How the Iran lobby sidetracked the nuclear talks: part 2

Photo by: Vahid Salemi FILE - In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 file photo, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a ceremony to commemorate the late Khadijeh Saghafi, wife of late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran, Iran. Rouhani has dismissed pressure from the U.S. Congress over a preliminary deal on Iran's nuclear program, saying that Tehran is dealing with world powers not American lawmakers. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

Photo by: Vahid Salemi
FILE – In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 file photo, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a ceremony to commemorate the late Khadijeh Saghafi, wife of late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran, Iran. Rouhani has dismissed pressure from the U.S. Congress over a preliminary deal on Iran’s nuclear program, saying that Tehran is dealing with world powers not American lawmakers. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

– – Thursday, April 16, 2015:

In the previous article, we saw how the Iranian regime’s panic over the 2002 outing of its theretofore clandestine nuclear weapons program drove its subsequent decisions about how to deal with the publicity and mollify, or at least occupy, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the United States (U.S.).

Having been well-trained by its mentors at the Soviet KGB, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) quickly established a two-tier system: those nuclear sites, such as Natanz, Isfahan, Arak, and later Fordow, that had been exposed were turned into show sites. IAEA inspectors were invited in, and the so-called EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), later joined by the rest of the UNSC to form the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, UK, and U.S.), began negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

The haggling went on for a decade and counting. At no time from 2003 to this day, however, did Iran itself willingly offer up (as obligated under its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory status) any information about other clandestine sites in its sprawling nuclear weapons program. For unexplained reasons, nor did the IAEA, P5+1, or UNSC compel it to despite an international sanctions regime ostensibly aimed at getting Iran to comply with six UNSC Resolutions demanding it halt all nuclear enrichment and come clean about its past nuclear activities with “possible military dimensions.”

While international trade relationships, intra-UNSC rivalries, and a reluctance to alienate Iran right out of the talks altogether might explain some of the failure to press Iran about the clandestine elements of its nuclear weapons program, at least for the U.S., there was another player involved in the game: the Iran Lobby.

As discussed in a February 2009 occasional paper by this author and published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, “Rise of the Iran Lobby: Tehran’s Front Groups Move On—and into—the Obama Administration,” “a complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran” had organized by the early 2000s to influence U.S. government policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A follow-on paper, “The Iran Lobby: Alive, Well, and Changing the Face of the Middle East,” published by the Center in October 2014, chronicled what I termed “the disastrous fruits of that network’s efforts.” The term “Iran Lobby,” by the way, was first noticed in the Iranian media itself, in 2007. It seemed a most apt description of the circle of influence operators that were pursuing and achieving positions of influence at the upper levels of U.S. national security then, and certainly all the more so, now.

After more than a dozen years of maneuvering behind the scenes of Washington, DC policymaking, the Iran Lobby today has succeeded in infiltrating the Department of State, National Security Council (NSC), and the nuclear negotiations themselves. Led by NIAC (the National Iranian American Council) and its founder and president, the Iranian-born Trita Parsi, the Iran Lobby counts among its affiliates and supporters a Who’s Who list of influential individuals and organizations ranging from former ambassadors and oil executives, to a bevy of Middle East and Iran experts from leading NGOs and think tanks.

The objective was always clear: shift official U.S. policy on Iran to a position supportive of Tehran’s agenda that sought protracted negotiations to buy time for its nuclear weapons development, financial concessions that eased sanctions and released frozen assets, and a conciliatory posture that eschewed any discussion of military options to deal with Iranian intransigence, ignored Iranian support for Islamic jihad (terrorism), pretended its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program didn’t exist, turned a deaf ear to non-stop genocidal threats against the Jewish State of Israel, and generally acquiesced in its regional geo-strategic ambitions.

Above all, there was to be absolutely no discussion of Iran’s parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Astonishingly, today, the Iran Lobby has achieved all of this and more.

Not surprisingly, the Iranian leadership mocks the Obama administration, especially Secretary of State John Kerry and his hapless negotiating team. In January 2014, just weeks after the supposed landmark ‘breakthrough’ of the November 2013 “Joint Plan of Action,” Kerry’s Iranian counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, actually laid a wreath at the tomb of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hizballah terror chieftain responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans from the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing to 9/11.

The same month, Iran’s ‘moderate’ president Hassan Rouhani tweeted about how, in Geneva, the world powers “surrendered to Iranian nation’s will.” A senior Iranian TV commentator noted with rare honesty that the Geneva agreement was but “the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.” Following the 2015 April Fool’s Day ‘framework’ agreement, Iranian leadership figures were quick to describe the U.S. version as a “U.S. version” “lie” and declare it “not acceptable to Iran.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Bassij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi declared that “erasing Israel off the map” was “non-negotiable.”

And yet, the American team practically begged the Iranians to keep talking and give them something, anything to hold up as a ‘success.’

To understand this sorry state of affairs, it is only necessary to understand the function and purpose of hostile influence operations and how the Iran Lobby in America has finessed its way to turning U.S. foreign policy with Iran completely on its head. As described above, maneuvering Tehran-regime-friendly figures into positions of power and influence is the name of the game.

One Sahar Nowrouzzadeh could be Exhibit A for how this works: apparently a former NIAC employee, she now appears on a list of senior White House aides who attended a secure video conference on 31 March 2015 with the U.S. negotiating team in Lausanne, Switzerland. She is listed as the National Security Council Director for Iran.

Meanwhile, her former boss, NIAC’s Trita Parsi, appears in a photo published by the Iranian Fars News Agency, greeting Fereydoon Rouhani (the president’s brother) at the Lausanne talks. Parsi’s Facebook page shows another photo of the NIAC leader smiling at the talks alongside his Research Director, Reza Marashi, and NBC reporter Ann Curry. Marashi’s NIAC bio lists his former employment at the State Department’s Office of Iranian affairs. According to reports, at least Parsi has been present at previous nuclear negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, as well.

This is what a successful infiltration operation looks like. Apparently, Parsi thinks so, too, because on 2 April 2015, he posted the following on his Facebook Page:

“Trita Parsi

“April 2 at 5:22pm ·

“Oops. Just realized I haven’t eaten lunch today. Been too busy gloating…”

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

How the Iran lobby sidetracked the nuclear talks

Photo by: STR Even if the U.S. and other world powers can settle on the delicate final terms of a nuclear deal with Tehran, there's still a big chance Iranian hard-liners will pressure Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reject the accord. (Associated Press)

Photo by: STR
Even if the U.S. and other world powers can settle on the delicate final terms of a nuclear deal with Tehran, there’s still a big chance Iranian hard-liners will pressure Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reject the accord. (Associated Press)

Washington Times, by Clare Lopez, April 15, 2015:

The Obama administration spin narrative about what a great success nuclear negotiations with Iran are was already coming unglued the day after the April Fool’s Day ‘framework’ was announced. Mr. Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and their advisors were trying desperately to portray the endless succession of contentious talks between the P5+1 and Iran as a great success even as the Iranians spoiled all the fun by essentially calling the Americans out as liars, and declaring that what they called “the U.S. version” was “not acceptable to Iran.”

And in fact, the European Union, the French, Iran, and the U.S. have all put out differing accounts of what was actually agreed upon in Lausanne, Switzerland in late March 2015. As Amir Taheri pointed out in a trenchant 4 April 2015 piece at the New York Post, all we really have is a “diplomatic dog’s dinner” of competing and contradictory statements. It’s not any kind of agreement at all.

But if we take a step backward and consider what we already know or ought to know about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, it should become rather quickly obvious that all this diplomatic wrangling about centrifuges, enrichment levels, inspection regimes, and sunset clauses is nothing but window dressing.

That’s because the real Iranian nuclear weapons program very likely is not the one they’re all tussling over. The real Iranian nuclear weapons program long ago was withdrawn behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy guarded by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS—Iran’s primary intelligence agency).

While it’s long been known that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the IRGC to “get the bomb” in the waning days of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, details about the subsequent 25-year Iranian commitment to comply with that order are much less well-known.

As the so-called “father of the Pakistani bomb,” Abdul Qadir Khan, wrote in documents obtained by the Washington Post in 2010, Pakistan provided Iran with blueprints and parts for centrifuges and shared its secret list of worldwide suppliers. That’s how the Iranian nuclear weapons program got started. But neither the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) nor the public knew anything about this until the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), blew the lid off Iran’s program in August 2002. The Iranian regime, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), went to panic stations and came up with a plan to limit the damage. The Iran Lobby in America would have a key role to play in that damage control operation.

Much as the Iranians’ mentors in the clandestine WMD business—the Soviet KGB—had done earlier when some of its illicit weapons programs made media headlines, the Iranians conceded a few of the sites that were now exposed: Natanz, Isfahan, Arak, and later Fordow.

Lavizan-Shian, where the regime had worked on nuclear warhead design, was deemed too sensitive, so it was simply razed to the ground in 2003 and its components moved elsewhere.

Natanz, the buried uranium enrichment site where some 9,000 centrifuges currently are operating, became the centerpiece of the regime’s new information operation. It was opened to IAEA inspections, figured prominently in the IAEA’s quarterly reports, and was allowed on the P5+1 nuclear negotiations agenda.

Likewise it was with Isfahan, the conversion plant; Arak, the heavy water reactor that gives Iran a parallel plutonium route to the bomb; and Fordow, a deeply buried centrifuge facility.

Everybody was kept very busy arguing, discussing, and negotiating about the sites Iran got caught with—and now, more recently, a non-existent ‘agreement’ that each of the parties describes in its own, mutually contradictory, terms. Indeed, all the negotiating teams from the IAEA, Britain, China, the European Union, France, Germany, Russia, and the U.S. are being kept so busy that nearly everyone has forgotten all about the fact that Iran’s entire nuclear program was an illicit clandestine one until the NCRI exposed it—or that virtually every site in that program that’s now public was revealed by someone other than Iran…which the P5+1 now inexplicably wants to trust to open all its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection.

Parchin, a military site where the IAEA believes Iran has conducted nuclear trigger explosives tests, provides a good example of how the regime deals with demands to open places to inspection it would rather remain closed: as Bill Gertz explains at the Free Beacon, they just say “no.” And, as with Lavizan-Shian a dozen years earlier, they conduct a “clean-up” operation to tear down buildings and destroy parts of the complex they’d prefer not show up in any more satellite images.

Naturally, Parchin has not been included in any of the P5+1 talks, nor has the U.S. delegation even suggested that it ought to be. It has been the same with other suspicious sites like Khondab and Lavizan-3, now revealed publicly, but left completely off the agenda. This is not to even consider how many additional clandestine sites Iran has been operating, but are as yet not revealed.

The critical issues before us then are not so much about the number of centrifuges, or which generation of centrifuges, or what level of enrichment will be allowed to Iran going forward at the show case sites: rather, we must ask why and how our negotiators have themselves been spun up to dither endlessly, but only about sites already in the public domain. Iran’s secret parallel nuclear weapons program remains unmentioned and untouched.

In Part 2 of this series, the critical role of the Iran Lobby will be examined.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Videos: Clare Lopez and John Guandolo sounding the alarm on USCMO influence operation

uscmo2014HEY, US CONGRESS – “THROW THE TERRORISTS OUT!”

By Tom Trento of The United West:

On Monday April 13 and Tuesday 14 Muslim Terrorists walking around the United States Congress will demand that our elected Representatives change federal law thereby making it harder to investigate Muslim terrorists. I know, crazy stuff, but it is happening right in broad daylight! THANK Allah that we at The United West are experts at investigating Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and exposing their influence operations for all Americans to understand and properly respond. To accomplish this we are launching a five-part investigative series entitled: “Muslim Terrorists Lobby 114th Congress.” Our show today focuses on what the Members of the 114th Congress should do when the terrorists ENTER their offices. And what is that? THROW THEM OUT THE DOOR! Why in the world should an elected Member of Congress give any time to KNOWN terrorists who have a written agenda that includes destroying the essence of the Capitol building in which they are meeting! Watch this show as it is FULL of critically important information to help all Americans properly, professionally and legally DEFEAT this Muslim Brotherhood political influence operation.

***

Newsmax: Ex-FBI Agent: DC’s National Muslim Day Pushes Radical Islam

National Muslim Advocacy Day, being held Monday on Capitol Hill, is a cunning bid by radical Islam to gain political power in the U.S., counterterrorism expert John Guandolo tells Newsmax TV.

“This kind of event has several key elements to it. The first is they’re trying to declare the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations is a Muslim political party in the U.S. and candidates are going to have to be vetted by them,” Guandolo, a former FBI agent, said on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

It’s also a demonstration to the Muslim community in the U.S. and outside the U.S. that they have a very heavy hand inside our leadership realm and inside Washington, D.C.

“Because here are open Hamas organizations — the American Muslims for Palestine, the Council on American Islamic Relations — and they’re just wandering freely around the D.C. area.”

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations describes itself as “a coalition of leading national and local American Muslim organizations.”

The event is expected to draw Muslim delegates from across the nation and will “connect national, regional and state Muslim organizations, community members with more than one-third of the U.S. House of Representatives and a half of the Senate,” the group said in a statement.

But Guandolo — author of “Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America,” published by Guandolo Associates LLC — said the event is a “smaller piece in the larger civilization jihad.”

“[That] is the term the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic memorandum says that they are doing. So this political warfare, subversion, and propaganda … fulfills a part of that,” he said.

“No. 1, they have a political presence. [And] It’s political warfare in the sense they’re establishing a much louder voice, at least in their opinion, up on Capitol Hill.

“And [there’s] the idea that, ‘Hey, members of Congress, if you don’t accept us, then you obviously are racists, bigots, and Islamophobes.”’

Guandolo said he was surprised some participants would even be allowed on Capitol Hill “without the FBI, DHS, and Capitol police arresting them — because these guys are leaders of Hamas in North America.”

‘All evidence suggests Iran already has nuclear warheads’

iranian-mullahs (1)WND, by Garth Kant:

WASHINGTON – On a day when Iran and Western powers announced they had reached a framework of a deal, a highly informed and keen-eyed analyst believes the Obama administration wasn’t actually trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

In fact, just the opposite.

“If Iran wanted to be nuclear, that was fine with this administration. I really think that’s their policy,” said Middle East specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.

Lopez described the talks with Iran talks as a diplomatic kabuki dance intended to cover up the awful truth: Iran already has what it wants.

“All the evidence suggests Iran already has nuclear warheads,” she told WND.

Worse yet, she said the Obama administration almost certainly knows that.

“IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) reporting over recent years indicates at a minimum they strongly suspect that Iran already has built nuclear warheads. It’s certainly known that Iran has long range ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles.)”

“The only thing I don’t think we know for sure is whether the Iranians have been able to marry the nuclear warheads to missiles, which is a technically difficult thing to do,” said the woman whose analytical acumen was honed by 20 years as a CIA field operative.

But it doesn’t appear the parties agree upon what they agreed to, because after the announcement, Iran immediately accused the U.S. of lying about what was in the agreement.The New York Times described the framework deal announced Thursday as a “surprisingly specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program.”

Chief Iranian negotiator Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters the agreement would allow Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.

“We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development,” and not close any facilities, Zarif said.

He also crowed that essentially all economic sanctions against Iran will be removed after the deal is signed, by the deadline of June 30.

The proposed deal would also allow Iran to keep operating 6,000 centrifuges capable of producing enriched uranium, a fuel for nuclear weapons. After 15 years, Iran would be free to produce as much fuel as it wishes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a stark assessment of the agreement, tweeting, “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”

Nonetheless, President Obama claimed the deal “cuts off every pathway” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. And, he insisted, “If Iran cheats, the world will know it.”

But from what Lopez surmises, whatever is in the deal is largely irrelevant, because Iran basically already has what it wants.

WND asked Lopez, if Iran already has warheads, did it buy or build them?

“I think they built them,” she said. “I don’t see how not, after this many years of working closely with other countries’ programs.”

So, if the objective wasn’t to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, why was the Obama administration so desperate to get a deal?

“To sort of rack up a political win,” said Lopez. “It’s for appearances. A political notch in the gun belt. But it’s not real. I mean, they know it’s not real.”

The administration’s eagerness for a deal was expressed as far back as January 2013, when national security council staffer Ben Rhodes told liberal activists it was as important to the president as Obamacare, saying, “This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to put it in context.”

That zeal for a deal has made the rest of the world wary.

“What bothers me is it looks like the administration is so hungry for a deal just to have a deal so they can say they have a deal,” House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday, before the deal was announced and upon returning from a trip to Israel and five other countries in the Middle East. “The rest of the world wants something real out of this.”

“And we’re in these talks with the people who describe us as Satan, like we’re going to come to some agreement with the Iranians, while they’re spreading terror all over the Middle East,” he added.

Lopez told WND, “I’m not sure if architects of this policy agenda, including the president, actually understand the history of Islamic jihad and what it’s done in, and to, the world – especially the non-Muslim world, much of which was forcibly subjugated to Islamic rule over the centuries. Or else, how could they possibly follow such a policy?”

She also warned that the administration may not fully recognize Iran is so dangerous because it is not seeking peaceful coexistence; ultimately, it is seeking world domination and has not shied from expressing that openly.

“According to its own constitution, it is dedicated to jihad and a global Islamic government under Shariah. Its ideology says it can accelerate the return of the 12th Imam by instigating Armageddon: a frightening thought about a regime driving for a nuclear bomb.”

Lopez noted a distinct peculiarity to keep in mind when negotiating with Iran: “Islamic law obligates Muslims to lie to non-Muslims. Why on earth would anyone expect Iran, a jihad and Shariah state, to negotiate with Westerners in good faith?”

“They (the administration) are captivated by the vision of an Iran as a potential source of strategic stability in a region that’s falling apart,” speculated Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor and former White House official in the George W. Bush administration. “They would never be so naive to describe it that way, but you can tell that’s a hope.”

Lopez does see “a tremendous naivete about what jihad and Shariah really mean” on the part of the Obama administration.

She detects “an apparent trust that if the U.S. adopts a more accommodating attitude, well, then so will the Iranians. I’m not sure how Ivy League graduates could be so ignorant of world history. I cannot imagine they’d want to inflict the legacy of Islamic jihad on anyone if they knew what it has meant historically.”

The Washington Post reported another possible motivation for Obama to strike a deal, almost any deal, with Iran: personal pride.

“The negotiations are also personal for the president. Obama was dismissed as dangerously naive in 2007 by then-candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton for suggesting that he would engage in ‘aggressive personal diplomacy’ with Iran,” reported the paper Wednesday.

“There’s a determination to prove the Republicans wrong, and to prove the world wrong,” Julianne Smith, a former deputy national security adviser to Vice President Biden, told the Post.

Lopez enumerated four more reasons why she believed the president pushed so hard for a deal:

  • Obama has decided to remove U.S. power and influence from the Middle East and North Africa.
  • He has a worldview that sees America as influence for ill in the world; therefore, he must diminish that influence wherever and however possible.
  • He has a worldview that sees Islam as suppressed and oppressed by Western (colonial) powers and the U.S. as the inheritor of that oppressive role.
  • He has a desire to “rectify” what is viewed as “injustice” suffered by Islam at the hands of the West and has decided that best way to do that is for the U.S. to withdraw and allow and empower Islam to rise back up again to what is seen as its “rightful” place in the world.

Why does Lopez believe the evidence suggests Iran already has built nuclear warheads? Because so much of that evidence has been publicly available for so long.

Read more

Center for Security Policy sends A team to Canada’s Parliamentary committee on terrorism bill C51

csis

Vlad Tepes:

Begin Transcript.

Clare Lopez: Thank you. Thank you very much. We would like to thank Steven Blainey, Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Chairman Darrell Craft, and the Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the opportunity to testify here today. We consider this to be a particularly auspicious time as Canada has recently shown itself an international leader in the effort to combat the global jihad movement. By way of introduction the Center for Security Policy is an American national security think-thank in Washington D.C. that was founded in 1988 by former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney in the year since then we have focused on the greatest security threat to America and our allies. My name is Clare Lopez, the center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis. I previously served as a CIA Operations Officer and later served in a variety of contract positions within the U.S. defense sector. I have also served as an instructor of military intelligence and special forces on terrorism related issues and I am honored to mention my affiliation with the Board of Advisors for the Toronto based McKensey Institute. My colleague is Kyle Shideler, he’s the Director of our Threat Information Office, where he specializes in monitoring Sunni jihadist movements; most especially the Muslim Brotherhood. He has briefed Congressional staff and Federal law enforcement officials on the history, ideology, and operations of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly their role in supporting terrorism activity. Recent devastating attacks by individual jihadist on Canadian soil demonstrate the critical need for better understanding of, and appropriate tools to deal with the global jihad threat. Specifically understanding that terrorism does not begin with the violent act itself, but rather with financing, indoctrination, and propaganda, and stopping these elements are key to stopping the attacks themselves. In particular we applaud the decision to list as a terrorist entity the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy. An organization that was according to available reports engaged in financing the terrorist organization Hamas.

We are hopeful that the Canadian law enforcement and security services will be able to use information gleaned through this investigation and subsequent investigations to further hamper terrorist efforts. It was also a Hamas terror financing case that provided U.S. law enforcement with information regarding the depth of the threat posed to North America       . In that case the Holy Land Foundation trial, U.S. Federal law enforcement uncovered voluminous documents representing the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Thanks in part to the evidence provided in these documents the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding front was shut down, and prosecutors secured multiple convictions on terrorism financing charges. These documents come together to tell the story of a multi-decade long effort by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America to establish itself, create front-groups, seize control of mosques and Islamic centers, indoctrinate young people through youth organizations and Islamic schools, mislead the mass media, conduct intelligence operations against law enforcement and security services, and influence politicians. This carefully organized campaign of subversive activity forms the basis for what was called a Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within, in the Brotherhood’s explanatory memorandum uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation case.

There has been a tendency to divorce the physical manifestations of individual acts of Islamic terrorism, such as the recent attacks here in Canada, from the extensive support infrastructure provided by this Global Jihad Movement. But the reality is that men and women do not seek to travel to fight in Syria or Iraq, or engage in attacks domestically, without first having been indoctrinated obligation to wage jihad. Such individuals have been instructed to put loyalty to a global Islamic ummah above loyalty to one’s own country. They are educated to believe that Muslims have a right to impose Sharia, a foreign source of law upon one’s fellow citizens. All of these elements of indoctrination must occur before an individual would ever express interest in al-Qaeda or Islamic State propaganda. Providing the government an enhanced ability to target or take down propaganda that promotes a doctrinal command to wage jihad against unbelievers or the call to use force to overthrow the government and impose Sharia in our judgment would be beneficial. As it would help to disrupt indoctrination before individuals reach a stage at which they are considering attacks against a specific target. Laying this ideological ground is exactly the mission and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which has undertaken the mission to support movements that engage in jihad across the Muslim world, according the Muslim Brotherhood documents seized by U.S. law enforcement in 2001. Given this obligation to support it is not surprise that terrorist recruits repeatedly have been traced back to an Islamic center, school or mosque, established or controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood; as was the case in our own Boston Marathon bombing back in April, 2013. Subsequently organizations with ties to the Brotherhood have repeatedly sought to undermine and impose counter-terrorism strategies that rely on aggressive police intelligence work to disrupt plots and arrests those responsible, the kind of strategy currently under discussion here in Canada.

We have considered how these policies under discussion would help Canada to address the common threat. It is necessary to address the whole-host of activities which undermined the security of Canada, to include interfering with the ability of the government to conduct intelligence, defense, public safety or other activities or attempting to unduly change or influence the government by unlawful means or to engage in covert foreign influenced activities. Likewise address the full scope of jihadist operations including indoctrination, propaganda, and subversive activities. It seems to us that threats such as these emerging in the pre-attack phase of the jihadist campaign are exactly the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood. As it seeks to undermined constitutionally established Western governments including that of Canada to the benefit of global jihad movement. We asses that legislation that would permit Canadian intelligence services to engage in actions to disrupt terror plots and threats to Canada would likely be effective at helping to thwart Islamic terror attacks in the pre-violent stage. Such a policy provided do-over site creates a necessary capability to intervene and undermine indoctrination and recruiting networks which lead individuals to become jihadists, and either travel abroad, join jihadist groups, or conduct attacks at home, even without a definite connection to any terrorist group. While we understand that there is a debate over how such capabilities could be overseen the use of an intermediary review committee rather than direct parliamentary oversight has advantages when it is often the legislators themselves who are at risk of being targeted by these influence activities.

There has already been controversy in the United States over an appointee to the U.S. Congressional House Select-Committee on Intelligence having received campaign funds from and having numerous associations with the Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations in our country. Muslim Brotherhood organizations also have been aggressive in utilizing the media to target legislators engaged in oversight hearings as well as threatening to fundraise for their political opponents if they dare to examine issues related to jihadist indoctrination in serious detail. In our opinion any oversight committee dealing with these issues risks being an immediate target for similar efforts, creating a buffer of intelligence professionals between ceases and the members of parliament maybe useful therefore to preserve and protect important information insolate MP’s from aggressive influence operations to undermine their support to Canadian counter-terrorism efforts, while also ensuring respect for civil rights generating appropriate oversight that has a detailed understanding of the law enforcement and intelligence techniques involved. Certainly it is to be expected that the parliament would be vigilant in examining the reports generated by the minister and it would take full advantage of opportunities to examine and discuss the reported data. In dealing the threat posed by jihadist fighters living amidst our own communities efforts have focused primarily on either methods to keep them from traveling abroad or revocation of passports to keep individuals from returning.

The Center for Security Policy generally has been supportive of such measures, as currently are under discussion in the U.S. Congress and that would take passports away from those who would travel, or seek to travel abroad to fight for terrorists forces. Likewise changes and extensions to the current peace bond provisions here would appear to us to help address substantial difficulty faced by counter-terrorism agencies which is that in numerous recent cases we have seen the terrorist who perpetrated attacks on the U.S., Britain, France, and Australia have been what terrorism experts in the U.S. have begun to describe as known-wolfs. That is, rather than being undetected and operating without connection to other jihadists groups, a genuine lone-wolf, what we are seeing instead is that most individuals identified as lone-wolfs in fact have had ties or at least a known proclivity to support jihadist ideology groups or terrorists networks and frequently were already under some level of surveillance. It is not a lack of awareness but rather an inability to take preventive action or disrupt the plot, that all to often has resulted in these individuals successfully carrying out an act of Islamic terrorism. In conclusion, the Center of Security Policy believes Canada is in a position to put into practice a forward-thinking approach that gives police officers and intelligence operatives the tools they need to not only surveil and detect terror threats, but to disrupt and dismantle the jihadist networks which seek to use terrorism as only one method of among others to undermine and weaken the security of Canada. Thank you very much.

End Transcript.

***

Also see:

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

iran20a (1)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:

Also see the Clarion Project’s Fact Sheet: IRANIAN SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM

A Call to Action at the South Carolina National Security Summit

NSAC-BannerCJR: Here is the Summit hosted by Breitbart, Center for Security Policy and High Frontier in it’s entirety. I will post clips as they become available. Scott Cooper is to be commended for his role in organizing and promoting this very urgent CALL TO ACTION. And I will pass on to you what I thought was a very moving tribute to Frank Gaffney by Dymphna at Gates of Vienna. Frank Gaffney is indeed a national treasure and his efforts over the years to help educate the public and inform our leaders on National Security issues have no doubt contributed greatly towards “Securing Freedom

What you will hear from the various speakers, as well as the very informative comments from members in the audience, is a comprehensive assessment of our National Security vulnerabilities due to the Islamic Global Jihad Movement and our present administration’s willful blindness amounting to complicity in aiding our enemies.

Obama’s rush to withdraw from Iraq without a status of forces agreement has given us the rise of ISIS. With the empowerment of Iran through the appeasement of their nuclear program we are witnessing the beginning of a Middle East nuclear arms race and continued bloody sectarian battles between Shia and Sunni that will likely rage on for generations and create thousands of battle hardened jihadis ready to export their violence across the globe.

Clare Lopez reminds us that we have, through captured documents such as The Project, The Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding and the seven phase al-Qaeda master plan, proof that there is a decades old plan to infiltrate and subvert Western secular governments and replace them with Islamic Sharia theocracy. And as Clare ominously notes, they are amazingly on schedule in achieving their goals.

As John Guandolo explains, what is actually taking place is an Islamic insurgency. What is needed is for the counterjihad movement to mount a counter-insurgency. It is at the local level where we can make the most difference. Watch and learn about the extent of the problem and what we as citizens MUST DO in order to fight back. The hour is late and the enemy is inside the gate!

Here is the intro at Breitbart:

COLUMBIA, SC — On Saturday, Secure Freedom (formerly known as the Center for Security Policy), in partnership with Breitbart News and High Frontier, will host the South Carolina National Security Action Summit.

The conference will feature many of the most influential national security practitioners of our day addressing the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policy in an increasingly perilous world. Specifically, the event will cover four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of South Carolina:

* The Hollowing Out of The U.S. Military
* America’s Electrical Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure
* The Threat from Shariah and The Global Jihad Movement
* Border Insecurity and Illegal Immigration

The noteworthy participants in this summit include:

* Dr. George H. Baker
* Ambassador John R. Bolton
* LTG (Ret). William G. “Jerry” Boykin
* LTC (Ret.) David Bores
* Bill Connor
* Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper
* Scott Cooper
* U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
* Frank Gaffney
* John Guandolo
* Peter Huessy
* Van Hipp Jr.
* Rosemary Jenks
* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
* Rick Joyner
* Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
* Javier Manjarres
* Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
* Senator Rick Santorum
* Phyllis Schlafly
* Michael S. Smith II
* Danny Strickland
* Ann Corcoran

The South Carolina National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, alike – both at the federal level, AND the state level.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of Secure Freedom, formerly known as the Center for Security Policy said:

“Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place. They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world. The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking at both the state and federal levels. This weekend’s program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.”

***

Sen. Ted Cruz at the South Carolina National Security Action Summit

Bobby Jindal addresses South Carolina National Security Action Summit

Amb. John Bolton speaks at South Carolina NSAS

CPAC – Conservative Political Action Conference discovers Islamic terrorism

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Religious Freedom Coalition, March 6th, 2015, by Andrew Harrod, PhD.

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is the “new existential threat” to free societies after Communism’s Cold War demise, declared political commentator Deroy Murdock on February 28 at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  Murdock’s panel “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” on CPAC’s center stage demonstrated that vitally important Islamic aggression and authoritarianism were finally receiving CPAC’s attention after past neglect and uninvited analysts.

The preceding noon panel “The Middle East:  The 30 Years War” packed a standing-room only crowd of about 80 into a conference room near the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center ballroom where Murdock spoke.  Among others in attendance was the ubiquitous Muslim grandstanding gadfly Saba Ahmed, whose participation drew afterwards obscene comments from individual audience members.  Moderating the panel, defense consultant Van Hipp critiqued its title by describing a “war that’s been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years” and involving issues that “need to be on the main stage,” as indicated by the large audience.  Hipp’s statement that “radical Islam is really the challenge of our time” foreshadowed Murdock, but Hipp criticized policymaker reticence in naming this threat as equivalent to “refusing to call Nazi fascism Nazi fascism” during World War II.

Making his CPAC debut, Middle East analyst Walid Phares discussed the “very specific ideology” of “jihadism,” something that is “not yoga,” although jihad in Islam can have nonviolent meanings.  He was “very firm” in claiming that jihadists seeking Islamic political rule with various means including violence were a minority among Muslims.  He cited the 33 million Egyptians whose June 30, 2013, protests helped bring down the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government of Mohammed Morsi.  In his estimation a truly liberating Arab Spring “could have been possible” if President Barack Obama’s administration had supported “all sorts of peaceful people” in Arabian civil society.  Since Obama’s June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, however, he has taken the “wrong side” in the MB.

Phares’ Powerpoint “Catastrophes in the Middle East” indicated jihadism’s growing global dangers.  He mocked how some American policymakers were “on a different planet.”  They believed in things like the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran, “nothing but a maneuver” for nuclear weapons development “to gain time.”  Chastising Obama’s flawed historical understanding, Phares noted that the “Crusaders were in a confrontation with another empire,” not “Boy Scouts.”  Looking beyond the Middle East, he worried about Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the “ISIS of Africa,” and how Afghanistan unaided by foreign troops is “not going to be left to Social Democrats.”

Similarly debuting at CPAC, former CIA agent and international security analyst Clare Lopez agreed with Hipp that warfare with and among Muslims “goes a little farther back” than the panel title suggested.  She described modern jihadist behavior being “almost directly taken from the life of Muhammad,” Islam’s prophet and the “first jihadi.”  “Jihad rises again now,” she added, “because the West has fallen back” under an Obama who entered office with an “agenda already formed” for the United States “to be more on the level of Greece.”

Under this agenda, diminished American influence would concede the North Africa region to Sunni Muslims under MB influence and the Persian Gulf area to Shiite-majority Iran.  This strategy entailed abandoning dictators like Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi and Egypt’s Hosni Muburak.  They were “never going to be a choirboy” but had aided the West against Al Qaeda (AQ) and in keeping peace with Israel.  American acquiescence in Iran’s rise, meanwhile, could involve in the future nuclear weapons that are “not just for Israel,” but could strike the United States as well on Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Lopez focused on Iran’s Islamic Republic.  Since its 1979 creation, this “jihadist state” has sought “export of the revolution” as expressed by Quran 8:60 in the Iranian constitution’s preamble.  Among other things, nuclear weapons acquisition would help Iran “seize the leadership of the global jihad” from Islam’s Sunni majority. Yet Shiite Iran has also cooperated with Sunni groups like AQ, with which Iran and its Lebanese Shiite proxy militia Hezbollah have had a relationship involving training and logistics since a “jihadi jamboree” in 1990s Sudan.

Likewise, Iran currently aids its Shiite allies fighting against the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  ISIS’ top target, Lopez however notes, are the Sunni “hypocrites” who rule Saudi Arabia.  The eastern provinces of this Iranian archrival are oil-rich and Shiite-populated, making them a tantalizing prize for an Iran that would be a secondary beneficiary to any ISIS attack on the Saudi kingdom.

Joining Murdock at CPAC’s central venue, former Department of Defense spokesman and career navy officer J.D. Gordon echoed Lopez.  The “radical Islamist threat is a two-headed” among both Sunnis and Shiites, he observed, but “Iran long term is the greatest threat.”  Gordon meanwhile noted a “de facto alliance” between the “international left and the Islamists” in areas such as an “anti-colonial movement” condemning Israel.  Such dangers were “not about jobs” he mocked while criticizing an Obama administration that had more to say about climate change than jihad in its Quadrennial Defense Reviews.

Army officer veteran and political analyst Pete Hegseth also dismissed such socioeconomic root cause analysis of Islamic violence.  “The age of jihad,” he analyzed, presents the “Nazism or Communism of our time” in a “particular interpretation of the Quran.”  “The only way to defeat an enemy like this is to put many, many, many of them into the ground.”  Yet Obama’s Iraq withdrawal showed that he “was more interested in ending wars than in ending them properly.”

Former army intelligence officer and military analyst Anthony Schaffer, also in his first CPAC appearance, emphasized “déjà vu all over again” feelings in discussing Islamic threats.  In his own career he had helped protect American troops in Germany during the Cold War against Libyan plots.  “Fighting Islamic jihadists,” he noted, “goes back to Jefferson” as the “shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn recalls.  Obama’s current “refusal to define the Islamic threat” is dangerous and his “high school debate team in charge of national security” shows official “criminal neglect.”

Navy veteran and Muslim political activist Zuhdi Jasser also stressed clear definitions for freedom’s “battle…within Islam.”  “You have to name it to tame it” and describe explicitly political Islam or Islamism, political correctness notwithstanding.  Not just ISIS, but Islamic states plural and the “neo-caliphate” of the 57-member state (including “Palestine”) Organization of Islamic States form a multifaceted Islamist “continuum” in an “evil empire today.”  “We can only win this if we empower reform-minded Muslims” willing “to die for liberty,” yet Obama had supported an “Islamic mafia” of “Islamists ideologues” both domestically and abroad.  In contrast to voluminous Cold War government Communism studies, today’s government Islamist scholars can be counted “on one hand” and fear losing their jobs.

The presence of Jasser and other panelists at the center of CPAC indicated that Islamic issues will in the future receive the attention it deserves at America’s premier conservative gathering.  Conservatives, who pride themselves as national security experts, will not be AWOL concerning these various ongoing, increasingly important faith-based threats to freedom.  This welcome development could not come sooner, for a long, hard road leads to Murdock’s laudable goal for Islamism:  “Let’s throw it next to Communism on the ash-heap of history.”

***

While the “The Middle East: The 30 Years War” panel video has not been made available, (I wonder why?) here is the “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” video:

“Don’t Let the AUMF Fulfill the Islamic State’s End Times Prophecy”

2240479620CSP, by Clare Lopez, Feb. 15, 2015:

If it seems that Islamic State (IS) atrocities are descending to ever-more horrific levels of barbarity, then the message is getting through as intended. As Congress begins to consider the President’s proposed new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), it would be well to understand just how desperately IS has been trying to lure Western ground forces into the land of Al-Sham. The amputations, beheadings, crucifixions, immolations, and sex slavery – perpetrated in meticulous emulation of the Life of Muhammad and obedience to Islamic Law (shariah) – were from the beginning carefully calculated to ‘strike terror into the hearts of the enemy’ (Q 8:12, 8:60), while also eliciting an emotional reaction that would drive the U.S. recklessly to send its military back to the region’s battlefields.

The name of the place matters: it’s not ‘the Levant.’ It’s al-Sham, which means Greater Syria, an historical and geographical term that includes the entire southeastern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt and inland as far as Jordan and Iraq. The Arabic abbreviation for Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is Da’esh – which, letter for letter, stands for the same words that ISIS does. But more to the point is what IS calls its slick, full-color, English language, online magazine: DABIQ. Dabiq is the name of a town in northern Syria (north of Aleppo) that figures prominently in a Sunni hadith (a saying attributed to Muhammad) that foretells the End Times. According to that hadith, the Day of Judgment for the Muslim believers will not arrive until an army from the West, sometimes called ‘Romans’ or ‘Byzantines’ or ‘Crusaders,’ will land at Dabiq and be met and defeated in battle by the Muslim forces. See Dabiq Issue 3 for the IS strategy in its own words.

Alastair Crooke has an excellent 13 February piece at Huffington Post entitled “Is Jordan Facilitating IS’ Grand Strategy?” in which he explains all this, but then takes it one step further, to consider how the deliberate destabilization of Jordan (triggered by the early 2015 immolation murder of its pilot) could be intended to bring IS that much closer to Israel. I would suggest additionally that potentially regime-threatening chaos in Jordan (home of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the forerunner of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) could open a backdoor route, not just to Israel, but to Sinai (base of operations for IS affiliate Ansar Beit al-Maqdis) and also to Saudi Arabia – which, for all the sophistication of its top-of-the-line arsenal, does not field the most disciplined or motivated military force in the region. Apart from Israel, that distinction would go to IS at the moment, against which Bashar al-Assad’s formidable army, bolstered by significant resources from Iran and Hizballah, has been able to hang onto barely one-third of what used to be called Syria.

And so to the AUMF. It misrepresents the Islamic State, for some odd reason calling it “ISIL,” and seemingly oblivious to developments of the past eight months, appears to have missed the fact that ISIS long time since became IS, and then, in late June 2014, was declared a Caliphate. The question must be asked whether an AUMF against “ISIL” includes the use of military force against the Caliphate, if and when IS expands operations westward into Jordan or southward into Saudi Arabia. Would the explicitly worded AUMF that authorizes U.S. military action only in Iraq and Syria (neither of which actually exists anymore) have to be rejected to consider a new AUMF for operations in those two additional countries? What about IS ‘franchise’ operations in Libya or the Sinai or its reported presence in Yemen?

The problem with the president’s proposed AUMF language is not that it declares war against IS, but that it places such tight limits on what the U.S. response is to be against the Global Jihad Movement. Of course, ever since the 2011-2012 Muslim Brotherhood-supervised language and curriculum purge in the U.S. government, neither the White House nor Pentagon would describe the enemy in such terms, but that’s in fact what we face. And it’s why the Center for Security Policy (CSP) issued the comprehensive Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement and then followed that with a Defeat Jihad Summit that define the enemy as all who fight or support jihad to impose Islamic Law (shariah) and propose a comprehensive all-of-government strategy to defeat that enemy.

The CSP plan does not cringe from confronting the enemy threat doctrine, which is shariah. Rather, the CSP strategy understands that the jihadist enemy’s ultimate objective is not merely to rampage, slaughter, and terrify, but to use such tactics in order to impose and enforce shariah worldwide. That is why IS is so determined to erase nation state borders, drawn a century ago by colonial powers. IS seeks above all to destroy the Westphalian nation state system and replace it with the shariah rule of an ever-expanding Caliphate. Savage attacks against police and military in Canada; a chocolate shop in Sydney, Australia; an irreverent newspaper in Paris; police in Copenhagen; and Jews everywhere, from Brussels to Paris to Copenhagen and Jerusalem are not random, Mr. President. This is the strategy of Islamic terror, of jihad.

An AUMF that does not forthrightly identify the enemy as the Global Jihad Movement and all who support it has no chance of defeating IS or any Islamic terror group. A national security strategy that is more concerned with climate change than jihad is absurd and useless. And a commander-in-chief who cannot or will not lead America in defense of liberty must be challenged – by Congress as it meets to consider a new AUMF and by We, The People, whose liberty is every bit as much in peril as that of the citizens’ of Copenhagen, Denmark tonight.

EXPERT: FBI ‘NEUTERED’ BY MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

muslim-brotherhood-white-houseWND, by F. MICHAEL MALOOF, Feb. 9, 2015:

WASHINGTON – A veteran national-security specialist disputes FBI Director James Comey’s contention that restrictions on information-gathering are the main hindrance to uncovering ISIS conspiracies in the U.S.

Clare Lopez, who served in the CIA for 20 years and is senior vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, said the problem isn’t with working-level FBI agents, who know the jihadi threat is “nurtured” in mosques. The hindrance is from “higher-level” FBI management and the national security leadership, she insisted.

She said the FBI for too long has allowed itself “to be influenced by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates whose objective is to neuter U.S. national security defenses.”

Lopez was responding to Comey’s recent comment that restrictions on information-gathering stemming from intelligence leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have created barriers for law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Comey made the comment as he revealed the FBI has opened cases in 49 U.S. states of people suspected of having ties to ISIS.

Lopez said that when someone such as Michael Steinbach, an assistant director for the FBI Counterterrorism Division, publicly complains that he cannot fathom the recruitment appeal of ISIS or understand why parents in the U.S. encourage their children to join ISIS, “then, America, we have a problem.”

