General Mattis Critical Of Obama Administration’s Treatment Of US Allies

8bd3121c-ddf3-433f-acc9-58cadfb7d8cenews.ap.org_r620x349Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, May 14, 2015:

WASHINGTON — Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis told attendees at The Heritage Foundation Wednesday he is concerned the United States is not firmly standing by her global allies.

Mattis replaced General David Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command in August 2010 and retired from the Marine Corps in 2013 after 41 years of military service.

Gen. Mattis recalled a meeting he had with the King Abdullah II of Jordan, when the French and British were planning to leave Afghanistan and Mattis confirmed their departure to the king.

“I said, ‘Yeah, that’s right your majesty.’ And he said, ‘Well, let me make sure you understand that our Jordanian troops will be there with you until the last American soldier comes home.’”

Mattis paused for a moment and explained, “You cannot buy allies like that. The way you get allies like that is if you want a friend when you’re in trouble, you need to be a friend when they’re in trouble, and we are not sending that message.”

He went further saying, “I was getting asked the same question in Cairo and Riad as I was being asked in Tel Aviv, and that’s darn near impossible to align them. How much have we aligned them? I had a foreign minister of an Arab country make a point to me when I started wearing this, instead of a uniform.”

“He said, ‘We, today, have more in common with Israel’s foreign policy than we have with America’s.’ That is not a good situation for stability and anyone who wants peace and prosperity and [to] turn over a better world to our children, that is not something we can be proud of,” the retired general noted.

Mattis believes the way the United States is handling global affairs is “not the way the greatest generation dealt with the world around them, and it’s one that we’re going to have to learn to adapt to, or we’re going to end up in a situation where we’re ashamed of what we’re turning over.”

“But leaving allies adrift and having to accommodate less pleasing allies, this is not something that is in America’s best interest,” he said.

When asked by The Daily Caller about his thoughts on the Obama administration’s handling of the Islamic State, he responded, “The president came out and said we didn’t have a strategy on this. I would only endorse what he said. Honesty is honesty. I think the president’s recognized the failing there, and I think if we do not do something to humiliate them and cause havoc, their recruiting and their fundraising will continue apace, so you’ve got to hit them with a shockwave.”

Mattis added, “That’s not just military, and it’s not just covert. It’s a whole lot of things. But again, it goes back to — you’ve got to ask the strategic questions. Is political Islam in our best interests? Let me define it. It’s political Islam as practiced by the mullahs in Tehran for the past 30 years. That’s on the Shia side. It’s political Islam as practiced by the Muslim Brothers, the brothers in Cairo for a year. And if it’s not in our best interest, what are we going to do to come up with that coherent strategy?”

***

Gen. Mattis speaks at about 13 min. into the video. Well worth your time to listen:

ISIS Leader: ‘Islam Is the Religion of War’

isis-chief-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-Reuters-640x480Breitbart, by John Sexton, May 14, 2015:

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has released a call to arms which asks Muslims everywhere to physically join ISIS in the area it now controls or simply take up the struggle against unbelievers wherever they are.

The title of the message “March Forth Whether Heavy or Light” comes from a verse in the Koran which calls on believers to “strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.” In Baghdadi’s view that striving is ISIS’s war against unbelievers.

“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war,” al-Baghdadi says, according to an English language transcript of the speech promoted by ISIS-affiliated social media accounts. The transcript, which was posted online at Downrange, portrays Islam’s Muhammad as a warrior:

Where are you in relation to your Prophet (peace be upon him), whom you claim to emulate, and who spent his whole life (peace be upon him) as a mujāhid for the cause of Allah, fighting His enemies? His lateral incisor tooth was broken in battle, his forehead was wounded, two rings from his chainmail cut his cheeks, his helmet was broken on his head, and blood ran down his face.

Baghdadi frames the necessity of war against unbelievers as a religious duty but also as a necessity, saying, “the Jews, the Christians, and the rest of the disbelievers will not approve of you nor abandon waging war against you until you follow their religion and apostatize from yours.” The only place of safety in this global war between Muslims and unbelievers, Baghdadi says, is with ISIS:

This war is only against you and against your religion. Has the time not come for you to return to your religion and your jihād and thereby bring back your glory, honor, rights, and leadership? Has the time not come for you to know that there is no might nor honor nor safety nor rights for you except in the shade of the Caliphate?… Therefore, O Muslims, seek shelter – after Allah – with the Islamic State.

The final pages of the letter are devoted to praise for the so-called “lions of the Caliphate” who are already fighting for ISIS around the world. In addition to numerous areas within Iraq and Syria, Baghdadi mentions fighters in Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, and West Africa.

Last month, sources claimed Baghdadi had been seriously injured by an airstrike in Iraq sometime in March. Baghdadi was reportedly recovering but unable to maintain daily control of the terrorist group, however, those reports were not confirmed by U.S. officials. The audio message released Thursday is being viewed by some analysts as proof that Baghdadi (injured or not) is still leading the group.

According to the Iraqi military, ISIS’s 2nd in command Abu Alaa al-Afri was killed in an airstrike this week. That report appears to have been unsupported by any verifiable facts, and U.S. officials are said to be skeptical.

Also see:

In his first public adress after being declared Caliph in late June 2014, Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi called on professionals to immigrate to the territories under his control in order to help build up the fledgling state. “We make a special call to the scholars, fuqahaa’ [Islamic jurisprudence experts], and preachers, especially the judges, as well as people with military, administrative, and service expertise, and medical doctors and engineers of all different specializations and fields.”[1]

This statement stems from ISIS’s ambition to build itself as a viable project.[2] In order for its project to last, ISIS knows that it needs to supply basic services to the population and to create revenue, and it knows that educated professionals are an integral part of forming a successful, operational society. Therefore, in addition to its heavy emphasis on recruiting young men from abroad to serve as fighters in its ranks, ISIS is also making an effort to recruit men and women who are able to assist with their professional know-how and experience.

To recruit these elements, ISIS propaganda appeals to their desire to be part of a succesful community that implements Islamic law. At the same time, it stresses the religious obligation on those who have such professions to come and join its ranks, as part of the duty of hijra and jihad. Recent ISIS media releases have showcased young Western operatives who came to Syria to work for ISIS in the profession that they acquired in their countries of origin. On social media, individuals share their day-to-day experiences of working in various capacities, as doctors, nurses, teachers, and so on. These methods are used to entice other capable Muslims to join ISIS.

This report will look at a number of examples of highly educated professionals who have immigrated to join ISIS, and at the roles some of them play in it.

***

Retired generals: Be afraid of ISIS

screen shot from "Blindsided: Did ISIS catch the U.S. by surprise?"

screen shot from “Blindsided: Did ISIS catch the U.S. by surprise?”

CNN, By Michael Flynn, James Livingston and Michael Smith. April 27, 2015:

Be afraid — be very afraid. This is the warning the world deserves to hear. Because the leader of the free world refuses to look with clear eyes at the chief security challenges of the 21st century: the fruits of radical Islam.

The results of the Obama White House’s innovative efforts to make the world a better place can be accounted for in the ever-growing numbers of victims of radical Islam in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Not to mention here in the United States, Canada and Europe. Is it not a tragic irony that the Arab Spring-era policies of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient accommodated the transition of Syria into the world’s newest jihad theater while leaving Libya a failed state and Yemen a failing state?

The Syrian jihad gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which now uses Syria as a rear operating base to support its jihad in Iraq, which could soon spill over into Jordan. Plus, Libya is now being used as a rear operating base by ISIS and other global jihadist elements striving to redraw the map of the Middle East, even as they plan attacks in Europe and North America.

Given the frightfully slow pace America’s commander-in-chief is currently allowing our military and intelligence community to take action against both ISIS and its progenitor, al Qaeda, the picture of what’s in store is clear: The body count will continue to grow in the places where these groups can generate buy-in for their agendas. And neither the United States nor our Western allies are immune to this cancer.

Academics who must say something new or different to garner interest in their work may describe the agendas of ISIS and al Qaeda as distinctly different. But the fact is they are not — their agendas, which constitute the foremost threats to the global security environment today, are manifestations of radical Islam.

Of course, it’s hardly a surprise President Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge all this in plain terms — the president and his national security advisers have too often proven naïve, with a dangerous habit of viewing the world not as it is, but as they hope it could be.

There is no shortage of examples that highlight the absence of sound foresight on the parts of the world’s most powerful politician and his national security team.

Just take the National Strategy for Counterterrorism published by the White House in 2011. That document contained the assertion that, “Since the beginning of 2011, the transformative change sweeping North Africa and the Middle East — along with the death of Osama bin Laden — has further changed the nature of the terrorist threat, par-ticularly as the relevance of al Qaeda and its ideology has been further diminished.”

Yet, fast forward to January 2014 and America’s top intelligence official, director of National Intelligence James Clapper, advised Congress that al Qaeda was no less capable of threatening the United States and our allies than a decade earlier.

Soon after Clapper acknowledged al Qaeda was not a band on the run, as President Obama had described the terrorist enterprise, a report by terrorism expert Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation highlighted yet another inconvenient truth for the White House: As restraints on freedom of expression of radical religious views vanished in places like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab Spring, those states became fertile recruitment grounds for terrorist groups — including al Qaeda and groups aligned with it.

According to data compiled by Jones, from 2010 through 2013, the number of Salafi jihadist groups increased by 58%. These groups are fueled by Salafiyya Jihadiyya, an ideology that not only informs the agenda of al Qaeda, but is the source code for the agenda of the al Qaeda offshoot ISIS.

Bin Laden’s death ‘didn’t lift shadow’

Most recently, absent from the  produced by the Obama White House in February 2015 is any real meaningful discussion concerning threats posed by al Qaeda. Yes, Osama bin Laden was killed on President Obama’s watch. But contrary to what the White House seemed to think in 2011, bin Laden’s death has not lifted the shadow he casts over America’s, or our allies’ security.

Indeed, within days of our new National Security Strategy’s publication date, in the seventh issue of ISIS’s English-language magazine Dabiq, the group’s leaders described their jihad as a continuation of the jihad charted by bin Laden, while accusing his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, of steering al Qaeda off the path of its former leader.

Meanwhile, Yemen — home to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda branch thatclaimed credit for the January 2015 attack in Paris at the office of Charlie Hebdo — has also become a failed state. AQAP is helmed by the second-highest-ranking official in al Qaeda writ large, and the Obama administration views it as the most dangerous component of al Qaeda’s global network.

So it is interesting that, in the months before the Yemeni government was overthrown by Iran-backed rebels, President Obama described the U.S.-Yemen counterterrorism partnership as a shining example of success in the fight against al Qaeda — interesting because the President did not do more to help that “partner” government remain in power. Once again, the president and his advisers appear to have either ignored or failed to recognize the trajectory of events in the Middle East.

What were they thinking? And how do they plan to combat AQAP now?

Despite what the White House wants the world to believe, a sober look at the security environment reveals the following key realities:

ISIS controls a large amount of territory in the Middle East, and the group is rapidly growing its ranks in places such as Libya and Afghanistan, while at the same time inspiring and plotting attacks in the West.

And, although ISIS is trying to “out al Qaeda” al Qaeda, resorting to attention winning stunts to boost its profile on television sets around the world, al Qaeda itself is no less of a threat to the United States and our allies today than it was in January 2014.

At the same time, the routine failures of President Obama and his advisers to understand the security environment, and to appropriately tailor America’s national security posture in a manner demanded by it, foretells more disasters lie ahead.

Will Obama make the difficult decisions?

Not only Americans, but also our allies should be very, very afraid. Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to simply call a problem like radical Islam by its name strongly suggests he is unwilling to make the difficult decisions that must be made today if we are to stand a chance of defeating radical Islamist groups.

History has shown the dangers that millions can be placed in if our leaders don’t face down a looming threat by calling it what it is and putting our full weight behind efforts to vanquish it.

President Obama has the resources at his disposal to do just that. But if he wants to help define a future for the Middle East and North Africa in which fewer threats emanate from those regions, he must spend more time listening to talented professionals in our military and intelligence community versus the idealists and yes-men surrounding him at the White House. There is too much at stake in the near term to continue down the path of experimentation with Pollyannaish theories about how to attain this future that have actually rendered us less safe.

Indeed, President Obama should also pay closer attention to what representatives from Arab states are saying behind closed doors. Most of their bosses would love to be the claimants to the prize of defeating ISIS and al Qaeda.

However, all of them recognize that, unless we all want things to get a whole lot worse before they might get any better, the United States will have to deploy considerably more of our “kinetic” resources to put those victories in sight.

This does not mean a ground forces-intensive response is required from us at this time. But if the President thinks it prudent to wait on our Arab partners to do most of the heavy lifting, he could be guaranteeing this will be the case in the not-too-distant future.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Medal of Honor recipient and retired Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC, and congressional counterterrorism adviser Michael S. Smith II are co-founders of the strategic advisory firm Kronos Advisory. The views expressed are solely the authors’ own. Watch ‘Blindsided: How ISIS shook the world’, a GPS special airing Monday at 9 p.m. ET/PT on CNN.

Published on Apr 25, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on the situation in the Middle East. General Flynn on the situation in Yemen, Iran nuclear talks and battle against ISIS

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – A Warning To America, Israel, the West

Published on Apr 24, 2015 by theunitedwest

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – A Warning To America – National Security And Understanding The Muslim Mind.

The United West is proud to bring you another installment of our Israel Trip Series featuring Israeli Scholar and National Security subject matter expert, Dr. Mordechai Kedar.

Dr. Kedar combines his 25 years in various IDF Intelligence Units, fluency in Arabic dialects, and a stellar academic career at Bar Ilan University into a National Security Briefing you must watch from beginning to end.

“We in the West often delude ourselves into believing that all cultures have exactly the same goals (peace, prosperity, freedom) and exactly the same values (human life, honesty, human rights). And although all of these goals and values are undoubtedly part of every human culture, not all cultures value them to the same degree that we do in the West.”

In this briefing Dr. Kedar will present a compelling look into understanding the Middle Eastern mind, culture, religion, and how the Muslim world sees Western culture. Only by understanding how the Muslim world sees us will we be able to properly defend our culture from The Global Jihad Movement.

In this briefing Dr. Kedar will cover these topics:

1. The Family unit and population demographics are a National Security issue.

2. 14:43 Understanding Islamic immigration to the West and why the export or Hijra is vastly important but misunderstood by Americans and Europeans. How this works into the framework of the Greater Middle East.

3. 45:40 Understanding the two types of threats emanating from the great Middle East and Persia.

4. 1:03:00 The Big Picture. The West’s Geo-Strategic picture with Iran.

5: What the Israeli message to Iran will have to be.

6. 1:11:00 How the Iranian mind thinks and processes information using their own imagery. The Shia Iranians do not think like us politically. Dr. Kedar takes Iranian political propaganda and deconstructs what it means from their perspective. What we think is irrelevant in dealing with the Iranians.

After you watch and absorb what Dr. Kedar is telling you about the Iranian mind you will be angry at how the current U.S. administration is dealing with our Iranian adversaries geo politically and even more urgently with the Iranian Nuclear program.

This lecture should be mandatory watching for President Obama, John Kerry, and everyone at the US State Department.

To follow Dr. Kedar’s body of work go to: http://mordechaikedar.com/

Go to http://www.TheUnitedWest.org and listen to Tom Trento’s simulcast daily AM radio show – Enemies Of The State.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Troops

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Rubin: Obama Enabling Iran in Middle East, Economic Coercion Is the Answer

unnamed1-640x480Breitbart’s Adelle Nazarian had the opportunity to speak with renowned Middle East expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Dr. Michael Rubin recently. Dr. Rubin provided his analysis on U.S.-Iran relations under the Obama Administration and provided a look into the future through the periscope of the past.

He is the author of Dancing With the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes and a former Pentagon official. With a June 30 deadline for a final nuclear deal swiftly approaching, Rubin draws upon heightened concerns surrounding President Obama’s destructive handling of this most pivotal moment in international relations and national security with regard to U.S.-Iranian relations.

BREITBART NEWS: Do you think President Obama, John Kerry and the American team of negotiators were aware of how the Iranians operated?

RUBIN: No. I honestly think they were in a bubble and they were also blinded by their own personal ambition. Obama is arrogant. He thinks that all the problems with diplomacy were because of his predecessors rather than with his adversaries. Therefore, he has repeatedly gotten us into trouble with dictators and rogue regimes like Russia ad now Iran. They play the United States.

Obama is willfully naive and he doesn’t understand that evil exists in the world and that it wants to destroy the United States.

BREITBART: Considering he has former NIAC employee Sahar Nowrouzzadeh and Valerie Jarrett advising him, wouldn’t you think he would be better prepared to deal with the Iranians?

RUBIN: He surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. But a low-level and a c-staffer is hardly someone that you could say advises the president accurately.

BREITBART: Many in the media and on the left have suggested that the conservatives see war and bombing Iran as the only option should the nuclear deal fail. What viable alternatives could you offer?

RUBIN: That’s just such nonsense and what we see is that, when it comes to diplomacy, the only people who you can trust are the conservatives. President Obama likes to credit sanctions — both United Nations sanctions and otherwise — despite the fact that he was consistently against sanctions whenever he had the chance. He’s too busy making John Bolton into a straw cartoon to recognize that John Bolton was the man who crafted the Untied Nations sanctions.

And whether it was John Bolton as under secretary of state or ambassador to the United Nations, it was Bolton who rallied the international community and gave us unanimous or near-unanimous U.N. security council resolutions that ultimately brought Iran to its knees.

BREITBART: So what do we do with Iran?

RUBIN: Economic coercion. When Hillary Clinton came into office as secretary or state she almost lectured Republicans and said, if you’re not going to talk to your enemies, who are you going to talk to? And she cited Ronald Reagan who sat down with Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War. But she didn’t understand the importance of leverage to Reagan.

Reagan had prefaced his diplomacy with Gorbachev with a military buildup in order to negotiate from a position of strength. In order to bring Iran to the table and have them adhere to their international agreements, you have to maximize your leverage. Obama agreed to give Iran $11.9 billion in sanctions relief in unfrozen assets just to sit at the table and talk to the American team.

To put this in perspective, the annual, official budget of the Revolutionary Guard is about $5.6 billion. In order to get the Iranians to sit at the table, Obama gave Iran enough money to pay the salaries of a group responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans for two years.

BREITBART: It has been suggested that up to $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets could be released to the Iranian regime. Would this guarantee the regime’s longevity?

RUBIN: Yes. The Soviet Union ultimately fell due to an unstable economy. The analogy would be that, instead of bankrupting the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan decided to flood them with cash. What Obama is doing with the potential release of those funds, is taking a hateful, racist regime and throwing it a lifeline.

The IRGC dominates the Iranian economy. The revolutionary foundation and what’s called Khatam al-Andia control perhaps 40% of Iran’s economy, including anything involved with import and export. So rather than allowing reformism to flourish inside of Iran, the net impact of the rush to do business inside Iran and to bring Iranian oil into the market will be to empower the Revolutionary Guard even further. It would allow them to consolidate control.

The IRGC is involved with the military aspects of the nuclear program, which of course aren’t included in this framework yet. And they are also in charge of export of revolution. And we see that this isn’t mere rhetoric when we look at what is happening in Gaza and Yemen. Simply put, if Obama and his national security team were to sit down and ask themselves what a strategy to enable Iran’s destabilizing influence in the Middle East would look like– I hate to say it, but it would not look any different from the strategy they are now pursuing.

BREITBART: What are the Iranian mullah’s plans in the region? Now that not only Tehran but Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and even Sanaa are under their control, what is their ultimate goal?

RUBIN: This is something else Obama simply doesn’t understand or he ignores. Iran is not a status quo state. It is an ideological revisionist state. Its goal is to export revolution. Ordinary Iranians may not subscribe to this, but in any dictatorship it’s the guys with the guns that matter. And in this case, the Iranians used to describe themselves as a regional power. Then about four years ago, they began describing themselves as a pan-regional power, meaning the Persian Gulf and the North Indian Ocean.

Well, this past November they started talking about themselves in terms of having strategic boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf of Aden. And again, we see that this wasn’t mere rhetoric when we look at the weapons shipments to Syria and to Hamas. And when we look at Iranian activities in Yemen.

BREITBART: Is it then safe to say that Iran’s goal is not very different from the goal of ISIS, which is to establish an Islamic Caliphate and regional hegemony, except that they have two different fundamental Islamic ideologies?

RUBIN: Correct.

BREITBART: What do you think will happen when Khamenei passes away?

RUBIN: We only have one example of this happening before and that was when Khomeini died. On paper, you have an 86-member particle body called the Assembly of Experts which decides who replaces him. In reality, from 1989 we know thats not the case. What happened in 1989 with Khomeini’s death was that all the power centers got together and basically came to a consensus. That consensus was Khamenei.

Now who that consensus figure will be, I don’t know. But it is possible to have a council. And that is the Iranian way of kicking the can down the road. But this is what concerns me; and this is also where Obama’s outreach is so short-sighted. Any strategy which empowers the Revolutionary Guard gives the Revolutionary Guard additional powers to impose its will as the next choice. After all, if they’re powerful, they’re not going to subordinate themselves to someone with whom they disagree.

The important thing about this is you have a cycle of radicalization in which the supreme leader picks the most radical, ideologically pure officers to staff the highest levels of the Revolutionary Guard. Those same officers then have predominant influence in choosing the next supreme leader. And so President Obama is not only pursuing a deal which is bad for the United States and Iranians in the short term. He is pursuing a deal which is going to perpetuate this radicalization for at least another generation or two.

The Greatest Threat to Our National Security

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, April 10, 2015:

When President-elect Obama declared that he was going to “fundamentally transform” America, not many Americans understood what that meant. They certainly did not understand that he did not believe in America’s exceptionalism and greatness. They were also unaware of his past Marxist indoctrination, blaming America for many of the world’s problems. Therefore, anything that undercuts and withdraws America’s power and influence is seen as being objectively progressive. This is fundamental to understanding why President Obama shows empathy with American’s enemies, e.g., Iran, Cuba, Russia, and China.

It is also key to understanding our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, as well as the loss of our influence in the region with the rise of Islam. President Obama apparently shares the view that the colonial powers unjustifiably suppressed Islam for the better part of two centuries. Therefore, the best way to rectify that situation is to withdraw the U.S. and let Islam rise again. Of course, this actually started under the Carter administration with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Complicating the current Mid-East chaos is the fact that the administration has great difficulty in identifying the enemy. The President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said it best, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Make no mistake – ISIS is Islam. The barbarism and atrocities they commit are sanctioned by the Quran and Islam’s Shariah law. We must face facts, ISIS is impervious to any rational dialogue. They must be killed into submission.

As I have previously stated, symbols matter throughout the world, but no more so than in the Middle East. When President Obama delivered his June 4, 2009 Cairo “Outreach to Muslims” speech, with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood leadership sitting in the front row, and declared that it was part of his responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear – that said it all!

Furthermore, there should have been no doubt remaining after his September 2012 UN General Assembly speech when he stated in reference to the Benghazi tragedy, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Islam.” No matter how many excuses President Obama makes for Islam and Muslim sensitivities, freedom of speech for the civilized world will not be silenced.

In yet another indication, the Obama Administration continues to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood even though their creed is to destroy the United States from within (silent jihad) by our own hands and substitute our Constitution with Islam’s Shariah law. The Muslim Brotherhood have been able to successfully penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. They are now institutionalized. Their impact on our policies cannot be overstated.

The Kabuki dance just completed in Switzerland produced a “framework” of “understandings” which is supposed to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program is already being disputed by Iran. Of course, this is to be expected with no agreed upon text.

According to Fred Fleitz of the Center For Security Policy, the framework as now understood legitimizes and actually advances Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. All the core elements of Iran’s program remain in place. They do not have to dismantle anything and be allowed to keep their heavily fortified Fordow underground enrichment facilities — a major, unbelievable, concession by the United States. In effect, we have rewarded Iran for ignoring (plus lying and cheating) UN Security Council resolutions for a decade. They do not have to destroy any of their ICBMs nor stop their aggression throughout the Middle East. More importantly, the Obama administration has dismissed the fact that the Iranian government has caused the loss of life of thousands of Americans. At the end of the day, there is only one option that guarantees Iran will not achieve a nuclear weapon capability, and that is a military strike.

To show their disdain for President Obama, an Iranian spokesperson stated that the destruction of Israel is “non-negotiable.” So much for the two state peace process! Of course, death to America is a recurring theme.

The Middle East is not the only place our influence is being challenged. We are being challenged by China in the Western Pacific. In Europe, we are standing idly by as NATO is being emasculated by Putin’s aggression in the Ukraine. Many believe the “reset button” with Russia has failed. Actually, it is working quite well – for Russia.

The Obama administration has allowed the KGB thug Putin to conduct a policy of aggression in the Ukraine unopposed. President Obama’s refusal to provide legitimate defensive military equipment to Kiev appears to be part of the reset button “understanding.” It is the same understanding that applies to the withdrawal of our commitment to place anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Furthermore, President Obama’s refusal to meet with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (during his 3 days visit to Washington) was another signal to Putin.

There is no doubt our influence and status as a great power and reliable ally is being challenged. Our enemies don’t fear us and our allies don’t trust us – a formula for disaster. President Obama’s refusal to call for a reformation of Islam, plus his empathy with our enemies, combined with our unilateral disarmament, place our national security in jeopardy. The greatest threat to our national security today clearly is the Obama administration policies, which must be reversed. Americans must stand up and demand that Congress act now.

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

ISIS’s Nazi-Style ‘Jihad Bride’ Propaganda an Alluring Trap for Western Girls

Veiled-Women-Reuters-640x384

Breitbart, by Phyllis Chesler, April 8, 2015:

Foreign girls who are lured via the internet to join ISIS are being misled by a glamorized vision of women posing with AK-47s and in martial arts positions—in essence, a vision of women performing forbidden, male-only holy mission tasks.

ISIS propaganda is capitalizing on the allure of such adventure coupled with a girlish desire for love, marriage, and children. Quilliam Foundation think tank researcher Charlie Winter notes that “this is a false image based on targeted obfuscation and exaggeration.” He quotes Glasgow runaway, Aqsa Mahmood, who writes that “the women you may have seen online are all part of propaganda.”

The reality for ISIS “brides” is dull, domestic, and dangerous. Food and electricity are minimal, there are no schools, but there are constant air strikes and gun fights. Women police and punish other women. They do not engage in battle.

The all-female Al-Khanssaa Brigade holds an anti-feminist ideology in which women’s rights are seen as part of a corrupt and material West and as having led to the emasculation of men.

According to ISIS internet recruiter and former Australian Dullel Kassab, “Reality hits  propyou when u celebrate a walimah (marriage banquet) and console a widow on the same day.”

Then, there is the scarcity of medical care. The wife of an ISIS fighter was totally ignored as her blood pooled on the hospital floor during a painful miscarriage. According to Kassab: “She wasn’t offered a chair or a bed and nobody even returned to check on her… The muhajireen (migrants) are also subjected to mistreatment and discrimination by the locals.”

The Syrians do not want to live under Sharia law. They are, in fact, “angered by… the imposition of an extreme form of sharia on their daily lives.”

In February of 2015, ISIS released a Manifesto which states that girls can marry at nine; their education, which must consist mainly of Koranic Studies and home economics, must end when they turn fifteen; they must be fully face-, head-, and body-veiled; and motherhood is the sole purpose of female existence.

This is reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi “Bride Schools” in which office workers and career women were taught how to be wives. Propaganda photos consisted of smiling group of women in a hayfield, carrying baskets of flowers, “chopping vegetables in a kitchen, and singing along to another woman’s accordion playing.”

This country idyll promoted a six-week course in which women learned household skills such as cooking, ironing, gardening, child care, and interior design. They were taught how to clean a husband’s uniform, to pledge their loyalty to Hitler “until death,” and to raise their children “in accordance with Nazi belief.” This meant they would “promote racial values in the family.”

Traditional domesticity: confinement to the home, child care, and to a political religion (“Kinder, Küche, Kirche”) was presented as a warrior’s task.

ISIS may have taken a page from Hitler’s playbook—but they are also following the harshest and most traditional interpretation of the Koran: “A woman’s highest achievement is motherhood;” “Women must be veiled;” “The majority of inhabitants in Hell are women;” “Women are less intelligent and spiritually inferior to men;” “Women are an affliction to men.”

Most telling, “Women are not to be involved in Jihad”: “When Aisha requested of Mohammed that she be allowed to participate in a jihad, he said that a woman’s jihad is the performance of the Hajj pilgrimage. It is even important for a husband to forsake a jihad campaign to accompany his wife on a Hajj.”

A concerted effort must be made to reveal this reality to young Western girls who actually have choices. The problem is that girls in the West also want adventure through romance, love through bondage. Think of the popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray. Western girls have also been brought up on fairy tales and believe in Happy Endings. They do not understand that they are walking into a very tragic kind of danger from which there may be No Exit.

Iran Has Shiite Radicalization Centers in 60 Countries

Iranian-Supreme-Leader-Ali-Khamenei-AP-Photo-640x480Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, April 6, 2015

A new video produced by an Iranian opposition group documents how the Ayatollah’s regime in Tehran has proliferated its Khomeinist revolution into 60 countries, graduating 50,000 Mullahs at its Al Mustafa International University in the past seven years.

The Iranian-American Forum–which in the past has helped expose alleged pro-Tehran groups such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)–produced the video, which shows how Iran has been exporting its violent ideology worldwide.

“Al Mustafa [University] was founded by the Iranian regime in 2007. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds the highest authority in the University,” the video explains.

 

Al Mustafa has branches throughout the world, and trains “foreign Mullahs who then spread the Iranian regime’s ideology throughout the world,” says the video narrator. “Graduates of al-Mustafa are selected by the Iranian regime to direct religious and cultural centers in many countries. These centers recruit among local populations, thus, are part of the Iranian regime’s influence” operations, the narrator adds.

The video then cuts to a speech that showed the Ayatollah welcoming non-Iranian students and foreign Mullahs to Al Mustafa’s main campus in Qom, Iran, where he encourages them to continue spreading Iran’s ideology throughout the world.

“Since the Islamic Republic was established in Iran in 1979, exporting the Islamic revolution has been a main pillar of this regime,” the narrator explains. “From the earliest years of the revolution, the regime began sending Iranian mullahs to other Islamic countries to propagate its fundamentalist revolutionary ideology. Later, foreign candidates were brought to Iran to be educated, then sent back to their native countries,” he adds.

In 2007, the Islamic Republic merged the fundamentalist organizations under the umbrella of Al Mustafa University, the video explains.

Al Mustafa now has branches all over the world, including much of the West. It even has a branch in London.

Moreover, there are at least 80 Iranian cultural centers throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, according to a recent U.S. Southern Command report.

The video concludes with a stark warning: “This vast network notably in Western countries could also provide the Iranian regime with an extraordinary tool to carry out terrorist activities.”

The Search for a New Grand Strategy for the United States: The Path to a New NSC 68

us-soldiers-sandstorm-AP-640x480By Virgil, April 4, 2015:

I. The Current Confusion

Newt Gingrich’s piece in National Review, “We’re Losing the War Against Radical Islam,” deserves a wide audience; after all, it’s our country, and our civilization, that’s at risk. As the former Speaker of the House wrote, “After 35 years of conflict, dating back to the Iranian seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis, the United States and its allies are losing the long, global war with radical Islamists.”

And so, Gingrich continued, what is needed is a whole new and better approach: “Congress has a duty to pursue the truth and to think through the strategies needed and the structures which will be needed to implement those strategies.”

Meanwhile, for its part, the Obama administration seems to think that things are going fine. Indeed, on March 29, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest taunted one of the leaders of the Republican opposition:

“If John Boehner thinks U.S. troops should be on the ground in Yemen, fighting, or that we should reoccupy Iraq, or that the United States should bomb Iran to keep them from having a nuclear weapon — if he feels that way, he should have the courage of his convictions to say so. The President . . . does not believe it is in the best interest of the United States to commit ground troops.”

Boehner, sitting in Gingrich’s former chair, has not, in fact, said that the US should be fighting in Yemen, or reoccupying Iraq, or bombing Iran. But the Republican response to Obama has been sufficiently diffuse—we might think of the difference between the views of, say, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Rand Paul—so that Democrats such as Earnest can pick and choose which Republican positions they wish to respond to.

Yet beyond the partisan cutting and thrusting, Gingrich has a point: America needs policies that are serious, effective, and sustainable. And historical experience, as well as common sense, tells us that such an effective policy can come only from a robust and far-reaching debate—ratified, of course, by the voters. As we shall see, the annals of American national-security policy provide ample, and encouraging, precedent, not only for systematic deliberation, but, even more importantly, for effective follow-through.

We can further note that a new policy, if there is to be one, will almost certainly come from the next commander-in-chief—the next president. It’s the president who has access to the whole of the executive branch, as well as the bully pulpit.

And so with Gingrich’s point in mind, let’s review what US presidents have been saying heretofore about the threat from radical Islam.

Read more at Breitbart

UN: Record 25K-Plus Foreigners From 100 Countries Travel to Join ISIS, Al Qaeda

Jake-Bilardi-White-Jihadi-Twitter-640x480

 

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, April 2, 2015:

The number of foreign fighters who have traveled to join the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries has reached a historic level, exceeding 25,000 from over 100 countries, reveals a new U.N. report.

A panel of experts monitoring U.N. sanctions against al Qaeda prepared the report for the U.N. Security Council, which was obtained by The Associated Press and Reuters.

The experts found that Iraq and Syria housed most of the foreign fighters.

An estimated 22,000 foreigners linked to ISIS and al Qaeda are reportedly fighting in Iraq and Syria; nearly 6,500 in Afghanistan, hundreds more in Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, and about 100 in Somalia.

Moreover, the experts report that foreigners have also joined terrorists in the Sahel countries in North Africa and the Philippines.

Although most of the fighters who traveled to Iraq and Syria joined ISIS, they also linked up with the Syrian al Qaeda affiliate al Nusra Front.

Iraq and Syria have become an “international finishing school for extremists,” the experts said.

The worldwide number of foreign terrorist fighters increased by 71 percent between mid-2014 and March 2015, added the panel, noting that the number of countries the fighters come form has also skyrocketed to over 100 today including nations that have never been linked to al Qaeda and other jihadist groups.

In the report, the experts mentioned that the flow of foreign fighters “is higher than it has ever been historically.”

The total number of foreigner fighters has “risen sharply from a few thousand… a decade ago to more than 25,000 today,” the panel said.

“For the thousands of [foreign fighters] who traveled to the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq… they live and work in a veritable ‘international finishing school’ for extremists, as was the case in Afghanistan during the 1990s,” it added.

A “high number” of the foreign fighters are from Tunisia, Morocco, France, and Russia.

However, there has also been an increase in fighters from the Maldives, Finland, Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, and unnamed countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Defeating ISIS could have the unintended consequence of scattering the foreign fighters across the world, the report warned, adding that some may be recruited by criminal networks.

Efforts to deal with the threat posed by the growing number of foreign fighters should focus on preventing the radicalization, recruitment and travel of the prospective fighters, suggested the U.N. report.

U.S. intelligence officials estimate that more than 150 U.S. citizens and residents have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to join ISIS.

Obama’s Mideast ‘free fall’

Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.

The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.

“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.

Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.

For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region.

Obama officials were surprised earlier this month, for instance, when the Iraqi government joined with Iranian-backed militias to mount a sudden offensive aimed at freeing the city of Tikrit from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Nor did they foresee the swift rise of the Iranian-backed rebels who toppled Yemen’s U.S.-friendly government and disrupted a crucial U.S. counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda there.

Both situations took dramatic new turns this week. The U.S. announced its support for a Saudi-led coalition of 10 Sunni Arab nations that began bombing the Houthis, while Egypt threatened to send ground troops — a move that could initiate the worst intra-Arab war in decades.

Meanwhile, the U.S. launched airstrikes against ISIL in Tikrit after originally insisting it would sit out that offensive. U.S. officials had hoped to avoid coordination with Shiite militias under the direct control of Iranian commanders in the country.

Now the U.S. is in the strange position of fighting ISIL alongside Iran at the same time it backs the Sunni campaign against Iran’s allies in Yemen — even as Secretary of State John Kerry hopes to seal a nuclear deal with Iran in Switzerland within days.

On Thursday, Iran’s foreign minister, who has been meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in Switzerland to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, demanded an immediate halt to the Yemen incursion.

At the same time, civil war rages on in Syria. On Thursday, Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, sent Obama a letter urging him to respond to charges that the regime of Bashar Assad — a close ally of Tehran — has used chlorine gas against civilians. In late 2013, Obama threatened to punish Assad with airstrikes after his forces deployed nerve gas.

Also in chaos is Libya, home to two dueling governments — and another target of cross-border Arab military action when Egypt and the United Arab Emirates conducted airstrikes against alleged Islamic extremists there in August. That action also reportedly surprised U.S. officials.

It all amounts to a far cry from Obama’s optimistic vision when he came to office suggesting that by withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and focusing on Israeli-Palestinian peace he could stabilize, if not completely calm, the long-troubled area.

Instead, Obama looks poised to leave an even more dangerous and unpredictable region than the one he inherited in 2009.

“The mood here is that we really are at a crisis point that is unprecedented in recent memory,” said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow in the Middle East policy center at the Brookings Institution, who spoke from the Qatari capital of Doha. “This feels more intense and more complicated” than past moments of turmoil, Maloney added.

Read more at Politico

Do read the article Crash Position linked to in the featured graphic…h/t Sundance

Leftist think tank misunderstands reasons for Jihad against Christians

CAP-300x240Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, Mar 17th, 2015:

Center for American Progress (CAP) Senior Fellow Brian Katulis described at a March 12 CAP panel persecution of Middle East Christians as a topic “near and dear to our hearts” at a CAP that is “strongly supportive of the values of pluralism.”  Yet CAP’s report on this issue presented by the panel revealed that the George Soros-funded CAP still has difficulty jumping over its leftist biases while grappling with Islam’s darker aspects that even CAP can no longer ignore.

“You can’t help but see this issue staring you in the face,” Katulis said of current persecution faced by Middle East Christians before an audience of over 60 filling CAP’s conference hall in Washington, DC.  He described current Middle East Christian tribulations as part of a “longer term trend in the region” of Christian exodus.  The Middle East Institute’s Paul Salem, a Christian from Lebanon, agreed that from the Ottoman Empire’s end until today the “overall trends are worrisome, are negative” for the region’s Christians.  These comments relativized his assessment that the “twentieth century was actually a great leap forward for Christians” after the fall of the Ottoman Empire with its repressive Islamic dhimmi regulations for Christians.  Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Professor Elizabeth Prodromou described a “century long process…of Christian decline.”

Prodromou explained that regional conditions for Christians “have declined so precipitously” even without actual violence from the Middle East’s Muslim majority.  “Separate and unequal” legal regimes discriminating against Christians in favor of Muslims have afflicted Middle Eastern Christians for over a century.  “Property rights regimes…have been used throughout the twentieth century to disenfranchise Christians.”  Laws required, for example, that religious schools have a minimum number of students, a stipulation increasingly prohibitive for declining Christian populations.

The Plight of Christians in the Middle East, which Katulis had coauthored, reflected panelist comments about pervasive Muslim hostility against Christians throughout Middle Eastern history.  CAP’s report noted the “particularly devastating year” of 1915 and its Ottoman genocides of numerous Christian communities including the Armenians.  CAP referred curiously vaguely to “those events” that “resulted in the death and forced migration of millions of Christians.”

Today “Christians have migrated from the region in increasing numbers,” read the report, as part of a “longer-term exodus related to violence, persecution, and lack of economic opportunities.”  “Islamist groups” such as the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS as well as “institutional discrimination found in the legal codes and official practices of many Middle Eastern countries” plagued together Christians.  Under blasphemy laws, for example, Christians and others “are often threatened with imprisonment for any perceived negative comments against Islam or proselytizing for other religions.”

Yet CAP determined strangely that “understanding these conflicts as primarily rooted in religious or theological disputes is incorrect.”  The report asserted that “most of what is happening to Christians in the Middle East is the result of wider regional trends related to struggles for power and the use of religion as a tool to build influence.”  Katulis in his panel comments spoke of a “misuse of religion.”  This “use of religion for political purposes is common in many countries in the Middle East,” the report stated, as if no actual religious fervor motivated regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran or groups like ISIS.

References to Islamic ideology nonetheless appeared in CAP’s report, even as it contradictorily denied Muslim motives for Middle Eastern power struggles.  The report mentioned “Shia-Sunni sectarian struggles” and how groups like ISIS “follow an ultra-orthodox” but somehow “skewed interpretation of Islam.”  The report’s solitary reference to Islamic law or sharia noted that “Christians were faced with stark options from ISIS:  pay a jizya tax or religious levy imposed in previous eras of Islamic rule, convert, or die.”

desecrationThe report made the small concession that the “status of Christians living in Israel is generally better than their counterparts in the occupied territories and conflict-ridden places such as Iraq.”  CAP ignored thereby that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country whose Christian population has grown in recent decades and that Israeli Christians outperform the country’s Jewish majority in education.  Nonetheless, in CAP’s relativizing judgment “Christians living in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, and Israel share the concerns about equal citizenship under the law faced by Christians across the Middle East.”CAP noted that the Israeli-Palestinian “lands where Christianity was born have witnessed a substantial dwindling of the presence of the native Christian community over the past century.”  The report mentioned the “rise of Islamist extremists” under Hamas, but related Palestinian Christian suffering more “to the broader factors that affect all Palestinians” like “restrictions on movement” under “Israeli occupation.”  This analysis does not explain why only the Christian population of the Palestinian territories, and not the Muslim, isdeclining.

CAP contradicts here the Christian human rights organization Open Doors, previously praised by CAP panelist and religious freedom expert Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute.  Its 2015 World Watch List (WWL) names the Palestinian territories and all Middle Eastern countries except for Israel among the 50 most oppressive societies worldwide for Christians.  While Open Doors notes Israeli-Palestinian conflict effects upon Palestinian Christians, “Islamic extremism” is the driving force behind the Palestinian territories number 26 spot on the WWL.

The WWL also qualifies CAP’s positive assessment of Jordan as “one of the few safe havens for Christians fleeing conflict and repression in other parts of the region.”  Like Shea previously, CAP praises that the “Hashemite monarchy in Jordan has sent the message of tolerance and inclusivity” with “numerous conferences…promoting interfaith dialogue.”  “Islamic extremism,” the main source of Christian persecution in 40 of 50 WWL countries, however, brings Jordan into the number 30 spot.

CAP’s one-sided praise for Jordan combined with unwarranted criticism of Israel reflects the report’s inadequacies.  The report and insightful comments from Prodromou showed how Islamic animosity towards Christians appeared throughout various historical periods and political regimes.  CAP, however, largely avoided affiliating hostility against Christians with Islamic doctrine, leaving unexplained this phenomenon’s persistence.  CAP also did not investigate whether Islam presents similar hostilities towards Jews, something that would call into question the report’s invocation of a two-state solution for Palestine.  CAP seemed to shun any politically incorrect taint of “Islamophobia,” the subject of past CAP reports (see here and here).  While it is encouraging that even a leftist think tank like CAP has acknowledged rational concerns about Islam, successfully countering them will demand deeper probing of this faith than CAP has provided.

Legal Experts: Future U.S. President Could Revoke Bad Nuke Deal With Iran

John Kerry / AP

John Kerry / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Wiser, March, 12, 2015:

Legal experts are refuting a claim by Iran’s foreign minister that revoking a potential deal on the country’s nuclear program would violate international law, amid confusion Wednesday regarding whether or not the deal the State Department is negotiating will be in any way legally binding.

Javad Zarif, Tehran’s chief representative in the ongoing nuclear talks among the United States, Iran, and five other world powers, criticized on Tuesday an open letter sent by 47 Republican senators concerning the negotiations. While the lawmakers said in their missive that a future president or Congress could revoke or substantially alter a nuclear pact, Zarif responded that such changes would be illegal under international statutes.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, the U.S. State Department asserted on Tuesday that a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would be “nonbinding.” Secretary of State John Kerry also confirmed in congressional testimony on Wednesday that the Obama administration is “not negotiating a legally binding plan” but one from “executive to executive,” Politico reported. Kerry insisted such a deal would still “have a capacity of enforcement.”

Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University and an expert in international law and Constitutional history, said in an email that “nonbinding” by definition means that the United States “will not violate international law if we don’t adhere to its terms”—contrary to Zarif’s assertion.

“In other words we’re saying it is NOT an international obligation, just a statement of intent,” he said.

The legal nature of a potential nuclear agreement remains a matter of dispute.

The GOP senators wrote about the necessity of congressional oversight for “binding international agreements” in their letter. But on Wednesday, Kerry rejected that  characterization as “absolutely incorrect,” because the plan would not be legally binding.

The potential deal’s executive and nonbinding nature means Congress could not amend it, Kerry said.

Rabkin said the question of whether a U.S. president can institute a binding international agreement without congressional approval is disputed among legal scholars, but the State Department’s declaration that an Iran deal would be nonbinding places it in a different category.

“What Kerry seemed to say was not that his Iran deal would be in the same category but that it would not be legally binding in any sense, just a kind of memorandum of understanding,” Rabkin said. “I wonder whether he understood what he was saying. It was more or less conceding that what Cotton’s letter said was the administration’s own view—that the ‘agreement’ with Iran would not be legally binding, so (presumably) not something that could bind Obama’s successor.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), one of the lead authors of the GOP’s letter to Iran, expressed confusion on Wednesday about the State Department’s classification of a nuclear deal with Tehran.

“Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?” Cotton tweeted.

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California, Berkeley and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, wrote on Wednesday that Cotton and his fellow senators had it “exactly right” in their letter on matters of Constitutional law.

“The Cotton letter is right, because if President Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran using only [an executive agreement], he is only committing to refrain from exercising his executive power—i.e., by not attacking Iran or by lifting sanctions under power delegated by Congress,” Yoo wrote on National Review Online. “Not only could the next president terminate the agreement; Obama himself could terminate the deal.”

Additionally, Yoo said that under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause, Congress could still apply financial pressure on Iran regardless of an executive agreement.

“Obama’s executive agreement cannot prevent Congress from imposing mandatory, severe sanctions on Iran without the possibility of presidential waiver (my preferred solution for handling the Iranian nuclear crisis right now),” he said. “Obama can agree to allow Iran to keep a nuclear-processing capability; Congress can cut Iran out of the world trading and financial system.”

“As a matter of constitutional law, the Cotton letter should be no more controversial than a letter that simply enclosed a copy of the U.S. Constitution (without President Obama’s editing),” he added.

Also see:

***

Published on Mar 12, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Obama Appoints Special Envoy For Middle East; Robert Malley Worked For Organization With Two Trustees Part Of Global Muslim Brotherhood

icg1By on March 10, 2015:

US media is reporting that President Obama has appointed former International Crisis Group executive as his new special assistant for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region. According to one report:

March 8, 2015 The White House has appointed Robert Malley as a new special assistant to President Barack Obama for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region.

Malley, who now works as Senior Director of National Security Council of the White House (NSC) on Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Gulf countries, will start his work in the new position on April 6, succeeding the retiring Philip Gordon, RIA Novosti reports.

In a statement, Susan Rice said Gordon ‘is leaving the White House to spend more time with his family and to carry out other professional endeavors. A a better replacement for Phil than Rob just cannot be found, he is one of the most respected experts in our country, who from February 2014 played a key role in shaping our policy on Iran, Iraq and the Gulf countries.’

Malley worked for Obama in his first run for president as a foreign policy advisor. He was later fired or meeting with the Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. State Department classifies as a terrorist organization. ‘He was one of literally hundreds of informal, outside advisors,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News.

Malley has been a criticized in the past as insufficiently supportive of Israel. In October 1998, he was appointed Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, a post he held until the end of the administration in 2001. He participated in the failed 2000 Camp David accords and said that Yasser Arafat was not the only one to blame for those talks breaking down, ABC noted.

In February 2014, the GMBDW reported that President Obama had selected Robert Malley as the senior director at the National Security Council responsible for devising US policy in the Middle East. As that report noted, Mr. Malley was formerly the program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group (ICG). As we also noted at that time and will repeat here, there are additional serious questions about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas within the ICG, founded in 1995 as “an international non-governmental organization on the initiative of a group of well known transatlantic figures who despaired at the international community’s failure to anticipate and respond effectively to the tragedies in the early 1990s of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. Notable members of the board have included former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, financier George Soros, former Nato commander Wesley Clark, and former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer. In 2008 we reported that the International Crisis Group (ICG) had issued a report recommending that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood be integrated in Egyptian political life and that Brotherhood posted a statement on its website saying that the group agrees with the recommendations.

The GMBDW has also reported since 2007 on the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Hamas background of two of the ICG Trustees which may help to explain the ICG position on the Brotherhood. Palestinian-born Wadah Khanfar is a current member of the ICG board. In 2003, Khanfar became head of the Al Jazeera Baghdad bureau and shortly thereafter became the station General Manager, serving until his resignation in 2011. A report in the Nation Magazine attributes the support by the Al Jazeera television station for Islamic movements to Khanfar’s influence. According to the Nation report, Al Jazeera coverage changed dramatically to a far more “populist/Islamist approach.” when Khanfar took over in March 2003. This change should not have been surprising given Khanfar’s background in the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. According to a report in a Mideast business publication, Wadah Khanfar was born and educated in Jordan where, consistent with a Muslim Brotherhood background, he was educated as an engineer and where he reportedly was arrested as part of the Brotherhood there. The same report indicates that he also was a student activist, organizing a student union, an activity also consistent with a Muslim Brotherhood background. In a TV interview, Khanfar stated that started his career as a journalist as an analyst on African affairs, mainly on Al Jazeera, while living in South Africa where he was doing graduate study in international politics and African studies at the time. He also described himself in the interview as “a researcher and consultant in Middle Eastern economics and political affairs.”

Read more

Also see:

Islamists Demand Australian Senator ‘Introduce Sharia Law’ or Be Beheaded

1417421999234-640x480Breitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER, 2 Mar 2015:

Yesterday, terrorists threatened to “behead” Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie if she did not help “introduce sharia law in Australia.”

To her credit, Lambie had recently called for the introduction of the death penalty for terrorists and had been quoted as saying: “If you don’t like our Australian law… then pack your bags and… leave. We will never bow down to sharia law.”

The police do not yet know whether this death threat was sent by Jihadists or by opponents of a planned mosque.

Australia, Down Under? Is there no continent free of lone wolves, wolf packs, citizen-jihadists who turn on their own countrymen or who travel to join ISIS?

Sadly, the answer is no. In fact, yesterday the Australian government barred its citizens from traveling to Mosul to combat “what the government calls growing radicalization among young Australian Muslims, some of whom have fought overseas with militant groups.”

Australia is part of the core group coalition against ISIS, which consists of the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland, and Denmark.

Jihad is not new to Australia. According to Mark Durie, writing in Middle East Forum, almost one hundred years ago, in 1915, two Muslim men joined forces to shoot and kill four people and wound several others before being killed by police. They were answering the “call to jihad issued by the Ottoman Caliphate (on 11 November 1914).”

Durie defines three different forms of jihad: “individual jihad,” “jihad by bands,” and “jihad by campaigns,” which is warfare using armies directed by the Caliph. “This is the mode the self-declared caliphate known as the Islamic State is following today.”

These jihadists are not crazy or stupid or impoverished or justifiably angry because they have been persecuted. This is, pure and simple, “a manifestation of Islamic theology.” Westerners, especially our leaders and elites, do not want to believe this. As I have pointed out elsewhere, contrary to Western myth, many Islamic terrorists come from stable homes and have advanced educations; their leaders are often men of enormous wealth.

In December of 2014, “Sheikh” Man Haron Monis took 18 people hostage at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Sydney; he also hung an ISIS flag in the window. Two hostages and the gunman were killed. Like the 1915 Australian jihadists, Monis had experienced difficulties with the law. One of the 1915 jihadists, Mullah Abdullah, had been convicted of slaughtering sheep on an unlicensed premise; in 2014, Monis was facing criminal charges as an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.

When someone is taught that they are “superior” and should dominate others and yet finds himself treated just like everyone else—or treated punitively due to what constitutes criminal behavior in the West but not in the Muslim world—one’s honor has been assaulted and revenge is called for. Such behavior—attacking Western officers or civilians– means that “sudden” or “instant” jihadists have internalized shame and honor codes and believe that Islam should reign supreme over every other religion and legal system.

Westerners have a very hard time believing this as well.

Jihad has been building for years in Australia. In 1998, a Sydney police station was shot atby four Arabs. In 2004, a Lebanese-Australian told a reporter that he “wanted to undertake a terror attack in Sydney in the name of Islam.”

According to Australian terrorism researcher Andrew Zammitt, in 2003, thirteen Melbourne men and nine Sydney men were arrested and charged with forming two different cells to prepare attacks. Eighteen were convicted. These arrests suggested that Australians had become “newly radicalized” post 9/11.

In 2005, hundreds of Australian women at the beach were harassed by angry, offended Muslims. Two hundred such men thereafter smashed hundreds of cars and windows, bashed several people and threatened women with rape.

In the summer of 2014, when Israel was self-defensively trying to eradicate the diabolical terror tunnels in Gaza, a convoy of cars drove through Sydney, brandishing the black flag of ISIS. Some chanted: “Jew and Christian will not stand. You can never stop Islam.”

In the fall of 2014, in Melbourne, Abdul Numan Haider was going to be questioned for “inflammatory” social media postings. He was on the radar. However, when the police came to talk to him—only to talk to him, not to arrest him—Haider stabbed one officer in the abdomen, neck, and head; he stabbed a second officer in the forearm. Haider was shot and killed.

Haider was considered to be a “gentle, loving, quiet” person, a “skinny small boy” who was a devout Muslim.

A worshipper at Haider’s mosque suggested that the 18 year-old was “upset about the recent cancellation of his passport and the police attention on him, [and] frustrated at what was happening in Iraq and Syria.”

Like the jihadists in 1915 and 2014, Haider did not view Australian law as more important than Sharia law and the “call to Jihad,” and when he got in trouble with the law (he was legally stopped from leaving Australia), and when he was merely questioned, he immediately enacted his own, lone Jihad.

I called a friend in Australia who does not want to be named. He is a physician and has many Arab patients. He shared the following anecdotes.

“I have had many Arab patients. I tell them I am German. Many praised me because Hitler was German and did ‘such a great job with the Jews.’ At a clinic, a Muslim reception clerk often greeted me with Heil Hitler, arm extended, and a smile. He thought I was an Aryan German. A young man, whom Australian Jews had helped, confided in me, saying that ‘Islam is going to take over the world as the fastest growing religion. Even in Australia.’ One of my Australian patients complained that he was harassed and bullied on the street by Arabs, shouting, ‘we are going to take over your f**king country.’ Someone who had been a member of Hezbollah, wanted me to write a letter for him to the Prime Minister so he would not be deported. When I declined, he grabbed me by the neck and threatened me.”