Tag Archives: Clare Lopez

Players Begin Savage Moves for Post-Assad Power Grab

Posted on by
1


syrian supporters of MBBy: 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

Posted on by
3
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?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Video Series: Clare Lopez and Steve Coughlin Explain Islamist Propaganda

Posted on by
3

This is a series of instructional videos put together by Vlad Tepes to help anti-sharia activists better understand and counter the misdirection and outright lies propagated by Muslim spokesmen in the West.

 

 

The video below deals with so-called “honor killings”, which are really sacred executions mandated by the Koran, as lucidly explained by Major Stephen Coughlin

 

With the help of Clare Lopez and Maj. Stephen Coughlin, the video below explains what Muslim talking heads really mean when they say Westerners must respect “all religions” There is no religion but Islam. Moses and Jesus were Muslim prophets.

 

The video below explains what Muslim zealots really mean when they talk about “defending Islam” All barriers to Dawa and the imposition of sharia are considered offenses which require jihad. Jihad is always defensive.

 

Clare Lopez and Maj. Stephen Coughlin explain what Muslim talking heads really mean when they speak self-righteously about “freedom” Freedom from man made law and justice according to Islamic Law.

 

Clare Lopez: Next Steps on Iran

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
3

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

Video: Clare Lopez on Muslim Brotherhood, Jihad & Shariah

Posted on by
2

 Clare M. Lopez
Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy

Clare Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, homeland security, and counterterrorism issues. She formerly served as an officer in the Central Intelligence Agency.

She is also a member of the CLARION FUND, Inc.  an independently-funded non-profit organization that produces and distributes documentaries on the threats of Radical Islam.

In 2006, Clarion released the award-winning documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.  In 2008, Clarion released the well-received documentary, The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America.  Clarion’s newest film, Iranium, premiered February 8, 2011.

 

This is a talk she gave to a group in Ohio on the Muslim Brotherhood, Jihad and Shariah on Feb. 8, 2011

 

Part 1:

 

Part 2:

 

 

Part 3:

 

Part 4:

 

Part 5:

Interview with Clare M. Lopez on Islam and the Enemies of America

Posted on by
1

Clae Lopez

At The Objective Standard, (TOS), Craig Biddle interviews Clare Lopez on a range of foreign policy issues including what our policy towards Iran should be, the situation in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prospect for democracy in the Middle East, Iran’s connections in Central and South America and what the United States must do to defend itself against radical Islam.

The following is an excerpt from the interview on the subject of Iran and 9/11:

CB: In recent decades, we’ve drifted so far from that ideal that the U.S. government is not even capable of naming our enemies or their motivations, let alone sufficiently protecting Americans from them. Who are our main enemies today? Who attacked us on 9/11? And what motivates them?

CL: An Islamic jihadist alliance of al-Qaeda, Iran, and Hezbollah attacked us on 9/11. See the recent decision of Judge George Daniels in the Southern District Court in New York City for details in the legal case against Iran filed by widows and other family members of 9/11 victims. And see the affidavit about it that I wrote with my colleague and friend Bruce Tefft. In his ruling, Judge Daniels found that the Iranian regime provided direct and material support to al-Qaeda without which the attacks of 9/11 could not have taken place.

These attackers were and remain motivated by Islam. So are those who fund them, including wealthy sheikhs, members of royal families, and those who faithfully pay their annual zakat tax across the Muslim world. The doctrine, laws, and scriptures of Islam command all Muslims, everywhere, and in all times, to fight jihad to spread Islam. Those Muslim clerics who educated and indoctrinated 9/11 hijackers are the true believers, the most devout practitioners of Islam, and they ensured that those hijackers would be, too. They will not stop—nor will their allies in such pre-violent Islamic jihadist movements as the Muslim Brotherhood—until all the world is for Allah, or they are convincingly defeated.

CB: In addition to the New York court’s finding that the Iranian regime provided material support to al-Qaeda for the attack on 9/11, a federal court recently found that “the government of Iran aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, and al-Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States,” and that the Iranian regime was responsible specifically for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The regime has also repeatedly been found smuggling weapons to other terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that seek to kill Americans and Israelis; training the Taliban and other enemies of America; and sending operatives and weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. America has known about Iran’s involvement in similar assaults for decades. Every year since 1984, the State Department has acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. For the past few years, it has even acknowledged that Iran is “the most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Yet, we have not eliminated the regime, nor declared war on it, nor even named it as our enemy. Why?

CL: It is difficult to know why six successive U.S. presidential administrations have treated the mullahs’ regime in Iran with kid gloves, as though afraid of it. Despite the Iranian regime’s repeated seizure of American hostages, its empowerment of terror allies and proxies, its twenty-five-year drive for deliverable nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, its genocidal threats against friends and partners such as Israel, and its alliances with some of the worst regimes in the world, in the final analysis this is a fragile regime that knows its days are numbered and that it will eventually meet its end at the hands of its own people.

It is long since past time that the American people know the truth about what this regime and its terror proxies have done to us, in the homeland on 9/11 and elsewhere, including Khobar Towers, our East Africa embassies, in Yemen when the USS Cole was attacked, and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq where Iranian-backed terror militias equipped with Iranian-manufactured explosives and other weaponry have killed and injured hundreds of American troops. If our national security leaders will not hold these jihadis accountable, then the courts, the American people, and our elected representatives will have to do it for them.

CB: What in your view is the most pressing danger posed by the Iranian regime today?

CL: Clearly, the most critical threat from this Iranian regime is the imminent likelihood that it will acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. Given the millennialist Twelver Shi’ite ideology publicly professed by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as by the fanatically-dedicated Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari, and Qods Force commander Qassem Suleimani, the world has no choice but to take them at their word when they threaten Armageddon in the name of their deity. This Khomeinist leadership fulfills Iran’s own constitution, which commits the regime to the spread of the revolution to the entire world and the IRGC as a “religious army” to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” When a set of national leaders who profess such jihadist beliefs is openly closing in on acquisition of the bomb, it is suicidal not to take them seriously.

CB: What can and should the United States do about this?

CL: The U.S. government, led by our president, should openly declare our support for the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. We should state clearly that we consider the current regime in Tehran illegitimate, not because we say so, but because the Iranian people say so.

Next, we should formulate and implement a concrete program of tangible support for the democratic Iranian opposition, whomever they may be. Specifically, we should establish covert, discreet ties with the Greens Movement, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, the various ethnic opposition groups (among them Azeri and Kurdish), and devise means of aiding labor groups, students, and women. Secure communications and broadcast assistance, in addition to democracy training (like we gave the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) are among the categories of possible support the U.S. government could provide.

It is important that the U.S. government not decide for the Iranian people who should lead them after this regime is swept into the dustbin of history. This means not playing favorites: The Department of State must immediately remove the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK) from the official U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list and take emergency measures to ensure the safety of the 3,400 or so unarmed MeK civilians trapped at Ashraf City in northern Iraq, whom the U.S. government pledged under the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect. Currently, with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, those people face imminent slaughter unless something is done very quickly. A recent UN-brokered agreement may offer a solution: Ashraf residents are to be moved to Camp Liberty near Baghdad, which was recently vacated by departing U.S. troops. They are to be monitored under UN protection until resettlement elsewhere can be arranged—a resettlement that would be vastly simplified were the U.S. government to adhere to the U.S. law that governs the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. To date, the MeK remain on that list, in contravention of U.S. law, apparently for political purposes that serve to maintain the mullahs’ regime in power in Tehran.

The following is an excerpt from the interview on the subject of the Islamist threat to the United States:

CB: What general strategy would you advise the United States to adopt with respect to the Islamist threat against America and the West?

 The United States must meet, engage, and end this threat first, by naming the name of the enemy. We are fighting to stay free of Islamic law. We fight all those who support sharia and seek to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. This means that we recognize and name the enemy not only as those who fight a violent jihad, with kinetic means, such as Iran, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, but also those who operate by stealth to achieve the same objectives: reinstatement of the caliphate and imposition of sharia globally.

The Muslim Brotherhood should be named a hostile “foreign power,” along with all of its many thousands of affiliates and front groups currently operating in the United States whose goals are recognized as inimical to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, any in the United States who preach, support, or promote elements of sharia that are in contravention of the Constitution—as the Muslim Brotherhood does—should not be immune from possible deportation or prosecution for sedition or misprision of sedition and treason (depending on citizenship status). The First Amendment protects practices of devotional religion, such as prayers, worship, diet/fasting, pilgrimage, and proselytizing. Article VI of the Constitution is quite clear, however, that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. Any practice of sharia Islam that contravenes U.S. law does not enjoy First Amendment protection and instead falls under the definition of alien legal, military, political, or social practice.

The U.S. government must be purged of all Muslim Brothers, their affiliates, and supporters. U.S. national strategic policy needs to be rewritten to reflect the recognition that sharia Islam, both violent and pre-violent, is antithetical and hostile to the U.S. Constitution and will not be permitted to make inroads into American society.

CB: What do you think is the best we can aim (or hope) for in terms of an administration following the 2012 elections—not just the president, but also the secretary of state and key directors and advisers?

CL: The best outcome of the 2012 elections would be a new national leadership that understands the realities of this world we live in, with all of its challenges. The new president would appoint cabinet directors and other advisers who are knowledgeable, first of all, about this country’s own foundational principles and committed to their restoration to a position of prominence in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Those administration members would be knowledgeable about Islam and sharia, the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood poses to U.S. national security, and the Iranian regime’s long history of enmity to America. In terms of foreign policy, the new administration would revive America’s preeminent role as defender of genuine democracy and freedom in the world, restore America’s traditional friendships, and put all those hostile to the United States and our allies on notice that America is back and will stand with our friends and prove an implacable foe to those who declare enmity to us or our allies.

CB: Where can people read your work and keep up with your thoughts on these issues?

CL: As a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, I am a coauthor of the Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America, which can be found at ShariahTheThreat.org, as well as at Amazon.com. I also publish often at Andrew Breitbart’s website Big Peace. As a senior fellow with the Clarion Fund, I write regularly for its website, RadicalIslam.org, where it is also possible to sign up to receive the Clarion Fund’s bimonthly newsletter, for which I also write. In addition, most of my published pieces eventually make their way to Pundicity.com, where those interested can sign up to receive an automatic e-mailing of those articles.

CB: Thank you for your time and valuable insights, Clare. Would that the next president had the intelligence and courage to nominate you for secretary of state.

Read the entire interview at The Objective Standard

Related articles

Muslims Use “Taqiyya” to Deceive Non-Muslims About Islam

Posted on by
6

By Clare Lopez:

The Arabic word Taqiyya means “deceit” or “dissimulation.” Unlike the Christian or Jewish religions, Islam not only permits its believers to lie but actually commands it in some circumstances. For the most part, Muslims are not supposed to lie to one another; but, exceptions are made for smoothing over differences between friends (“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar,” Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533.), lying to one’s wife, and lying in warfare. (Recall: Muhammad himself said, ‘War is deceit,” Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269)

Lying to non-Muslims, though, is another matter. In fact, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. Taking it a step further, if there is an objective to be achieved that is desirable in Islam, then it is permissible for Muslims to lie in order to achieve that objective. The book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller (or the ‘Umdat al-Salik), states on pg. 746:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…”

This principle of lying in order to advance the cause of Islam results in serious consequences when it comes to the issue of Muslims seeking to spread Islam around the world and especially in places like the United States (U.S.) and the West, where the majority of people are not Muslim. Shariah-compliant Muslims routinely use deceptive “wolf in sheep’s clothing” type tactics to polish Islam’s image while at the same time avoiding, obscuring, or omitting any of the negative aspects of Islamic doctrine, history, law, and scriptures. This is often done with prospective converts as well as with audiences Muslims hope will be gullible, like academics, government officials, members of the media, and the public at large. 

For example, Muslims often will cite verses from the (chronologically) earlier portions of the Qur’an (which generally were moderate, peaceful, and tolerant), while neglecting to mention that this was the period in Muhammad’s life when he and his tiny band of followers lived in Mecca, where they were ridiculed, powerless, and mostly unaccepted. Yet, even as they cite such passages, they are fully aware that most of these early verses were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by later passages of the Qur’an that Muhammad produced after the hijra (migration) to Medina. The replacement verses, from a time when Muslims grew powerful, reflect harsh intolerance for non-Muslims and command violence to subjugate infidels (unbelievers) to Islamic law (shariah).

Shariah Muslims do not always express their hostility to unbelievers openly, though. This is where taqiyya comes in. Based on verses from the Qur’an and hadiths (sayings of Muhammad), Muslims can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display adherence with their unbelief, if this will advance the cause of Islam and protect the believer from harm. Here is one of those verses from the Qur’an: 

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” (Q 3:28) 

Ibn Kathir was an Islamic scholar who wrote one of the most authoritative commentaries (or Tafsirs) on the Qur’an. This is what he said about this particular Qur’anic verse regarding Muslims pretending to befriend infidels:

“Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141)

So, according to this Islamic principle, if under pressure or threatened with force, not only may Muslims deceive non-believers, it is even legitimate for Muslims to behave in ways normally completely contrary to their faith. For instance, given such circumstances, a Muslim may drink alcohol, skip prayers and fasting during Ramadan, renounce belief in Allah and even pretend homage to a deity other than Allah, and utter insincere oaths. It is important to understand the concept of taqiyya so as not to be taken in by such tactics. 

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues.