Group readies Benghazi report based on witness accounts

Mideast Libya Turmoil CentralBreitbart, by :

A private group of national security officials is preparing to release its own report on the Benghazi scandal, with a top official behind the report saying they have interviewed numerous eyewitnesses from before, during and after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, an organization composed of American retired military officers, intelligence officers, and national security experts is poised to release the product of one year of its own investigation into the scandal.

The report will include new details from witness and whistleblower interviews relating to the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and CIA Annex. This attack left four Americans dead–including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Additionally, the Commission has issued a total of 55 FOIA requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Department as well as conducted interviews and meetings with sources and confidential informants with direct knowledge about what happened on September 11, 2012.

“The people have come to us in different ways have direct knowledge of what went on in Libya both before and during and to some extent after the attacks of September 11, 2012. And so those are actually the three periods of time, conceptually, that we focused on,” Commission member and former CIA officer Clare Lopez told Breitbart News.

Lopez explained, “The before, was the 2011 revolt against Gaddafi, when the U.S. in our judgment threw in with Al Qaeda and basically empowered known Al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sitting sovereign government that was our ally, really, in the war against AQIM in particular.”

“The second period of time is ‘the during.’ We specifically focused on why no military response was forthcoming. There was no decision. We can’t say there was a ‘stand down’ but there was no stand up either,” she said.

Finally, Lopez remarked the third part of the is the ‘after’ and “the cover up and why talking points were altered and why that video innocence of Muslims was used as an excuse and what purpose that served for the administration.”

The Commission is dedicated to pressing the House of Representatives to form a Select Committee to investigate the attack in Benghazi and learn answers to several questions including: why Washington officials ignored repeated concerns about security threats in Benghazi; who signed off on weapons exchanges to al-Qaida-linked rebel groups?; Were U.S. officials aware they were providing aid and material to terrorists groups in contravention of U.S. law?; Why weren’t U.S. Marine FAST teams and rapid response forces stationed within hours of Benghazi sent to aid Americans under assault in Benghazi? [emphasis added]

An Analysis of President Obama’s Terrorism Doctrine

obama-the-evil-one-e1389267583308 By :

Perhaps it is time to analyze the Obama Doctrine on terrorism as we reflect, as a nation, on our loses in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Benghazi attack, Extortion 17, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Crimea and the over 55 attacks against the homeland by terrorists since 2008.

On August 3, 2011 President Obama released the National Strategy on Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism. The strategy, now known as the Obama Doctrine, was based upon the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) study group findings and recommendation developed in 2010 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CVE has become the blueprint for both domestic and foreign policy when dealing with terrorism. The Obama Doctrine redefined “terrorism” as “violent extremism”.

The DHS website states, “The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.”

Who developed the Obama Doctrine?

The Obama Doctrine is based in large part upon the 2010 findings and recommendations of a Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. The twenty member advisory council is unique in its composition, with eight members who are Islamists, three representing large Islamic communities and one openly supportive of Islam.

Islamist members included: Nimco Ahmed, Policy Aide, Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council, Omar Alomari Community Engagement Officer, Ohio Homeland Security, Asli Bali Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Mohamed Elibiary President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Amin Kosseim Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department, Imam Mohamed Magid Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS Center), Asim Rehman President, Muslim Bar Association of New York and Dalia Mogahed Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Members from predominantly Islamist communities included: Michael Downing Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department and Ronald Haddad Chief of Police, Dearborn Police Department. Richard Cohen President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center, was a pro-Islamist council member. Pro-Islamist subject matter experts advising the council included: Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS and Laurie Wood, Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

According to Clare Lopez, former CIA Operations Officer and co-Author of the book Shariah: The Threat to America:

Muhammad Magid is not only the head of the ADAMS center, he is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Grand Mufti of Sudan and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an MB front group named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation – HAMAS (HLF) terror funding trial. Magid is also one of the closest advisers of the National Security Council of the USA (in particular Denis McDonough). He’s an A-list invitee at the White House. Some believe he may be the head of the North American MB Shura Council.

Mohamed Elibiary is affiliated with numerous identified MB figures who are members of the Freedom and Justice Foundation Advisory Council: they come from the Muslim American Society (MAS), CAIR, ISNA, and the Islamic Association of North Texas. He publicly criticized the HLF trial convictions and has written admiringly of Sayyed Qutb.

IIIT likewise is listed in the MB’s “Explanatory Memorandum” of 1991 as one of its ‘friends and the organizations of our friends’.”

Read more 

Dr. Rich Swier is the Publisher of DrRichSwier.com e-magazine. He was the former State Editor for Watchdog Wire – Florida and RedCounty.com. He holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master’s Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Richard is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Richard was the Founder/CEO of Sarasota Online, a high technology company that was sold to Comcast Cable in 1996.

From Lockerbie to 9/11: Iran is Let Off the Hook

timthumb (4)by Clare M. Lopez
Accuracy in Media
March 16, 2014

A documentary that aired 11 March 2014 on the Al-Jazeera America channel presented compelling new evidence that Iran and the Syrian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Counsel (PFLP-GC) directed and carried out the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that crashed into Lockerbie, Scotland on 23 December 1988. “Lockerbie: What Really Happened?” presented formerly classified documents and never-before revealed accounts from two of the investigators in the case—American attorney Jessica De Grazia and her Scottish colleague, George Thompson—both of whom were part of the defense team for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan security official eventually convicted of planting the bomb.

Aware that Al-Jazeera America has its own agenda and that this story may just fit rather neatly into it this time, the evidence presented by credible sources nevertheless makes this documentary worth serious consideration. Other, especially U.S., media have tended rather consistently to pass over evidence of the Iranian regime’s long record of support for terrorism (both Shi’ite and Sunni), even when that support has involved American citizen deaths, as in the two cases presented here. This Al-Jazeera documentary diverges from that typical media coverage of Iran and so earns our attention.

In the documentary, De Grazia and Thompson discuss classified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cables they obtained and shared with Al-Jazeera, but never had the chance to present in court. Specifically, they document a March 1988 meeting in Malta among representatives of Hizballah, Iran, Libya, PFLP-GC, and Syria. According to a protected source who attended the gathering, this apparently disparate group found common cause in hatred for Israel and the U.S., and met to discuss general cooperation in targeting Americans and Israelis. The Iranians were willing to direct terror operations, but wanted both the fig leaf of deniability that proxies could provide as well as the demonstrated explosives expertise for which both Hizballah and PFLP-GC were known. Syria long has allowed PFLP-GC to keep its headquarters in Damascus.

The collaborative arrangement that began with that meeting in Malta received its first operational assignment shortly after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988, with the loss of all 290 on board. Although the U.S. insisted the tragedy was due to misidentification of the Iranian plane and ultimately paid more than $100 million in compensation, a high-level Iranian defector reported that the Iranian regime nevertheless decided to seek revenge in kind, and quickly, by shooting down a similar U.S. civilian aircraft with a like number of passengers on board.

Abolghassem Mesbahi ran operations for the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in Europe before he defected to Germany in the early 1990s. His testimony about Lockerbie is especially credible because he also has testified in other cases involving Iranian complicity in terror attacks, including the Paris assassination of former Iranian Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar in 1991, the 1992 Mykonos Cafe assassination of Kurdish leaders in Berlin, and the 1994 bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires. Mesbahi was one of three Iranian defector witnesses in the Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al. legal case, in which Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York Federal District Court ruled in December 2011 that Iran and Hizballah “materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.” (The author was an expert witness for the Havlish legal team and co-authored one of the affidavits, which is cited herein.)

Mesbahi’s original 1996-97 Lockerbie testimony (as well as his more recent contribution to this newer documentary) is further bolstered by striking parallels in his later recorded testimony in the Havlish case. As described to the Havlish legal team, the Iranian regime’s efforts to galvanize pan-Islamic unity to attack U.S. and Israeli interests did not begin with the 1988 meeting in Malta, but rather a couple of years earlier, in the mid-1980s, during the depths of the Iran-Iraq war. It was then that the plan known among Iranian intelligence circles as “Shaitan Dar Atash” (“Satan in the Flames” or “Satan in Hell,” meaning America, known as the “Great Satan,” in the flames). Because it was acknowledged that Iran lacked the military power to confront the U.S. directly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and MOIS were tasked with devising asymmetric means to destroy America. According to Mesbahi, the IRGC and MOIS discussed ways of attacking the U.S. critical infrastructure (electric, fuel, water distribution, etc.) and using civilian aircraft as “bombs inside U.S. cities” such as New York and Washington, D.C. The ultimate intent was to bring down the U.S. economy.

Efforts to unify the Islamic world across Shi’ite-Sunni sectarian lines redoubled after Iran’s revolutionary leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, died in 1989. In the early 1990s, when Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were living under the protection of Sudan’s pan-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood leadership, President Omar al-Bashir and Hassan al-Turabi, his sometime political ally, organized a gathering of jihadist forces from across the Islamic world. The various Palestinian factions, including the PFLP-GC, plus Hizballah and the Iranian leadership all attended. It was in Khartoum that then-Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offered bin Laden the explosive expertise of Imad Mughniyeh, his top Hizballah terror operative. That is the partnership, which endures to this day, that led eventually to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the wake of the July 1988 shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655, Iranian planners turned to PFLP-GC operatives who had made a name for themselves with several prior airliner attacks. According to De Grazia and Thompson, the DIA documents identify four PFLP-GC members who were involved in the Lockerbie plot: Ahmed Jibril, the PFLP-GC leader who possibly masterminded the attack; Hafez Dalkomoni, who led the German-based PFLP-GC cell suspected of involvement; Marwan Khreesat, a Jordanian master bomb-maker who may have made the bomb used on Pan Am Flight 103; and Abu Talb, the Egyptian-born leader of PFLP-GC’s Swedish cell, who is suspected of having couriered the Lockerbie bomb. German security forces were monitoring the Dalkomoni cell and arrested both him and Khreesat in October 1988, but a bomb found in Dalkomoni’s car was an exact match for the one that later brought down the Pan Am airplane. Both bombs were covered in Toblerone chocolate candy wrappers and concealed inside a Toshiba cassette player. Other bombs were discovered in Dalkomoni’s apartment, but the Germans recovered only a total of four out of five of the bombs they knew existed. The fifth exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 23rd.

By the following summer of 1989, the British and Scottish investigators were ready to issue arrest warrants for fifteen PFLP-GC members they had identified as connected with the attack. According to investigators De Grazia and Thompson, the case was for all intents and purposes solved; all involved with it (including American, British, German, and Scottish intelligence and security representatives) were in agreement that the PFLP-GC had carried out the attack on orders from the Iranian regime.

And then, sometime in mid-1989, according to former CIA operative Robert Baer, President George H.W. Bush made a phone call to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and asked her to back off the case against PFLP-GC. In the Al-Jazeera America film, Baer claims that the U.S. government made an executive decision that the role played by the PFLP-GC (and by extension, its sponsors in Damascus and Tehran) would be quietly submerged and instead, the Libyans would be made the sole scapegoats. After that, the Lockerbie prosecution went after Megrahi and the Libyans, eventually convicting Megrahi, who spent eight years in a Scottish prison before being released on humanitarian grounds, dying in 2012 of cancer.

It is difficult to know why U.S. leadership decided to protect the PFLP-GC and Iranian regime, when all the investigative work had been done and all the evidence pointed strongly at their responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. Gathering tensions with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein over his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs and the perceived need for Syrian support and, at a minimum, a pledge of non-interference from Iran may have been part of it. In the final analysis, though, Iran still has not been held to account: not for the murder of 270 people, mostly Americans headed home for Christmas, over Lockerbie, Scotland, and not for the nearly 3,000 killed on 11 September 2001. It is time that Iran is brought to account for its crimes against humanity.

UNINVITED II PANEL: UKRAINE UPRISING COULD HERALD ‘END OF THE POST-COLD WAR ARRANGEMENT’

russia-flag-crimea-reutersBreitbart, NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—The potential for a new world order in which Russia is the main superpower is a potential outcome of the current Ukrainian crisis, a national security panel at Breitbart News’s Univited II National Security Action Summit agreed Thursday.

At a talk sponsored by Breitbart News, the Center for Security Policy, and EMPAct America, a number of experts agreed that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy needed to be contained for the good of the United States and the greater world community.

American Foreign Policy Council President Herman Pirchner began the discussion with a look into the Ukrainian protesters and their motivations. The Ukrainian crisis “is very much a generational problem,” he explained, with many young people looking towards more Westernized nations like Poland and the Baltics and hoping to be included in their prosperity. This did not mean that there was no support for Russia in Ukraine, or that individuals did not speak the language or adhere to some cultural norms, but the economic pull of Western neo-liberalism was there.

Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Ariel Cohen expanded upon that desire and the threat of Russia overriding it and changing the world map in a way that endangers America. Cohen, who was born in Crimea, warned that a victory for Putin in Ukraine could mean “the end of the post-Cold War arrangement and possibly the end of the post-World War II arrangement.” A move that allows Russia to work the way it currently is in Crimea would launch a competition between a number of nuclear-armed nations to stop each other and create a “more chaotic and dangerous environment,” he concluded.

Sebastian Gorka, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, agreed but emphasized America’s moral imperative to intervene. “Why should we care about Ukraine?” he asked simply. “Because we are Americans.” The issue of helping freedom-loving people was one of “morality, and what this nation stands for,” he asserted. “If we don’t care about Ukraine, 1776 means nothing.”

The Claremont Institute’s Claire Lopez spoke more about the nature of the Putin regime that has been in power for a decade. “We are up against a KGB thug,” she explained, one that runs a “KGB-controlled and directed kleptocracy.” The invasion of Crimea, she added, was no surprise after the invasion of Georgia in 2008, in which Russia never retreated out of Abkhazia or South Ossetia. “If we don’t make a stand,” she argued, “this won’t happen again.”

Breitbart’s own Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak concluded the discussion emphasizing how completely the Obama administration had left that part of the world to their own devices. The United States is “the only stabilizing force in the world,” he argued, “and we don’t always have to be fighting wars to do it,” something that escapes the Obama administration and many in Congress. Pollak also noted that Ukraine was not alone as a nation fighting for pro-America values and being left behind: “Why are the conservative media ignoring Venezuela?” The current state of affairs, a “hollow foreign policy still committed to internationalism,” would result in danger for Western values, he concluded.

Also see:

SEN. DAVID VITTER TO KEYNOTE ‘UNINVITED II’, NEW GUESTS AND PANELS ANNOUNCED

20140302_Slider_EMPact_Natl_Sec_ActionSummit_3614Breitbart, by :

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) will deliver a keynote address on the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal aliens at “The Uninvited II: The National Security Action Summit” during CPAC, Breitbart News Network is proud to announce.

Co-hosting the event alongside EMPAct America and the Center for Security Policy, Breitbart News Network will present the second annual installment of the “Uninvited” event—this year a full day of events and speakers rather than just one panel—at the Westin Hotel at National Harbor all day Thursday, from 8 AM until after 4 PM. Tickets are available for free but prior registration is required at HomelandThreats.com.

First elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Vitter is known for being as vicious a fighter against amnesty as Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has offered scores of amendments and pieces of legislation to counteract efforts from Democrats and Republicans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Breitbart News is also proud to announce that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) will also speak on the topic of amnesty at the “Uninvited II.” Additionally, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) will speak on how big a threat to America’s national security the national debt presents.

Newly announced speakers also include former George W. Bush administration Western Hemisphere foreign policy official and current American Enterprise Institute fellow Amb. Roger Noriega; Judicial Watch’s top investigator Chris Farrell; American Foreign Policy Council president Herman Pirchner; Foundation for the Defense of Democracies national security expert Sebastian Gorka; former CIA agent Clare Lopez; and the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen. In addition, Breitbart News Network Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak will speak, as will retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bob Newman, Amb. Hank Cooper, and EMPAct America president Dr. Peter Pry.

Also revealed today are panel presentations and topics at the “Uninvited II” event that include “The Common Defense Endangered: The Case for Peace Through Strength 2.0,” and a panel focused on the crisis unfolding in the Ukraine right now, titled “Crisis in the Ukraine: Putin’s Bid for USSR 2.0 and the Needed U.S. Response.” There will also be a panel focused on efforts to protect America’s power grids by pointing out vulnerabilities.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this week, other speakers who will present at the “Uninvited II” include Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will also speak, as will several retired military generals, commanders, and admirals, former members of Congress, and anti-amnesty and pro-military grassroots activists.

Update: TED CRUZ TO SPEAK AT ‘THE UNINVITED II: THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT’

Gathering Storms: The Iranian Drive for Nuclear Weapons

Sand-in-HourglassBy Andrew Harrod:

“Iran is now at the last lap of the nuclear marathon,” Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli Minister for Congressional Affairs, stated during a January 14, 2014, conference call.  Sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) after a January 8 EMET/Center for Security Policy (CSP) panel on Iran (video here), the two policy discussions highlighted growing dangers from an uncontained Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear weapons were part of an Iranian “long term strategic vision” dating from the 1980s, Lebanese-American Middle East scholar Walid Phares explained at the Russell Senate Office Building.  Along with these “fissiles,” Iran was developing missiles as weapons delivery vehicles, an arsenal currently capable of striking Israel and in the future targets like Moscow.  Iran’s Islamic Republic “perceived itself as a superpower” challenging infidels such as the Israeli “Little Satan” and the American “Greater Satan” with an international revolution analogous to Soviet Communism. The subsequent presentation by Andrew Bostom on canonical Islamic anti-Semitism recurring throughout history emphasized the troubling ideological nature of the Islamic Republic.

There is in Iran currently, however, “nothing to compare” with Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, Phares determined.  Despite contrary hopes, Iran betrays the “opposite of reform.”  Phares dismissed impressions of Islamic Republic moderation as manifesting how this regime is “not predictable on the tactical level” while maintaining a consistent strategic vision.  The Islamic Republic is willing to go “very far” in the name of pragmatism and “sell you anything.”  Iran, for example, is currently claiming to be “part of the war on terror” alongside the United States in opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq, a “narrative” of “common enemies” designed to impress “Ivy League experts.”  Yet “there is no difference” between the infamous Islamic Republic founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the current Islamic Republic Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Phares’ fellow panelist, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer and CSP fellow Clare Lopez, similarly rejected prospects of the Islamic Republic reforming.  Contrary to “people with stars in their eyes,” current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is not any moderate but rather a “long term insider of the regime.” Among other things, Rouhani helped plot the 1994 Buenos Aires Jewish cultural center bombing.  Ettinger likewise described Rouhani as a “con artist” and “master of taqiyya” who had been “misleading the world community for ten years” as Iran’s nuclear negotiator.  Lopez also dismissed any debates in the Iranian parliament or majlis over the November 24, 2013, Iranian nuclear agreement between “hardliner” and “moderate” elements as merely “theater” for foreigners.

Deceit, rather than reform, is far more likely coming from the Islamic Republic, in accord with the canonical saying of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (hadith) cited by Lopez that “war is deceit” (Bukhari 4.52.269).  Former Rouhani adviser Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini’s televised description of the nuclear deal as emulating the treacherous 628 Hudaybiyya truce made by Muhammad emphasized such calculations for Lopez.  Given past Iranian concealment of nuclear facilities at Lavizan-Shian and Parchin to avoid international inspections noted by her, the Islamic Republic had a proven track record of duplicity.

Phares additionally analyzed how the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s failure to acquire nuclear weapons led the Islamic Republic to develop regime defenses before obtaining nuclear weapons.  Thus Iran is seeking to consolidate a “geographic space” from Afghanistan to Lebanon, including a NATO-like alliance formed with “Papa Assad,” Syrian ruler Bashar Assad’s father and predecessor Hafiz. While this alliance allows for Iranian penetration of Lebanon through Hezbollah, Iran has also made its influence felt in Africa and Latin America.

Distressing to Phares, President Barack Obama’s administration actually looks to Shiite Iranian influence along with that of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to stabilize the Middle East.  A key “benchmark” for Phares was Obama’s recognition of continuing Islamic Republic rule by not supporting the 2009 Green Revolution that came “very close” to “shaking off” the Iranian regime. The 2013 nuclear deal now implies “recognition of influence in the region” for Iran in places like Syria, an “undeclared Yalta agreement” in return merely for Iran’s promise to abandon nuclear weapons.  “Why on Earth did we partner with the Ikhwan” or (MB) in Egypt, an astonished Phares asked, while noting Lebanon’s 2005 Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution as examples of pro-democratic movements with which the United States could ally.

“We betrayed them in 2009” and “unfortunately failed to support them in any way,” was also how the Iran expert Michael Ledeen described American policy towards the Green Revolution during the conference call with Ettinger.  Yet the Islamic Republic is a “hollow regime…quite clearly terrified” of opposition movements in Ledeen’s judgment, contrary to assessments of the regime as stable.  Islamic Republic repression of public gatherings and intellectuals reminds Ledeen “a lot of the last days of the Soviet Union.”  Indeed, current Iranian opposition movements are “much bigger” than past Soviet dissident groups and Iranian security services are not as effective as their former Soviet counterparts like the KGB. The “Iranian people do not like this regime,” Ledeen concludes, something Rouhani’s ultimately empty “great reputation as a reformer” has not changed.

“Bring it down…support the Iranian people,” is thus Ledeen’s policy recommendation for regime change in Iran.  In fact, this “third option” between eventual acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons and any military counter-proliferation strike is the only viable long term Iran strategy.  Yet the “folly” of the American government not contacting Iranian opposition figures amazed Ledeen, who himself regularly communicates with them.  “If I can contact them, believe me the American government can contact them,” Ledeen says.

Read more at Front Page

EMET/CSP panel addresses the question “What are Iran’s True Intentions”

download (55)Center For Security Policy, Published on Jan 16, 2014

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

 Introduction

Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Clare Lopez

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Andrew Bostom

Dr. Andrew Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed works The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: from Sacred Text to Solemn History, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism and the recent monograph The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope.” Dr. Bostom’s forthocoming monograph is entitled, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in the New York Post, Washington Times, The New York Daily News, Pajamas Media, National Review Online, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at his:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

Mark Langfan

Mark Langfan is a noted security analyst who in 1991 created a 3 dimensional topographic raised-relief map system of Israel. Viewing the 3D Israel map one can easily and quickly be informed of many of the underlying resource and security issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict such as West Bank water resources and Israeli ‘defensible’ borders. Over the past 20 years, Mark has briefed many Congressional and Senate offices, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Israel Desk, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Mark wrote and published seminal articles concerning the Israeli/Middle East region including the 1992 “Demilitarization Risks” warning of future Palestinian Katyusha rocket barrages from vacated Israeli territory, the 1995 “US Troops on Golan Quicksand” warning of the unique topographic dangers of deploying US Troops to the Golan Heights, and the 2006 “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” exposing the Iranian arming of Iraqi Insurgents against US forces, and of Iran’s other regional and strategic goals. Mark has published numerous articles in newspapers and security journal. For more information visit www.marklangfan.com.

This presentation by Mark Langfan with Erick Stakelbeck shows the maps better:

What’s Behind CAIR’s Attempt to Stop Training Course about Hezbollah?

H rallyBY CLARE LOPEZ:

A very odd situation has developed in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, issued a last-minute call to replace three highly-qualified instructors for a course on the Iranian proxy terror group, Hezbollah.

The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy (CSP) think tank was certified by the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET) to deliver a one-day seminar entitled “Iran, Hezbollah and the Drug Cartels: Counterterrorism Considerations.” CAIR wanted CLEET to drop the course instructors whom it terms “anti-Muslim extremists.”

On October 28, 2013, CAIR issued a call to CLEET Executive Director Steve Emmons to replace course presenters Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez with what it calls “’credible and objective subject matter experts.”

Yet, here are the credentials of the presenters:

Gen. Jerry Boykin, currently Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, is one of the original members of the U.S. Army Delta Force. Boykin led Green Beret Special Forces and commanded their Special Warfare Center and School, and served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. There are few who could match his credentials as a subject matter expert on topics related to terrorism.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan administration. He brings decades of national security expertise to this course and addressed its final hour with a presentation on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the U.S. critical infrastructure.

Clare Lopez (author of this piece) is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the co-author of two books about Iran who has briefed Congressional members, and lectured and published widely on national security and terrorism topics. She also was an expert witness and co-author of a key affidavit in the 2011 Havlish case, in which Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York found Iran and Hezbollah jointly responsible together with al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Adam Soltani, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, led the ill-informed and ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the removal of these well-qualified course instructors. To their credit, the Oklahoma Counterterrorism Caucus, which sponsored the seminar, and Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw, Caucus Chairman, held firm against CAIR’s pressure tactics, and the course went on as scheduled.

Soltani himself, apparently very keen to attend the training, nevertheless apparently applied too late for a seat in the full-capacity hall. Bennett advised Soltani by email prior to the course running that registration had closed, but Soltani showed up anyway. He reportedly found a place from which to follow the course in the Visitors Gallery.

Read more at Clarion Project

See also: CAIR Tries to Stop Counter-Terror Training Sessions by Ryan Mauro

Players Begin Savage Moves for Post-Assad Power Grab


syrian supporters of MB
By: Clare Lopez:

“Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (IPE)” is a military term for analyzing the operational environment, including the adversary and his potential courses of action. The corollary to the IPE process is taking action to help shape that environment in ways advantageous for one’s own side and detrimental for the enemy. Such action may be military, but also includes intelligence and psychological operations.

This is what’s going on in Syria right now. Bashar al-Assad’s regime is going to fall and the only question left is, “How soon?” The forces that will savage one another to succeed him in power in Damascus are beginning to make moves that are calculated to improve their position in the immediate post-Assad period.

Key players are being either removed from the chess board or strategically placed on it. For example, on March 19, 2013, the Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC) elected Ghassan Hitto, a senior member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, as head of an interim opposition government for Syria. Hitto was profiled in an extensive report by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) later the same day.

*********

This is deeply troubling on a number of counts: First, that the U.S. is not taking the lead to selectively support those elements of the SFA that do not seek another Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Islamic regime in the Middle East; and second, that the U.S. is actively supporting elements of the Syrian opposition that have made no secret of their intent to install another sharia-compliant Islamic regime in Damascus once Assad is gone.

Read more at Radicalislam.org

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
This article may not be republished without expressed written permission from RadicalIslam.org

Egypt Pursues Hezbollah

Hezbollah supporters at a rally in Lebanon (Photo: Reuters)

Hezbollah supporters at a rally in Lebanon (Photo: Reuters)

By Clare Lopez

Sunnis and Shi’ites are literally at each others’ throats these days in Syria, much as they have been for over 1300 years of Islamic fitna, but elsewhere rapprochement may be the word of the day. The Egyptian ambassador to Lebanon was quoted in a December 29, 2012 Daily Caller interview talking about pursuing a relationship with Hezbolllah, Iran’s Shi’ite terror proxy.

Calling Hezbolllah a “real political and military force” on the ground in Lebanon,” Ashraf Hamdy, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s envoy to Beirut, provided the latest signal that a new Cairo-Tehran axis of jihad may be taking shape.

Of course, contrary to what sometimes passes for conventional “wisdom” among some so-called “national security experts,” this would hardly be the first time that Sunnis and Shi’ites have found common cause based on pan-Islamic ideology. As Mehdi Khalaji, senior fellow at the Washington Institute, pointed out in a remarkable 2009 essay, “Iran has maintained informal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood for many years.”

The Ayatollah Khomeini was named Time Magazine's Man of the Year (seen here on the January 7, 1980 cover of the magagzine).

The Ayatollah Khomeini was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year (seen here on the January 7, 1980 cover of the magagzine).

The most visible cross-sectarian relationship may be the mullahs’ longstanding support for HAMAS, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1987. Personal relationships among Brotherhood members who later would found some of the most savage of all Islamic terrorist organizations — such as Al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad — and Shi’ite cadres who would become the Ayatollah Khomeini’s anti-Shah shock troops likely began in the Beka’a Valley in the 1970s when the Soviet KGB was running terror training camps for an array of the world’s militants.

Indeed, the Iranian regime’s operational collaboration with Al-Qaeda in the attacks of 9/11 demonstrably can be traced back to those early relationships, later solidified at the Khartoum Jihad Jamboree gatherings of the early 1990s that were co-sponsored by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and his sometime collaborator, Hassan al-Turabi, a key Sudanese Brotherhood figure.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (both found safehaven in Sudan in those years and were introduced while there to Iranian regime leadership figures including then-President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, intelligence chief Ali Fallahian and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohsen Reza’i.

The intellectual affinity between Iranian Shi’ite clerics such as the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and pivotal Brotherhood theoreticians such as Sayyed Qutb rests on the conviction that intra-Islamic sectarian differences must be set aside so that Muslims may form a united front to wage jihad against Christians, Jews, the West in general and, ultimately, the entire Dar al-Harb (non-Muslim world).

Hassan al-Banna2As elaborated by Mehdi Khalaji (here) and Tom Joscelyn (here), it was a young Iranian cleric named Nawab Safawi who, in the early 1950s, introduced the Ayatollah Khomeini to the pan-Islamic, jihadist ideology of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Perhaps equally little known is the scholastic course that brought current Supreme Leader Khamenei to translate two of Qutb’s books, Al-Mustaqbal li hadha al-Din (The Future of this Religion) and Al-Islam wa Mushkelat al-Hadharah (Islam and the Problems of Civilization).

The 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat by Islamic jihadis and the subsequent clamp-down on the Brotherhood by Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, temporarily put a damper on overt expressions of Khomeinist-Brotherhood mutual admiration, but by 2009, former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef, openly asserted that “The Muslim Brotherhood supports the ideas and thoughts of the founder of the Islamic  Republic.”

The Iranian regime was quick to claim an inspirational role once the 2011 Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood revolutions broke out, although the Ikhwan did not immediately (or publicly) embrace the overture.

It is true that Khomeini’s 1979 revolution in Iran did capture the imagination of the entire Muslim world, both Shi’ite and Sunni, and nowhere more enthusiastically than among Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and two of its offshoots, Omar Abdel-Rahman’s Gama’at Islamiyya and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, both later to become founding members of Al-Qaeda.

But the Shi’ite-Sunni face-off in Syria that began in 2011, followed by the HAMAS departure from longtime headquarters in Damascus, brought Islam’s perennial sectarian strife back to the front pages, while tending to obscure the simultaneous but less visible developing potential for a diplomatic thaw between Iran and Egypt.

Now, however, with the Brotherhood in firm control of Egypt and the three-decades-old peace treaty with Israel no longer a given, indicators like Ambassador Hamdy’s remarks about Hezbolllah may take on a more ominous cast.

A reported August 2012 meeting between the then-head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service, Maj. Gen. Murad Muwafi, and a senior official of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) was followed by a August 22 statement from Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, that indicated Egypt and Iran are moving towards restoring diplomatic relations.

Salehi said that Iran seeks ties of “friendship and brotherhood” with Cairo. Then, at the late August 2012 Non-Aligned meeting in Tehran, Morsi and his Iranian host, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, exchanged pledges as “strategic allies” and discussed enhanced bilateral cooperation in the areas of “science and technology.”

Egypt scholar Raymond Stock noted in a stunning September 7, 2012 Gatestone Institute essay that such cooperation could possibly include an Iranian offer to share nuclear technology with Morsi’s Brotherhood regime. Coupled with statements from Muslim Brotherhood and military figures about an Egyptian desire to acquire a “nuclear weapon,” the Iranian model of revolution, terror and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) looks increasingly likely to metastasize to the Arab heart of the Islamic Middle East.

The advantages of rapprochement with Egypt for Iran, which is currently facing crushing financial sanctions, a grueling and probably losing struggle to shore up the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, plus at least some measure of international opprobrium over its nuclear weapons program, are obvious.

Read more at Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

 

 

Benghazi bungle an attempt to advance Islam?

HillaryClinton32-273x275by Taylor Rose

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration may be trying to use the al-Qaida terror attacks on U.S. operations in Benghazi, Libya, to advance a growing global movement to protect Islam from criticism, according to one expert.

The issue is the “defamation of religions” resolution pending at the United Nations.  It was introduced by Islamic nations and coalitions to criminalize any negative reference to Islam or Muslims.

Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Clarion Fund, said that after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration made an impromptu decision to advance the Islamic agenda item it already had endorsed.

“The Obama administration, and especially the Department of State led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are coordinating closely with the [Organization of the Islamic Conference] to achieve implementation of U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which despite some cosmetic wording changes, remains the vehicle through which the OIC is determined to work toward the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law,” she said.

Her comments came at an Endowment for Middle East Truth panel discussion recently  concerning the OIC’s repeated demand to punish those who criticize Islam in U.N. member nations. The OIC is a coalition of 57 Islamic members, 56 states and the non-state Palestinian Authority.

After almost a decade of negotiations between the OIC and Western powers, the U.N. resolution no longer has specific references to blasphemy and Islam. It now has more generic language, with hate-speech style references.

The original Obama narrative on the Benghazi attack, quickly proven to be false, was that the violence was caused by a spontaneous crowd protesting an anti-Islam YouTube video called “Innocence of Muslims.”

Lopez said the Obama administration’s “stubborn adherence to the false narrative of the YouTube film, ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ for so long after the 11 September 2012 attack on the Benghazi mission is inexplicable except in the context of a globally coordinated campaign through the OIC and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to advance the anti-free speech agenda of U.N. Resolution 16/18.”

Lopez said the administration’s aim not only is to support the passage of U.N. Resolution 16/18 but to attempt to move Middle East policy in a direction that favors jihadist states.

“Official U. S. policy now is to assist al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadists to overthrow what have been termed ‘unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers’ who failed to enforce Islamic law (shariah) … and to replace them with jihadist Muslim Brotherhood leadership that has pledged its commitment to re-establishment of the Caliphate and strict implementation of Shariah,” she said.

Lopez said the change in policy is a consequence of infiltration of Islamist operatives in the United States government.

“It is likely that such drastic and detrimental changes to U.S. national security strategy can be attributed at least in part to the extensive infiltration of MB operatives as advisers and appointees within the Obama administration and throughout cabinet departments … and on down even to local law enforcement levels,” she said.

She said the OIC “is determined to work towards the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law.”

While she said the First Amendment is posing a stumbling block, she believes the OIC and Obama will expand on existing law that possesses broad language allowing for various interpretations.

“One of the tactics they appear to be considering is seeking to expand upon already-existing U.S. law that prohibits ‘imminent incitement to violence’ to impose a so-called ‘test of consequences’ on speech by American citizens,” she said.

She elaborates on the strategy by clarifying that “while currently the law stipulates that the actual content of the speech must include an explicit incitement to violence, the ‘test of consequences’ would instead assign a post ipso facto charge of guilt against someone who neither spoke nor intended ‘imminent violence’ and perhaps spoke only truth – but whose speech was interpreted at some time and place in the world by someone as ‘offensive’ and who then used that entirely subjective feeling of ‘offense’ as an excuse to go out and commit violence.”

Read more at WND

Clare Lopez: Next Steps on Iran

Clare Lopez gives an overview of what is known about activities at Iran’s nuclear facilities, the assessment of their weapons capabilities at this time and the status of negotiations with Iran about their nuclear program. Near the end of the video she gives the evidence that the 2010 missile test in North Korea was in fact a test for an EMP. The existential threat to Israel is also discussed.

Clare Lopez is Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy; former operations officer, Central Intelligence Agency; former Executive Director, Iran Policy Committee.

The SHIELD Act*

(Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act)

The summary below was written by Congressman Trent Franks.

Why We Need it:

In 2008, the bipartisan Electromagnetic Pulse Commission testified before Congress that: Contemporary U.S. society is not structured, nor does it have the means, to provide for the needs of nearly 300 million Americans without electricity;

  • The current strategy for recovery from a failure of the electric grid leaves us ill-prepared to respond effectively to a manmade or naturally occurring EMP event that would potentially result in damage to vast numbers of components nearly simultaneously over an unprecedented geographic scale;
  • Should the electrical power system be lost for any substantial period of time the consequences are likely to be catastrophic to society, including potential casualties in excess of 60% of the population, according to the Chairman of the EMP Commission;
  • Negative impacts on the electric infrastructure are potentially catastrophic in an EMP event unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system; Finally, most experts predict the occurrence of severe geomagnetic storms is inevitable, it is only a matter of when.

What it Does:

  • The SHIELD Act, which amends section 215 of the Federal Power Act, encourages cooperation between industry and government in the development, promulgation, and implementation of standards and processes that are necessary to address the current shortcomings and vulnerabilities of the electric grid from a major EMP event;
  • The SHIELD Act incorporates most of the EMP-related language of HR 5026 from the 111th Congress, which passed overwhelmingly through the House, but was stalled in the Senate during the Lame Duck due mostly to additional language regarding cyber-security threats.
  • However, the SHIELD Act omits language regarding cyber-security threats, (which can be better addressed in a separate bill), and then goes beyond HR 5026 by further requiring an automated protection plan and hardware-based solutions, without which the legislation would be toothless to truly address EMP threats.
  • The SHIELD Act also requires that standards be developed within 6 months, as opposed to 1 year, of enactment, ensuring a faster timeline of protection.

Click here to download a PDF version of the text above in a ready-to-print format. Click here to read the entire SHIELD Act in full. Click here to check the status of the SHIELD Act.

* Note: In the Senate, there is another “SHIELD Act” that is quite different from H.R. 668.  The Senate’s “SHIELD Act” (S.4004) “Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination” Act amends the federal criminal code to expand the prohibition against disclosure of classified information. The Senate’s “SHIELD Act” does not address the electric infrastructure or electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Terror agents walk among us

by Michael Carl at WND:

A preliminary report issued by the U. S. House Committee on Homeland Security estimates that there could be “hundreds, maybe even thousands” of Hezbollah agents operating in the United States and specifically in New York City.

The report issued following last month’s hearings says that the exact number of operatives is hard to determine.

“Pinning down a reliable estimate of the number of Hezbollah operatives who now reside inside the U.S. is difficult because of their operational security expertise,” the report states. “But some officials estimate that, based on cases uncovered since 9/11, there are likely several thousand sympathetic donors, while operatives probably number in the hundreds.”

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez agrees there are a significant number of Hezbollah sympathizers and terror cells at work in the U.S.

“During the recent Rep. Peter King hearings on Capitol Hill on Iran and the Hezbollah threat to the homeland, New York Police Department Intelligence Chief Mitch Silber was one of the witnesses,” Lopez said. “Although it was King who referred to ‘hundreds’ of Hezbollah operatives on American soil, Silber did not contradict him and added his own testimony about Iranian U.N. ‘diplomats’ conducting what appears to be, in fact, pre-attack surveillance casing.”

Although Silber hasn’t responded to WND’s request for an interview, he did testify before the committee that Hezbollah is known to have scouted for terrorism targets after the 9/11 attacks.

“We believe this is neither an idle nor a new threat,” Silber said. “Between 2002 and 2010, the NYPD and federal authorities detected at least six events involving Iranian diplomatic personnel that we struggle to categorize as anything other than hostile reconnaissance of New York City.”

“The first event occurred in June of 2002 and involved Iranian Mission security guards. The second event occurred at 2 a.m. on November 16, 2003, when uniformed NYPD officers riding a southbound 7 train observed two males filming the subway train tracks,” Silber said. “The men, who initially claimed diplomatic immunity, turned out to be security guards at the Iranian Mission who had recently arrived in New York. Despite two warnings from the State Department about this inappropriate behavior, in May 2004, two more Iranian Mission security guards were observed videotaping infrastructure, public transportation and New York City landmarks.

“One month later, the guards were expelled by the United States for ‘engaging in activities that were not consistent with their duties’ – in other words, spying,” Silber said.

Report data was compiled by staff members of the committee and other U. S. intelligence agencies, but Florida Security Council President and United West leader Tom Trento says he believes the present administration didn’t contribute much to the report.

“Though the United States Government has the capability to track and extrapolate probable terrorists fairly well,” Trento said, “this particular administration does not see that has a significant issue.”

Trento, who also contributed to the Center for Security Policy Team 2B’s report on Shariah, adds that because of the Obama administration’s lethargy about Islamic terrorism, the figure could also be an unreliable estimate.

“This type of information usually comes from educated guesses by experts often based on leaks from some of the good guys that are still operating in the United States government,” Trento said. “I would conclude that there is a significant ‘fifth column’ of thousands of Muslim bad guys in the U.S., primarily coming through Mexico via help from the cartels.”

Lopez is confident in the figure because of the sources of the information.

Read the rest

 

Must Watch Video: The Threat from Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran now looms large as one of the greatest threats to the National Security of the United States. From the current status of its nuclear weapons program, to its policy of expansionism in Latin America, to its murder of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and its acts of terror on every inhabited continent, Iran is a strategic advesary of the United States and its allies on every level and in every theater. EMET has convened a panel of some of the best Iranian experts to discuss the threat posed by Iran, its strategic and ideological thinking, and what can be done to confront and defeat this challenge.

This is a joint event of the Endowment for Middle East Truth and the Center for Security Policy

Kenneth Timmerman: Co-founder of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and an investigative reporter for three decades focused on terrorism and the Middle East, author of numerous works including Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.

Clare Lopez: A veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, serves as Vice President of the non-profit forum, The Intelligence Summit, and a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre), where she teaches courses on the Iranian Intelligence Services, and the expanding influence of Jihad and Sharia in Europe and a Senior Research Fellow for the Clarion Fund and the Center for Security Policy.

Dr. Michael Ledeen: An internationally renowned scholar, whose ideas and insights on the workings of the Iranian government have been a critical part of the policy discussion for decades. Author of Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West; The War Against the Terror Masters;  The Iranian Time Bomb and numerous other works.

Hon. R. James Woolsey: fmr. Director of Central Intelligence, fmr. Ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in Vienna, 1989–1991; Under Secretary of the Navy, 1977–1979; Chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies