but it’s important to note that there is plenty of blame to go around. The chemical weapons used on Iran in the Iran-Iraq war were procured by Iraq with the help of the United States and several European countries. The United States does currently, and has in the past, sponsored terrorist organizations which target Iran, such as MEK. Iran’s politicians do sometimes label the United States “The Great Satan.” Iran does sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which carry out attacks against Israel. But…Israel also carries out assassinations and terrorist attacks in Iran. Let’s be clear, no one involved has clean hands, no one.
Contrary to what many in the west seem to believe, Iran is not Mordor with rockets. [1] It is one of the more politically free nations in the Middle East. I know, that is not a high bar when you have countries like Saudi Arabia thrown in the mix… Iran was and has been an opponent of the Taliban since before the United States knew about it. In 1998 the Taliban murdered eight Iranian diplomats and Iran almost invaded Afghanistan because of it. In the early stages of the [U.S.] war in Afghanistan Iran was assisting the United States. Then, for some reason, in the January 2002 state of the union address, President Bush labeled Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil.” The United States and Iran having friendly relations did not, at that point, suit the security interests of Israel, so they torpedo any attempt at better relations, sometimes just for sport I’m sure. All help from Iran came to a screeching halt. Whatever reason that line was inserted into the state of the union, it killed any hope of detente with Iran. And that line, it has cost American lives.
Above: The land of Darkness, Mordor, from Peter Jackson’s movie adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Note, the above image isn’t what Iran looks like…
How might the war in Afghanistan have gone with Iran assisting instead of opposing the coalition? Without Iran helping, the United States has had to lean on the support of Pakistan, a country which is more of a terrorist state with nuclear weapons than many like to admit. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, is practically the command wing of Al Qaeda. One Indian security expert said that if you find a terrorist anywhere in the world, he’ll have a Pakistani stamp in his passport. I’m sure not all terrorists do… the point isn’t far off. When the United States found Usama Bin Laden, where was he? He was living in a comfortable compound less than five miles down the road from the Pakistani Military Academy, and in a neighborhood popular with retired generals.
Regardless of what we might think of Iran today, they are not Pakistan, and that’s a good thing. Iran is not Saudi Arabia, and that too is a very good thing. But Iran, like all nations, isn’t perfect. While they might not murder journalists in their embassy…they do hang them, shoot them, and such. Despite that, the foundation upon which western civilization was built, was partly laid down by Persia. Just as you know the name of Iran from the news, a person 2000 years ago and living in Rome or Greece, would know the name of Persia. Persia isn’t going away any time soon. The nation has been around for almost ten times as long as the United States, old means something different there.
The United States is the superpower of today. We have the military, the money, the friends[?], the bases, and the technology. Despite that, I suspect that Persia will still be around long after the United States is nothing more than a memory on the world stage. Remember, Iran was a superpower too, it was just a long time ago. One of the many reasons Iranians give for the overthrow of the Shah, was his lack of understanding of the common people. Specifically mentioned often enough for it to be important; he spent millions on a party, flying entire kitchen staff and all the equipment from the best restaurants in Pairs to Iran for the party. [2] What party would be worth that you might be asking? Easy, it was a celebration of the 2500th anniversary of the Persian Empire… Yeah, 2500 years. Iran had history before England was on the maps, let alone America.
While the United States is a superpower in many parts of the world, we’re still considered the upstart kid. Given that Persia was a country before Rome was a superpower, they are probably right. But, like all children, we have idealistic notions of how the world should work. We don’t yet have the wisdom that comes with age to accept that we might not always be right. As the newcomer, we don’t see the complex relationships of the region that have existed for centuries. Russia comes up a lot as well in the news. Iran is reported to be seeking to buy Su-30MK2 fighters from Russia. Russia denies this, Iran say’s “we’re talking.” But Iran (Persia), and Russia have a very long, and very complex relationship.
Above: Su-30MKI Fighter of the Indian Air Force. Image credit Sputnik.
Pretend you are sixteen and smitten with some girl, boy, whatever… You think you know what love is because they make your heart flutter. You think you understand the world. Yet Russia and Iran in this example are a couple who’ve been married for more than 60 years. They were an old couple before you were born. Literally, Persia and Russia were fighting wars, and exchanging diplomats before our founding fathers were born. To say that their relationship is complex would be an understatement.
Then there are the nations of the middle east which also factor into the equation. Just across the Persian Gulf from Iran is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in addition to sponsoring terrorists to attack the United States, and bombing children in Yemen, is a Sunni majority. The Saudi’s consider Shia Iran a nation of apostates and heretics. Iranian religious authorities feel roughly the same about the Saudis. If you don’t know much about religion, there is one thing found in almost all religious extremes, a heretic or apostate is much worse than a pagan, infidel, or whatever. Someone who has never had a chance to believe is forgivable for their heathen ways. People who have been shown the light, and turn away, are unsavable. To both Saudi Arabia and Iran, Israel is a Jewish state, and Jews are people of the book. Jews are children of Abraham. Apostates are to be put to death.
There is a pragmatism to relations in the Middle East that is lacking with western European heritage nations like the United States, and to a lesser extant Great Britain. The British do share a healthy dose of pragmatism, much more than the United States, but no where near the levels of Iran or Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan or other nations in the region. That pragmatism is why Israel has a “no comment” policy about nuclear weapons. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. They have miniature thermonuclear weapons affixed to cruise missiles capable of being launched from submarines. They have gravity bombs similar to the B-61 variable yield bombs of the United States. They have warheads for their ballistic missiles, and can reach targets all over West Asia, Europe and Africa.
Israel is not a party to and has not signed or ratified the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Iran is a party to the treaty and has both signed and ratified it. So long as Israel does not publicly admit to having atomic weapons, everyone pretends to ignore their nuclear program. The United States pretends to ignore Israeli nuclear testing and doesn’t make a fuss when Israel asks Germany for submarines that are capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles while submerged. Germany knew damn well what Israel was going to do with those subs, but German guilt is something Israel never mind’s exploiting. Israel got the subs, and no one said a thing about it despite the sale probably being a violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In fact, reports say the Germany not only sold the nuclear capable subs to Israel, Germany even paid for a few of them…
Re-enter Saudi Arabia. To date the Saudi Government is placated by the agreement that no one talks about Israeli nuclear weapons. So long as no nation in the Middle East publicly admits to having an atomic bomb, the Saudi’s are willing to stay quiet about it. But… recently Saudi officials have publicly said that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will do the same. The statements were slightly more veiled in diplomatic speech, but not much. The message was clear, if Iran develops the bomb, Saudi Arabia will as well. Honestly, given that 15 of the 19-September 11th hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, the prospect of a Saudi bomb falling into the wrong hands is much more of a concern to me than any Iranian or Israeli atomic bomb. Regardless, once the nuclear arms race starts in the region, the club soon includes everyone. With more atomic weapons floating around the region, the risks of one of those bombs falling into the wrong hands, or simply being used in a misunderstanding, increases exponentially.
Personally, I believe that the real military security experts in Israel are not overly concerned with the prospect of Iran having the bomb. They know that it is unlikely that Iran would use it against Israel. Iran isn’t suicidal, a nation doesn’t get to be as old as Persia by being suicidal and stupid, despite the fiery rhetoric on Twitter... I believe that the real concern here is the other bombs that will develop if Iran does go public with a bomb test. If I worked for Mossad (Israeli intelligence) I’d be much more worried about a Saudi bomb being given to some terrorist group by a Saudi prince. A Saudi bomb is the scary bomb. So…in the minds of the thinkers in Israeli military and security circles, how do you prevent a Saudi, or Syrian bomb? You prevent an Iranian bomb. Sure, the “death to Israel” chants and speeches don’t help reassure Israel much about Iranian intentions, but the Saudi bomb is the real threat to regional security.
One day in the future the Saudi revolution will kick off. It won’t be a good day for anyone. The day that happens, Israel, Iran, and the United States are all going to have a new concern. A reactionary and extremist (more extremist), run Saudi Arabia is a nightmare. A Saudi nuclear weapons program, when the revolution comes, is almost a guarantee that there will be a nuclear attack. The only question at that point, is who will be the first target? Israel? Iran? U.S. military bases in the Middle East? All of the above? Regardless of when it happens, the coming Saudi revolution will mean that Iran, Israel and the United States will all very suddenly become friends again, and all the guns will turn to point at Saudi Arabia and their fleets of American made fighter planes, Abrams tanks, and surface to air missiles. Suddenly Iran being the bad guy won’t seem all that important, in fact, we’ll be asking for their help to “ensure regional” stability. As if there has been such a thing in the last hundred years, and mostly because of our and British ignorant meddling. (And a bit of the French.)
Despite the clear large downside for Iran, why might they want to develop atomic weapons? This is where things become even more complex. We don’t know that they do really want to develop the atomic bomb. Let’s go back to the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on Iran’s population and military. First, Iran did not retaliate in kind, despite a legal right to do so. (according to international law.) Iran considers itself a nation answering to a power higher than international law, in some regards. While international law permits retaliation with weapons of mass destruction in response to a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, the clerics running Iran officially [publicly] disagree. The Supreme leader has issued his ruling on the matter, as have other religious leaders in Iran. The use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is prohibited.
“…Mohsen Rafighdoost, who served as minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) throughout the eight-year war, [Iran-Iraq war] revealed that he had proposed to Khomeini that Iran begin working on both nuclear and chemical weapons — but was told in two separate meetings that weapons of mass destruction are forbidden by Islam.” [3]
The first Supreme leader of Iran, Khomeini, is of course not the current supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (Supreme leader of Iran since 1989.) The similar spelling sometimes trips people up. That being said, here is what Ali Khamenei said about nuclear weapons.
Message to the First International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Seyyed Ali Khamenei 01/28/2010 International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament
“In our opinion, in addition to nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons and microbial weapons, are also considered a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation, which is itself a victim of the use of chemical weapons, feels the danger of producing and accumulating such weapons more than other nations, and is ready to put all its resources in the way of confronting it. We forbid the use of these weapons, and we owe it to everyone to strive to protect human beings from this great calamity. It is considered that the new weapons represent other classes of weapons, including chemical and microbial weapons, a real danger to humanity. And the Iranian branch, with regard to the delusion of not using chemical weapons, sings more than other branches at the risk of producing and weighing these types of weapons, and it is on the talent to set up enough facilities in the face of confrontation. It is forbidden for us to employ this weapon, and it is forbidden to seek the good of the sons of man from this great calamity, and it is obligatory on the whole. We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam and believe that it is everyone's duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster. Creams that adhere to nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons planted in a grave amenase for humanity.”
~Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of The Islamic Republic of Iran [4]
Knowing what the leadership of a country says publicly is of course not the same thing as knowing what that person really believes. Now we have two conundrums, first, can we believe the statements of the Supreme Leader? Second, do those statements even matter? What? Yeah, we need to know if what Ali Khamenei says really matters. Ali Khamenei isn’t a young man and opinions change with changes in political leadership. When Ali Khamenei dies, will the next Supreme Leader of Iran hold the same opinions? Of course, this leads us to the elephant in the room. Ali Khamenei isn’t actually qualified as an Islamic Jurist to make or issue binding rulings from what I understand. In fact, the constitution of Iran had to be modified to allow him to be elected by the council of experts as the Supreme Leader. He lacked the necessary theological training and expertise to apprise the role. Today there are those in Iran who claim that Ali Khamenei isn’t anything more than a politician who once attended seminary school. Though I’m sure they don’t say that publicly.
This leaves us with two real possibilities, first, he might be lying. Second, it might not matter what he thinks as people question his religious and legal expertise in such matters. My personal opinion is that we should just ignore the situation and take his statements at face value. Yes, he might very well be lying. You take them at their word anyway, and if you catch them lying, you call bullshit. The United States lies, everyone does. If the policy goal of the United States is to reach an agreement with Iran to slow or prevent progress on a potential atomic bomb, then we should accept the public statements and move on to reach that agreement.
What is the alternative? Sanctions clearly do not work or are counterproductive. Sanctions seem to only harden the resolve of the Iranian people. Let me ask you a question that everyone seems to ignore; what’s the point of sanctions? Have they ever worked? I seem to recall that Fidel Castro died of old age after more than fifty years of U.S. sanctions with the communist party still in power. Is the goal of the United States to ensure nonproliferation in the Middle East? Or is our goal simply to make life difficult for the Iranian people and harm American interests in the region? Because if our goal is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East, we’re doing it wrong. I call this approach Douhetian economics. For those of you who don’t know, Giulio Douhet was an early 20th century air power theorist. Douhet believed in the morale effects of bombing. The Douhet model rests on the belief that in a conflict, the infliction of high costs from aerial bombing can shatter civilian morale (bullshit). This would unravel resistance, and pressure citizens into demanding their government surrender. Sounds like what economic sanctions are supposed to accomplish, right?
WRONG! Douhet might have made a few valid points, but he was dead wrong about the morale effects of aerial bombing. Every major party to the Second World War tried to bomb civilian populations into surrender, all failed. In fact, the opposite was true. Populations who were subject to aerial bombardment tended to dig in and push on, rallying behind their leaders. Think about it, how many cities in Europe and Japan were bombed relentlessly yet failed to surrender? London was bombed for months. Berlin was bombed at least weekly from 1943 until the surrender of Germany in 1945. Every major, and many minor cities in Japan were burned to the ground in fire bombing raids. Now you might be asking; “Didn’t the atomic bombings cause Japan to surrender?” Did they? Did they really? No, they did not.
Japan, despite what many people like to believe, did not surrender because of the atomic bombings. Sure, the bombings helped, but they were not the single deciding factor that many in the United States like to think they were. Japan surrendered because the emperor asked his people to “endure the unendurable.” That was all he said. The word surrender was never spoken by the Emperor. What was the unendurable? Surrender was the unendurable. Japan could survive even if every city with a population over 10,000 people in the home islands was burned, bombed, then burned again. The Soviet Union had just declared war on Japan and began a major offensive. Japan didn’t have any more oil, food stocks were at near starvation levels, and yet many in Japan wanted to push on. The military leadership of Japan was fully prepared to resist the invasion of the home islands with spears, stones, and the lives of millions more Japanese. The morale of Japan never broke, neither did the morale of Germany, Britain, or Russia. The Japanese people were willing, even eager, to fight on. I am sure that the atomic bombings of Japan weighted into the considerations of the Emperor. I’m sure that those bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man, saved more human lives than they took. But don’t think that two atomic bombs can break the morale of a country. It doesn’t work that way.
Like aerial bombing, sanctions are simply another fallacy that people like to believe works; they rarely do. Douhetian Economics does not help a nation achieve political goals. Sanctions are used because no one has a better idea, and diplomacy is hard… It is lazy policy making by leaders with a limited number of options and no imagination. I get it, there are not great options. But why does there need to be? Seriously, have you asked yourself why any of this matters? Have you asked yourself or your elected representatives why Iran is a concern? Honestly, I think this is simply a political pissing contest of two nations who should be doing more productive things. Do you personally know why anything that happens in Iran is a concern to the citizens of the United States? I’m sure a few of you said “Israel.” But the goal of protecting the security of the state of Israel isn’t improved by making enemies out of countries in the region. It is improved by making friends out of countries in the region. We are making things worse with our Douhetian Economics.
If the United States wants to ensure that Iran won’t develop an atomic bomb, there is a way to do it. Here it is, we just stop. That’s right, we end the sanctions. Publicly we say we want to be friends. (We say the same thing privately, but ad a bit of fine print.) The U.S. government then gives tax breaks to major companies like Apple, Ford, General Motors, Nike, Pfizer, McDonalds and Starbucks. We pay them to build factories in Iran. We make our laws easy for companies who want to invest in Iran. If I’m right, that should well and truly kill any Iranian policy of anger towards the United States. We’ll kill them with kindness, cheeseburgers, flavored coffee and smart phones. Every Iranian kid will want a job making Ford cars, buying smart phones, and drinking overpriced coffee.
Why should the United States send our youth to kill Iran’s youth, and die in the process, when we can simply buy them off? What’s the point of being the richest nation on earth if you can’t buy off the “little people”? Is our pride that sensitive that we must kill thousands of Iranian kids just to make a point? I’ve seen war up close. I’ve had friends die in my arms. I’ve shot people at ranges so close that their warm blood sprayed in my mouth. I have no problems killing if I must, but I know the cost. And I don’t see any reason to kill a bunch of Iranian kids over any of this bullshit. What does it say about a nation who is unwilling to spend a little money to avoid having to kill some stupid idealistic youth?
The clerics and Ayatollahs cannot fight the power of Apple, Starbucks, Ford, GM, Pfizer, and Nike, hell we can’t... When the staffers in the Iranian President’s office are walking into work with a Starbucks, the game is over. Kill them with kindness, caffeine, erectile disfunction medication and 64% real American beef. (What is that other 36%?) Two years of low single digit unemployment, infusion of American dollars, and American brands, and Iran will solve the Ayatollah problem for us, and thank us for the cheeseburgers. It is the Marshall plan, but without the war first.
It’s not like we as Americans wouldn’t benefit as well. Remember, despite the sanctions Iran is still selling oil, only now it is going to China. Let’s buy it. Really what is the point of being the world’s only superpower if the only tool you use is the military option? I’m not afraid of a fight, but I know enough not to go looking for a fight when I don’t need to. And honestly, in the long run, a war with Iran is the more expensive option, buying them off is cheaper. I’m willing to bet that for less than a billion dollars we can ensure a stable and prosperous Iran, promote regional stability, prevent a Saudi bomb, placate our friends in Israel, and cripple the flow of oil to the ever-expanding Chinese Air Force and Navy, and we can do all those things at the same time. Why not? The United States gives some $3 billion to Israel, on their “buy American” credit card every year.
($3.3 Billion annually plus loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, and tax deductions to people who donate money to the state of Israel. The tax deductions alone amount to around 1.5 billon annually. The loan forgiveness alone is around 8 billion, but it is difficult to get all the numbers exact as there is some funny accounting. Israel reportedly gets its money at the beginning of the year, as a loan, then loans us back the money we borrowed to give to them and pockets the interest. Then congress forgives the loan and Israel does not repay it but keeps the interest and the principal. Its…complicated.) [5][6]
Let me ask another hypothetical. If we spend more than $3.3 Billion on Israel’s allowance every year, seeking to ensure the security of the Jewish state, how much security are we really buying for Israel, and ourselves? Let’s say that we cut half a billion from Israel’s allowance, take that half a billion and another half billion from somewhere else, and give that to companies who will invest in Iran (in the form of tax breaks). Now, by my math we have done more for Israeli security by giving a billion to companies investing in Iran than we have by giving $3.3 billion to Israel to spend on American weapons to defend against Iran. As the old saying goes; It’s better to take the bullets out of the gun than to wear a bullet proof vest.
China loves American sanctions against Iran, really China is the only benefactor of those sanctions, those Douhetian economics. (China and American arms companies selling to every country in the region.) In dropping the sanctions and throwing cheeseburgers, iPhones and lingerie at Iran, we win twice. Iran becomes our friend again, and we get to screw China over a barrel of Iranian oil. We also need to remember that we have other tools at our disposal apart from sanctions that don’t work and cruise missile or drone strikes. China loves American sanctions on Iran. They love it because they benefit, and we get screwed, again, over a barrel of oil and some “islands” in the South China Sea.
I acknowledge that there are people who won’t like this solution. Some might call it “weak” or whatever. Let me ask, is it really a show of strength to use force when you do not need to? Is it really a show of “strength” to attack other countries, make more enemies, and help our adversaries? China and Russia are both salivating at the prospect of an American-Iran war. The entire U.S. military is already run down by 20 years of wars. Our ships need yard time, our planes are held together with duct tape and bubble gum. Our soldiers are tired, and the Veterans administration is years behind.
The current “hard line” or “maximum pressure” approach to Iran hasn’t worked in forty years, I don’t think it is going to suddenly start working tomorrow. Iran isn’t any closer to being our friend again than they were twenty or thirty years ago. Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Can you honestly say that military action or threats of military action by the United States or Israel against Iran will improve the world or regional security?
I don’t think so, even if we could pull it off, which I don’t think we can, based on my study of current military capabilities of the United States, and the targets we’d need to attack. Nothing short of a ground war will achieve the objectives, and does anyone really want that? (Apart from China and Russia?) I think military action will make the problem worse. I think there will be new waves of terrorist attacks. I think relations with all countries in the Middle East will degrade. I think we will end up further in debt and send another generation of American youth to die or become crippled in another country we did not need to attack. I think China and Russia will benefit, we’ll spend trillions of dollars, and Lockheed Martin will get a seat in the Senate. It’s time to get the check book out, play nice, and buy the love of the Iranian people. We can even quietly remind them that if an atomic bomb, any atomic bomb, goes off in Israel, we’ll nuke Tehran, twice. That should make the people who just want to kill kids happy, and we don’t even need to really do it.
Sadly, this won’t happen. There is simply too much money at stake by American companies who make the bombs, planes, shells, and radar systems that we sell to countries who need Iran to be a threat. The 79 Grumman F-14 Tomcats sold to Iran before the revolution have sold more weapons systems to Gulf State nations than anything else. Saudi Arabia just bought another load of American F-15’s (Saudi Advanced) from Boeing. Qatar has just placed an order for the QA (Qatari Advanced) version of the F-15. The United Arab Emirates is negotiating to buy American F-35 jets from (Senator) Lockheed Martin. Israel has the F-35, wants more, but is also looking at buying more advanced F-15s as well. The Israeli taxpayers won’t be paying for those new jets, the American taxpayers will be. Does any logical person think that pouring more American weapons into the Middle East arms races makes the region safer?
Ironically, the Supreme Leader of Iran needs America as much as America needs him. Just as we need Iran to be a threat, the Ayatollah’s base of power depends on America being Iran’s enemy. He’s said so multiple times himself. In ensuring Iran is a threat, we blow tax dollars, promote regional instability, give corporate welfare to arms companies, and help the Ayatollah’s maintain clerical rule in Iran. It’s some way to run a country. [7]
I really wish that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was really about regional security, but it isn’t. It’s about money. Iran is simply the nation that got picked to be the bad guy so that the military industrial complex can keep fleecing the American taxpayer. Wars aren’t about “liberty” or “democracy” or even “revenge” or “blood for oil” anymore. No, wars today are live fire showcases of the latest weapons systems that aren’t really needed or are obsolete before they are ever fielded. We see threats to American security where we need to see threats. It’s a hell of a reason to consider killing a bunch of kids, but I suppose it’s better than no reason at all…
Please subscribe and share with your friends the latest issue of The Sanford Report. You can help support The Sanford Report by ordering my latest book series. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions, a subject you’d like me to talk about, or anything else. I check my email almost monthly…
Author Contact: scsanfordwritting@gmail.com
The Sanford Report is wholly a product of Stephen Sanford and does not represent (sadly) the opinions of anyone else, government or not.
Stephen Sanford is a combat veteran of the United States Army. He is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, the nations second highest award for valor, in addition to a Purple Heart, Combat Infantryman’s Badge and other awards. He volunteers as a Reserve Police Officer at a small police department in Michigan. He is a firearms instructor, author, father, and a fan of dogs. He is married and the couple have two children.
Buy one of my books: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08NXJKFXX?ref_=dbs_dp_rwt_sb_tkin&binding=kindle_edition
Notes and Sources for Issue 3 of The Sanford Report:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordor
[2]https://www.alimentarium.org/en/magazine/history/most-expensive-party-ever
[4]https://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228#2790
[6]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3176
[7] In 2010, Mohammad Khatami told Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment, that the Supreme Leader had once confided, “We need the United States as an enemy.”https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/25/the-twilight-of-the-iranian-revolution