U.S. Gov’t Abandons Iranian Dissidents in Iraq

Iranian dissident2By Clare Lopez:

The Iranian regime’s predilection for hostage-taking as a tool of foreign policy dates back to the earliest years following Khomeini’s 1979 revolution. Unfortunately, so does the U.S. government’s apparent willingness to let them get away with it.

Today, the fate of thousands of defenseless Iranian dissidents belonging to the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), to whom the U.S. government pledged protection, depends on American action in fulfillment of solemn promises.

These pro-democracy Iranian patriots have been left stranded as virtual hostages in two camps inside Iraq, which have been attacked repeatedly with lethal force by the armed forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Tehran regime puppet.

Dozens of MeK members have been killed, hundreds injured and seven remain actual hostages after being seized by Iraqi troops in an attack on Camp Ashraf on September 1, 2013. It is time to welcome these MeK members into the U.S. as political refugees who share the American commitment to liberty.

Unfortunately, the U.S. record of standing up to the mullahs’ regime is not encouraging. In fact, if truth be told, there is no such record, even on behalf of Americans, never mind allies like the MeK, whose members assisted U.S. forces in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The craven failure of President Jimmy Carter in 1980 to respond immediately and forcefully to the seizure of the U.S. Tehran Embassy and subsequent holding of American mission personnel by Iranian thugs for more than a full year set the pattern of U.S. administrative quailing before this rogue regime for decades to come.

The 1980s in Lebanon featured a parade of Iranian-directed Hezbollah kidnappings, torture and murder of Westerners, including American citizens, for which no official retribution was ever exacted. Many would agree that President Ronald Reagan’s panicked withdrawal of the U.S. military from the Multinational Force in Lebanon after the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing set an image of U.S. weakness that persists to this day.

As Admiral James “Ace” Lyons has explained, he personally drew up the plans to obliterate Hezbollah’s Sheikh Abdullah Barracks, above Baalbek in the Beka’a Valley with a swift aerial strike. It was U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whose spineless fretting about what the Arab world might think, who ultimately prevailed on President Reagan to hold back.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Related Story: See Clarion Project’s Interview with Shahriar Kia, press spokesman  for the Iranians being held at Camp Liberty.

 

IT’S OFFICIAL: OBAMA HAS SURPASSED JIMMY CARTER

BY JOHN HINDERAKER:

Jimmy Carter infamously declared that America suffered from an “inordinate fear of Communism,” but at least, as far as I can recall, he didn’t actively promote or side with Communist movements. Today Communism has collapsed, and America’s number one enemy is the Muslim Brotherhood, progenitor of al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist groups. Barack Obama not only tolerates the Brotherhood–”Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”–but, for reasons that remain unfathomable, he has generally supported it.

Egypt is in flames, as the Brotherhood and its supporters have risen up against the military regime that has tried to bring a measure of stability and sanity to that country, where millions are teetering on the brink of starvation.

The Brotherhood is responsible for the violence now raging in Egypt, as Ralph Peters explains:

In full outrage mode, America’s most famous windsurfer [John Kerry] castigated the Egyptian authorities, insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood had a right to “peaceful protests.” Apparently, “peaceful” means armed with Kalashnikovs, killing policemen, kidnapping and torturing opponents, turning mosques into prisons, attacking Christians and burning Coptic churches.

The Brotherhood protesters rejected all offers of compromise and all demands to disperse. The interim government’s response was heavy-handed, but the Muslim Brothers chose violent resistance — using women and children as shields (a tactic typical of Islamist terrorists).

Do we really need to have sympathy for the devil?With its blundering, fickle, late-in-the-day support for whoever appeared to be gaining the upper hand, the Obama administration has managed the remarkable feat of alienating every faction in Egypt. And it’s a sorry day when an American administration abets religious totalitarianism, as this White House did when the “democratically elected” Morsi regime tried to Islamize Egypt’s government and society for keeps.

There was, indeed, a coup. But not all coups involve tanks. The real coup came after Egypt’s premature, badly flawed election, when Morsi and the Brotherhood excluded all non-Brothers from the political process; curtailed media freedoms and jailed journalists; attacked Christians; and rushed toward an Islamist state that the majority of Egyptians did not want.

Today Barack Obama doubled down on his support for the Muslim Brotherhood by canceling joint military exercises with Egypt that were scheduled for next month. Obama gave a brief, petulant press conference before heading out for another round of golf on Martha’s Vineyard:

“The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt’s interim government and security forces,” Obama said on the Massachusetts island of Martha’s Vineyard, where he is on vacation.

“We deplore violence against civilians. We support universal rights essential to human dignity, including the right to peaceful protest,” he said….

Obama said the state of emergency should be lifted in Egypt and a process of national reconciliation started.

“While we want to sustain our relationship with Egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual when civilians are being killed in the streets and rights are being rolled back,” Obama said.

To say that Obama’s foreign policy is in tatters would be giving it too much credit, as he implicitly admitted today:

Obama, who departed for a game of golf shortly after making his statement, vented frustration that both sides in the Egyptian conflict were blaming the United States for the turmoil in the country since the military ousted Mursi, Egypt’s first freely elected president, on July 3.

Nice going, Barry! Angering everyone in sight is a uniquely inept foreign policy achievement, for which your first term Secretary of State deserves almost equal blame.

Read more at Powerline Blog

Morsi Following Khomeini’s Gameplan

Hamas jihadists in Gaza celebrate Morsi’s election to the Egyptian presidency. (Photo: Reuters)

by Clare M. Lopez

Clearly emboldened by U.S. validation of his role in handling Hamas during the Pillar of Defense operation, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi wasted no time in issuing a decree granting himself dictatorial powers. On November 22, 2012, Morsi sacked the prosecutor general and replaced him with his own man, thereby brushing aside the last branch of government that stood between him and the status of a “new pharaoh.”

Justifying his move as a defense of the Egyptian revolution itself, Morsi declared to thousands of cheering supporters that “[T]he constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal.

Parallels with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution in Iran are striking enough that it must be wondered whether a tour of Iran’s nuclear facilities was all Morsi was given during his August 30, 2012 visit to mark the turnover of the Non-Aligned Movement presidency. It would seem that perhaps the Iranians also gave Morsi the blueprint for seizure of state power.

As Egypt scholar Raymond Stock put it, Morsi’s “warp-speed takeover of total state power in Egypt” since his June 24 election victory has astonished many observers who so foolishly greeted the so-called “Arab Spring” with childish delight.

What is looking more by the day like the “Islamic Awakening” the Iranians have always called it actually launched its power takeover phase two years ago with al-Qa’eda’s 2010 call to the Muslim Brotherhood to turn the page as it were “from Mecca to Medina.” Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi’ responded with an October 2010 declaration of jihad against the U.S., Israel and Arab/Muslim regimes unfaithful to sharia, the U.S. nodded favorably—and the putsch was on.

Parliamentary elections (in which the Brotherhood at one point supposedly wasn’t even going to contest more than 30-40% of the seats, much less run a presidential candidate) already had awarded the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party and its Salafist Nour party allies a better than two-thirds dominance of Egypt’s legislature by early 2012.

The constituent assembly that is writing Egypt’s new constitution likewise is under Brotherhood control. The move that really solidified Morsi’s power followed barely weeks after his presidential victory: His August 11, 2012 coup d’état that replaced Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi and the rest of the Egyptian Supreme Command of the Armed Forces with his own hand-picked Brotherhood officials.

Even for those somehow still ignorant of the Muslim Brotherhood’s widely available jihadist agenda and history, this should have sounded an alarm. And yet, with only a few notable exceptions—among them, Daniel Pipes here, Barry Rubin here—few understood at the time how quickly Egypt was moving towards an Islamic dictatorship.

The U.S. State Department and White House seemed swept along by events—or maybe this was their blueprint, too. After all, the opening punch against the regime of Hosni Mubarak was delivered at the al-Azhar University by President Barak Obama in June 2009, where Obama snubbed Mubarak and insisted that Muslim Brotherhood lawmakers be in attendance.

And so, with the judiciary now down as well, and despite some rear-guard action demonstrations by Egypt’s defeated secularists, Morsi’s sweep is nearly complete. His confidence comes not from the ballot-box so much as from the knowledge that the most powerful organization in Egypt—the Muslim Brotherhood—and the most influential sharia jurist in the Islamic world—Yousef al-Qaradawi—stand behind him.

Just as in 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran after years in exile, senior American diplomatic and intelligence officials as well as the mainstream media have shown themselves completely clueless about the inevitable horror that is the invariable objective of all Islamic jihadis.

As Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, recalled in his February, 2011 National Review Online column, “Re: Re: Willful Blindness, Etc.,” (itself echoing the always-prescient Andrew McCarthy), William Sullivan, the U.S. Ambassador in Tehran during the country’s 1979 revolution, compared Khomeini to Ghandi.

Andrew Young, who was President Jimmy Carter’s UN Ambassador, called Khomeini “some kind of saint.” The Feb. 12, 1979 issue of Time magazine gushed about the democratic aims of Khomeini’s revolution and assured everyone that the Ayatollah surely would return soon to Qom to “resume a life of teaching and prayer.”

Well, he didn’t. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that neither Morsi nor al-Qaradawi has any intention of retiring anywhere anytime soon either.

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).

See RadicalIslam.org’s related article: Morsi Becomes Egypt’s New Pharaoh

A Review of ‘To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the Arab Spring’ (By Ruthie Blum)

by NORMAN  SIMMS:

Ruthie Blum’s essential book “To Hell in a Handbasket- Carter, Obama and  the Arab Spring” offers irrefutable evidence that misguided foreign policy  with respect to popular uprisings against tyrants often creates worse problems  than those it seeks to alleviate.

While most commentators and pundits stress the present crisis with a nuclear  Iran, they fail to see the overthrow of Iran’s Shah and the subsequent hostage  crisis of 1979 as prologue and lesson for today.

Blum revisits that event and succinctly states in the opening pages: “It  is the story of how a short sighted leader of the Free World, in an attempt to  ingratiate himself with-rather than defeat- the forces that would see him and it  destroyed, enabled the rise and spread of a pernicious form of radicalism that  threatens the globe to this day.” That leader was Jimmy Carter but the  words could easily apply to the present occupant of the White House, whose  obsequiousness to the Moslem world and feeble responses to direct aggression  against the United States encourage our enemies and discourage our allies.

**********

“To Hell in a Handbasket-Carter, Obama and the Arab Spring”is an  original, fast paced, meticulously researched book that catalogues the series of  missteps that continue to be repeated as we confront our abject failures in  Middle  East policy, and the unraveling of the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Read it before November 6th, 2012. You won’t be able to put it  down.

Ruthie Blum has graciously consented to an interview:

RK: You remember that when the so-called “Arab Spring” assumed  a new reality with the demonstrations in Egypt, Americans were inclined to  celebrate, announcing that democracy was now taking hold in the Middle  East.  This was, of course, foolish, to put it mildly. But how would you account for  it?

RB:Liberal Americans tend to view fondly and with  nostalgia the sight of young people storming the streets and screaming against  their government. You know, like the “good old days” during the Vietnam War,  when the so-called “best and brightest” were proudly stomping on their country’s  flag, denouncing their parents’ generation, and evading the draft – all the  while getting praised for it. These darlings of the 1960s are now occupying the  White House or cheering it on from the sidelines.

The demonstrations in Egypt caused these liberals to empathize, without  having a clue about the players in the Middle East. This has not prevented them  from adopting the knee-jerk assumption that Israeli settlements are the region’s  real problem.

The Conservatives initially lauded the developments for a very different  reason. They believed that the revolutions spreading across the Middle East  indicated that George W. Bush’s policies and views on democratization were now  bearing fruit.

RK: How do you think, as you suggest in your book, that Jimmy  Carter’s response to the taking of American hostages in 1979 contributed this,  related to this, if at all?

RB:Carter had been supportive of the ouster of the Shah of  Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Though the Shah had been a true  American ally, he was an autocrat with expensive tastes. Carter believed that  Khomeini was a good soul – a harmless, modest religious leader who would serve  as a spiritual guide to a new, more egalitarian government. When the student  radicals (among them Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) took the US Embassy staff hostage on  November 4, 1979, Carter thought that the best way to handle it would be to let  the “host government” take charge. After all, the same embassy had been stormed  six months earlier, and the “host government” did intervene – after a Marine was  murdered, that is.

But, as days turned into weeks and then into months, Carter figured his  best policy would be to negotiate with the powers-that-be in Iran. Of course, he  didn’t really know who they were, but that’s a different discussion.

Finally, when he did give a green light to a rescue operation several  months into the crisis, it was too little, too late. Then, when the mission  failed, Khomeini and the hostage-takers saw it as a sign from Allah that the  “Great Satan” was being defeated.

Carter’s attitude that America was largely responsible for the hatred of  others towards it – as was Israel – did nothing but embolden enemies across the  globe. Obama has the very same attitude today.

RK:Jimmy Carter was a failed, one-term president who left  office more than 30 years ago. Why bother rehashing what he did back then?

RB: Carter may have lost the election to Ronald Reagan, but  his legacy has lived on in the Democratic Party. In fact, it seems to have  gotten stronger as the years go by. It is necessary to observe what he did,  because there is an almost exact parallel going on today – both at home and  abroad. It is crucial for Americans to see the connection between a weakened  America and emboldened enemies. These are enemies who oppose freedom of any  kind, and who make no bones about their intentions to spread their rule beyond  all borders.

RK:The Arab Spring revolution, like the Islamic Revolution in  1978-9, erupted as a result of autocratic regimes that the people wanted to  oust. Is the United   States supposed to back rulers like the shah and Mubarak?  What should Carter have done then – and what should Obama have done in response  to the current uprisings?

RB: Carter should – first and foremost - have looked into  the Ayatollah Khomeini and his teachings. He should not have decimated the CIA.  He could have continued to pressure the Shah into instituting reforms. This is  exactly what Obama should have done in relation to other autocrats and their  opposition in the rest of the Muslim world. As Carter did with Khomeini, Obama  was prepared to view the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” organization, rather  than educate himself on the forces that were actually taking over all the  demonstrations across the Middle East. The only protests that Obama did not back  were the anti-Islamist ones that took place in Iran in June 2009 surrounding the  elections.

In other words, it is the job of the United States to support movements  that most strive for Western values, while remaining steadfast against those  that want to destroy the West. One could say that, in fairness to Carter, there  had been no precedent for the rise of radical/political Islam when he became  president; whereas Obama has had the benefit of decades of hindsight to know  about this phenomenon. It is this fact that leads many to conclude that Obama  actually sides with those radical forces.

RK:Events are still unfolding in the Middle East, and many  experts assert that these kinds of revolutions take time – especially in  cultures and countries that have no tradition of democracy. Why do you assume  that they are not moving in this direction?

RB:All evidence points to the opposite. The demonstrations  and “free election” results are pro-Islamist. Country-by-country, one can see  the spread of Shariah law and the decrease in the rights of women and  minorities, with a severe increase in the abuse of Christians. Some optimists  have compared this to the French Revolution, asserting that there will be a lot  of bloodshed for 100 years, and then there will be democracy. I don’t consider  this “moving in the right direction” while Iran is about to obtain nuclear  weapons – something that, if allowed to happen, will cause the rest of the  region to follow suit.

RK: Thank you Ruthie Blum for your book, your insight and your  answers.

Read more at Family Security Matters

Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Speech at Yeshiva University in 2007

Published April 26, 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, gave this speech at Yeshiva University.

“Thank you so much. It’s an honor to be with you this evening. Oliver, thank you for your introduction. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight, and for letting me share in the 20th anniversary of the Syms School . Thank you to Sy Syms and his family. To the supporters, the professors, the administrators, the alumni, and all the students: congratulations on this great event.

“As you heard, I spent most of my life in the private sector, first by consulting the major corporations, and then by starting and acquiring companies. It takes chutzpah I believe to buy a company from somebody else, someone who knows the business inside out, someone who has decided that now is the best time to sell, someone who has hired an investment banker to hawk it to everybody in the world, and then to think that you, having paid more than anyone else in the entire world, you somehow think you are going to make a profit on your investment.

“It’s truly an improbable way to make a living. But it worked, and far better than I ever imagined. During the fifteen years that I was the proud partner at Bain Capital, our compound rate of return on our investments exceeded 100% a year. Not bad.

“Now, what was the secret? There really wasn’t a secret. What we did is done every day by you in the private sector. We started off with good people-highly intelligent, intellectually curious, driven people. We gathered extensive data and carried out rigorous analysis before we made our decisions. And then we used all that information to develop a highly focused strategy to make the enterprise more successful.

“I found that the same approach works in the public sector as well. Good people, data, analysis, focused strategy. It’s not the way government usually does things, but it’s the way government should do things.

“Today, America faces a number of critical challenges. In my view, at the top of the list is the threat of radical, violent Jihad and the associated threat of nuclear proliferation.

“I think many of us, including some of our leaders, fail to comprehend the extent of this threat. Take former President Jimmy Carter. President Carter thinks that Israel ‘s security fence is the thing that keeps peace from coming to the Holy Land .

“Having just been to Israel, I came to the opposite conclusion: the security fence keeps peace in Israel- it’s helping – that fence is helping prevent bloodshed and terror and violence

“What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand. Whether it’s Hamas or Hezbollah; Al Qaeda or Shia and Sunni extremists, there is an overarching goal among the violent Jihadists - and it transcends borders and boundaries. That goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a religious caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the entire world.

“Jihadism - violent, radical, fundamental Jihadism – is this century’s nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century’s nightmares: fascism and Soviet communism.

“The September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a ‘religious obligation.’ Jihadist clerics have issued fatwas authorizing the use of nuclear weapons to… ‘defeat the infidels.’

“We are faced with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out.

“Radical, nuclear Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity. It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.

“In my view, there are several steps that America has to take.

“First, we have to sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops in our military. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment and armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense. That’s going to require that we spend at least 4 percent of our GDP on defense.

“Let me show you, by the way, a little history here. Let’s see if I can make this work. This shows the history as a percentage of GDP of the U.S. military. And you’ll see that over time, we’ve made some pretty significant investments in protecting our country. In the Korean War, 11.7% of the nation’s economic activity was associated with the protection of this land. During the Reagan years, it reached approximately 6% of our GDP. Today, it’s down to 3.8% and I believe that we have to increase at least by 40-50 billion dollars a year our spending on military strength.

“Second, America has to become energy independent. Our economic and military strength require it. We use 25% of the world’s oil. On this chart, you see where the oil comes from. The United States has approximately 1.7% of the world’s crude oil reserves. We obviously have to become energy independent for strategic purposes and I’m not just talking about symbolic measures, I mean that we finally have to take the necessary steps to actually produce as much energy as we use.

“Third, we have to transform our international civilian resources, to enhance our influence for peace, and for security, and for freedom. Just as the military in our country has divided the world into common regions with a single commander for each region, our civilian agencies need to do the same thing.

“Fourth, we need to strengthen our old partnerships and old alliances, and inaugurate a new one. I agree with former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam.

“And further, if I were fortunate enough to be elected your President, I’d call for a National Summit of Nations to create a new partnership – a Partnership for Hope and Prosperity.

“This Partnership would assemble the resources of all the nations of the world to work to assure that Islamic states that are threatened with violent jihad have public schools that are not Wahhabi madrases; that they have micro credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic practices.

“And fifth, we have to keep Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Their ambition to develop nuclear weaponry is clear: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused Russia’s offer to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

“Ahmadinejad has gone beyond the boundary of outrage, beginning with his calculated desecration of history. His purpose is not only to deny the Holocaust; it is to deny Israel. He is doing what another evil man did before him: conditioning minds to acquiesce to the elimination of a people.

“In January I was at the Herzliya conference and I discussed the threat of Iran. Since then, Iran continues to operate its nuclear program in defiance of the UN Security Council. It’s expanded its centrifuge operations in Natanz. It’s issued a new banknote that features a red nuclear symbol superimposed on the map of Iran.

“Earlier this month, Iran boasted the production of nuclear fuel on an ‘industrial level’ with a goal of installing 50,000 centrifuges. On April 9th, Iran marked a new national holiday – ‘Nuclear Day.’ Just look at the extent of their activity. These show the nuclear sites in Iran. This is not a little narrow project. Does the world understand what’s going on here? Do they recognize the threat which is posed by this nuclear-developing nation?

“Some people, of course, think that it’s possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran , once it’s granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor.

“Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking.

“Others believe that frankly back in the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War – that that will protect us. But for all of the Soviet Union’s deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. And that assumption simply can’t be made about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom like Iran.

“It’s time to take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We are going to continue to work, we’ll work with the UN, we’ll encourage China and Russia to work with us at the UN Security Council.

“But the U.S.and Europe can’t afford to wait.

“I have proposed a strategy to combat Iran’s nuclear ambition. Let me describe just a few of the elements.

“First, we should severely tighten economic sanctions. I think the Bush Administration deserves a lot of recognition for restricting access to our banking and credit services, because financial, and credit and monetary penalties are some of the most effective sanctions there are. And we must get other nations to act now to follow our lead.

“In my meetings in Israel in January it became clear to me that pension funds, such as the one here in New York City, have invested in companies like the French oil giant, Total. After New York State named its Comptroller, I wrote him, and I also wrote to Governor Spitzer, and Senators Schumer and Clinton and urged them to disinvest from companies that have significant operations in collaboration with Iranian regimes.

“Second, I think it’s important for us to isolate Iran diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel exactly like those of Apartheid South Africa, or worse. That’s why I ordered the state police of Massachusetts to refuse security details for former Iranian President Khatami when he came to Harvard.

“Of course, we can communicate and talk with Iran and I support the upcoming efforts to discuss security in Iraq with Iraq’s leaders and their neighbors in the region. But until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, I don’t believe that we should be engaging Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Iran’s nuclear intransigence is repulsive to the entire world and we shouldn’t let Iran try to position it as an Iran vs. a US thing.

“Now there is one place of course where I’d welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms: and that’s in a court where he would stand trial for incitement to genocide, under the terms of the Genocide Convention.

“There’s a third effort. Arab states need to join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do a lot more than just wring their hands and urge America to do all the work. They should support Iraq’s nascent government; they can help America’s focus on Iran quickly by turning down the temperature on the Arab-Israeli conflict; they can stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and they must tell their Palestinian friends to drop their campaign of terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

“This one’s a little sensitive. Listen carefully. Fourth, we have to make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be the source of pride, they can also be a source of peril. If nuclear material from Iran falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the entire civilized world to the very nation that supplied it.

“There is yet another source of Jihadist nuclear danger, beyond Iran. It’s the pursuit by Jihadists of acquiring what are commonly known as ‘loose nukes.’ The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start, but we need to accelerate and expand it.

“First, I’d appoint a senior American official to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to Prevent Nuclear Terror. He or she would have the authority and resources to work across agencies and departments in the United States to ensure that our strategies are coordinated here, and abroad.

“Further, I’d promote an international initiative to develop a new body of international law that would make nuclear trafficking a crime against humanity, on a par with genocide and war crimes. And by allowing for universal jurisdiction, charges can be brought up at any court, to help prevent traffickers from hiding in complicit or weak countries. Already, people have been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market. Their acts shouldn’t be dismissed with the kind of nonchalance that sometimes accompanies routine violation of the laws.

“Countries that want to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes should convene to reaffirm their commitment to non-proliferation. For years now, we have depended on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as the centerpiece. But recent technological and political developments suggest that the bargain at the center of this effort needs to be updated. We need to set a ‘gold standard’ for security, given the amount of highly enriched uranium that still exists in the world. Let me show you where it is. The countries in red are countries that have over ten thousand kilograms of highly enriched uranium and various research facilities around their lands. As you look at that, you recognize why it is that we don’t want to break off discussions with Russia. There’s a lot of cooperation that we need to keep in place with Russia, because they’ve got to be engaged in frank and open discussions about the serious and disturbing turn of events in their own country. But we also have to remain a partner with them on the issue of securing the vast amount of highly enriched nuclear material in their country.

“Finally, the United States in my view should take the lead in organizing an international fuel bank, which would guarantee low-cost supplies of nuclear reactor fuel to countries willing to abide by very high standards for safety and security.

“The threat from Jihad is real and it is exacerbated by the demographic crisis. Today, over half the region is under 22 years old. The combined GDP of all Arab nations, including their oil revenue, is less than Spain’s. Think of that. And with the growing population and lack of jobs, the ground for radical Islam will be increasingly fertile.

“Let me show you some slides I think are pretty interesting. This shows the map of the world drawn to the scale of where the proportion of the world’s wealth was in 1960. Look at the United States – extraordinary wealth, larger than any other land in the world by far. Europe is shown in the pinkish colors there – that’s western Europe. The blue is eastern Europe and then you’ll see Africa of course very small in terms of portion of the economy of the world. The Middle East is in the light green. You can see India there in the yellow, right next to India , to the west of India is of course Pakistan. China is the bright green and Japan is the purple. Look how that changes as projected for 2015. Look what happens to China. Look what happens to Europe. But the Middle East continues to be extraordinarily small in terms of its economic clout. And Northern Africa, where Jihad is also rampant, is a tiny portion of the world’s economic vitality in the year 2015. This is as projected by the UN. Where are the babies being born?

“Let’s look at the same map, but instead of drawing it based upon where the economic strength is, let’s show where babies are being born. That’s where population will be as of 2050. The very places that have the least income have the extraordinary growth in population. And this is the very fertile and very frightening field that we’re going to have to encounter.

“And so because of this and many other reasons in the final analysis, only Muslims are going to be able to defeat radical Jihad.

“But we can and we must support moderate Muslims in rejecting the extreme and accepting modernity.

“We should remember that in the two other global confrontations with totalitarianism in the past century, it wasn’t always obvious that we’d win. Indeed, in those conflicts, the balance of power was not always in our favor.

“Those were wars we could have lost, but we didn’t.

“In the current conflict, defeat is not nearly as dangerously close as it was during the darkest moments of the Second World War and the Cold War. There’s no comparison between the economic and diplomatic, and military resources of the civilized world and those of the terrorist networks that threaten us today.

“In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed.

“In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilized world decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, or our values, and our way of life.

“I will not be silent, you will not be silent.

“Today, we can lead the world. We can and we must lead the world to do what it has sought for so many centuries-to accept different people and different cultures, to respect the inalienable rights of every child of God, and to welcome a time of peace and prosperity for all the children of our Creator.

“Thank you so much.”

As Prepared For Delivery

Why all the hostility against investigating Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the US government?

By Dr. J. Michael Waller July 29, 2012:

The United States government is the world’s #1 target of foreign influence operations, as I teach in my graduate course on foreign propaganda.

So it is only proper that the proper federal authorities – Members of Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, and inspectors general of various agencies – remain vigilant of foreign entities that attempt to manipulate public opinion or to target national decisionmakers.

Somehow, investigating Muslim Brotherhood influence operations here is off limits.

Some of our national leaders express a willful blindness about the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (pictured at left) testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the Muslim Brotherhood was a  “largely secular organization,” and that it had no “overarching agenda.” (See the ABC News video here.)

If one of my students made such a fictitious conclusion on a final exam, he would fail my course.

Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), corrected Clapper in a public statement: “I am concerned that the DNI’s assessment does not agree with recent public statements by senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood nor does it agree with the organization’s publicly stated goals,” Kirk said, calling the organization “radical.”

Indeed, through a spokesman, Clapper retreated from his comments. “He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” his spokesman said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, who has courted several Muslim Brotherhood front groups, said that some elements are violent and others are not, but refused to provide details.

Others, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is “anti-American” and even dangerous, but get hysterical at the idea that authorities investigate well-documented concerns about possible influence on US decisionmaking.

Even though the right-hand person to the current secretary of state reportedly is from a Muslim Brotherhood family – her late father, mother and brother were or are members of, or associated closely with, the organization and its front groups.

Did those family connections have any effect on the US policy to back the overthrow of the pro-American government of the Arab world’s largest populous country – leading to its replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood? Policymakers and the public are entitled to know. Five Members of Congress requested a probe to determine the Brotherhood’s influence in the State Department.

The hysteria against those lawmakers, amounting to ad hominem attacks from members of the legislators’ own Republican Party, was creepily vicious. McCain led the charge, in an odd breach of Senate decorum denounced a federal lawmaker by name from the Senate floor. He was echoed by the tearful House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and others, the attacks led to a curious circling of the wagons in parts of the media, including opinion outlets associated with the Republican Party.

Even William H. Webster, Jimmy Carter’s FBI director who became CIA director late in President Reagan’s second term, chimed in with a gratuitous personal attack on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), pictured, who was the lead signer of the letter asking for the investigation into possible Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against the government. Webster, generally considered an elder statesman in law enforcement and intelligence matters, made a downright weird comment to Newsmax (of all places), slamming Bachmann and calling her comments “morally wrong” and even “illegal.”

Wait a minute – Webster has a distinguished bipartisan career as a judge, FBI director for nine years, CIA director, and head of various government commissions relating to national security. Why in the world would he call a lawmaker’s expression of opinion, and call for a federal investigation, “illegal”?

What’s going on?

I know Michele Bachmann, and I once briefed her for three hours about Muslim Brotherhood influence operations to shape US foreign policy and national security policy. I know many others who briefed her, and the scholars, law enforcement and national security professionals and others who prepared the briefing materials. I know that they are completely justified in their concerns.

Now, when my colleague Diana West, the nationally syndicated columnist, wrote about the controversy, the Washington Examiner spiked her piece. The Examiner, which thrives on politics, didn’t even run news stories on the controversy, West writes.

Watch this issue, everyone. Lots of clues that there’s something deeper. For the past decade, the FBI has been relying heavily on the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations as secret sources against presently violent Islamist individuals and groups. I know this firsthand, from many inside sources, from two Muslim Brotherhood operatives who work through front groups, and as an eyewitness. Could the Bureau be using Webster and former FBI agents like Congressman Rogers to attack critics of the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to remain in favor with its Brotherhood collaborators? Rogers has even hinted that Rep. Bachmann should be kicked off the intelligence committee simply for asking for an investigation.

These actions tell me that Bachmann struck such a nerve that the Muslim Brotherhood told the FBI it would no longer cooperate unless she was shut down. Nothing else explains it.

Read more at Acme of Skill

Dr. J. Michael Waller is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC.

Did Obama Know the Embassy Attacks Were Coming?

By Daniel Greenfield:

While the White House and its still media allies are still mumbling about an offensive video, it is quite clear that the Mohammed movie was never anything but a distraction used by the Islamists to set the stage and by the Obama administration to avoid admitting that the attacks were not spontaneous protests, but planned assaults.

The reason that Obama and his associates have done everything possible to avoid describing the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a planned terrorist operation is because the difference between a spontaneous attack and a planned attack is that the failure to prevent a planned attack represents a serious intelligence failure.

Was the planned attack on the Benghazi consulate truly unknown ahead of time or was it a known element that was not taken seriously enough and allowed to go forward for political reasons?

**********

If things had not gone wrong in Benghazi, then the attacks would have humiliated the United States but caused no physical harm. Obama would have benefited from the crisis and did benefit from it through the “Rally ‘Round the Flag” effect that bumps up the poll numbers of White House occupants when a foreign military crisis takes place. From our perspective the attacks showed Obama’s weakness, but his poll ratings actually rose due in part to the attacks.

During the Iran Hostage Crisis, Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings rose from 32 to 58 percent. Obama’s campaign-oriented administration was likely hoping for at least a modest bump from the riots. What they did not expect was that the attacks would go beyond limited assaults on embassies and lead to an actual slaughter in Benghazi.

That is the dirty little secret that is likely to be hiding behind the wall of misstatements and lies thrown up by the White House and the State Department. It is a wholly unsurprising secret that blends the old policies of appeasement with the new policies of cynical campaigning while putting country last. And the harder the loose thread of the administration’s knowledge of events is pulled, the likelier it is that the secret will come spilling out into the light.

Read it all at Front Page

 

Allen West Gives Stinging Critique of Obama’s Foreign Policy

Excerpt of Allen West’s weekly wrap up via Allen West Republic:

The Obama Administration has lied and continues to lie to the American people concerning the situation in Libya and the Middle East.  The “public” story is that this was a spontaneous action related to a video. Further evidence has proven that Ansar al Sharia, a radical Islamic terrorist group aligned with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, is responsible for the attack on our Consulate.  Even more disturbing is that Abu Sufian, the leader of Ansar al Sharia, was released from GITMO in 2007 after heavy political pressure.

The policy of appeasement communicated by President Obama’s speeches and visits to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt evidenced an American foreign policy weakness destined to fail.  It is telling that even at this time, President Obama has yet to visit our closest ally in the region, Israel.

The legacy of the Arab Spring that President Obama celebrates is sadly not any different from the legacy of President Jimmy Carter in Iran when the results of his action created a leadership void, eventually filled by radical Islamists.

Americans have been led to believe that killing Osama bin Laden is an example of sound foreign policy. That absurdity would be like President Franklin D. Roosevelt claiming credit for Operation Vengeance in 1943.  Operation Vengeance is the assault that led to the successful elimination of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto by an Army Air Corps fighter pilot with the support of Naval intelligence. The killing of Admiral Yamamoto did not end World War II, nor was it called foreign policy.  Operation Vengeance was a target of opportunity developed through intelligence, where the United States was able to break Japanese code and eventually ascertain Admiral Yamamoto’s flight schedule.

The Obama administration fails to understand the three levels of war — strategic, operational, and tactical — and instead rests its laurels on the tactical success of killing Osama bin Laden.

Vice President Joe Biden stated that when it comes to our foreign and economic policy,  the bumper sticker should read, “GM is alive. Osama is dead.”  True, but so is our Ambassador to Libya.

Since the 11th anniversary of 9/11, countless United States Embassies and Consulates have been attacked and ransacked, a United States Ambassador killed and possibly tortured, along with three other American citizens killed.  A United States Marine fighter squadron Commander has lost his life, six Harrier jets destroyed and two damaged, and a continuous string of “green on blue” attacks plague the peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan.

The Obama Administration’s response has been:

-  $70,000 “apology” advertising campaign in Pakistan funded by United States taxpayers.

- Statement from the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reiterating Islamic sensitivity training.

- A spot on David Letterman and parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

We wonder why we are being attacked.  I’ve said it countless times before and I’ll say it again. This President continues to show weakness with his lack of response. It’s no surprise President Jimmy Carter has been advocating for President Obama to follow his lead during the 444-day Iranian hostage crisis and “do nothing”, claiming it sometimes takes “more courage” to take that stance. From someone who spent 22 years in the Army and many years in the Middle East, I can tell you this line of thinking is insidious!

This is President Obama’s America as of September 2012:  failed economic policy, failed energy policy (unless you count Solyndra as a success), a failed foreign policy and failed national security. And he wants Americans to trust him???

I will say that “ending” the War in Iraq was not a foreign policy success. Iran is currently flying its Revolutionary Guards forces into Syria over Iraqi airspace. There are only two ways to end a war: you win or you lose. You cannot simply pack up and go home and declare success.

Political rhetoric is no substitute for sound foreign policy and strategic national security decision-making.

Americans are living through a really bad nightmare, and it’s time to wake up.

 

9/14 West talks with Fox News Sean Hannity on Libya and Obama foreign policy failures:

Post-Arab Spring “moderate” Muslim regimes cornered by radicals

Debka File:

The United States is positioning military forces so that it can respond to unrest in as many as 17 or 18 places in the Islamic world, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced late Friday. “We have to be prepared in the event that these demonstrations get out of control,” he said. Those words dashed hopes in Washington that the anti-US Islamist rampage by now sweeping 21 countries over a video deriding Islam had passed their peak. In fact, by their sixth day Saturday, Sept. 15,the street protests against American embassies and other US symbols of influence were growing more violent and more organized, threatening not only American lives but tearing up President Barack Obama’s entire outreach policy toward Arabs and Muslims. I

In at least four Arab countries, anti-US protesters were no longer just throwing stones but using firearms. The most serious occurred in Egyptian Sinai, where scores of armed Salafist Bedouin linked to al Qaeda firing missiles, grenades, mortars and automatic weapons were able to break down two guard posts at the US-led Multinational Force near El Arish base in search of American victims. A battalion of Colombian troops fought the invaders off in fierce battle for hours, preventing them from reaching the hundreds of US officers, soldiers and air crews pinned down in fortified quarters. In Cairo, Islamist demonstrators began firing rubber bullets at Egyptian security forces which have still not succeeded in breaking up the disturbances. In Tripoli, Lebanon, protesters and the Lebanese army exchanged heavy gun fire. In Khartoum, Islamists shot their way into the US embassy and the American school before setting them ablaze.

In Tunis, the American ambassador almost suffered the same fate as his colleague, Chris Stevens and three consulate staffers who were murdered in Benghazi, Libya, last Tuesday, Sept. 11. The ambassador and several US diplomats were rescued from the burning embassy building by a special Tunisian counter-terror unit and taken to safety. Friday, saw the first five fatalities as well the first violent Muslim demonstration in the Australian town of Sydney.

debkafile’s counter-terror and intelligence sources draw seven conclusions from nearly a week of surging anti-American violence across the Middle East, South Asia and beyond:

1.The anti-Islamic video film was not the cause of the upheaval only a pretext. 2.  The outbreaks were orchestrated by a number of radical Islamic organizations ranging from the ultraconservative Salafis to Al Qaeda terrorists. They took advantage of swelling anti-US sentiment in many Arab and Muslim countries to weaken local governments which maintain ties with the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. It is not yet known how the mechanism coordinating operations among those Islamist extremist groups works, but it has already shown to be faster and more efficient than the American intelligence and counter-terror bodies keeping track of them. Day by day, Washington is caught unawares by fresh outbursts.

4. After firing up Arab and some Muslim streets, this radical coalition believes its component organizations are gathering enough leverage to start pushing out the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood branches brought to power by the US-backed Arab Spring in order to take their place. The anti-US ferment will therefore not abate, as Washington hopes, until they achieve their goal.

5. The US has sent two platoons of 50 men each of specially trained Marines to protect its embassies in Libya and Yemen and may send a third to Sudan. Otherwise, the Obama administration dare not send in American troops to prop up the new Arab regimes; any visible US military intervention in those countries would only enhance the radicals’ popularity and weaken the regimes they are fighting to remove.

6. The new Muslim Brotherhood rulers of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya face a tough strategic dilemma; Lean more heavily on American support to save their regimes, or bow to the Islamist extremists, turn their backs on America and give them a place in government.

7.  Power-sharing with radicals has already begun in some Arab countries, spelling the reversal of Obama’s policies and the goals of the “Arab Spring”

Those policies aimed naively at the removal in the name of democracy of autocratic, secular Arab rulers to make way for “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood regimes elected by the people and ready to work with the United States. This ideal was violently reduced to ashes in the second week of September 2012. It is hard not to recall another debacle of 33 years ago, when President Jimmy Carter helped overthrow the Shah of Persia only to bring implacable ayatollah rule to Tehran.

Obama and “The Brothers”: An Invitation to Disaster

Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Mohamed Mursi delivers a speech while surrounded by his body guards in Cairo’s Tahrir Square

By Michael Widlanski

President Barack Obama, who invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech in 2009, has now invited Brotherhood leader and Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi for talks in the United States.

But as the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, we should all be worried, because the Brotherhood was the group that fathered Al-Qaeda and the Jihad groups that attacked New York in 1993 and again on 9-11.

But President Obama is not worried. He thinks the Brotherhood coming to power is an opportunity—perhaps to achieve even more of a “dialogue,” for “engagement,” with the Arab-Islamic world.

So far this dialogue of engagement has failed everywhere Obama has tried it—in Egypt, in Iran and in Turkey, but the president with the Islamic middle name thinks he can charm radical leaders to a path of moderation.

Back on the ground in the Middle East, there has been a 104-percent increase in terror attacks across the border into Israel from Gaza and Sinai in the last month. Cross-border infiltration and rocket attacks are a daily affair, usually without fatalities, but that will change when the terrorists “get lucky.”

When that happens, and it will, Israeli leaders will have to abandon the pin-point reprisal policy and escalate to a more thorough house cleaning of the border area. The Islamic terrorists in Sinai and Gaza, supported by 11 Bedouin tribes that make money from smuggling, are heavily armed.

There are more than half a dozen different terror groups—some associated with Al-Qaeda—and they will all want to flex their muscles.

Israeli military planners think it is only a matter of time before the Brotherhood, its sister organization, Hamas, that rules Gaza,  and the other terror groups destabilize Israel’s southern border, undermining the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and even causing a military conflict.

But in the rarefied air of the White House and Foggy Bottom, the Obama Administration is oblivious.

President Obama,  Secretary of State Clinton and anti-terror chief John Brennan do not seem too concerned. They helped bring the Brotherhood to the Egyptian presidency by undermining Egyptian leader Husni Mubarak, much the way Jimmy Carter undermined Iran’s Shah 34 years ago.

Obama and Co. invited participation by the Brotherhood in Egypt’s governance, bringing them to Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009. They should have known: He who invites extremists to the appetizer should not be surprised when they stay for dinner and dessert.

The “Brothers” are not interested in sharing power any more than the Iranian ayatollahs were. Yes, there are differences between Sunni Islamic radicals (Egypt) and Shiite Islamic radicals (Iran), but they also have much in common:

  • They hate Muslims who are not sufficiently religious and are too “Western” in their daily lives;
  • They hate America and Israel;
  • And they hate sharing power with anyone.

There will be no real democracy in a Brotherhood-led Egypt. You can bet on it.

The secular Egyptian army will hold out for a bit, but will finally succumb. That is what happened in Turkey, where Obama’s other favorite extremist Islamic leader, Recept Erdogan, swept the army aside. Turkey, once a reliable NATO ally, is now an unreliable force, and Egypt, once a reliable friend of the US, will also drift away.

Throughout this chain of events, it is hard not to see the resemblance  between President Obama’s actions in Egypt and those of President Jimmy Carter in Iran.

Carter and his aides hoped/prayed for moderation in Iran. But we got 30 years of death, terror, and a nuclear bomb program. Obama and Co. will get much  the same from the Brotherhood, whose Arabic name—Ikhwan—comes from the blood-curdling Wahhabi movement in Arabia that spawned the Brotherhood   in Egypt.

Obama and his aides like to drone on about how Obama personally liquidated Osama Bin-Laden, but in the long term, Obama’s loss of Egypt  will be much more important, and it could  overshadow even Carter’s loss of Iran.

Dr. Michael Widlanski, an expert on Arab politics and communications,  is the author of  Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat  just published March by Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He taught at the Hebrew University for nearly two decades and served as Strategic Affairs Advisor for Israel’s Ministry of Public Security.

Read more at Front Page

The Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt shows Arab Spring is radical Islamic nightmare

By Congressman Allen West on Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 10:59am

A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama Administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed they would not run a presidential candidate. Clearly the Arab Spring is nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare. Now we need to unequivocally reiterate our support to the Coptic Christians and Israel. What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration. I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.

The Danger in Dealing With Islamists

By Magdi Khalil

Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States made the first strategic mistake by contributing to the creation of the most dangerous Islamic fundamentalist revival to take place in the twentieth century, or “The Islamic Awakening,” as termed by prominent Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The American perception of Islamic fundamentalism was shallow and lacking an in-depth look at history, while also being short-sighted with a focus on short-term objectives.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter who emigrated from Eastern Europe, was preoccupied with the Communist threat, unaware that a revival of Islamic fundamentalism would also end up reviving historical horrors that are best forgotten. The CIA, in cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, conducted the biggest operation in its history, with a cost estimated at billions of dollars, to counter the Soviet threat through a revival of Islamic jihad. Pakistani president at the time, Zia ul-Haq, had stipulated that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) should be in charge of the distribution of money and weapons to fighters in the Afghani factions, while forbidding the CIA to enter Afghanistan via Pakistan. These restrictions basically meant that the Pakistani Intelligence was pulling all the strings. The ISI chose its allies from among fundamentalist Afghans such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, as well as Afghan students at Wahhabi[1] schools, who were later called the “Taliban” due to their affiliation with Wahhabi schools in Pakistan. Through the ISI the so-called “Afghan Arabs” first emerged, and in later years they became the nucleus of al-Qaeda.

On March 15, 2005 the U.S. State Department website published a report denying any connection between the CIA and the Afghan Arabs or al-Qaeda, and placing the blame squarely on Pakistani intelligence. The report stated that the U.S. did not “create bin Laden or al-Qaeda, but rather helped the Afghans in their struggle to free their country― as did other countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt and the United Kingdom. The United States did not, however, support the ‘Afghan Arabs,’ i.e. the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for ulterior motives. The ISI made the decisions as to which Afghan groups it wished to arm and train, and it tended to favor the pro-Pakistan radical Islamic factions. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which led to the accusation that they have been created by the CIA.”

Yet, this statement is not entirely accurate. In fact, the U.S. has played an indirect part in the creation of Taliban and al-Qaeda. Back then, a US-Saudi deal specified that in return for every dollar provided by Saudi Arabia in cash, the U.S. offered a dollar in the form of weapons, and both funds and weapons were submitted to the ISI. In his book “The Main Enemy: The Inside story of the CIA’s Final showdown with the KGB,” Milt Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan between 1986 and 1989 who was in charge of covert operations in Afghanistan, referred to this deal: “In 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski – National Security adviser to President Jimmy Carter – secured an agreement with the Saudi King, under which Saudi Arabia pledged to match the financial contribution provided by the United States to support Afghani efforts. Reagan-era CIA Director Bill Casey kept this agreement in effect for several years” (“The Main Enemy,” p. 219).

The same account was given by Major General Mohammad Yusuf, who was in charge of the ISI Afghan office where he managed the Pakistani classified aid program for the Afghan mujahideen. In his book “The Bear Trap: Afghanistan, the untold story” Major Yusuf mentions the US-Saudi financial pact: “For every dollar provided by the United States, another dollar was added by the Saudi government. The joint funds, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the ISI supervision” (“Bear Trap,” p. 81).

No, the United States did not finance al-Qaida or the Afghan Arabs directly, but it created the phenomenon responsible for the emergence of bin Laden and al- Qaeda. CIA and Pentagon experts took a gamble on the circumstantial success of a lethal weapon: armed jihadist Islam. What’s more, they bestowed the title of “freedom fighters” on the Mujahideen. Swiss journalist Richard Labévière called this dangerous game the “Dollars for Terror” in a 1998 book published in French under the same title. Labévière Stated that the U.S. was responsible for creating bin Laden with the approval of Saudi and Pakistani intelligence, not to mention the part it played in the emergence of fundamentalist Presidents such as Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan, Sadat in Egypt, and Jaafar Nimeiri in Sudan, who were friends of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and who contributed to the phenomenon of Afghani jihad and to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism.

Of course, al-Qaeda did not content itself with funds and weapons obtained from Pakistani Intelligence but had its own resources, receiving funds from wealthy Arabs and particularly from Saudi Intelligence, under the supervision of Prince Turki al-Faisal. As a result, the organization had substantial funds at its command. Ayman al-Zawahiri confirmed this fact in his book “Knights under the Banner of the Prophet” issued in December 2001, where he mentioned that al-Qaeda had funded Afghan jihad with two hundred million dollars in the form of weapons only in the span of ten years. It is also a well-known fact that al-Qaeda had funded the Taliban takeover of Kabul in December 1996, and killed off Taliban strong opponent Ahmed Shah Massoud.

As expected, magic turned against the magician, and the attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1994 should have been a warning to the U.S. of the seriousness of the phenomenon which was partly of its own making. But the American response was lax, even as more terrorist operations followed, with the most serious being the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998, which left in its wake hundreds of mostly poor Africans dead and wounded. Yet, the Clinton administration dealt with the matter rather leniently, firing several missiles at al-Qaeda camps with little impact that failed to stop the escalating savagery of the militant organization. A few years later, the events of September 11, 2001 took place shaking the United States and the whole world, and revealing the extent of the danger posed by Islamic jihadist organizations.

With the onset of war in Afghanistan and then Iraq, American Think Tanks started to look for non-military alternatives to deal with the Islamic phenomenon and with the countries that export Islamic terrorism. Thus, the notion of an agenda of democracy was put forward in the era of Bush Jr. A connection between tyranny and the rise of religious extremism was suggested, along with the argument that internal repression of the Islamist phenomenon had resulted in the phenomenon being exported to the West. With an agenda of democracy, came an inevitable question: what if democracy actually allowed Islamists to gain power? The answer was provided by Condoleezza Rice, who expressed the U.S. conviction of the importance of dialogue with Islamists in the Arab region, and confirmed that the US did not fear the prospect of an Islamist arrival to power. Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department, confirmed that the U.S. did not fear the arrival of Islamists to power as a substitute to the repressive Arab regimes which have muzzled their people, thus triggering the outbreak of terrorist acts, provided that Islamists gain power through democratic means and adopt democracy as a means of government.

In February 2004, the Rand Corporation issued a report titled “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, resources and strategies,” which was among a number of significant reports that recommended the Islamists’ participation in government. The report recommended the initiation of a dialogue with moderate Islamists, and classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate group.

However, the prospect of Islamists’ participation in government with U.S. cooperation was unlikely to happen in the era of Bush who, after launching two wars on two Islamic states, was a hated figure in Islamic countries. This agenda was much more likely to be achieved in the era of Barack Obama, who does not believe that an Islamist ideology poses a danger to the U.S. and does not view the prospect of an Islamist takeover as a threat.

As the Obama administration, the CIA and the Pentagon were in favor of the participation of moderate Islamists in government, a need arose for a non-Saudi, Arab agent, since Saudi Arabia was an agent of jihadist, Salafi[2], Wahhabi and Talibani Islam. The choice fell on Qatar, the small and wealthy state seeking to play a role in the region, and which also embraces the Muslim Brotherhood Baron Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Over the years, by means of huge funds, and through the Al-Jazeera channel, Qatar had played a part in increasing the discontent towards the old regimes, meanwhile promoting and paving the way for an Islamists takeover of the region. Qatar has funded several institutions and Think Tanks that address the subject of Islam and democracy or advocate for the participation of Islamists in government. For several years, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Radwan Masmoudi and other friends of the Muslim Brothers and Qatar have been active in the U.S. and Europe promoting the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in government through ballot boxes. In a single year, ten major conferences were held in the U.S. and Europe, sponsored by universities and renowned Western Think tanks, to discuss the participation of Islamists in government—which raises the question: where did the considerable funding required for these conferences come from?

After the collapse of the old regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Qatar turned its attention towards supplying its Islamist allies with massive funds to enable them to gain power through sham, dishonest elections. Saudi Arabia joined the foray by funding Wahhabi Salafi movements to preserve its influence in the new era.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. was willing to deal with Islamic governments in the region, and U.S. officials made subsequent visits to the region. The warm welcome given to Senator John Kerry in the Muslim Brotherhood Cairo office signified the new deal, and Salafi Sheikh Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a candidate for the presidency, described Kerry’s visit as a herald of victory and good tidings. It was not surprising, then, that Qatar was the first country that Rashid Ghannouchi, leader of the Tunisian Party Al-Nahda, visited after winning the elections, and that the second was the United States.

In the past, the U.S. had supported Afghan jihad and reaped a bitter harvest in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; but its support of a Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist takeover through ballot boxes in the Middle East would produce a harvest that is far more bitter for the U.S. and the entire world. These movements believe in the value of empowerment — that is, to make a show of embracing democracy when they are in a vulnerable state, and when empowered, to pursue their ultimate plan which is the establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate. This may very well spark a third World War launched from the Middle East against Israel, the U.S. and the West in general, possibly taking a religious form, i.e. Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. That scenario effectively means that the United States is contributing, unknowingly, to the revival of the Islamic Caliphate, and the ensuing religious wars.

Read more at Front Page

‘Repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood’: Allen West Calls for Obama to Immediately Cut All American Foreign Aid to Egypt Following Election Results

By Madeleine Morganstern at The Blaze:

Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.) on Sunday called for President Barack Obama to immediately cut off all American foreign aid to Egypt and to denounce the results of its presidential election after Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohammed Morsi’s victory.

In a brief post on his Facebook page, West said Sunday’s results were reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian revolution that saw Islamists installed as leaders of the country.

“A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt,” West wrote. “We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident.”

Calling the Arab Spring “nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare,” West said the U.S. needs to “unequivocally reiterate” its support to Coptic Christians in the region and to Israel.

“What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama administration,” West said. “I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.

 

 

Iranian-Born American Writer Amil Imani Speaks Out Against Satanic Islam

By Sher Zieve at Gulag Bound:

For many years, Amil Imani has stood against the brutal and patently evil onslaught of Islam which continues to attack the population of his former country Iran–and now the world.  Early on, Amil realized the inherent dangers associated with Islam.  He and his family were able to flee the country after the Islamic revolution that was foisted upon Iran and in a recent phone conversation, Amil advised me that Iran had–culturally and historically–never been a Muslim nation until they were invaded by Islam…which was largely due to former Democrat US President Jimmy Carter  He also very correctly advises his audience that the Left and Islam are part of the same insidious cabal

Amil Imani (partial) Biography

Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new book Operation Persian Gulf.

Amil’s numerous articles have appeared in many newspapers and magazines around the world as well as in thousands of Internet magazines, websites and blogs. He is a regular commentator on Iranian issues on BBC World News. He is also 2010 honoree of EMET: “the Speaker of the Truth Award” at the Capitol Hill.

Sher: Thank you so much for your time, today, Amil. I’d like to jump directly into the subject matter and ask the reasons for your decision to stay in the United States after completing your education. Wasn’t it your initial plan to return to Iran?

Amil: Thank you, Sher, for having this interview with me. I left Iran in the midst of the radical Islamic revolution of 1978/79 to continue my education abroad, but never envisioned that Islamist extremists would take over our very modern and prosperous country. Most likely, I would not be alive today if I had stayed in Iran.

In 1979, the U.S. government (notably Jimmy Carter and Company), with the help of allied forces, created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and this spurred the rise of Islamofascism elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter, by his interference in another country, betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran.

 Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran and U.S. President Jimmy Carter

In reality, there was not a country for me to return to. Many of my friends were either killed in Iran-Iraq war or simply disappeared for standing up for their rights. Overnight, we lost everything. My battle with the forces of darkness started when evil (Ayatollah Khomeini) landed in Iran and unleashed his wrath on thousands upon thousands of Iranians who in the beginning, believed this “holy” man was their savior. But, he turned out to be the “evil” that our ancient prophet Zoroaster had warned us about.

Ayatollah Khomeini, with his cultural revolution, intended to de-civilize a very rich and civilized nation.

For the past 33 years, the Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric savages who despise anything Iranian and are slowly purging any remnant left of pre-Islamic Persia, as well as Persian textbooks. These pro-Arab invaders are not Iranians by any means. “Iranian” is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology.

To most Iranians, including myself, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policymakers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install the Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. After 33 years, the U.S. is still making the same mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran.

Sher: When we talked a few days ago, you told me that prior to Iran’s ‘Islamic Revolution’ it had never been a Muslim country and that–until recently–Islam had never truly been part of Iran’s historical and traditional culture. Before the sudden and swift rise of Islam, what were the true cultural aspects of Iran and its people?

Amil:  A quick answer: Iranians are Muslim in name only. We have a saying in Persian that the way you take your first step, points your path for the rest of your journey. To elucidate this, please allow me to elaborate and give a brief account of Islam.

Islam’s very first step was that of violence aimed at decimation of any people that stood in its path of conquest. It all started with Muhammad when his own Quraysh tribe chased him out of his hometown of Mecca. He was a troublemaker that earned the “crazed poet” epithet. He escaped from Mecca and settled in Medina where a large tolerant Jewish community lived. There he found enough peace to start his campaign of gathering a bunch of thugs with the promise of booty in this world as well as eternal pleasures of a sensual paradise if people followed his edict.

The rest is history. One of the very first things he did was to turn on the Jews of Medina – an easy and convenient target to kill, loot and enslave. Being amply rewarded for this thuggery, his followers expanded their range. To this day, the goal is the same. Destroying any and all people who refuse to surrender everything they are and have to this creed of savagery and slavery.

Nearly 1400 years ago, the followers of Muhammad from across the scorching Arabian Desert conquered Iran (Persia), the greatest empire known in the history of man. With that, they almost destroyed one of the most benevolent and beautiful religions of all humanity, Zoroastrianism, often called the mother of all revealed religions.

 Califate, 750 A.D.

Originally, Iranians were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from the Arab invaders, but deep within the heart of every single Iranian alive today, exists a burning resentment of the Arab-Islamic invasion of their homeland and culture. The events in history have toughened present day Iranians. They have become great pretenders. But the totality of 1400 years of Islamic barbarity and savagery must and will end. Iranians no longer need to pretend that they are practicing Muslims; when in fact, they are not.

Before the Islamic invasion of 1979, most Iranians were unaware of true nature of Islam. But, the 1979 Islamic invasion quickly changed that. Nowadays, masses of Iranians are irreparably alienated from a corrupt and oppressive Islamic rule. The rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is crumbling. The previously solid edifice, or at least the appearance of it, is finally showing many cracks that continue to grow. There are just too many fault lines to list here. Many consider this, an era of Iranian awakening or Iranian renaissance. Islam has always been in contrast with Persian values as it is evident by the glorious pre-Islamic Iranian festivities and celebrations.

Sher:  Every day now, we’re hearing more and more chatter from strategic military experts that Obama is actually planning to take the USA into a war with Iran. Others have said that he plans to affect the war this year, in order to ensure his remaining in office. What do you make of this and what, if anything, are you hearing?

 Obama in Somali Muslim garb

Amil: When you ask me about President Obama, you touch a very sore point. This man is an enigma. Every chance he gets he sings the praises of Islam. He calls it a great religion. It has been reported that some of his closest White House advisors are Muslims. At times, he seems to be a weak and indecisive politician who doesn’t seem to firmly believe in the ideals of democracy and liberty. He, as a most powerful political leader, unfortunately doesn’t always champion democracy. At best, he seems to be a strict pragmatist with a focus on the short-term results.

Some critics of Obama’s Iran policies argue that Obama’s weak stance, and his politicizing of the issue because of his 2012 re-election bid are creating a dangerous situation in the Middle East. Critics also point out that the developing Iranian crisis is due to Obama’s weak response to Iranian aggression, which has emboldened the regime. In my opinion, both assertions are accurate. Obama had a golden opportunity in 2009, to help those millions of Iranians who were shouting in the streets of Tehran “Obama: Are you with us or against us?”  President Obama decided to work against them.

What remains an enigma is this: Why did the Obama administration support regime change in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya but not in Iran?

Sher: We know that Obama has appointed multiple members of the Muslim Brotherhood to high levels within the US government. We also know that some–if not many–of these appointments have actually been in the area of US national security! As the Brotherhood is the parent organization of al-Qaeda and Hamas–to name only two terrorist organizations–what in the world could Obama be thinking? Do you see Obama working to establish the USA as part of the burgeoning Marxist Islamic Caliphate?

Amil: It is chancy thing to guess people’s motive. What is more telling is the person’s actions and the consequences of the actions. We see that Obama has been steering the country toward more government, greater redistribution of wealth, and more dependency on government micromanaging people instead of serving them to realize their own highest potential. Obama ‘s actions clearly show his drive to remake the U.S. into a socialist state.

As for his actions relating to Islam, we can go back and revisit in utter disbelief and watch him bow to the Saudi king, the titular head of Islamdom.

Furthermore, on numerous occasions he has spoken effusively of Islam, has allowed the mullahs to keep on racing to become a nuclear state and oftentimes berated Israel. Obama’s actions in both fronts, socialization of the country and promotion of Islam, are encyclopedic and cannot be covered in this brief statement. But, to label the president as such, to utter, “Obama is a Marxist,” is to open yourself to ridicule. People would rather dismiss than hear the truth, would rather live a lie and suffer its consequences than puncture their self-affirming facade.

We must allow all the facts, which speaks volumes: Didn’t President Obama go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn’t he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn’t he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn’t he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn’t he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn’t he appoint a raft of “devoted” Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?

In his Cairo speech, didn’t he blatantly mislead the world on how “Islam has been a part of America from the very beginning……….” misleading again about “Islam’s magnificent history, its contributions to art, architecture, math, science etc.” Didn’t the Obama administration pull back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive? Paving the way to exonerate Islam of any wrong doing, e.g. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihadist directed murder of 13 U.S. service personnel at Ft. Hood characterized as ‘workplace violence’? Didn’t he eliminate traditional National Day of Prayer, yet throws a lavish dinner marking the end of Ramadan in our White House?

It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who have been President Obama’s close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below and we will let people make up their own minds:

Go to Gulag Bound to read the rest of this important interview