How America Should Respond to Russia’s Syria Venture: A Guide

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Breitbart, by  ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, Oct. 8, 2015:

To respond to Russia’s military campaign in Syria, first, we have to be realistic about the facts on the ground. Iraq and Syria, for all practical purposes, are failed states.

There is no chance that either Iraq or Syria will ever be reconstituted as mandated by theSykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which basically divided up control or influence over the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between France and England.

Since the combined remaining military forces of Hezbollah, the Iranian Quds Force and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad have not been sufficient to assure Assad’s survival, Russia’s deployment of its air and marine ground forces to an airbase at Latakia, Syria should have come as no surprise. The preparations for this deployment clearly have gone on for some time. Our intelligence community certainly must have detected these preparations as well as the pre-deployment of surface-to-air missile batteries to the Latakia airbase about two months ago.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objectives are very clear. Notwithstanding his statements that his main objective is to defeat the Islamic State, he intends to support the retention of Syrian President Assad in power at all costs. In that sense, he will confront all the Sunni militias, including Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, as well as ISIS, which threaten the Assad regime. The announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi that Iraq intends to share intelligence with Syria and Russia, plus his statement that he would welcome Russian air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, clearly adds a new dimension to Russia’s involvement. Should Putin expand Russian involvement into Iraq, it would certainly provide some balance to the theory of an emerging Damascus-Baghdad-Beirut-Tehran-Moscow axis. Another complicating factor is the deployment of the Russian cruiser, Moskva, armed with 64 advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles. This is one of Russia’s most advanced air defense systems and may indicate that Russia is taking over air defense responsibilities for Syria.

The survival of both the Syrian and Iraqi regimes are key elements in the “unwritten plan” for Iranian regional hegemony.  However, President Obama’s apparent complicity with the Russian deployment of military forces and suggestion that they could be even a stabilizing factor fits right in with his “leading from behind” strategy. Our enemies clearly view this strategy as weakness and will continue to exploit the power vacuum created by our lack of leadership. It will provide further substance to a Tehran-Baghdad-Beirut-Damascus-Moscow axis for Iranian regional dominance.

Such a strategy certainly will not be welcomed by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, UAE, Jordan, or for that matter, our ally Israel.  Clearly, Sunni opposition to Shiite domination will ensure that a chaotic situation will remain for the foreseeable future. Other complicating factors will be how long Israel decides to wait before launching a strike to destroy Iran’s key nuclear infrastructure, and how long it will be before Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies obtain their own nuclear weapons capability.

In the current complicated and dangerous situation, what is the most sensible course for the U.S. to follow to protect our interests and regional allies, given our lack of leadership, which is clearly evident? We have nothing to gain by further involving U.S. forces in what should be recognized as failed states – Syria and Iraq. In this sense, our principal objectives remain the prevention of Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability and the removal of the corrupt jihadist Iranian theocracy. Let’s not forget, the removal of Bashar al-Assad from Syria is a principal objective pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Leaders in the Middle East will follow the “strong horse.” With President Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy, Putin has become the strong horse!

There have been recent calls for the establishment of a “no-fly zone” over so-called moderate rebel areas. The window for such action was closed once Russia completed its military force deployment and commenced air strikes. It makes no sense to create a situation that elevates this classic Sunni-Shiite conflict into a potential direct U.S.-Russian conflict. With our current weak and inept leadership, the current chaotic situation needs to be kept at the lowest possible conflict level. Therefore, steps that the United Stated could take that would require no further commitment of U.S forces, but would complicate Russia’s and Iran’s ability to achieve their objectives, would be the following:

  1. To counter recent Russian and Chinese naval deployments off Syria, we should deploy a Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean. This would send a very positive signal to our NATO allies as well as to Egypt and Israel.
  2. We should establish a Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Kurdistan by redistribution of in-theater air resources to include F-16’s, A-10’s, C-130 gunships and AH-1 attack helicopters.
  3. Provide direct military equipment to Kurdistan’s Peshmerga military forces.  With Baghdad clearly aligned with Tehran, Damascus and Moscow, it makes no sense to continue sending military equipment for the Peshmerga through Baghdad, from which it is never passed on.
  4. Support the establishment of a sovereign Kurdistan. They have been a loyal, reliable ally along with Israel. Such action would clearly complicate the situation for Iran, but also for Turkey, which should be manageable.
  5. We should be providing direct defensive military equipment to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. We should also provide more direct support in terms of NATO forces to the Baltic States to preempt potential Russian aggressive moves.

The above actions are what we should be doing to protect our interests in the region, as well as those of our allies. Such action would complicate and make it more costly for Russia and Iran to achieve their objectives and possibly prevent a nuclear arms race in this most unstable region.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, has served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior
U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Russia’s endgame in Syria: Follow the Money

3300795117Center for Security Policy, by John Cordero, Oct. 6, 2015:

As Vladimir Putin orders airstrikes against rebels of all stripes fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, there are important strategic economic goals behind Russia’s actions in Syria.  The short term goal is easy to discern: prevent Assad’s collapse as no alternative suitable to Russian interests exists, preserve Russia’s only naval base in the Middle East at Tartus, and promote Russia both at home and abroad as a world power that counterbalances American hegemony.

Much of the media has focused on Putin as a personal driver of Russian behavior.  While forays into Georgia and Ukraine have accomplished the tactical goals of preventing increased European Union presence in Russia’s sphere of influence, these have come at a high cost both politically and economically in the form of isolation and sanctions. Putin seems to have concluded that intervening in Syria in the name of fighting terrorism can only help repair Russia’s battered image.

It is important to at least try to understand Putin’s motivation without delving too much into psychoanalysis.  He is on record as lamenting the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.”  In power since 2000, the former KGB officer is an ardent Russian nationalist, a promoter of a personality cult concerned with his country’s standing and perception in the world.  With his career spent in the service of the state, he is not one to take a background role in world affairs. Putin has effectively used Russia’s alliance with Iran as an effective tool to undermine the US, both regionally in the Gulf and globally with the nuclear deal.

The current buildup at Tartus and Latakia is nothing new: since Hafez al-Assad’s rise to power in 1970, the Former Soviet Union and then Russia was and is a stalwart ally, long attempting to position Syria as a counterbalance to American and Israeli military superiority in the Middle East.

Russia’s actions are also a message to the world: unlike the US, which abandoned long-time ally Hosni Mubarak during his time of need in Egypt, Russia is prepared to intervene, militarily if necessary, to preserve a friendly regime in danger.  Therefore, it pays for autocrats to court Moscow, especially if they possess valuable resources or are in prime strategic locations.

While Vladimir Putin ostensibly espouses the acceptable goal of a global alliance against IS, the strategic context is that he has entered into a sectarian alliance with Shia Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the proxy army Hezbollah (The P4+1) against the American-backed Sunni alliance of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and the UAE, all of whom insist that Assad has no future in Syria.

Through its airstrikes, Russia continues to advance the prior Syrian strategy of focusing efforts against pro-Western rebels, with the recognition that, while dangerous, the Islamic State is the one party in the conflict the West will never support.

The Islamic State will take advantage of both the respite, and the propaganda value of being the recognized number one enemy of the infidel coalition, which it uses to rally supporters simply by pointing out that its enemies are gathering to destroy the renewed Caliphate.

The one strategic motivation for Russia that has been widely ignored is the economic one.  Qatar, the richest country in the world per capita and also owner of the world’s largest natural gas field, proposed in 2009 to jointly construct a gas pipeline running through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and into Europe.  Assad, not wanting to provoke Moscow, refused to sign on.  Instead, he floated an alternative: an Iran-Iraq-Syria and possibly Lebanon pipeline, to then follow under the Mediterranean to Europe. The Qatar-Turkey pipeline would run through majority Sunni countries with the exception of Syria’s Alawite regime. Assad’s counter proposal follows the Shia crescent.

Russia, not wanting to lose its primary market in Europe, is adamantly opposed to a prospective Qatari project.  A military presence in Syria will guarantee that even if Assad is removed from power, the pipeline will not be built.  It will look on favorably to the Iranian proposal, provided Gazprom and other state-owned companies get their share of the pie.

Pipeline politics in the region have a long and varied history of Russian involvement.  TheBaku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline was built only after Moscow’s demand for an alternative pipeline for Azeri oil to Russia was met.  During the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, US intelligence officials determined that an explosion on the pipeline near the Turkish-Georgian border was carried out via Russian government cyber warfare.  Days after the explosion, Russian fighter jets bombed positions in Georgia close to the pipeline. Although the BTC pipeline was built precisely to avoid Russian interference, the Kremlin has never let that stop them.

Turkey and Azerbaijan have also begun construction on a joint natural gas pipeline, theTANAP. This project’s stated goal is to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russian natural gas, a prospect that cannot please Moscow.   Both the BTC and TANAP bypass Armenia, a Russian ally and wary of its neighbors in the Caucasus.

As the endpoint for the Qatari project, Turkey is adamant in calling for Assad to step down or be removed, which dovetails with the proposed Sunni pipeline.  By clearing the way through Syria, Qatar and Saudi Arabia can receive a handsome return on their investment in backing jihadis fighting Assad.  On the other hand, Iran will not sit idly by and leave potential billions of dollars in the hands of its ideological and regional enemies.

Russian intervention in Syria is just beginning. There is every possibility that it will expand as more targets are found, perhaps those that are in the way of the proposed Iranian pipeline, directly threatening Damascus and by extension, the Russian monopoly of gas exports to Europe.  For the time being, Putin has the world’s attention.


EXCLUSIVE: Russian jets ‘intercept’ US predator drones over Syria, officials say

Also see:

In fiery speech, Netanyahu challenges UN on moral grounds

New York – Armed with unfilltered criticism for the United Nations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an aggressive speech to the international body’s annual gathering in New York on Thursday, charging its members with hypocrisy in its treatment of Israel and with failure to contain extremism across the wider Middle East.

With defensive rhetoric, he targeted the assembly for passing more resolutions against Israel for its handling of the Palestinians last year than against the government of Syria, which has presided over a war claiming the lives of over 300,000 people. He criticized member states for “encouraging Palestinian rejectionism” instead of direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions, one day after a Palestinian flag was raised at UN headquarters.

And yet the most poignant moment of the speech involved no remarks at all, as Netanyahu, in his seventh UN General Assembly address, asked the body if it had forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust just seventy years since its founding.

He quoted from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, from its president and its military commanders, all reiterating a familiar pledge: Israel, a state where six million Jews reside, must be annihilated, sooner rather than later.

“Seventy years after the murder of six million Jews, Iran’s rulers promise to destroy my country, murder my people,” Netanyahu said. “And the response from this body— the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here— has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence.”

Silence followed the charge as the prime minister surveyed the room with a stoic stare. None spoke or moved in the audience as Netanyahu, at the lectern, remained quiet for nearly a minute.

“As someone who knows that history, I refuse to be silent,” he finally said to applause from the hall. Repeating a line he has delivered in Washington, he added: “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies— those days are over.”

The speech was Netanyahu’s first major address since the Iran nuclear deal survived a debate over its merits in the US Congress. Its architects from the United States, Europe, Russia and China met to discuss implementation of the deal earlier in the week.

“Ladies and gentlemen, check your enthusiasm at the door,” he said of the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. “It makes war more likely.​”

He warned that international investors were preparing to flood a “radical theocracy with weapons and cash” and warned that, “when bad behavior is rewarded, it only gets worse.” The deal, he said, amounts to a marriage between radical Islam and nuclear power.

“Under this deal, If Iran doesn’t change its behavior— in fact, if it becomes even more dangerous in the years to come— the most important constraints will still be automatically lifted by year 10 and by year 15. That would place a militant Islamic terror regime weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs,” he said. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”

And the JCPOA, he continued, has already led Iran to rapidly expand its network of terrorist proxies worldwide and spend “billions of dollars on weapons and satellites.” As an example of that network, Netanyahu detailed a well-armed cell of Hezbollah that has been identified in Cyprus, and warned that the organization— listed by the United States and European Union as a terrorist organization— was setting up similar cells in the Western hemisphere.

“We will continue to act to stop the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Syrian territory,” he said. Israel has periodically struck convoys traversing Syrian territory, but future missions have been complicated by a growing presence of Russian forces in the region.

While acknowledging that the deal is proceeding toward implementation— he asked the UN to enforce the JCPOA with “more rigor” than the six past Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue that Iran had “systematically violated”— Netanyahu retained Israel’s option to defend itself against Iranian aggression.

“We have, we are and we will” defend ourselves, Netanyahu said, once again earning some applause.

Netanyahu personally engaged in a bruising battle on Capitol Hill over the deal, pitted against US President Barack Obama, who lobbied for its survival. The support of only one third of one house in Congress was required to preserve the agreement, and 42 senators ultimately chose to endorse it.

In Thursday’s address, he thanked Congress for debating the deal on its merits and characterized the rift with Obama as a “disagreement within the family.” And he underscored that, in spite of the public battle, the US remains Israel’s most valuable ally.

Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House next month.

After spending the majority of his speech condemning Iran and the deal over its nuclear work, he turned to the Palestinian issue, responding largely to a speech delivered the day before by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In that address, Abbas appeared to disavow commitments made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since the Oslo Accords were first signed in 1993.

“I am prepared to immediately resume direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without any preconditions whatsoever,” Netanyahu said. “Unfortunately, President Abbas said yesterday that he is not prepared to do this. I hope he changes his mind.”

Abbas, in his speech, said the international community should treat Palestine as an independent state occupied by a foreign power.

“Israel has destroyed the foundations upon which the political and security agreements are based,” Abbas said. “We therefore declare that we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements and that Israel must assume all its responsibilities as an occupying power.”

Shortly after Abbas’ speech, the Quartet on the Middle East— comprised of the UN, EU, US and Russia— released a statement reiterating its goals: A negotiated two-state outcome “that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for Statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967 and resolves all permanent status issues in order to end the conflict.”

The group warned that a continuation of the status quo may imperil the viability of a two-state plan.

The UN has adopted twenty resolutions condemning Israel in the past year— far more than on any other issue or against any other nation, including Syria, which has been the subject of one resolution. Netanyahu cited the figure as an example of the body’s “obsessive bashing of Israel.”

In his call for direct negotiations, Netanyahu said: “We owe it to our peoples to try.” Both he and Abbas were directly involved in a nine-month negotiations process brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry which, in July 2014, collapsed without results.

“President Abbas, here’s a good place to begin: Stop spreading lies about Israel’s alleged intentions on the Temple Mount. Israel is fully committed to maintaining the status quo there,” he said. Both the Quartet and UN’s secretary-general Ban Ki-moon have condemned incitements to violence on the holy site in recent days.

“Don’t use the Palestinian state as a stepping stone to another Islamist dictatorship in the Middle East, but make its something real,” Netanyahu added. “We can do remarkable things.”

But the PA responded on Thursday evening by rejecting the premise of the prime minister’s argument: Netanyahu, PLO secretary general Saeb Erekat said, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of genuine interest in peace.

“Members of his camp have continually sabotaged every attempt at a meaningful peace process.  The Palestinians have never placed conditions on peace,” said Erekat. “Palestinians have demanded that Israel abide by the obligations it has already made to the Palestinians, which Israel has yet to fulfill.”

“As Mr. Netanyahu tells the world he wants to negotiate for two-states, he has built the largest illegal settlement enterprise seen in modern history,” he continued.

Debate over Israeli-Palestinian peace has been a consistent topic in the UN’s annual debate, and this year has been no exception: Speeches by leaders from France to Lesotho have called for a settlement, using their precious time on the international stage.

One leader who avoided the issue was the president of the United States. In his Monday address, Obama did not mention either Israel or the Palestinians once.

For his part, on the issues of Palestine, Iran and the role of the international community, Netanyahu’s message had a common theme: Israel remains a democracy, with values consistent with the liberal tenets of the United Nations’ founding charter.

Both in silence and with fiery rhetoric, he called on fellow members to celebrate that tradition.

“Stand with Israel because Israel is not just defending itself,” he concluded. “More than ever, Israel is defending you.”

The Iran Nuclear Deal’s Islamist Supporters

IPT News
September 11, 2015

The White House is claiming victory in the fight over the Iranian nuclear deal following Thursday’s Senate vote which fell short of cloture on a Democratic filibuster blocking an up or down vote on the deal.

Critics continue to express concerns that the agreement paves the way for Iran to eventually develop its own nuclear weapons. And it is beyond dispute that the agreement fuels the Islamic Republic with as much as $150 billion in relief from what had been crippling economic sanctions. That money can be used to fund terror proxies seeking to attack Israel.

Those concerns prompted the U.S. House on Friday to reject the Iran deal by a vote of 162-269.

It is little surprise, therefore, that the deal enjoys strong support from prominent American Islamists with a history of support for Iran or who espouse rabid anti-Israel rhetoric, including radicals who see Zionist conspiracies at nearly every turn.

Imam Hassan Qazwini

At the forefront of support for the nuclear deal is radical Shia cleric Imam Hassan Qazwini who serves as scholar and religious leader at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich. During a July 17 sermon at the Az-Zahraa Islamic Center in Detroit, Qazwini hailed the Iran nuclear deal as a “victory for Muslims” and a “victory for Iran.” While he applauded the patience of Iranian nuclear negotiators and commended President Barack Obama “for taking this courageous stand,” he rebuked Israel and Saudi Arabia for opposing the deal.

1231“Israel was extremely upset,” he said. “[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] was hysterical, was fuming, he was furious over last few days because of this agreement. He was so upset why the United States and the other five superpowers accepted a peaceful solution to this problem. Why? Because Mr. Netanyahu is not interested in peace, seeks war.”

Further, Qazwini claimed that Israel would benefit from a war between the U.S. and Iran: “So, basically Netanyahu wants the United States to go to war with Iran while Israel stands idle, watching. Netanyahu wants the United States to pay the price, a heavy price, to send its troops, and to get involved in a messy war, so the Israeli interest are [sic] protected. I’m not surprised by Netanyahu because Netanyahu is nothing but poison and poison does not generate [anything] but poison.” He called Saudi Arabia, a Sunni majority country, “traitors to the interests of the Muslim Ummah” and accused the Sunni nation of spending millions of dollars “to sabotage Iran and to attack the Shia school of thought.”

Qazwini has a long history of support of terrorists and other radicals. In a 2004 speech that is still publicly available on his personal website under “Speeches/Friday Sermons,” Qazwini praised Shia Muslims for “carrying the banner of resistance against the evil forces in the Muslim ummah” and claimed “that the majority of Muslim governments have submitted to the will of the United States and the Zionists.”

Qazwini has also proclaimed the supremacy of Sharia over Western law: “You have to respect the laws of the land in which  you live, however  when it comes to a point where Allah is publically being disobeyed or challenged, then you should have no respect to any law. Allah’s law comes first… Allah comes first, no government comes before Allah …”

Hatem Bazian

Hatem Bazian, another deal proponent, is founding chairman of a radical anti-Israeli organization, the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and co-founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group with many campus chapters, that campaigns for divestment from Israel.  In an opinion piece in the Turkish national daily,Daily Sabah, Bazian blamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel groups, “including the same neo-conservative groups that pushed for the Iraq war” for “whipping the American public into shape to oppose President Obama’s Iran deal.”

In 2004, Bazian called on Americans to create a violent uprising at home similar to the Palestinian intifada.

“Are you angry? …Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country,” Bazian said. “It’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every – They’re gonna say some Palestinian [is] being too radical – well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet.”

More recently, at an AMP event at the University of California, Santa Cruz in November, Bazian seemed to justify Palestinian terrorism: “Palestine is the victim that is being victimized once again by actually blaming them for the fact that they respond. Palestinians’ response to settler colonialism has been identical to every colonized people’s response when they are confronted by the colonization process.”

Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT)

In a recent article in the Crescent International, a publication of the pro-Iran, Washington-based Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT), Zafar Bangash praised Iran’s leadership for striking a deal that grants Iran relief while still holding the line against the West.

“The Rahbar [Islamic title meaning ‘Leader’ and is in reference to Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei], however, has made clear that even if — a big if — the JCPOA is approved, there would be no opening of Iran for US penetration. ‘We will firmly block their way. We will not allow the US to make economic, political or cultural inroads into the country. We will counter such infiltration with all our power.’ The Rahbar went on, ‘We should first identify the enemy’s intentions and then counter their objectives through planning.’

This is the wisest course of action to pursue with the US that the late Imam Khomeini had described as Shaytan-e Buzurg (the Great Satan). This was not an emotional outburst but an accurate understanding of the true nature of the US.”

Another article in the ICIT’s Crescent International by Tahir Mustafa noted that the nuclear deal marks Iran’s recognition “as a leading regional power that cannot be cowed by military threats or sanctions.” He added: “After the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Islamic Iran had become the leading edge of the Islamic movement. Those without blinkers on their eyes had recognized this a long time ago. Others have just woken up to this fact. The US, the leading imperialist and militarist power in the world, has also had to eat humble pie and admit to this reality.”

Mustafa, however, warned that “American and European officials are notorious for breaking promises, even signed before the entire world.” He also describes Saudi Arabia and Israel as “pariah regimes [that] cannot live in peace with others, especially Islamic Iran that refuses to surrender its rights to any worldly power.”

“Not surprisingly the two illegitimate regimes, one occupying the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula and the other the holy land of Palestine, are clinging to each other for solace. Both can see their end clearly on the horizon,” he added.

ICIT is affiliated with extremist clerics Mohammed al-Asi and Abdul Alim Musa. In a February interview marking the 36th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Al-Asi said: “It only takes us a short memory of the decades and the centuries preceding this Islamic revolution to recall the almost pathetic conditions that Muslims have been in.  I mean they’ve been suffering from colonialism and imperialism, occupation armies and all sorts of setbacks.  The Islamic Revolution took place in that context.  It broke out of decades and centuries of foreign hegemony and control and became the first independent area in the Islamic hemisphere of the world.” Abdul Alim Musa is founder and Imam of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, D.C. and founder of the radical As-Sabiqun Movement.

Muslim Students Association-Persian Speaking Group

A flyer distributed at the Muslim Students Association—Persian Speaking Group’s (MSA-PSG) 38th Annual Conference on December 26, 2008, titled “Message to 2008 MSA-PSG Conference Attendees,” quotes Musa saying: “At this current stage, our quest is to emulate the life of our hero in contemporary times, Imam Khomeini, as we strive to establish the Islamic State of North America. His story is a story of ultimate success and unbelievable odds.” The MSA-PSG has strong connections to the Iran’s clerical regime. A message posted on the student group’s website states: “MSA-PSG has been dedicated to the global Islamic movement since its inception over 45 years ago. With the Islamic Revolution in Iran, we became doubly committed to unity and brotherhood among all Muslims.” According to declassified FBI documents, at a December 1987 conference hosted by MSA-PSG, also known by its Farsi name Anjoman Islamie, “all attendees had to pledge allegiance to their Muslim faith and loyalty to the Government of Iran.”

Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

The nuclear deal  was lauded  as proof that the U.S. should only use  diplomacy to achieve foreign policy goals  by the more influential Washington, D.C.-based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) in a Sept. 3 press release.

“Long seen as the option of the weak in the days of the Bush administration, diplomacy is now seen as a viable strategy that can achieve the same results, if not better, than military strikes do,” the release said. “And apart from its effectiveness, it’s shown that it can be achieved without the cost of military action … The US has shown that it is a strong diplomatic force, and that it can negotiate to advance its most pressing interests.”

MPAC also touted the high road of America negotiating peacefully with “nations it mistrusts, but also to resist the easy route of immediately giving into hawks who call for war. It may have been tempting to heed the calls of war against a nation that took our citizens hostage and is perceived as a threat to multiple allies in the region.”

But MPAC took the exact opposite tact just two years ago in opposing diplomacy and vigorously calling for U.S. and coalition military air strikes against Syria. “We … support decisive and quick military action in Syria with important conditions,” an MPAC position paper said.

Any military “intervention must go hand in hand with empowering the moderate segment of the opposition to ensure a future for Syria that is democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive,” the MPAC paper said.

An additional rationale MPAC offered for advocating bombings in Syria could just as easily apply to the situation involving Iran’s dictatorial brutal regime: “At this point there is no incentive for the Assad regime to agree to any type of political transition due to their military superiority over opposition forces.”

So MPAC was willing to use military might to force Syria to change its policies, but when it comes to  Iran,  the world’s largest state sponsor of  terrorism,  MPAC suddenly became pacifist.

In past years, the MPAC-affiliated publication The Minaret repeatedly published articles in support of Iran’s proxy terrorist group, Hizballah. One June 2000 article praises “freedom fighter” Hizballah’s efforts in coercing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon:

“[The Israeli withdrawal] is a clear sign that determination and will lead to the liberation of an occupied homeland. Hezbullah, the Lebanese freedom fighter group that led the effort to drive Israel out, is being widely praised through the world.”

MPAC’s president Salam al-Marayati also described Hizballah attacks as a “legitimate resistance” in a 1999 PBS interview. He added that, “when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, we stand very loudly and clearly against that Muslim that committed that act of violence.”

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded as part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S., supported the interim nuclear deal in November 2013. “We welcome the agreement signed in Geneva and hope it will reverse the counterproductive decades-long push toward conflict between Iran and Western nations,” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a press release. While the press release applauded the deal, it “also called on Iran to drop its ongoing support for Syria’s brutal dictatorship.”

Ignoring Iran’s behavior

American Islamists who advocate the nuclear deal with Iran have, in the past, willfully turned a blind eye to human rights violations and terrorism-related crimes of the Iranian government and have appeared on the country’s state-controlled Press TV to allege rampant Islamophobia in the U.S. or berate government counterterrorism measures.  “We live in a free society,” CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said in an August 2011 interview. “There are many good things about being an American Muslim, but there is also a sense of being under siege from these hate mongers that are constantly trying to demonize our faith.”

During a 2011 Press TV appearance at the time of the Arab Spring demonstrations, Al-Asi supported a statement by Iranian Supreme Leader Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei advocating for “a leadership that gives direction to this movement. Otherwise, and this was probably left out of the discourse, but putting the pieces of the puzzle together, otherwise the forces of imperialism and even Zionism will hijack these uprisings. …They don’t want these countries to quote-unquote ‘break loose’ from American hegemony, the same that happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In other words, they don’t want to see another Islamic Republic in Egypt, or in Yemen, or in these other countries that is independent of their influences and their diktats.”

Similarly, these Islamists have also routinely supported violence and terrorism at the annual Al-Quds Day rallies commemorating the 1979 Islamic Revolution. For example, at the 2012 rally Musa said, “If you love America, you love lying, you love rape, you love murder, you love killing.”

“And then, the Zionist, diabolical, sinister Israeli. Nobody in history, they cry about some Holocaust, we had five or ten people get killed.”

Support for the Iranian deal among Islamists includes fringe cranks like Musa and Al-Asi, but also supposedly mainstream outlets like MPAC and CAIR. That alone should have given anyone pause about supporting the agreement.

Islamic Extremists Are Trying to Hasten the Coming of the Mahdi


To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it.

National Review, by JOEL C. ROSENBERG, September 11, 2015:

Fourteen years ago — on September 11, 2001 — America was blindsided by the forces of radical Islam. Pre-9/11, American leaders rightly understood that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims were generally peace-loving people who posed no threat to our homeland. But they failed to adequately comprehend, much less counter, the theology, political ideology, and operational strategy of men like Osama bin Laden.

The results were devastating. The attacks against the World Trade Center, against the Pentagon, and over Shanksville, Pa., killed nearly 3,000 Americans, along with individuals from 93 other nations, in the most devastating sneak attack since we were blindsided by the Imperial Japanese at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Today, President Obama and members of his administration still refuse to use the term “radical Islam,” even as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, candidly admits that the West is engaged in a “third world war” against Islamic terrorism. Abdullah adds that, at its core, “this is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong.”

The king is right. The threat of radical Islam to the U.S. and our allies is serious and ongoing.

That said, there is a dramatic shift underway in the Muslim world. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is no longer radical Islam but apocalyptic Islam.

We face not just one but two regional regimes whose rulers are driven not merely by violent political ideology, or by extremist theology, but by apocalyptic, genocidal eschatology, or End Times theology.

The first is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The second is the Islamic State, or ISIS. The leaders of the former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe that we are living in the End of Days as predicted in their ancient prophecies. Both believe that any moment now their messiah, the Mahdi, will be revealed on Earth as he establishes his global Islamic kingdom and impose sharia law. Both believe that Jesus will return not as the Savior or Son of God but as a lieutenant to the Mahdi, and that he will force non-Muslims to convert or die.

What’s more, both believe that the Mahdi will come only when the world is engulfed in chaos and carnage. They openly vow not simply to attack but to annihilate the United States and Israel. Iran and ISIS are both eager to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Both believe that the Day of Judgment is coming soon, when they will be either rewarded for their actions or condemned to hell for eternity. And both are receiving relatively minimal international opposition. Consequently, both believe that Allah is on their side, that the wind is at their back, and that victory is both assured and imminent.

Some in the West first became aware of the apocalyptic beliefs inside Iran through the speeches of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long held similar beliefs and openly expresses them.

“The coming of Imam Zaman [another name for the Mahdi] is the definite promise by Allah,” he declared in 2014. “The caravan of humanity from the Day of Creation has been moving . . . to the time of The Coming of Imam Mahdi. The awaiting for The Coming is a hopeful and powerful wait, providing the biggest opening for the Islamic society.”

But he adds that the “battle” to establish the Mahdi’s kingdom “will only end when the [Islamic] society can get rid of the oppressors’ front, with America at the head of it.”

As recently as July 18, 2015 — just four days after President Obama hailed his nuclear deal with Iran as a great achievement for world peace and security — Khamenei publicly reaffirmed Iran’s long-standing policy of destroying the U.S. and Israel. “The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Quds [Jerusalem] Day show what its position is,” he said in a speech. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement.”

“Even after this deal, our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” he added.

Even Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, widely hailed in the West as a “moderate,” has urged Iranians to act on that policy. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy,” he said when running for office in 2013. “We need to express ‘death to America’ with action.”

Consider, too, the words of the various leaders of ISIS.

“We perform jihad here [in Iraq] while our eyes are upon al-Quds,” declared Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the al-Qaeda division that morphed into ISIS. “We fight here, while our goal is Rome with good expectations concerning Allah that He makes us the keys for the prophetic good tidings and godly decrees.”

“The Mahdi will come any day,” Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the ISIS leader after Zarqawi’s death, constantly told his people, recruiting new followers with the promise of being glorious fighters in history’s Final Hour.

“Our last message is to the Americans,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, another ISIS leader, declared in an audio recording on January 21, 2014. “Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day.”

By summer of 2014, Baghdadi, a fervent apostle of Sunni apocalyptic eschatology, had officially declared the caliphate, laying the groundwork for the Mahdi’s return. “Rush, O Muslims, to your state,” he said in July 2014. “This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.” From his reading of Sunni End Times prophecies, Baghdadi saw Rome not only as the historic center of Christendom but as a symbol of the apostate Western powers, led by the United States, which would soon be vanquished by Muslim forces.

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” vowed an official ISIS spokesman in Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State, named after the Syrian town where Sunnis believe one of history’s final battles will occur.

While Iranian and ISIS leaders share similar eschatological beliefs, they are by no means the same. Indeed, each considers the other “infidel.” They are warring against one another in Iraq and Syria.

They are also pursuing very different strategies. The leaders of ISIS are focused on developing the territorial, financial, and administrative infrastructure required to build the caliphate. The leaders of Iran are focused on developing the scientific, technological, and financial capacities they need to build a nuclear bomb. The leaders of ISIS believe in committing genocide now, and for them simple swords and AK-47s suffice. The leaders of Iran are preparing to commit genocide later and so are investing enormous sums of time and money on their nuclear program.

In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous because it is on a jihadist rampage now — robbing, killing, destroying, enslaving, raping, torturing, and beheading Christians, Muslims and others. In the longer term, Iran’s leaders are more dangerous. Owing to the numerous loopholes in the recent nuclear deal, they will be able to bide their time and, at a time of their choosing, build a nuclear arsenal capable of killing millions of people in a matter of minutes.

Iranian and ISIS leaders are not alone in their fascination with End Times matters. Such interest runs deep through the Muslim world. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, most Muslimsbelieve they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.” In Egypt, 40 percent of Muslims believe expect to see the Mahdi in their lifetime. In Jordan, it’s 41 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, a stunning 72 percent.

A large number of Muslims also believe that Jesus will return to Earth in the final battle for Jerusalem. According to Pew, 29 percent of Muslims in Jordan believe this; in Egypt, 39 percent; among Palestinians, 46 percent; in Iraq, 64 percent.

Not all Muslims who hold these views also believe in launching genocidal attacks against the West. However, it does mean that the pool from which those who do pursue apocalyptic Islam can recruit is large and growing.

While the threat of radical Islam remains high and serious, the greater threat to the United States, Israel, and our Arab allies is now posed by the forces of apocalyptic Islam, those who seek not simply to attack us but to annihilate us in order to hasten the coming of their messiah. Do U.S. policymakers and the presidential candidates understand the nature of this threat? If they do, they should explain how they would counter it before it’s too late.

Joel C. Rosenberg is the best-selling author of novels, including The Twelfth Imam (Tyndale, 2013) and The Third Target (2015), and of non-fiction books about Iran, ISIS, and other Mideast issues. 

The Center in For the Record


Center for Security Policy, (Source: The Blaze) September 10, 2015:

The Center and it’s partners describe the Obama Doctrine in the Middle East in the Blaze short film series For The Record.

Why the eight words used to sell the Iran deal no longer seem to apply (No deal is better than a bad deal):

Why a nuclear Iran could pose an existential threat to the United States (EMP):

Why the Iran deal is also under fire from leading Democrats (Menendez):

Is the Iran deal a case of executive overreach?

Why an Iranian exile doesn’t trust the Iran deal:

The Obama Doctrine, the nine words that explain why the U.S. gave up so much in the Iran deal:

How history of diplomatic failure between the U.S. and Iran shapes the current nuclear deal:

Cruz Pressures Congressional Leadership to Delay Iran Deal Vote

Ted Cruz / AP

Ted Cruz / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, September 10, 2015:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) is petitioning the Republican leadership to delay an upcoming vote in Congress on the recent Iranian nuclear agreement due to what he says is the Obama administration’s failure to provide lawmakers with all documents pertaining to the deal, according to a copy of a letter sent by Cruz on Thursday.

Cruz, in a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), urged the top Republicans to delay the vote and instead work to tighten sanctions on Iran in order to prevent it from receiving billions of dollars promised to it by the Obama administration.

Cruz lays out three legal maneuvers that could be used to delay congressional action on the deal—thereby stalling it—and prevent the Obama administration from unilaterally lifting U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

The Republican presidential candidate also threatens to take legal action against the CEOs of leading banks should they comply with the Obama administration’s order to unfreeze Iranian assets, which Cruz argues is illegal.

Iran is set to receive around $150 billion in sanctions relief. International restrictions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its top leaders also would be lifted as part of the deal.

Cruz suggests that, by not submitting documents related to side deals made between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the administration has failed to comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. “Therefore,” Cruz argues, “the 60-day clock for congressional review has not yet begun to run. And, critically, as a result, federal law prohibits the Obama administration from lifting sanctions.”

The issue of secret side deals made between Iran and the IAEA has been a key sticking point for critics of the deal. The United States is not permitted to know the details of these side deals, which govern inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, and Iran has threatened to harm any IAEA official who discloses the nature of the agreements.

Cruz goes on to suggest that McConnell “introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that, if the agreement had been introduced as a treaty, it should not be ratified,” according to the letter.” This will put everyone on record and will make clear that there is insufficient support in the Senate for approving the agreement as a treaty.”

As a last resort, U.S. banks could be held legally liable for unfreezing Iranian assets, which Cruz calls a violation of U.S. law.

“We can assume, based on his past practice, that President Obama will simply ignore the law and declare that he is lifting sanctions under the agreement anyway,” Cruz writes.” On that assumption, we should make clear to the CEOs of banks holding frozen Iranian funds that their misplaced reliance on the president’s lawlessness would not necessarily excuse them from the obligation to comply with existing federal sanctions laws.”

“And if they release billions in funds to Khamenei, they risk billions in civil (and possibly even criminal) liability once President Obama leaves office,” the letter continues. “Having spent years advising major corporations in private practice, I can tell you that their general counsels will likely tell them their legal exposure is real, which could well result in the banks deciding not to release the funds to Iran, the president’s lawless waivers notwithstanding.”

Also see:

John Kerry’s Letter to Congress Is a ‘Guilty’ Plea to the Charge That Iran Deal Materially Supports Terrorism

john-kerry-just-gave-russia-a-final-warningPJ Media, by Andrew McCarthy, Sep. 9, 2015:

How could any member of Congress in good conscience support a deal that so blatantly empowers a brazen enemy of the United States — a regime that has killed thousands of Americans, a regime that daily continues to call for death to America and the annihilation of Israel — to the degree that even the Obama administration openly concedes that the deal materially supports terrorism?

No sooner did Obama lock up the Democratic support he needed in the Senate to ensure his deal cannot be defeated under the farcical Corker review process than did his Iran point-man, Secretary of State John Kerry, send a letter to members of Congress promising that more military aid would be given to Iran’s enemies, Israel and the Sunni Gulf states. Let’s put aside the absurdity of vowing, as Kerry does in the letter, that Obama’s deal will promote regional peace while simultaneously acknowledging that Iran’s enemies will need “increase[d] security assistance.” If the Obama administration were charged with committing material support to terrorism, a serious felony violation of federal law, Kerry’s letter would suffice as a “Guilty” plea.

The criminal statute that prohibits “providing material support to terrorists” (section 2339A of the federal penal code, Title 18) provides a jail sentence of up to 15 years — or up to life imprisonment if death results from the offense — for anyone who:

… provides material support or resources … knowing … that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, [an act of terrorism] … or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act[.]

The statute provides a sweeping definition of “material support or resources”:

The term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials[.]

With that background, let’s turn to Kerry’s letter to members of Congress. It explicitly admits to:

Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.

Note that the State Department expressly designates both Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism.

But this admitted “support for terrorist and proxy groups” is going to stop now thanks to Obama’s deal, right? Wrong. Kerry flatly confesses (my emphasis):

We have no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action– i.e., Obama’s Iran deal.]

Obama’s Iran deal will provide Iran with over $100 billion, and opens the door to its acquisition of sophisticated weaponry (wholly apart from Iran’s nuclear development activities).

It is, in short, the most astronomical provision of material support and resources to terrorism — as that term is defined in federal law (see above) — in the history of the world.

Kerry’s letter to Congress goes on to concede that, after implementation of the deal, there will be a continuing need “to deter and combat regional threats, including terrorism and Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region.” Kerry elaborates that there will be continuing concerns about “arms transfers to Iranian backed Hizballah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militants in Iraq, as well as transfers involving North Korea.”

So, while the Obama administration ensures that money and materiel pour into Iran, Iran will continue to provide material support to terrorists, terrorist organizations, and terrorist regimes. In light of Kerry’s blatant acknowledgment of this fact, the State Department’s most recent report on Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, from 2014, is worth quoting at length:

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2014, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, Lebanese Hizballah, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. This year, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia militias, one of which is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), in response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) incursion into Iraq, and has continued to support other militia groups in the region. Iran also attempted to smuggle weapons to Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. While its main effort focused on supporting goals in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, Iran and its proxies also continued subtle efforts at growing influence elsewhere including in Africa, Asia, and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Lebanese Hizballah, its primary beneficiary, and as a key pillar in its “resistance” front. In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of at least 191,000 people in Syria, according to August UN estimates.

The IRGC-QF, in concert with Lebanese Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device (IED) technology and other advanced weaponry.

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank.

[I]n a November 25 speech, Supreme Leader Khamenei highlighted Iran’s military support to “Palestinian brothers” in Gaza and called for the West Bank to be similarly armed. In December, Hamas Deputy Leader Moussa Abu Marzouk announced bilateral relations with Iran and Hamas were “back on track.”

In March, Israeli naval forces boarded the Klos C cargo ship in the Red Sea off the coast of Sudan. On board, they found 40 M-302 rockets, 180 mortars, and approximately 400,000 rounds of ammunition hidden within crates of cement labeled “Made in Iran” and believed to be destined to militants in the region.

Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Lebanese Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC Aerospace Force stated in November that “The IRGC and Hezbollah are a single apparatus jointed together,” and Lebanese Hizballah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem boasted that Iran had provided his organization with missiles that had “pinpoint accuracy” in separate November public remarks. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Lebanese Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters have used these skills in direct support of the Asad regime in Syria and, to a lesser extent, in support of operations against ISIL in Iraq. They have also continued to carry out attacks along the Lebanese border with Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas have long been formally designated foreign terrorist organizations under federal law.

Obviously, there is no disputing the Obama administration’s patent knowledge that much of the material support its deal will provide to the terror-sponsoring regime in Tehran will be funneled to these and other designated foreign terrorist organizations. This means yet another criminal statute prohibiting material support to terrorism is implicated (Section 2339B of the federal penal code).

That law states:

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

The statute goes on to require proof that an accused person knows:

 … that the organization is a designated terrorist organization[,] … that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity[,] … or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism[.]

It is incontestable that President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their subordinates know all three things about Hezbollah and Hamas, even though the statute requires knowledge of only one of them to establish guilt.

It bears emphasizing that for all their absurd claims about how the president’s Iran deal reins in Iran’s nuclear program, even Obama administration officials feel compelled to admit that Iran will step up its material support to terrorism while it is receiving the windfall from the deal.

That is not just unconscionable; it is criminal.

How can Obama’s Iran deal conceivably be supported by anyone who claims to oppose international terrorism or support Israel?

Also see:

Trump storms Washington to stop Iran nuke deal – Watch Livestream at 1pm

cruz-trump1-1024x536WND, By Garth Kant On 09/07/2015

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump is coming to Washington with a message for Congress and the American people: Stop the nuclear deal with Iran.

And he will be joined by a star-studded galaxy of conservative leaders.

Appearing with the leading Republican presidential contender will be fellow candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, political commentator Glenn Beck, radio talk-show host Mark Levin and many others in what promises to be a huge rally to try stop the Iran deal at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Trump, the author of the best-selling “The Art of the Deal,” has called Obama’s agreement “very dangerous” and “horrible” for America, while “perhaps catastrophic” for Israel.

“This deal makes war a certainty,” Cruz has charged.

And, as he told WND, “If this deal is consummated, it will make the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism.”

“Billions of dollars under control of this administration will flow into the hands of jihadists who will use that money to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans,” Cruz warned.

Announcing on Sunday that she would join the rally, Palin wrote on Facebook, “Think about it – what the heck are we even doing ‘negotiating’ with an evil regime hellbent on destruction?

“The whole premise of this thing is wrong,” she added. “It’s a long haul to D.C. for the rally but well worth it to take a stand against this asinine deal the president caved on.”

Beck has called the Iranians “psychotic Islamists” and predicted the deal will lead to “a Holocaust, perhaps bigger than the last, where millions of Christians and even Muslims who are not Muslim enough will die at the hands of the Islamic State.”

Levin has charged, “Barack Obama has planted the seeds, in my view, for World War III. They were already there, but he’s moved it along. I honestly believe that the next, massive, conflagration, war will now be in the Middle East.”

The rally has been organized by Cruz, the Tea Party Patriots, The Center for Security Policy and the Zionist Organization of America.

Once Cruz convinced Trump to join the rally, the floodgates opened: Huge media coverage was assured, and more big-name conservatives joined the speaker roster.

How Cruz wooed Trump, an opponent in the presidential race, to join him was chronicled by the Washington Post, which portrayed it as part of larger effort to ally the two campaigns and the start of a budding “bromance.”

While other Republican presidential candidates were taking ineffective swipes at the front-runner, Cruz went the other direction, calling it “foolish” to “slap Donald Trump with a stick.”

The two agree on such major issues as the need to stop illegal immigration and the corruption of Washington politics by big money, and Cruz said Trump’s emphasis on those issues had helped boost his own campaign.

“I like Donald Trump. He’s a friend of mine. I’m grateful that he’s in the race,” said Cruz.

The Texan issued a personal invitation to Trump, who accepted the offer from his campaign rival.

Opposition to the Iran deal is something all the GOP presidential candidates can strongly agree upon.

Despite overwhelming opposition in Congress and among the public, the nuclear deal is likely to attain approval this week because of a Senate ploy which many critics consider a colossal tactical blunder.

The “Corker bill” allows the nuclear deal, effectively, to be approved by a minority of lawmakers.

That’s because Congress did not insist upon pursuing the normal treaty process that requires such an important international agreement to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Instead, a bill from Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., requires Congress to submit a bill disapproving the deal, if lawmakers want to block it.

That means a bill blocking the deal would need two-thirds of both the Senate and the House to override a presidential veto. And, opponents of the deal, although in the clear majority, do not have that many votes.

Republicans are expected to introduce bills in the House and the Senate this week to stop the deal.

But 34 senators have now committed to support it, ensuring Obama could veto a bill blocking the deal without the Senate overriding that veto.

That means the much-criticized deal likely will go into effect despite opposition by nearly two-thirds of the Senate, as much as three-quarters of the House and 55 percent of the country. Just 25 percent of Americans support the deal.

Sixty-six percent of voters believe the deal should require the approval of Congress.

Read more



Nuclear Jihad

mullahGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, September 7, 2015:

  • In the year 628, Muhammad, now ruling in Medina, signed the ten-year Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with his long-time enemies, the tribal confederacy of Quraysh, who ruled Mecca. Twenty-two months later, under the pretext that a clan from a tribe allied with the Quraysh had squabbled with a tribe allied to the Muslims, Muhammad broke the treaty and attacked Mecca, conquering it. It is as certain as day follows night, that the Iranian regime will find a pretext to break the deal. Already, on September 3, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene’i made it clear that he would back out of the deal if sanctions were not completely removed at once.
  • The Iranian regime not only despises democracy; it considers all Western law, including international law, invalid.
  • The Shi’a consider themselves underdogs, who are willing to sacrifice all to establish the rights of their imams and their successors. That was what the 1979 revolution was all about, and it is what present the Iranian regime still insists on as the justification for its opposition to Western intrusion, democracy, women’s rights and all the rest, which are deemed by Iran’s leadership as part of a plot to undermine and control the expansion of the Shi’i faith on the global stage. These are not Anglican vicars.
  • The Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “have responsibility… for a religious mission, which is Holy War (Jihad) in the path of God and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God’s law in the world.” — Iran’s Constitution, Article “The Religious Army”.
  • A Third World War is already taking place. The Iran deal strengthens the hands of a regime that is the world’s terrorist state, a state that furthers jihad in many places because its clerical hierarchy considers itself uniquely empowered to order and promote holy war.
  • Obama’s trust in Khamene’i’s presumed fatwa of 2013, forbidding nuclear weapons, rests on the assumption that it even exists. It does not. Even if it did,fatwas are not permanent.
  • Why, then, is this deal going ahead at all? Why is one of the world’s most tyrannical regimes being rewarded for its intransigence, and especially for repeatedly violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

“[Some] analysts,” writes the historian and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, “claimed the president [Barack Obama] regarded Iran as an ascendant and logical power — unlike the feckless, disunited Arabs and those troublemaking Israelis — that could assist in resolving other regional conflicts. I first heard this theory at Georgetown back in 2008, in conversation with think tankers and former State Department officials. They also believed Iran’s radical Islam was merely an expression of interests and fears that the United States could with sufficient goodwill, meet and allay. … Iran, according to Obama was a pragmatic player with addressable interest. For Netanyahu, Iran was irrational, messianic, and genocidal – ‘worse,’ he said, ‘than fifty North Koreas.'”[1]

Since the signing of the deal at the UN, hot-tempered criticisms and defences have gone into overdrive in the political, journalistic, and diplomatic spheres. Acres have been written and are still being written about the deal, making it the hottest political potato of recent years. Expert analysts such as Omri Ceren and, more recently, Joel Rosenberg have cut through the deliberate obfuscation to show the extent of the dangers the deal presents to the Middle East, the United States, Israel, and the world.

The deal’s supporters insist that it will bring peace and calm to the region, while a host of denigrators — chief among them Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — have exposed the enormous risks it entails. Already, a vast majority of American citizens are opposed to the deal.

Within the U.S. Congress, bipartisan opposition to the deal is high and mounting. Yet, on September 2, President Obama succeeded in winning over a 34th senator, enough that ultimate passage of the deal is a foregone conclusion. That does not, however, mean that the debate will end. In all likelihood, it will grow fiercer as time passes and true consequences become clearer to the public and politicians alike.

Recent revelations that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversees nuclear developments worldwide, has agreed that only Iranians will be allowed to inspect the most controversial of Iran’s nuclear sites, have raised anxieties about proper monitoring of the deal. The military complex of Parchin, where Iran is suspected of work on nuclear weapons, will be closed to outside inspection, making it certain that, if Iran decides to cheat (something it has done before), it will be able to do so with impunity. Sanctions will not be re-imposed. And, as we shall see, cheating on the deal can be justified by the Iranians who could always refer to the practice of the prophet Muhammad with the Quraysh tribe in Mecca.

Obama, his Secretary of State John Kerry, and the entire US administration are not merely behind the deal, but almost fanatically so. Many argue that Obama is more interested in securing his “legacy” as the world’s greatest peacemaker (or war-creator, as the case may well turn out to be), the statesman par excellence who alone could bring the theocratic regime of Iran in from the cold and shower the Middle East with true balance in its troubled affairs.

To bring this about, Obama has had to diminish, if not leave totally open to obliteration, American support for Israel, the single country in the world most clearly exposed to a possible genocide should the Iran’s Islamic regime choose to exterminate it, as it has so often threatened to do.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s words mellal-e Eslami bayad Esra’il-ra qal’ o qam’ kard – “the Islamic nations must exterminate Israel” — have been given renewed vigour now that it is highly likely that Iran, evading serious inspections by the IAEA, will soon possess the weapons to do just that.

Even if the treaty is a done deal, it is time to show yet another massive hole in the administration’s strategy. Already, Obama, Kerry and the tightly knit administration have shown themselves remarkably obdurate in turning a blind eye to the many concerns that surround the deal. At the end of the “sunset period,” if not sooner, Iran gets to have, legitimately, as many bombs as it likes. Other problems include breakout times; centrifuge production; centrifuge concealment; uranium enrichment by stealth; refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect military sites; the acquisition of intercontinental ballistic missiles — presumably to be used intercontinentally at guess who. It is no secret that the hardliners in Iran still speak of America as “The Great Satan” and consider it their enemy. That does not even include the implications of lifting sanctions on, and paying billions of dollars to, the world’s main sponsor of terrorism.

As Michael Oren has shown, however, the American president presumably thinks he is doing a deal with a logical and pragmatic regime. Barack Obama, an intelligent, well-read man of Muslim origin, knows almost nothing about Islam; that is the greatest flaw in the Iran deal he has fought so hard to inflict on the human race. With access to platoons of experts, to some of the greatest libraries with holdings in Islamic doctrines and history, and with the Mullahs and Iran’s public still daily promising to destroy America, Obama apparently still believes Islam is a religion of peace and that a theocratic, terror-supporting, medieval regime should have the power to make nuclear bombs. The obverse is that he might like, perhaps not wittingly, to see America, Israel and the West brought to their knees.

This author has previously exposed one aspect of Iran’s serious lack of logic, rationality, or pragmatism — namely the extent to which apocalyptic thinking, messianic prophecy, and dreams of Islamic transcendence through universal conflict pervade the clerical elite, a high percentage of the masses, and even the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. One might assume that this would be especially true when they are flush with cash and nuclear weapons, and the risk to their own survival is substantially lower.

On August 17, just over a month after the signing of the nuclear deal, Iran’s Supreme Leader, ‘Ali Khamene’i, addressed a religious conference, where he expressed his undying hatred for the United States. He said, for example:

We must combat the plans of the arrogance [i.e. the West, led by the U.S.] with jihad for the sake of Allah. … jihad for the sake of God does not only mean military conflict, but also means cultural, economic, and political struggle. The clearest essence of jihad for the sake of God today is to identify the plots of the arrogance in the Islamic region, especially the sensitive and strategic West Asian region. The planning for the struggle against them should include both defense and offense.

The deal has done nothing whatever to stop military threats to Israel, an ally of the United States (though treated with disrespect by America’s president). Speaking on 2 September, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s top commander in Tehran province, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazemayni, stated that, “… they [the US and the Zionists] should know that the Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine.”

There is a simple word for this: warmongering.

Why is the U.S. President insisting on a bad deal with a warmongering regime?

Read more

Also see:


Published on Sep 7, 2015 by theunitedwest

Tom Trento presents a straightforward analysis as to why the United States Congress should rip up the Iran deal and instead pass a Resolution rejecting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Iran, the number one state sponsor of Islamic terror. The rejection of the JCPOA is based upon the Senator Corker Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, signed by President Obama, which prohibits a vote of disapproval if the complete deal, including any side deals between Iran and any other parties are not handed over to Congress for their proper and professional review. Tom’s analysis is based upon the outstanding and extensive work of former US Prosecutor, Andy McCarthy.  For an excellent summary, see McCarthy’s article – Obama’s Iran Deal Is Still Far from Settled

The following video includes the complete playlist of the 8/30/15 Santa Barbara Stop Iran briefing and rally. Speakers include Amir Fakhravar, Dan Gordon, Clare Lopez and Ryan Mauro.

Why is Qassem Suleimani Smiling? The Iran Deal and Sanctions Relief for Terrorists

qassem-suleimanIran Truth, by |

Experts speaking at the Hudson Institute on Friday drew on Iran’s history in dealing with its neighbors and America to paint an accurate picture of how Iran will act in the aftermath of the Deal’s implementation.

“Over the last 35 years, there has not been an event that has warranted this tilt towards Iran. There has not been one single event that warrants this pivot towards Iran,” Michael Pregent, Executive Director of Veterans Against the Deal said. “Hope is not a method.”

Derek Harvey, Director of the Global Initiative on Civil Society and Conflict at the University of South Florida, said that the Deal only empowers the Iranian regime, in the form of funding and validation, to continue the same behavior they have assumed for the last thirty-five years. He said the Deal proves to the Iranians that their current tactic is effective, and emboldens them to pursue their ultimate goal of achieving regional hegemony. He added that there is no reason to believe that Iran has changed its agenda.

“I worry that a renewed, and validated, and better resourced Iran will just continue its hegemonic aspirations in the region, and they’ve been very effective at sewing disorder, taking advantage of their proximity, and using their a-symmetric capabilities to advance their interests,” Harvey said. “Fundamentally it’s going to empower the regime and give them military capabilities that are going to be detrimental to our interests and our allies interests in the region. We don’t have any real evidence of the character or nature of this regime changing.”

Harvey said that despite many Iranians being “westernized,” educated in Western institutions and English speaking, America must not be fooled to believe that we share common interests or ideas. Although some of them may appear similar to Westerners and are perhaps relatable to Americans, they maintain the ideology, which they were raised in. He said that America must not assume that Iranians have abandoned their extremist worldview because they lived elsewhere than Iran. Ultimately, America must assume that Iran will be governed according to the fundamentalist ideology that has prevailed thus far.

“Just because people have been to Western schools, speak fluent English, are very comfortable in dealing with Americans and Western Europeans, does not mean that they don’t have hardline, ideological, religious underpinnings that justify how they are performing and what they intend to do in leadership positions in that country. I think we are deceiving ourselves in projecting onto them things that are not there,” he said.

Pregent said that America must consider why sanctions were implemented in the first place, as a predictor of where the money will go after sanctions relief. He explained that Iranian money was sanctioned because it was being funneled to terrorist groups, and there is no reason to believe the funds will be re-allocated upon being unfrozen.

“The thing about this deal is, people say the money is going to go back to the Iranian people. Well the money was sanctioned, to begin with, because it was involved in terrorist activity. The money was sanctioned to begin with because it was involved in the procurement of military materials that would lead to a nuclear capability. So it’s not going to go back to the people,” he said.

Iran will act as it wishes, given the Iranian government does not feel deterred, according to Harvey. Iran sees America’s lack of retaliation as a pass to continue its rogue behavior in pursuit of regional dominance. “Iranians understand our reluctance to strike back,” he said.

Watch the video below.

Also see:

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran Treaty

!cid_image001_jpg@01D0E449American Thinker, by Robert B. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, August 31, 2015:

When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day, one of the most pressing issues on the agenda is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as “the Iran deal.” Much has been discovered since the Corker-Cardin-Menendez bill was enacted, including the White House’s and State Department’s deceit which influenced the Senate to abandon its constitutionally-provided role regarding treaties.

Now it might take a lawsuit spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse not only the damage to the Constitution but also potential damage to America and our allies as a result of the provisions of the Iran nuclear-deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has overwhelming justification to sue President Obama over the JCPOA which constitutes a treaty and thereby must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those present prior to implementation.

Such a suit could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to disclaim Obama’s portrayal of this document as an Executive Agreement. It could also sustain the overwhelming will of the American people–according to polling data—to trash this “legacy” effort, for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed.

Blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear-deal would thereby necessitate the legislative branch triggering a confrontation between the judicial and the executive branches.

Two essays {authored by RBS} published in The Hill explored the legalities of this initiative, focused on its “treaty” [July 29] and “rule-of-law” [August 25] components.

In the interim [USA Today, August 5], Professor Alan Dershowitz recognized that a Supreme Court opinion challenged the president’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. He is cannot avoid congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty [Gibbons v. Ogden]:  “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress.”

Two other authors, legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy [National Review Online, July 17] and accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick [Jerusalem Post, July 21] also claimed the deal is a treaty, but none of these columnists proposed a remedy that would force a clash with this out-of-control Obama Administration. Jerry Gordon has detailed, comprehensively, “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” [New English Review, August].

The drip-drip-drip of news about details of the deal as well as “secret” side arrangements that has emerged this summer congeals into two major rationales for such litigation, addressing both specifics and lack of transparency. Specifically, multiple side-deals between Iran and the IAEA satirize the concept of “anytime, anywhere surveillance” but, perhaps more important, Obama and his cabinet-members “inexplicably” failed to reveal this information to Congress as secrets.  Moreover, the Administration also misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the deal and the resulting preservation of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and right to continue advanced research that will provide it with a bomb when the pact expires in a mere decade to 15 years.

The “legislative intent” of the Corker-Cardin Bill (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015) was focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact the Administration concluded that was expanded to allow lifting of conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought—and was granted—this specific concession at the very end of the negotiations.  This was outside what the Administration had originally advised Congress about the parameters of this deal, focused on nuclear-weapons capability and not conventional weapons (or ICBMs). Thus, the final version of the Iran nuclear-deal encompassed issues, such as weaponization, that the Administration did not disclose to Congress before it debated and passed the Corker-Cardin Bill.

(Other facets of the negotiation were also misrepresented by the Obama Administration prior to when Kerry inked the deal. For example, although release of American prisoners was not ultimately achieved, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on  January 21, 2015 that the Administration’s negotiators “continue to insist” that Americans held in detention be released.)

This pattern of deception started before the Corker-Cardin Bill was passed in May. It was even maintained by Iran when the Tasnim News agency reported [June 15] “Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani reiterated that negotiations between Tehran and six major world powers solely focus on nuclear topics, dismissing any talk of military subjects in the talks.” And, reflecting the persistence of the deception,  it was manifest one week prior to when the deal was signed [July 14] during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing via testimony from Defense Secretary Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey that the arms embargo, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1929, was not to be lifted [July 7].

Thus, overall, absent the ability to review all relevant data, the Senate (1)—cannot render an informed judgment, consistent with its “advise/consent” role, and (2)—cannot be viewed to be facing a 60-day deadline, for the Corker-Cardin Bill mandates that this “clock” start “ticking” only after the database has been completed.

Refusal to provide copies of side-agreements to Congress continues unabated, as per testimony on August 5 by chief-negotiator Wendy Sherman and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. We now know why normally-sedate Senator Corker exploded (“We cannot get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin”) because such inspections have been serially outsourced by Obama to the IAEA and then, we learned more recently, by the IAEA to Iran.

The “toughest inspections-regime in history” forces America (and the world) to allow Iran to provide proof that Iran is not making nukes in Iran.

Read more

Iran: Never Held Accountable

230730e (1)Center for Security Policy, by Christopher Holton, August 30, 2015:

The Obama administration has embarked upon a path to reward decades of bad behavior by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the futile hope that Iran will become benevolent and cease its warlike actions and intentions toward the West in general and the U.S. and Israel in particular.

As futile as the idea of negotiating a nuclear deal with the Ayatollahs seems to sober Americans and our allies today, we must first set the record straight on those policies of the past that Obama and his supporters say that they are determined to change: America has never had a “tough” policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran has been allowed to kidnap and kill Americans for decades, whether directly or by proxy, without fear of severe repercussions. For years the U.S. State Department has declared that Iran is the world’s “most active” sponsor of terrorism, yet the Ayatollahs have not been forced to pay a significant price. Iran has armed and aided our enemies –including al Qaeda-and threatened our allies and has gotten away with it.
Iran has killed Americans for over 40 years, sponsored Hezbollah, HAMAS and al Qaeda and has repeatedly threatened America and our allies.
Iran was complicit in the Hezbollah Islamikaze attacks on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in April 1983 and the US Marine barracks there in October 1983. In the attack on the Marine barracks, 241 U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers were killed. In fact, until September 11, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.
It should be pointed out that Iran is not just a sponsor of Hezbollah. Iran formed Hezbollah and has always trained and continues to train its operatives in Lebanon and inside Iran. Hezbollah basically operates as an Iranian foreign legion.
Worst of all, the Iranians have been developing nuclear weapons in violation of international law (along with the ballistic missiles with which to deliver them) and, still, there has been no tough policy toward Iran.
Though it may seem to many Americans as if the Iranian nuclear program has only come about in the past few years, it has actually been known to policymakers for a very long time.
Consider that over 20 years ago in the January 4, 1994 edition of USA Today, Clinton administration Undersecretary of State Lynn Davis had this to say about Iran’s nuclear program: “Iran’s actions leave little doubt that Tehran is intent upon developing a nuclear weapons capability. They are inconsistent with any rational civil nuclear program.”
What did the Clinton administration do to head off Iran’s nuclear program after this startling admission about Iran’s nuclear intentions? Virtually nothing.
For nearly three decades now since Iranian “students” invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took U.S. hostages, sanctions against Iran have been a widely believed urban legend – and nothing more.
Even during that hostage crisis of 1979-81, President Carter was unsuccessful in convincing our closest NATO allies and Japan to participate in economic sanctions against Iran. Not even Great Britain was willing to cut off trade with Iran during that crisis period.
The U.S. has had to “go it alone” on Iran for decades. But even the U.S. has imposed only limited unilateral sanctions against Iran and never broad, far-reaching sanctions. Three successive administrations, Clinton, Bush and Obama didn’t even bother to enforce our own sanctions against Iran.
The Iran Sanctions Act, authored by Sen. Alphonse D’Amato of New York passed both houses of Congress with virtually no opposition back in 1996. That bill would have placed any foreign oil company with over $20 million in investments in Iran’s oil and gas sector under U.S. sanctions. Companies like Shell and Total would have been forced to choose between doing business in America or in Iran. President Clinton signed it into law – and promptly issued waivers by executive order to every single oil company that would have been affected. Unfortunately, President Bush, on the advice of the geniuses at the State Department, continued that same waiver policy during his eight years in office. Unsurprisingly, Obama has followed suit as the list of foreign oil companies doing business in Iran became more Russian and Chinese in recent years.
Moreover, America has allowed our own corporations to bypass U.S. sanctions laws by using foreign cut-outs and subsidiaries to do business with the Ayatollahs. In fact, during the eight years of the Bush administration, U.S. trade with Iran actually expanded. This is especially shocking given that during much of this period Iran was operating directly in support of Jihadist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who were killing American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, providing the terrorists with training, logistics, safe haven and advanced weaponry.
Iran was the primary supplier of deadly EFP-IEDs (Explosively Formed Penetrator-Improvised Explosive Devices) to the insurgents in Iraq and operated training camps for those insurgents inside Iran.
As for sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, they have been even more limited to certain aspects of nuclear technology and arms, with virtually no impact on the Iranian economy. Even these limited sanctions have no teeth at all, which is why Iran’s largest arms suppliers, Russia and China, were willing to allow them to pass in the first place.
The fact is, Iran has felt little economic pressure due to sanctions since that day 21+ years ago in January 1994 when the Clinton State Department admitted to USA Today that Iran was working on nuclear weapons.
Our government has failed us. Our leaders have failed us.
What is so frustrating to those of us who are worried about the Iranian threat and have for years sought a peaceful means of addressing Iran’s nuclear program and its sponsorship of terrorism, is the fact that there have never been any meaningful measures taken to bring pressure on Iran.
It is especially disappointing that America and the rest of the Free World are not willing to apply economic leverage on Iran right now because now President Obama is poised to hand the genocidal Ayatollahs in Qom a windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars in both sanctions relief and freed assets.
President Obama has declared repeatedly that “there’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years” between the US and Iran.
Given that Iran has made killing Americans its national sport and sponsoring Jihadist terrorist organizations its national pastime, why should America trust the Ayatollahs?
The next time someone tells you that we need to approve the Iranian nuclear deal “because sanctions haven’t worked,” you should point out that tough, comprehensive sanctions have never been imposed on Iran.
One day, we are all going to wake up, turn on the TV news and discover that the Ayatollahs have The Bomb. Our children and our children’s children will always wonder how we let it happen.
Also see:

“Analysis of the Iran Deal” with Lt. Col. Allen West


Published on Aug 28, 2015 by emetonline

July 22, 2015 – EMET’s New York Chapter hosted Lt. Col. Allen West in New York City to provide an analysis of the Iran Nuclear Deal and also global radical jihadism.