Enduring Enmity: Iran, Israel, and Islamic Anti-Semitism

Israeli-flag-burning-reutersby :

“Love of the prophet requires hatred of the Jews,” the Moroccan Muslim cleric al-Maghili (d. 1505) declared, as quoted by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom’s latest book Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Jihad and Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Bostom’s masterful compendium shows that al-Maghili’s sentiments are hardly rare in Islam, making a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran a nightmarish threat for Israel and beyond.

The “civilizational war waged by Shiite and Sunni jihadists” today is “consistent with Islam’s classical jihad theory,” Bostom demonstrates with copious quotation of Islamic theological sources and historical primary sources. Of 40 Koranic references to jahada or “struggle,” the Arabic root of jihad, for example, 36 address violence, according to one study. “Muhammad himself,” normative canonical Islamic accounts indicate, “was the ultimate prototype sanctioning jihad terror.” Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna therefore had a “seamless connection” to “traditional Islam itself,” as his translated writings show.

Additionally, “orthodox Islamic jurisprudence” holds that “non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01—are complicit.” In particular, Muhammad the “Muslim prophet-warrior developed a penchant for assassinating individual Jews and destroying Jewish communities by expropriation and expulsion… or massacring their men and enslaving their women and children.” Only humiliating submission to Islam and its “blood ransom jizya poll tax” per Koran 9:29 can spare Jews and Christians as dhimmis this fate.

A “central antisemitic motif in the Koran… decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews… for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah.” The “Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is… a litany of their sins and punishments.” A “sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” even appears in Koran 5:64. “Sunni dogma” in particular holds the black-Jewish Abdullah ibn Saba “responsible… for promoting the Shiite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s political innocence.”

Jews under Muslim rule had to observe the “rightful bounds” of a “subjected relationship,” even “in mythically ‘tolerant’ Muslim Spain.” When Granada’s Muslim rulers appointed Jewish grand viziers, the “results were predictably tragic” in 1066. Pogroms claimed 4,000 Jewish lives, more than those lost 30 years later during the First Crusade’s Rhineland passage. Today, “Zionism… has posed a predictable if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order, jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews, of unprecedented, even apocalyptic magnitude.”

Iran’s 1979 “Islamic putsch” and “retrograde revolution,” meanwhile, were “in reality a mere return to oppressive Shiite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1501.” This back-to-the-future movement included revival of Shiite Islam’s insidious najis system of religious purity regulations governing contact with Jews and others deemed impure. Najis has in the past gone so far as to prohibit Jews from being outside during rainfall, lest water washing off the Jews pollute Muslims. Popular Iranian Farsi Koran translations also “make explicit the well-established gloss on Koran 1:7,”recited during daily Muslim prayers, in which “those who have evoked [Your] anger” are the Jews, and “those who are astray” are the Christians.

In 2006, Iranian proposals also appeared that Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians wear distinguishing clothing (zonners) common throughout Islamic history and worn by Iranian Jews from 1501 to the 1920s. These proposals provoked international outcry condemning Iran’s emulation of the Third Reich’s system of distinguishing marks. “These uninformed comments confirmed the profound historical ignorance of sanctioned Islamic doctrines and practices,” criticizes Bostom.

In the face of Iranian anti-Semitism Iran’s Jewish population has gone from 120,000 in 1948, to 70,000 in 1978 before the Iranian revolution, to 8,800 today. The few Jews remaining in Iran often exhibit the “dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity” sought by Islamic subjugation. Parviz Yeshaya, for example, called for Israel’s destruction while heading the Jewish Committee in Teheran.

Anti-Semitism and other aggressive aspects of Islam come not just from Iran’s rulers, but also from its “overwhelmingly traditionalist Shiite Muslim masses.” The “Iranian populace’s abiding beliefs and mores” include sharia, the Islamic law system supported by 83% of Iranian respondents in a June 11, 2003 Pew poll. Maintaining a nuclear program even despite sanctions, meanwhile, found favor with 63% of surveyed Iranians in a February 2013 Gallup poll.

Thus the 2009 Green Revolution was “merely a power struggle between rival Sharia supremacist factions,” not an Iranian democratic movement. “Decidedly hagiographic post-mortems written by American conservatives” after Green Revolution leader Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri’s December 20, 2009 death could not conceal his Shiite orthodoxy. Montazeri equated non-Muslims with dogs under najis and supported Iran’s Vilayat al Faqih Shiite dictatorship, including its death penalty for Islamic apostasy. “Jihad, like prayer, is for all times,” declared Montazeri, an advocate of Israel’s destruction.

Read more at Breitbart

Educating Conservatives About Modern ‘Shi’ite Quietists’

By Andrew G. Bostom:

The so-called “P5 +1” interim agreement [1] with Iran was announced on November 24, 2013, amidst great fanfare, and giddy expectations of continued diplomatic success. Putatively, these negotiations were going to eliminate Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, and constrain the regime’s hegemonic aspirations, including its oft-repeated bellicose threats to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.

Less than three months later, punctuated by cries of “down with the U.S.”—and “death to Israel”—Iranians took to the streets en masse, February 11, 2014, commemorating the 35th anniversary [2] of the 1979 Islamic putsch, which firmly re-established Iran’s legacy of centuries of Shiite theocracy, transiently interrupted by the 54-year reign (r. 1925-1979) of the 20th century Pahlavi Shahs.

download (77)Many alarming developments since the P5 +1 deal was announced epitomize the abject failure of a delusive and dangerous policymaking mindset I have dubbed, “The ‘Trusting Khomeini’ Syndrome,” in my new book Iran’s Final Solution For Israel [3]. This “Syndrome” is named after infamous Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk’s February 16, 1979 essay, “Trusting Khomeini [4],” dutifully published in the The New York Times. The parlous denial—born of willful doctrinal and historical negationism—evident in Falk’s February, 1979 essay, now shapes formal U.S. policy toward Iran, merely updated as “Trusting Khamenei,” Iran’s current “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini. I further maintain that the sine qua non of this crippling mindset—bowdlerization of Islam—currently dominates policymaking circles, running the gamut from Left to Right.

The late Islamologist Maxime Rodinson warned [5] 40-years ago of a broad academic campaign—which has clearly infected policymakers across the politico-ideological spectrum—“to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world.” A pervasive phenomenon, Rodinson ruefully described [5] the profundity of its deleterious consequences:

Understanding [of Islam] has given way to apologetics pure and simple.

A prototypical example of how this mindset has warped intellectually honest discourse about Iran by conservative analysts, was published [6] February 17, 2014 in The Weekly Standard. The essayist decried [6] what he saw as misguided appropriation of Cold War era paradigms—“wishful thinking built around imagined Cold War analogies”—even by members of the Israeli “security establishment,” let alone their Obama Administration counterparts. Although correctly dismissive of the sham notion that Iranian President “Rouhani and his crowd are moderates,” the essayist also insisted [6] Iran’s “ayatollahs” have somehow “perverted Shia Islam with the state takeover of religion.” He then ads [6]“the older quietist school [ostensibly of Shiite Islam] still has many adherents.”

The Weekly Standard essayist’s authoritative sounding [6] reference to the “quietist school” of Shiite Islam and its “many adherents,” expressed the accepted wisdom on these matters published in a flagship conservative/neoconservative journal, and shared by a broad swath of like-minded conservative analysts. But who are exemplar  modern Shiite “quietists” and what are their views (in writing and/or speech) on such critical matters as jihad, the imposition of the Sharia, including Shiite “najis,” or “impurity” regulations—and the Jews?

Decidedly hagiographic post-mortems written by American conservatives appeared immediately after the announcement of Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri’s death at age 87, on December 20, 2009. Neoconservative Michael Ledeen opined [7],

Some of us who have long fought against the terrible regime in Tehran were fortunate to have received wise observations from Montazeri over the years, and I am confident that, with the passage of time and the changes that will take place in Iran, scholars will marvel at the international dimensions of the Grand Ayatollah’s understanding and the range of his activities. 

Perhaps the most curious of these early assessments included a contention [8] by Michael Rubin that  “…the real Achilles Heel to the Iranian regime is Shi’ism.” Reuel Marc Gerecht, writing in October, 2010, ten months after Montazeri’s death, dubbed the Ayatollah [9], simultaneously, “the spiritual father of Iran’s Green Movement,” and the erstwhile “nemesis of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s ruler,” whom Gerecht derided (in contrast to Montazeri), as “a very mediocre student of the Sharia.”

These odd viewpoints were (and remain) merely the extension of a profoundly flawed, ahistorical mindset which denies the living legacy of Shiite Islamic doctrine and its authentic, oppressive application in Iran, particularly, since the advent of the Safavid theocratic state [3] at the outset of the 16th century. Iran’s Safavid rulers, beginning with Shah Ismail I [3] (r. 1501-1524) formally established Shiite Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shiite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries, although interrupted, between 1722-1795 (during a period precipitated by [Sunni] Afghan invasion [starting in 1719], and the subsequent attempt to re-cast Twelver Shi’ism as simply another Sunni school of Islamic Law, under Nadir Shah [3]), through the later Qajarperiod (1795-1925), as characterized by E.G. Browne [3]:

The Mujtahids [an eminent, very learned Muslim jurist/scholar who is qualified to interpret the law] and Mulla [a scholar, not of Mujtahid stature] are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

A gimlet-eyed evaluation of Montazeri’s recorded modern opinions—entirely concordant with traditionalist Iranian Shi’ism since the Safavid era—does not comport with the conservative eulogies of the late Ayatollah by Ledeen, Rubin, Gerecht, and their ilk.

Consistent with the institutionalized codifications  of Islam’s classical Sunni and Shiite legists, Montazeri’s written views [3] (from his Islamic Law Codes[Resaleh-ye Tozih al-masael]) on jihad war reiterate the doctrine of open-ended aggression to establish global Islamic suzerainty, and the universal application of Sharia:

[T]he offensive jihad is a war that an Imam wages in order to invite infidels and non-monotheists to Islam or to prevent the violation of treaty of Ahl-e Zemmah [Ahl-al-Dhimma, the humiliating pact of submission binding non-Muslim “dhimmis” vanquished by jihad]. In fact, the goal of offensive jihad is not the conquest of other countries, but the defense of the inherent rights of nations that are deprived of power by the infidels, non-monotheists, and rebels from the worship of Allah, monotheism, and justice. “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].,” (Koran 8:39)…This verse includes defensive as well as offensive jihad. Jihad, like prayer, is for all times and is not limited to an early period of Islam, such as Muhammad, Ali, or the other Imams. Jihad is intended to defend truth and justice, help oppressed people, and correct Islam. In the Mahdi’s occultation period, jihad is not to be abandoned; even if occultation lasts for a hundred thousand years, Muslims have to defend and fight for the expansion of Islam. Certainly, if in early Islam the goodness was in the sword, in our time the goodness is in artillery, tanks, automatic guns and missiles. . . in principle, jihad in Islam is for defense; whether defense of truth or justice, or the struggle with infidels in order to make them return to monotheism and the divine nature. This is the defense of truth, because the denial of Allah is the denial of truth.

How would non-Muslims fare under the Shiite Islamic order—forcibly imposed by jihad—as  envisioned by Montazeri?

Read more at PJ Media

Counter Terrorism – The Right Approach and Solutions

20130805_FLAGATGROUNDZERO_911_LARGEby ALAN KORNMAN:

On a chilly Thursday night while most of Orlando residents were at home keeping warm Wallace Bruschweiler was connecting the dots on terrorist cell operations from the 1970′s to today.

Mr. Bruschweiler was in the field disrupting the terrorist activities of the Baader-Meinhof Group, Red Brigades, Action Directe, IRA, and ETA.  These groups were responsible for over 296 bomb attacks, arson, counterfeiting, murder, kidnapping, kneecapping,  assassinations, to further their left-wing anti-colonialist / Communist politics.

The lessons learned from fighting the terrorist groups of the 1970′s is relevant today as we fight Jihadi’s moving their agenda of Islamic Expansionism into the West.

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence to achieve a political objective.  Mr. Brushweiler says understanding the definition is something the majority of the American people get.  It is the business model the terrorists use that is the important element in understanding the issues behind the headlines.   The mainstream press and academia have done a great disservice to the American people by focusing on the gruesome effects of terrorist operations rather than the solutions needed to combat the philosophical, political, and ideological roots of modern terrorism.

What the American people yearn for is someone to explain the structure of how terrorist groups operate freely inside the United States using our free and open society to their greatest tactical advantage.

The first clue in unraveling this mystery of terrorism is information Mr. Bruschweiler gathered while conducting counter terrorist operations against many terrorists group only a few short decades ago.  To confuse law enforcement, the Red Brigades used the names of approximately 500 terrorist groups to appear bigger and more numerous than in reality they were.  The effect of this successful tactic resulted in law enforcement spending time and resources going after empty terrorist shells rather than cutting off the head of the terrorist snake.  Islamic terrorists today are using this same methodology to confuse the American people.

What Does It Take To Get Our Country Back 

“On 9/11 Bin Laden outsmarted us and got what he really wanted.  It wasn’t only to terrorize the West, but to get the USA out of the Middle East.  Today, Egypt is no longer a friendly country towards us for very specific reasons.  Saudi Arabia was the first to realize this when President Obama threw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus.”

“Vladimir Putin is accepting 40,000 Christians from the Middle East.  Obama just took in 4,000 Muslims from Syria.  Two days ago an Egyptian journalist declared we must attack Hamas in Gaza until they kiss the Egyptian shoes.  We should teach them a lesson like Israel did.”  This is today’s situation in the Middle East and how the Middle East looks at us.

“In Iraq we lost 4,000 soldiers, pumped billions into the country to liberate it.  Today,  the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Iran are running the country of Iraq.”

“The wolf is guarding the hen house in Washington DC.  Six men of strange Muslim Brotherhood backgrounds are directly responsible to the White House.”  Those men are Arif Alikhan, Mohammed Elibiary, Rashad Hussain, Salam al-Marayati, Imam Mohamed Magid, and Eboo Patel.”

“My message is very clear, we have to stop Islamic expansionism and stop importing trouble.  This can be accomplished by a complete Congressional overhaul of the Refugee Resettlement Act and slowing down Muslim immigration from terrorist supporting countries until we can properly vet the lives of these refugees.”

President Obama’s current policies regarding a Nuclear Iran are eerily reminiscent of Chamberlain negotiating ‘Peace In our Time’ with the Adolf Hitler.  I believe our current policy of appeasement is dangerous and misguided.

On the domestic political front, “We need more candidates like Colonel Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, and so on.”

“I want to give you a little sideline about the Jewish vote in the United States.  I was surprised by the fact Jews vote 75-80% Democrat.  In my modest opinion, there is a reason for that.  Remember, Israel was born in 1948 as a Socialist State.  The movement of Kibbutzim was a Socialist movement.  Today, the Kibbutzim exist only by name.  The Kibbutzim who survive today are very successful capitalist enterprises. The older Jewish populations in Miami, Orlando, New York, Los Angeles, etc have brought the Kibbutzim mentality to their communities and are reluctant to evolve.  They must finally see that the policies of the Democratic party do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

The most prolific killers of Muslims in the Middle East are not American’s or Israelis, it is Muslim on Muslim violence.  This is an untold story:  Did you know that Jordan’s King Hussein killed in 48 hours more  Arabs than Israel in all her wars since 1948. King Hussein got fed up with what was going on in his kingdom and gave carte blanche to his army and they killed 15,000 Palestinian Arabs with allegiance to Arafat.

The rest fled, many of the high ranking Palestinian officers crossed into Israel asking for protection, the rest went to Lebanon via the Chouf area.  The Druze said they wanted $100 for each Palestinian crossing into Lebanon and earned a lot of money.  That is how Arafat escaped and established himself in Beirut.

Today in Iraq and Syria, Sunni and Shia Muslims are murdering each other on a daily basis as they wrestle for power and avenge tribal disagreements going back hundreds of years.  There are no ‘good guys’ in this never ending civil war.  The only time the Sunni and Shia combine forces is to wage war or commit terrorist activities against a common enemy.  This same formula holds true for Benghazi in Libya.

All I will say about Benghazi, is that all the lies spit out about what happened there was smoke and mirrors cleverly used to help President Obama’s 2012 reelection.  Let’s not forget  the Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy is only 90 minutes from Benghazi and I will leave it there for you to make your own conclusions.

This is the one thing I insist that people have to understand.  Do not disregard messages issued by terrorists, what they write or say in videos, they will definitely try to execute.  What the terrorist say is vitally important to our national security.  The NSA is tasked with tracking communications of terrorists and their supporters, both domestic and foreign.  If you look behind the anti-NSA headlines you will often see the people screaming the loudest are Muslim Brotherhood groups operating on US soil.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

Shiites: Syria War Will Ignite End Times

hizrally2-reutersby :

A Lebanese reporter for the Al-Monitor Middle East news service explains that Iran and Hezbollah view the Syrian civil war not only in a strategic context, but in a prophetic one. In their belief, the radical Sunnis will conquer Syria for a short period of time and then Iranian forces will intervene on their way to destroying Israel.

The unnamed reporter points out that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is, like Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, “known for being a strong believer” in the Shiite prophecy that Iran will lead an End Times war against Islam’s enemies. At that time, the Mahdi will “reappear” and defeat the infidel.

According to the author, Iran and Hezbollah rely upon a book of prophecies called Al-Jafr to guide them. It was passed down to Jafar al-Sadiq, for whom the Jafari school of Shiite jurisprudence is named after. Teachers of this book say that the Syrian leader will be killed in a civil war during the End Times.

A Sunni leader will take over Syria and persecute Shiites, Allawites and Christians. The persecution will continue until an Iranian army invades Syria via Iraq, killing this Sunni leader on the way to capturing Jerusalem. Once Jerusalem is taken, the Mahdi will appear. Interestingly, in a modern context, this means that Hezbollah is fighting to preserve the regime of a man (Bashar Assad) that they believe will be killed.

Keep in mind, the Jafari school of jurisprudence is mainstream Shiite doctrine. There’s bound to be disagreement over the interpretation of prophecy, but these are not the beliefs of an isolated cult. In July 2010, a senior Iranian cleric said that Khamenei told his inner circle that he had met with the Mahdi, who promised to “reappear” during his lifetime.

A very similar eschatological viewpoint is articulated in a 2011 documentary produced by the office of then-President Ahmadinejad. The film, titled The Coming is Upon Us, does not predict a Syrian civil war but shares many of the same details articulated by the Al-Monitor reporter in Lebanon.

A critical point of convergence between the two sources is about Saudi Arabia’s role in prophecy. Both agree that the death of Saudi King Abdullah will be a major trigger. In fact, this event is so central to the Iranian film that it opens up with the statement, “Whoever guarantees the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, I will guarantee the imminent reappearance of Mahdi.”

Read more at Front Page

Iran Spy Network 30,000 Strong

Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security

Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security

BY:

Iran’s intelligence service includes 30,000 people who are engaged in covert and clandestine activities that range from spying to stealing technology to terrorist bombings and assassination, according to a Pentagon report.

The report concluded that Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, known as MOIS, is “one of the largest and most dynamic intelligence agencies in the Middle East.”

The ministry actively supports Iran’s radical Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) that has been involved in terrorist bombings from Argentina to Lebanon, according to the report produced by the Pentagon’s Irregular Warfare Support Program and published last month by the Library of Congress Federal Research Division.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the 64-page unclassified report.

“MOIS provides financial, material, technological, or other support services to Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), all designated terrorist organizations under U.S. Executive Order 13224,” the report said.

The spy service operates in all areas where Iran has interests, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Central Asia, Africa, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, France, Georgia, Germany, Turkey, Britain, and the Americas, including the United States.

Iranian activities in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela have raised alarm among U.S. government officials.

The effort appears part of “Iran’s strategy of establishing a presence in the backyard of the United States for purposes of expanding Shi’a and revolutionary ideology, establishing networks for intelligence and covert operations, and waging asymmetrical warfare against the United States,” the report said.

“In Latin America, Iran’s intelligence agencies—MOIS but mostly the Quds Force—use Hezbollah to achieve their goals.”

Israel also is a major target of the MOIS and support for Hezbollah in Lebanon is a major Tehran intelligence objective.

The ministry is under the direct control of Iran’s theocratic dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all its ministers must become Islamic clerics as a precondition for the post. However, the agency recruits foreigners, including British nationals and Israeli Jews.

“To advance its goals, MOIS recruits individuals regardless of their beliefs, including Arabs or Jews to spy in Israel,” the report said.

One MOIS deputy minister, Saeed Emami, was appointed to a key post despite being Jewish by birth.

According to the report, Iranian intelligence is expanding operations in the Middle East and Mediterranean by setting up electronic eavesdropping stations.

“Two Iranian-Syrian [signals intelligence] stations funded by the IRGC reportedly have been active since 2006, one in the al-Jazirah region in northern Syria and the other on the Golan Heights,” the report said, noting that additional stations were planned for northern Syria.

“The technology at the two established SIGNIT stations indicates that Iran’s capabilities are still limited, with little scope for high-level strategic intelligence gathering,” the report said, noting they “appear to concentrate on supplying information to Lebanese Hezbollah,” Iran’s main proxy for terrorism and intelligence-gathering in the region.

Iran also has formed a “cyber command” to conduct both offensive and defensive cyber warfare operations following the June 2010 Stuxnet virus that crippled Iran’s uranium-enrichment infrastructure.

“The success of this virus is an indication of the weakness of Iran’s cyber development,” the report said.

The spy agency was linked to a series of assassinations in the 1990s called the “Chain Murders” that exposed it to western criticism.

According to the report, Russia was active in training Iranian intelligence operations beginning in the 1990s.

The Russian SVR spy service, the successor to the Soviet KGB, trained hundreds of MOIS operatives despite the two agencies’ different doctrines.

The cooperation was based on both nations’ goal of limiting U.S. political influence in Central Asia and efforts to stifle ethnic unrest.

“The SVR trained not only hundreds of Iranian agents but also numerous Russian agents inside Iran to equip Iranian intelligence with signals equipment in their headquarters compound,” the report said.

Iran’s intelligence is also cooperating with al Qaeda despite the Sunni-Shiite differences in religious ideology.

“Cooperation between Iran and al Qaeda is based on their shared opposition to U.S. hegemony in the region—Iraq and Afghanistan, chiefly—and dates to the 1990s,” the report said.

Iran helped a number of al Qaeda terrorists travel safely from Afghanistan to Iran after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“The fact that al Qaeda operates in many countries helps Iran achieve its goal of diverting U.S. attention away from Iran’s immediate neighborhood,” the report said. “In return, al Qaeda uses Iran as a place where its facilitators connect al Qaeda’s senior leadership with regional affiliates.”

“Iranians engage in two types of terrorist attacks,” the report said. “One type includes sabotage, espionage, and bombing of target locations, while the other involves the assassination of dissidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both are perpetrated inside and outside of Iran.”

Read more at Free Beacon

The Unlikely and Dangerous Shi’ite-Sunni Terror Partnership

The twin towers of the World Trade Center burn behind the Brooklyn Bridge

by: Ryan Mauro

On October 18, The Obama Administration again confirmed that the Shi’ite Iranian regime is working with the Sunni-Salafist Al-Qaeda terrorist group when the Treasury Department blacklistedtwo Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Iran. In July 2011, the administration revealed that Iran had struck a “secret deal” with Al-Qaeda, blowing apart the myth that the hostility between Sunni and Shi’ite Islamists precludes them from helping each other fight a common enemy.

The Treasury Department sanctioned two Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran: Muhsin al-Fadhil, the leader of the network there, and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi. David S. Cohen, the Treasury Department’s Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, describes the Iran-based network as “critically important” to Al-Qaeda operations and he stated that Iran permits its existence. The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that Iran and Al-Qaeda work together, as chronicled by the Long War Journal.

This network has been in Iran since at least 2005, formerly under the leadership of Yasin al-Sura, with funding coming from supporters in Kuwait and Qatar. The Obama Administration disclosed the “secret deal” in July 2011. Al-Qaeda agreed not to attack Iran or to recruit operatives within the country, but it is free to use Iranian territory to move personnel and money as long as the regime is kept abreast of the activity. Strangely, this activity includes supporting Al-Qaeda elements in Syria, which are trying to topple Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, an Iranian ally.

Al-Fadhil became the leader of the network in late 2011. He began working with Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran in 2009 and was arrested by the regime. Apparently, a partnership grew while he was locked up because he took over the network shortly after he was let loose. He previously worked for Al-Qaeda in Iraq and took part in attacks on U.S. Marines in Kuwait and a French oil tanker in October 2002.

Al-Harbi oversees the movement of Al-Qaeda operatives to Afghanistan and Iraq. He also has helped Al-Qaeda with its Internet-based operations.

The Obama Administration’s accusations means there is bi-partisan agreement that the Iranian regime is sponsoring Al-Qaeda, as contradictory as it may seem. The Iranian regime helps Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, even though these operations include massacring Shi’ites and destabilizing the Shi’ite-led Iraqi government that is increasingly close to Iran. The regime also helps Al-Qaeda operatives that are fighting against Iran’s ally in Syria. It doesn’t seem to make sense, but much of what Islamists do doesn’t make sense to Westerners.

The 9/11 Commission Report confirms that Iran and Al-Qaeda have had a relationship since late 1991 or early 1992 when its representatives began meeting in Sudan. It didn’t take long for senior Al-Qaeda operatives to go to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, where Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps operate, to learn how to make better bombs. In the fall of 1993, another group of Al-Qaeda terrorists went there to learn about explosives, intelligence and security. Osama Bin Laden was especially keen to learn how the Iranians carried out truck bombings.

Read more at Radical Islam

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

 

Picking sides in the Muslim world proves deadly

By: Kerry Patton:

The Blaze” television network aired a two part series last night and Wednesday night called The Project. It showed how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated the United States, is seeking to take over the entire world with Sharia (Islamic) Law, and literally turn the globe into an Islamic world.

Many facts and true investigative reporting was displayed by Glenn Beck and his team who created The Project. Experts were brought in discussing some alarming findings. For those who have been following Islamic movements, very little should have been seen as new. But for those who don’t really “get it,” it is something worth watching.

The Project came during a critical time. The Middle East has imploded with violence, Al Qaeda exemplified through the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens that it has not been defeated, and Iran continues its nuclear endeavors barking the extermination of Israel.

After watching the two part series, some questions need to be asked. The most important question is whether anyone in either political party realizes that neither the Sunni sect nor their Islamic rival, the Shi’ites, are worthy any American support.

Not long ago, many astute researchers of Islam said that entering Afghanistan may have been the wrong nation to attack after 9-11. We have been fed insight declaring the Taliban as Al Qaeda’s protectors and that Afghanistan was Al Qaeda’s “base.” All of this information may be true under the physical sense of things. But much more to the story exists.

How many Afghans were on those aircraft on that beautiful September day which sparked the Global War on Terror? How many Afghans actually contributed monetary expenses to see the terror attack come to fruition?  To both questions, the answer is zero.

So who did truly support 9-11? Two main nations were behind the 9-11 incident and interestingly enough, they are not friendly to the other—Saudi Arabia and Iran—one Sunni and one Shi’ite state. And yes, Iran was identified as a culprit behind the terror attacks based off a recent federal magistrate’s finding. But the United States did nothing to Saudi Arabia and frankly we did nothing to Iran per the 9-11 attacks.

Read more at the Examiner

Kerry Patton, a combat disabled veteran, is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children’s book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook or at kerry-patton.com/.

Decline In Hizbullah’s Status In Lebanon

By E. B. PICALI

There has been a tangible decline lately in Hizbullah’s political and public standing in Lebanon. This is evident, for example, in attacks and provocations of unprecedented boldness made by Ahmad Al-Asir, a Salafi sheikh from Sidon, against the organization and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah; in the decision of Michel ‘Aoun, a prominent partner in the March 8 Forces and Hizbullah’s political ally for the past six years, to revoke political understandings with Hizbullah; in the May 22, 2012 abduction of 11 Lebanese Shi’ites in Syria, who, according to some reports, were senior Hizbullah members (and in the fact that Hizbullah has not publicly reacted to this incident); and in criticism by Hizbullah’s own supporters over its handing of social and economic affairs in the government and parliament.

The issue of Hizbullah’s declining status was addressed by editors of two Lebanese dailies associated with the March 8 Forces. Ibrahim Al-Amin, editor of the Hizbullah-affiliated daily Al-Akhbar, wrote that only “divine help”[1] would save Hizbullah in its current state.[2] Some 10 days later, he even called on Hizbullah to leave the political arena and focus on resistance, in order to improve its situation.[3] Sati’ Nour Al-Din, editor of the pro-Syrian daily Al-Safir, assessed that the Shi’ites’ silence over the actions and statements of Sunni extremists throughout Lebanon – especially those of Al-Asir – stemmed from weakness and fear. This fear, he said, was triggered by the possible collapse of the Syrian regime, which has heretofore supplied the Shi’ites with weapons that gave them an advantage over the other sects in the country.[4]

Indeed, it can be assessed that the weakening in Hizbullah’s standing has been caused by the decline in Syria’s status in Lebanon; by the growing power of Sunni-Islamist forces throughout the Arab world, and especially in Syria and Lebanon; and by Hizbullah’s unwavering support for Assad, whom many Lebanese regard as a tyrant oppressing and butchering his people.

Sheikh Al-Asir Slams Hizbullah

In a June 23, 2012 appearance on the Lebanese TV channel Al-Jadid, affiliated with the March 8 Forces, Sidon-based Salafi sheikh Ahmad Al-Asir personally threatened Nasrallah and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the leading representatives of the Shi’ite community in Lebanon, saying: “I challenge you directly, Berri and Nasrallah… I swear by Allah that I will not let you sleep at night, along with your wives and children, until balance is restored to Lebanon.”

Al-Asir accused Hizbullah of using its weapons not to promote the Palestinian cause but rather to control Lebanon and subjugate it to Iran.[5] In a July 6, 2012 sermon, he called Nasrallah and Berri “war criminals,” and blamed them for all the assassinations and assassination attempts in Lebanon since the murder of Rafiq Al-Hariri in 2005.[6]

Al-Asir did not confine himself to verbal attacks. On June 27, 2012, he and hundreds of his followers – men, women and children – launched an indefinite sit-down strike at the northern entrance to the city demanding to disarm Hizbullah, and even blocked traffic on the main highway to Beirut.[7] Al-Asir said that Hizbullah’s weapons “have lost their honor in the eyes of most Lebanese,” because, since Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in 2000, they have served the organization as a tool for taking over Lebanon. He rejected Hizbullah’s claim that the demand to disarm it is a Zionist and American demand, adding that the Sunnis were slaves to no one, and that he does not fear his actions could spark a civil war. On the contrary, he said, what might lead to civil war is the public acquiescence to Hizbullah’s takeover of Lebanon by means of its weapons.

He threatened to escalate his struggle and said he was even willing to martyr himself, if necessary, while stressing that all his activity would be non-violent.[8] In a July 13, 2012 sermon, Al-Asir threatened Nasrallah that if the latter failed to heed his demands, he would “harm him as [even] the regional and global forces have not harmed him,” adding: “The power balance has shifted, and now we [Sunnis are the ones who will] determine how you [Nasrallah] and Nabih Berri will enter South [Lebanon].”[9] He demanded that Nasrallah undertake serious talks with President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati on the issue of Hizbullah’s arms.[10]

It should be mentioned that, on June 11, 2012, a new round of national dialogue talks began between various political forces in Lebanon. One of the issues to be discussed was the illegal weapons held by various organizations and bodies in the country, the most prominent of them being Hizbullah. The Lebanese Forces party, headed by Samir Geagea, boycotted the talks on the grounds that Hizbullah has no serious intention of giving up its weapons. Al-Asir endorsed this position, saying that the national dialogue was a joke.

Michel ‘Aoun Revokes Political Understandings With Hizbullah

Another blow to Hizbullah came from within the organization’s own camp, namely from Michel ‘Aoun, chairman of the Change and Reform bloc, an important force in the March 8 Forces. A powerful figure in Lebanese politics, ‘Aoun has been considered a mouthpiece of Hizbullah in recent years. However, a crisis broke out between the sides on July 3, 2012, when Hizbullah’s representatives in parliament supported a draft bill granting full-time employee status to day workers in the Lebanese electric company, many of whom are Shi’ite supporters of Nabih Berri. In supporting this bill, Hizbullah sided with its Shi’ite partner, Nabih Berri, against its Christian partner, Michel ‘Aoun, who opposed the bill (thus siding with some of his fellow Christian MPs in the March 14 Forces).

Read more at Right Side News

 

The Rise of the Saudi Superstate

by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage:

The 32nd summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council may be remembered as the dawn of the Caliphate with the Saudi proposal to accelerate the union of the six GCC States likely to dramatically change the region. The union is being described as “EU Style,” but in practice it would be a larger version of the United Arab Emirates, a federation of tribal monarchies.

The combined entity would have a 1 trillion dollar GDP and some 35 percent of the world’s oil reserves, giving it immeasurable influence on the global stage. And that nucleus of power and wealth would be used to consolidate its influence over rest of the region and the world. If the GCC integrates Yemen, it will be able to turn the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Gulf, and if it integrates Libya, Sudan and Iraq, then it will have a combined population of 100 million and be able to approach the 50 percent world oil reserves marker.

Whether or not the GCC can transition to a Muslim EU, in the words of its charter, “founded on the creed of Islam,” is still an open question. In the last five years the GCC has struggled toward adopting a common market and a common currency, its unity undercut by suspicion of the House of Saud and internal rivalries. While Article Four of the GCC Charter had always made unity into a goal of the GCC and previous Riyadh Declarations had called for consolidating their Arab and Islamic identities into a regional union, there was never enough external pressure and internal promise to make that feasible.

Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab Spring have changed all that. Saudi Arabia’s suppression of Shiite protesters in Bahrain was the first significant use of the GCC’s previously inept Peninsula Shield Force. The victory in Bahrain has kept its Sunni monarchy in power and made it dependent on Saudi backing which has also made its officials into the most enthusiastic proponents of the union.

Holding back the Arab Spring in Bahrain was not only a proxy victory against Iran, it also demonstrated that Saudi influence could hold off Western action against GCC members under its umbrella and gave added weight to Saud Al-Faisal’s call for a combined military and foreign policy. Saudi Arabia can offer GCC members the protection of its enormous influence in the West, as well as one of the largest armies in the region, armed and trained by the United States, and an eventual nuclear umbrella.

The Obama Administration has left the nations of the region with very few options. They can either wait for America and Europe to hand them over to the Muslim Brotherhood on a democratic platter. They can become puppets of Iran. They can long for the return of a Turkish Ottoman Empire under the AKP. Or they can look to the Saudis for leadership and aid.

The Arab Spring has set two Caliphate movements on track. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Caliphate which is to consist of the Arab Socialist countries whose governments were overthrown in the Arab Spring, Egypt and Tunisia, and possibly Syria and Libya. And the GCC, a more traditional Caliphate of tribal monarchs with oil wealth.

Read more

Iran’s Grand Strategy

by RYAN MAURO at FSM:

The Iranian regime believes what it says and can achieve its stated objectives. That’s the blunt truth that few can accept.

To determine Iran’s strategy, we must determine its goals and ideology. President Ahmadinejad consistently states that he acts in order to “hasten the arrival” of the Mahdi, also called the Hidden Imam, who is to appear during the End Times to bring victory over the enemies of Islam. Since at least July 2010, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been telling his inner circle that he has met the Mahdi, who promised him an imminent return.

A number of voices opposed to a potential Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities reassure us that the regime is a rational actor and we should not take this rhetoric seriously. Former Mossad director Meir Dagan went so far as to say Iran is “very rational.” The statement made headlines but their simplicity is misleading. Dagan actually said that Iran is “not exactly our rational.” What Dagan likely meant is that the regime weighs costs and benefits. It rationally pursues goals that we’d consider irrational.

Eight Christian leaders are among those that want the U.S. to embrace a policy of containment towards a nuclear-armed Iran. On March 5, the director of the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Office of Public Witness co-wrote a letter to Congress, urging that resolutions ruling out such a policy be shot down.

It said the resolutions “sets a dangerously low threshold for war” and compares Iran to the Soviet Union.

A little-noticed documentary titled “The Coming is Upon Us” was produced by Ahmadinejad’s office last year and it lays out the regime’s beliefs and planned path forward, much like Mein Kampf did. And it debunks the notion that the U.S.S.R. and the Iranian regime are equivalent. The film makes the case that the regime’s leaders are the incarnations of specific End Times figures foretold in Islamic eschatology.

Iran is the “nation from the East” that paves the way for the Mahdi’s appearance. Supreme Leader Khamenei is Seyed Khorasani, “the preparer” who comes from Khorasan Province with a black flag and a distinct feature in his right hand. Khamenei’s right hand is paralyzed from an assassination attempt. Khorasani’s commander-in-chief is Shoeib-Ebne Saleh, who the film says is President Ahmadinejad. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is the incarnation of Yamani, a commander with a Yemeni ancestry who leads the Mahdi’s army into Mecca.

These three “preparers” wage war against the Antichrist and “the Imposters”-the U.S., Israel and the West’s Arab allies. The film also mentions that a figure named Sofiani will side with Islam’s enemies. Former Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer Reza Kahlili, who leaked the film, told me that the full-length version identifies him as Jordanian King Abdullah II.

The film lists various End Times prophecies that have been fulfilled to argue that the Mahdi’s appearance is near. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran; the invasion of Iraq from the south and subsequent sectarian violence and death of Saddam Hussein; the Houthi rebellion in Yemen; the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the increasing amount of open homosexuality, cross-dressing, adultery and women taking off the hijab are correlated to specific Islamic prophecies.

There are two signs yet to be fulfilled that will trigger the final grand conflict that the Mahdi will intervene during: An Arab coalition is to unite and rid itself of foreign influence and Saudi King Abdullah, who is 87 years old, is to die. The Muslim Brotherhood’s rise is fulfilling the first prophecy,the film says.

The speakers state that Islamic prophecy talks of the Bani Abbas Dynasty ruling modern-day Saudi Arabia during the End Times, which is the Saudi Royal Family. The prophecy is that this dynasty will be ruled by someone named Abdullah, whose death will lead to internal turmoil right before the Mahdi’s appearance. It notes that no one named Abdullah has ruled there in the past 100 years.

“For about 10 minutes [in the full-length film], the video lists the names of clerics, including very influential ones like Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi and former Revolutionary Guards chief commander Seyed Yahya Safavi, who affirm their belief that Khamenei is Seyed Khorasani. This isn’t propaganda, the regime really believes it,” Kahlili told me.

The Iranian regime has a realistic strategy to dominate the Middle East and lead an Arab coalition in taking Jerusalem–the two tasks that will, in its mind, trigger the Mahdi’s appearance.
Read more: Family Security Matters