“That means the FBI’s top [counter-terrorism] official has no idea how to identify and stop that ISIS recruitment process before more young Muslims answer the call to jihad,” Lopez said.

She noted, however, that Steinbach was one of the FBI’s key figures in the “Great Purge” of 2011-2012 when, “at the urging of its Muslim Brotherhood advisers, the FBI literally purged hundreds of pages of training curriculum that used to educate agents about how Islamic doctrine, law and scripture inspire Islamic terrorism.”

The FBI, she said, “banished the instructors whose knowledge of these things was deemed so threatening by the Brotherhood.”

Lopez said the move was an illustration of the Muslim Brotherhood strategy – outlined in a document entered into evidence in a terrorism trial – to destroy the Western civilization from within, by their hands.”

That means, Lopez said, “We’re going to be induced to destroy ourselves.”

Lopez also referred to a document published by a combined team of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the FBI on how to make mosques off-limits to law enforcement.

She pointed out that Islam’s founder, Muhammad, had established mosques with “command and control centers” for the Muslim community’s earliest jihad wars.

Despite that history, she said U.S. troops nonetheless “were shocked” when they were first fired upon from within mosques and when they entered mosques in Iraq and Afghanistan and discovered weapons caches.

Similar concern over the potential of violence emanating from mosques in the U.S. was outlined in a Middle East Quarterly article. It raised concerns regarding the extent American Muslims, native-born a well as naturalized, are being radicalized by Islamists.

The article showed how modern jihadists legitimize their violent actions by relying on the same textual works as their nonviolent Salafist counterparts.

Lopez said the 2011 study of mosques in the U.S. found that some 80 percent promote jihad violence and that the more Shariah-compliant the mosque is, the more likely it will be to promote jihad.

“And you’re still wondering if the FBI is going to be aggressive in infiltrating mosques and Islamic centers?” Lopez asked.

“Unless our law enforcement professionals are permitted to understand the indicators and warnings that signal development of an Islamic jihad threat, in advance,” she said, “the FBI will be desperately scrambling to keep up with an ever-expanding pool of potential jihad recruits.”

She identified the threats as passport-carrying American citizens, immigrants with residence status, or documented refugees, some of whom have returned from ISIS battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

She pointed out that al-Qaida and ISIS have issued calls for individual jihad, meaning Islamic terror at home and unconnected in any formal way to a group on the Department of State’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

She said law enforcement officials need to understand how Muslims can become radicalized without ever joining al-Qaida, ISIS or any other group on the FTO list.

“How can the FBI or any national security agency even begin to understand this process when they are forbidden even to use the words ‘Islamic terror’ or ‘jihad?’” she asked.

She referred to many examples of individual jihadists who were not associated with any organizations or groups on the FTO list but undertook serious violent actions in the name of jihad.

The examples of individual jihadists include Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 service personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009; Carlos Bledsoe, who in June 2009 murdered Amy Long at the Little Rock, Arkansas, Army recruitment center; and the Tsarnaev brothers, who learned how to make pressure cooker bombs by reading al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and then exploded two at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

“The common identifier for these individual jihadists was their deep Islamic faith and decision to answer the call to jihad,” she said. “The other common marker was that law enforcement had no clue these Muslims were on a pathway to violent jihad, despite all the associations, all the indicators and all the warnings.

“So yes, there will certainly be more individual jihad attacks, and it is likely they will choose soft targets, as they did in Paris and Brussels and Sydney,” Lopez said.

“And without the official knowledge or training or authority to identify and stop such jihadis in advance, our front line of homeland defense increasingly becomes ourselves.”

‘Defeat Jihad Summit’ Challenges Islamic Supremacism – And The Obama ‘Strategy’and A.U.M.F. That Disregard It

33480681301Center for Security Policy, Feb. 11, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah. Among the noteworthy participants in this roundtable discussion were:

  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
  • former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
  • S. Senator Ted Cruz
  • Representative Steven King
  • Representative Mike Pompeo
  • Representative Scott Perry
  • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
  • Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.)
  • Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame
  • Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders
  • Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard
  • Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson
  • Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger
  • former Muslim Nonie Darwish
  • Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
  • Australian pastor Mark Durie

Highlights of the Summit included:

  • A discussion of the nature of our jihadist enemies and the mainstream – not extremist –character of their inspiration: the politico-military-legal shariah doctrine derived from the sacred texts, institutions and authorities of Islam. There was widespread agreement that we mustunderstand and be able to name our foes, not pretend that they and their motivations are unknowable.
  • The global jihad takes various forms including: the violent kind; civilization (or cultural, stealthy and subversive) jihad; institutional jihad (employing entities like the multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations under the OIC’s influence); individual jihad (its perpetrators are mistakenly being described as “lone wolves”); and material support (which, under shariah, is prized as highly as the service of those who take up the sword).
  • America urgently needs a strategy for countering all such jihadist endeavors – one that brings to bear all instruments of national power to achieve a decisive correlation of forces and our victory. We face a truly existential threat from the global jihad movement, as do other nations of the Free World now under assault for sharing our values and love of liberty.
  • The  unveiled last Friday by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force being proposed by the administration are wholly inadequate. The former compounds the inadequacies of the President’s “lead-from-behind” approach with an even more passive one: “strategic patience”; the latter appears calculated to fail and to embolden, rather than defeat, the Islamic State or any other foe.

The Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., moderated the nearly six-hour summit. Afterwards, he commented:

The participants in the Defeat Jihad Summit have rendered a real public service. Their insights, analyses and recommendations concerning the threat from shariah-adherent Muslims and the need to empower and join forces with others in the Muslim community who eschew that brutally repressive ideology create the basis for a far more sound, effective and durable national security strategy.

We at the Center for Security Policy look forward to working with them and all those benefitting from the livestreaming and other products that will disseminate the fruits of this summit, far and wide.

To view videos of the summit’s presentations, go to www.SecureFreedom.org. For more information about the Summit, contact Samantha Nevore at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856.

The event was live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The event in its entirety is embedded below. Video highlights to follow shortly:

Murder of Pilot Sparks Tough, New Question

jordanian-pilotWND, By F. Michael Maloof, Feb. 5, 2015:

WASHINGTON – The gruesome murder of captured Jordanian F-16 pilot Lt. Muath al-Kasabeh by ISIS may have strengthened the resolve of the Jordanian government to launch all-out assaults against the jihadist army as members of the U.S.-led coalition.

But it also could have a boomerang effect as Jordanians question why their country should further engage ISIS, according to Middle East sources.

Meanwhile, the killing also has raised concerns that members of the coalition – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates – will be emboldened to launch more attacks against ISIS targets in Syria, where their interest has been primarily on overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, sources add.

One indication of that concern is that following the capture of the pilot in December, the United Arab Emirates suspended its air operations over Syria as a part of the coalition bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

U.S. officials have confirmed to WND that the UAE has halted its participation because there was no contingency plan to rescue downed aircrew.

One Middle East source told WND that when Kasabeh was downed by ISIS last December, the leader of the squadron of F-16s was Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri, the first UAE female fighter pilot. Reports confirm she was in the squadron, but WND could not independently confirm she was the leader.

Whether the killing of the Jordanian pilot will mean an Arab commitment of boots on the ground by these Arab countries also was questionable as Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Joudeh said the reaction would not be ground troops but a greater commitment to assist the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Peshmerga Kurds.

However, there were unconfirmed reports out of Jordan Tuesday night that Jordan could send troops to Syria to fight ISIS.

‘Wave of anger and frustration’

Despite the Jordanian government’s hanging of two convicted al-Qaida prisoners and the pledge of an “earth-shaking” response, there is concern that the pilot’s killing actually may increase popular opposition to the coalition efforts against ISIS.

“I think it will be business as usual,” Jeb Babbin, a former under secretary of defense, told Fox News, referring to Arab countries’ reaction to the killing of the Jordanian pilot.

Clare Lopez a former CIA operations officer and current Middle East expert at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, told WND that ISIS “is trying to create chaos to invade Jordan.”

“ISIS has supporters in south of Jordan, (in the) north and (in) Palestinian camps; (and) on more than one occasion demonstrators challenged the regime and declared Amman is the Fallujah (Iraq) of Jordan,” Lopez said. “Palestinians in camps across Jordan are supporters of ISIS. ISIS is desperate for a sea port. A port of Aqaba will give them access to the Red Sea.”

Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim, Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, believes that more “moderate” Muslims ultimately will prevail in the fight against ISIS.

“The burning of the pilot,” Ibrahim said, “will continue to create a “rift among Muslims — from the many who cannot tolerate such acts, cannot tolerate the idea that their religion condones such atrocities, to those who are willing to accept reality, willing to accept that Islamic texts and history are littered with such barbaric behavior — beginning with the prophet of Islam.”

Ibrahim said it’s “interesting to watch the debates now a days between Muslims — the ‘moderates’ are becoming much more vocal and courageous, which does not necessarily translate into anything concrete, but is a start,.”

“The Islamic State has really driven home the true nature of debate — that is, what is Islam and what does it teach, and it’s making many Muslims uncomfortable having to deal with these questions which for long have been ignored but … with every day ISIS brings them to the fore,” Ibrahim said.

“And yes, while once cannot really account for what U.S. leadership will do, I do believe that these continuing atrocities will drive the governments of various Arab countries to work closer together.”

Middle East expert Osama al-Sharif said that the killing of the Jordanian pilot will trigger “a wave of anger and frustration” that could spark a political crisis for Jordanian King Abdullah II. The king cut short a visit with President Obama Tuesday to return to Jordan after ISIS released a 22-minute video purportedly showing the pilot being burned alive.

“It will strengthen the position of those who believe Jordan should withdraw from the fight against ISIS,” Sharif said.

Before knowing the fate of the pilot, his father, who comes from a prominent Jordanian tribe, had told CNN Arabic that the king “had no business with the coalition, and those who had sent my son to fight beyond Jordan’s border must now bring him back.”

Even before the pilot’s capture, Abdullah was under fire internally from the country’s Palestinian population, the Muslim Brotherhood and a growing number of ISIS backers.

Islamist opposition groups had voiced opposition to joining the anti-ISIS coalition when it was first announced.

As Sharif pointed out, Abdullah defended his position and insisted that the war against ISIS was “our war.” This was especially apparent when ISIS fighters moved up to the Jordanian border last year, in Iraq’s Sunni Anbar province, where they have remained.

An ISIS invasion of Jordan could jeopardize a critical buffer against ISIS access to the rest of the Levant.

As WND recently reported, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has designated Jordan as the next target of his caliphate. The government was split over joining the anti-ISIS coalition, however. The internal dissension comes from growing support for ISIS from a myriad of jihadist groups and the country’s poor economic conditions.

At the time, Jordanians were seen on videos burning their passports. ISIS even threatened to “slaughter” the king after invading Jordan.

“It is ISIS’ objective to destabilize its neighbors,” according to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, an expert on the Middle East.

“Jordan is a miracle in the region. It has the most stable regime, yet it’s the weakest, it has no oil and yet since – for the last 70 years it has had only three rulers, but it has huge divisions internally; it’s got a lot of Muslim Brotherhood, it has some ISIS sympathizers, and I think the objective here was to draw Jordan into a war where it was a peripheral player,” Krauthammer said.

“This highlights, I think, the danger we all worship at the shrine of multilateralism, broad coalitions to bring everybody in as a way to restrict American action. Obama’s now involving the UAE, the Saudis and of course the Jordanians and now we see the result.

Krauthammer said Jordan “being drawn into a direct war with ISIS is not a good thing” for the U.S.

“Jordan will not defeat ISIS on its own. It even wouldn’t defeat ISIS even if it had some coalition partners,” he said.

“It’s the United States essentially which is – or Turkey, perhaps – the only partners,” he said. “So, here we are bringing in Jordan for symbolic reasons. Yet, a real pilot is shot down in real time and then executed in this horrible way, causing a reaction in Jordan where the king is now on the spot.

Krauthammer said Abdullah “will have to do something intense, important, punishing and that will draw him in.”

“And he’s got – he’s got refugees from of course Palestine but of course Syria, Iraq. He’s got a lot of internal dissent which we have seen over the years, and this is a way to stir the cauldron in a country that is stable, was stable, but is easily destabilized, and that is what ISIS is after.”

Underscoring the internal dissension and the increasing support for ISIS, the founder of the forerunner to ISIS – Al-Qaida in Iraq – was founded by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A deputy to Zarqawi was Baghdadi, who would go on to create the Islamic State of Iraq, which then morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, and then the Islamic State, once he had taken over portions of Syria and Iraq to create the caliphate.

“ISIS sympathizers feel injustice and anger at America and Israel and always felt that Islam was under attack by crusaders,” Murin Khoury, a leading Jordanian pollster, recently told the Guardian newspaper of London. “And now they don’t agree with Jordan being involved in the coalition.”

The killing of the Jordanian pilot, however, also is seen as a means to polarize Jordanian society, especially among the tribes, which Sharif says are often considered the backbone of the support for Abdullah’s government.

ISIS, he said, is conducting psychological war against Jordan.

Also see:

Iran Truth Squad Briefing

3634283604 (1)

 

 

Center For Security Policy, Jan. 28, 2015

Streaming Live 1:30 pm est Wed Jan 28th US Capitol Building Washington, DC

President Obama, in his January 20th State of the Union address, stated: “…for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

This assertion is false. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program unabated, constituting a paramount national security threat to the United States and its allies. The Center for Security Policy will hold a panel discussion on the true state of the Iranian threat, and what Congress must do to prevent Tehran’s realization of its nuclear ambitions.

WHO:

  • Dr. Andrew Bostom, Author, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Jihad and Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran
  • Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis, Center for Security Policy; former CIA operations officer
  • Fred Fleitz, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy; former Senior Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; former Chief of Staff to then-Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; former CIA analyst

With remarks by:

  • Rep. Trent Franks (Arizona, 8th District) (invited), Member, House Armed Services Committee; Chairman, House EMP Caucus

Brian Lilley & Clare Lopez – ISIS in the West

Published on Dec 30, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy discusses the jihadi problem within the West.

Clare Lopez at ‘A Discussion on the Iranian Nuclear Threat’

Published on Nov 25, 2014 by emetonline

On Monday, November 24, 2014, EMET was proud to host Dr. Michael Ledeen, Manda Zand Ervin, and Clare Lopez on Capitol Hill to discuss the failed nuclear deal talks and the continued threat of a nuclear Iran.

 

Also see: