UN plan to settle 1M refugees an invitation to terror, critics warn

The UN hopes a resettlement plan will stem the tide of refugees crossing the Mediterranean aboard dangerous boats. (Reuters)

The UN hopes a resettlement plan will stem the tide of refugees crossing the Mediterranean aboard dangerous boats. (Reuters)

Fox News, by Steven Edwards, April 27, 2015:

The humanitarian disaster unfolding on the Mediterranean is likely already providing a “shield” for Islamist terrorists to infiltrate waves of migrants attempting the perilous crossing from North Africa to Europe, terrorism experts and other strategic observers are warning. And they say a UN plan to resettle 1 million refugees in Western nations would turn the situation into a full-blown security crisis.

The exodus now unfolding, as well as the UN call to take in refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern and African nations over the next five years, is providing a “shield for the passage of jihadists to Europe,” said one analyst. Once absorbed into the societies of Europe and other rich countries such as the United States, ISIS operatives would be set to eventually gain all the freedoms of other citizens of those countries – including the freedom to travel, often without having to go through the extra scrutiny involved in obtaining a passport visa.

“ISIS has threatened to [infiltrate the migrants] and German intelligence already said that this is a real threat,” Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders told FoxNews.com from The Netherlands. “An open door policy would – both for the USA and Europe – mean that the threat of Islamists and terrorists entering our countries would increase to a very dangerous level.”

Muslims among migrants trying to reach Italy by boat from Libya tossed 12 fellow passengers overboard this month because they were Christians, Italian police said. All 12 drowned, leading the Italian authorities to charge 15 Muslim men with murder fueled by religious hatred.

While the incident received media attention, appeals by the United Nations and international charities such as Amnesty International and Oxfam have focused on the wider dangers faced by all the migrants crossing by the thousands in crowded and rickety vessels, as they escape violence and economic hardship throughout northern and western Africa, and the Middle East.

The intensity of their appeals for Europe and beyond to step up their intake of refugees soared after some 770 migrants lost their lives when their boat capsized and sank earlier this month.

The tragedy marked the largest loss of life of any in the Mediterranean involving refugees and migrants, and came just days after a similar disaster claimed an estimated 400 lives, while another tragedy at sea left 50 more dead.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on the “international community” – taken in most quarters to mean developed countries – to institute a “comprehensive and collective” response, which he said should go beyond meeting the immediate need of improved sea-rescue options.

“It is to ensure the right to asylum of the growing number of people worldwide fleeing war who need refuge and safe haven,” he said in a statement.

After UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said the migrant deaths resulted from a “continuing failure of governance accompanied by a monumental failure of compassion,” the world body’s specialist on migrant human rights unveiled his initiative for resolving the crisis, focusing on the largest of the regional refugee populations: Syrians fleeing the civil war in their country.

“We could collectively offer to resettle 1 million Syrians over the next five years,” François Crépeau, the UN Special Rapporteur, told Britain’s Guardian newspaper in a sit-down interview.

“For a country like the UK, this would probably be around 14,000 Syrians a year for five years. For Canada, it would mean less than 9,000 a year for five years – a drop in the bucket,” the Canadian national said. The report did not mention any total Crépeau might have cited for the United States to absorb.

Implementing such a plan would drive countless more migrants to seek out the criminal human trafficking networks and pay the illegal tariffs – anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars – in the hope of reaching Europe and attaining eventual re-settlement, Wilders told FoxNews.com.

“Only if migrants know they will never succeed and never reach Europe will they stop coming,” he said. “They will not drown, and the criminals who smuggle them in those boats will not get their money any more.”

But he added: “If we do what Europe does today, and taxi them into [the continent], they will keep coming and drowning.”

Though controversial for his strong stance against Islam in The Netherlands, Wilders, whose party is the fourth-largest in the Dutch parliament, is not alone in saying the proposals of the UN and other groups are more likely to exacerbate – rather than resolve – the Mediterranean migrant crisis.

They would be a “diversion” from the real problems of security chaos, failed governance and dire poverty that most of the migrants are fleeing, international security expert Dr. Walid Phares told FoxNews.com from Britain, where he is on a speaking tour.

“The proper response to this epic humanitarian crisis should not be via the politics of the ostrich, but via strategic policies of political change in Africa,” said the author of “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East,” which projected the region’s uprisings before they occurred.

“What would 1 million migrants absorbed into Europe do to stop genocide, human rights abuses and hyper-corruption in Africa?”

Former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi had spoken of dispatching tens of thousands of migrants to Europe as a political weapon to transform the identity of continent, Phares recalled – and now jihadist militias had “opened the path” for them.

“This is an urban militant campaign masterminded by jihadist forces on the ground in Libya,” he said, identifying the human-trafficking puppet masters as ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, the transnational Islamist organization founded in Egypt.

“This is about an organized abuse of refugees to use them as a shield for the passage of jihadists to Europe, and to also radicalize the migrants.”

With Syrians comprising more than 42,000 of the 170,000 Mediterranean migrants reaching Italy, the main destination, in 2014, Berlin-based Benjamin Weinthal of the U.S. think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies said the time was overdue for the definitive removal of the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

“There has been a lot of rhetoric from the U.S. about training Syrian rebels and providing lethal aid, but the U.S. government has largely not delivered on those promises,” he said.

“What would make sense is for the U.S., France and some of the countries that have been more willing to exercise military power in the region to give some thought to dissolving the Assad regime.”

Scrambling to stem the flow of migrants, the 28-nation EU is indeed seeking to launch military strikes – to destroy the boats of the smugglers before they fill them with migrants. A 10-point action plan released before an EU summit Thursday on the migrant crisis said the success of the EU naval force’s counter-piracy activities off the coast of Somalia “should inspire us.”

European nations are already grappling with what critics call the “Islamicization” of urban centers, where insular and often impoverished Muslim communities have proven fertile recruiting grounds for international jihadists. Although some say those nations have done a poor job of assimilating these immigrants, few dispute the notion that new waves of immigrants will gravitate to the same enclaves.

Australia controversially reversed its rising migrant crisis of recent years with a “turn-back” policy that redirected boats towards their points of origin, forced asylum seekers to live in detention centers far from Australia’s shores, and guaranteed the seaborne asylum seekers they would never be admitted to Australia.

Wilders said Europe should “do as Australia does,” while Phares is calling on both the United States and the European Union to “go on the offensive” by returning the migrants to Libya – but to UN-administered-and-protected safe zones, where they would remain pending a focused UN effort to make their home countries “responsible.”

“Instead of sending a million miserable refugees to Europe, the UN should enable a million African refugees to stay home and be empowered,” he said.

Weinthal said the security threat to the U.S. and its allies is “enormous” if the flows continue unchecked.

“You have millions of Syrian refugees – and also highly dissatisfied Libyans, Algerians and others – who are living in refugee camps, and who are young, filled with rage and anger – and who could become radicalized and launch terrorist attacks both in Europe and the United States,” he said.

Steven Edwards is a New York-based journalist. Follow him @stevenmedwards or contact him at stevenedwardsnyc@gmail.com

***

At Refugee Resettlement Watch, Ann Corcoran warns:

Just a reminder that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees already has 11,000 Syrian refugees picked out for your home towns.  Tell your Member of Congress and your US Senators—NO resettlement in your town!

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

iran20a (1)Center For Security Policy, Published on Jan 16, 2014:

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

 Introduction

Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Clare Lopez

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Andrew Bostom

Dr. Andrew Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed works The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: from Sacred Text to Solemn History, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism and the recent monograph The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope.” Dr. Bostom’s forthocoming monograph is entitled, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in the New York Post, Washington Times, The New York Daily News, Pajamas Media, National Review Online, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at his:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

Mark Langfan

Mark Langfan is a noted security analyst who in 1991 created a 3 dimensional topographic raised-relief map system of Israel. Viewing the 3D Israel map one can easily and quickly be informed of many of the underlying resource and security issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict such as West Bank water resources and Israeli ‘defensible’ borders. Over the past 20 years, Mark has briefed many Congressional and Senate offices, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Israel Desk, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Mark wrote and published seminal articles concerning the Israeli/Middle East region including the 1992 “Demilitarization Risks” warning of future Palestinian Katyusha rocket barrages from vacated Israeli territory, the 1995 “US Troops on Golan Quicksand” warning of the unique topographic dangers of deploying US Troops to the Golan Heights, and the 2006 “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” exposing the Iranian arming of Iraqi Insurgents against US forces, and of Iran’s other regional and strategic goals. Mark has published numerous articles in newspapers and security journal. For more information visit www.marklangfan.com.

This presentation by Mark Langfan with Erick Stakelbeck shows the maps better:

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

CPAC – Conservative Political Action Conference discovers Islamic terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Dr. Walid Phares: Jihad in Europe — Implications for European and American Security

 

Published on Feb 9, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Hezbollah’s Stealth Invasion Of A Christian Heartland

20150129_hezbollahinvadechristianFamily Security Matters, by Walid Phares, Jan. 29, 2015:

Christmas greetings from Hezbollah? That what some, including the Daily Star of Beirut, would have us believe about a series of visits by the Shia terrorist group to the heartland of the Christian Mount Lebanon during the holiday season. Hezbollah, armed and funded by Iran and part of Bashar al-Assad’s genocidal arsenal in the Syrian civil war – do not have peace and goodwill in mind, even as they pass out handshakes, smiles and holiday greetings to Christians. Slowly but surely, Hezbollah members are normalizing their physical presence in the “Christian wilaya” in what amounts to a soft invasion of an area crucial to dominating the whole of Lebanon.

Even though Hezbollah is fighting today in Iraqi and Syrian battlefields, its eyes are focused on every inch of land in Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed in early 1982 as part of the Iranian regime’s expansion in Lebanon. Its leaders were followers of Iran’s radical fundamentalist leader Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government. Iran remains Hezbollah’s key backer and spiritual guide, pouring billions of dollars and increasingly sophisticated weaponry into the group, which the U.S. Institute of Peace rightly calls “the most successful example of the theocracy’s campaign to export its revolutionary ideals.”

According to the National Counterterrorism Center, “Hezbollah has been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984, as well as the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985 and the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996.”

If that doesn’t make you feel warm and fuzzy, neither should the group’s holiday well-wishes in the Christian enclaves of Jbeil and Kesrwan. According to civil society groups’ reports, armed Hezbollah patrols are roaming these same Lebanese villages by night.

Christian Mount Lebanon is crucial to Hezbollah – and to Iran. It is among the last holdouts in their domination of Lebanon, giving them a way not only to challenge and threaten Israel, but to create a line of defense against Sunni extremists like ISIS.

Hezbollah has had a very successful “clear and hold” strategy of its own in Lebanon. They walked behind the Syrian tanks into Baabda in 1990, subdued the south in 2000, and marched into West Beirut in 2008. The last territory to be secured is northern Mount Lebanon. Overtaking the towns of Kesrwan and Jbeil, together with neighboring Batroun, would allow Hezbollah to control the vital coastal road from Dahiye to Tripoli, which includes two key ports that link Lebanon to the outside world, as well as the road from the sea to the summits overlooking the Bekaa. The problem is that this part of Mount Lebanon – and others as well – has a majority of Christian Lebanese who maintain an historical grievance with the Iranian-Assad-Hezbollah troika. They will fight to the last if it comes to it.

The Christians of Mount Lebanon are increasingly isolated and slowly but unmistakably besieged by forces from without and within. ISIS is a real threat to Lebanon, as it is to the whole of the region. But Hezbollah is already there, walking among them, smiling and plotting. Regardless of ISIS, the people of Mount Lebanon will rise against Hezbollah. Indeed, the million citizens who drove or walked from the towns and villages of Mount Lebanon to Martyrs Square in Beirut in 2005 came to demonstrate against the Assad-Iran axis in Lebanese affairs.

Hezbollah’s strategists are savvy and they know how to maneuver, particularly in Lebanon. They benefit from a large and effective propaganda machine, one that includes, sadly, apologists within the Christian community whose political wounds from an intra-community civil war a quarter of a century ago have never healed. But their deft holiday campaign is nonetheless cynical and very dangerous. They have cleverly concealed an invasion in holiday wrapping. A Trojan horse for an endangered Christian community. We must assure this sacred land does not turn into the Ayatollah’s next battlefield.

A version of this piece previously appeared on The Daily Caller.

Dr Walid Phares is an advisor to the US Congress on Counter Terrorism, and the author of ten books including Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East. Dr Phares appears on national, international and Arab media. He teaches at several universities and briefs US Government agencies on Terrorism and the Middle East.

Also see:

The $20,000 behind the Paris attacks came “from abroad”

Hebdo-300x170Money Jihad, Jan. 14, 2015:

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) gave $20,000 to future Charlie Hebdo attacker Said Kouachi before he and his brother left Yemen in August 2011 according to CBS News yesterday (h/t El Grillo), which supports Money Jihad analysis of the Kouachis’ funding earlier this week. The report also adds credibility to claims by AQAP and Cherif Kouachi himself that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were planned, ordered, and financed by AQAP itself. The physical transfer of funds to Kouachi suggests that bulk cash smuggling (or the smuggling of other financial instruments) back to Europe was the method used rather than a wire, hawala transaction, or trade-based money laundering operation.

Relatedly, the Associated Press reported weapons for the Paris terrorist attacks came from abroad:

Several people are being sought in relation to the “substantial” financing of the three gunmen behind the terror campaign, said Christophe Crepin, a French police union official. The gunmen’s weapons stockpile came from abroad, and the size of it plus the military sophistication of the attacks indicated an organized terror network, he added.

“This cell did not include just those three, we think with all seriousness that they had accomplices, because of the weaponry, the logistics and the costs of it,” Crepin said. “These are heavy weapons. When I talk about things like a rocket launcher – it’s not like buying a baguette on the corner, it’s for targeted acts.”

The Belgian daily La Dernière Heure corroborates that several of the weapons acquired by the Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly were bought in Brussels.

The $20,000 figure reported by CBS is also consistent with an estimate over the weekend from counterterror expert Jean-Paul Rouiller. Bloomberg Businessweek reported:

…The Kalashnikov rifles and other weapons used by the attackers, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly, likely cost less than €10,000 ($11,800), according to Jean-Paul Rouiller, director of the Geneva Centre for Training and Analysis of Terrorism, a Swiss research group. Including the cost of Saïd Kouachi’s 2011 trip to Yemen, where he may have received training from al-Qaeda, the total price tag for the deadly attacks by the three men might have reached about $20,000…

Bloomberg went on to report that, “for what Rouiller describes as ‘such a low-cost operation,’ financing from abroad would be unlikely”—a theory that now seems to have been disproved by the evidence.

Regardless of where it is finally determined that the funds for the weapons originated, it should be kept in mind that the direct expenses of the Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly aren’t the only expenditures that matter. The weapons training camp in Yemen that both Kouachi brothers attended in 2011 wasn’t “self-financed” by individual AQAP recruits. The militants at the AQAP camp that trained the Kouachi brothers didn’t self-finance their own wages. The human smuggling network that helped sneak the Kouachi brothers across the border from Oman into Yemen isn’t self-financed. Anwar al-Awlaki, the terrorist imam with whom the Kouachi brothers met while in Yemen and possibly assigned them their marching orders, was not self-financed either. Not to mention that the Kouachi brothers’ basic cost of living in Paris probably wasn’t met by part-time work delivering pizzas and gutting fish at the market.

We will also discover over time that the websites, texts, and videos that the Kouachis and Coulibaly consumed, like most Islamic radical materials, are generally produced by entities backed by Wahhabi patrons. It is important to think of the bigger picture not just of the money it took to carry out the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher operations, but the amount of money it takes to sustain a terrorist infrastructure in Yemen (and beyond) that these sleeper cells count on for arms, training and guidance.

***

Also see:

 

Spencer, Camerota and Phares Discuss Sharia No-Go Zones and the Charlie Hebdo jihadis

Published on Jan 9, 2015 by JihadWatchVideo

Robert Spencer, Steve Camerota and Walid Phares appeared on the Sean Hannity Show on Fox New on January 8, 2015, to discuss the Charlie Hebdo jihad mass murderers and Sharia No-Go Zones in France.

Sydney’s Lesson: The Mutant Jihadists are coming

240DD65D00000578-2873855-At_least_13_people_are_being_held_hostage_by_terrorists_who_stor-m-74_1418608624151History News Network, By Walid A. Phares, Dec 15, 2014:

The jihadi hostage taker of Sydney has been mutating from one state of mind to another over the years. He is a citizen of Iran under his original name Manteghi Bourjerdi. There is no information as to why he sought political asylum to Australia in 1996. He either used the process of asylum to enter Australia or he was opposed to the Iranian regime. However, as soon as he was granted asylum and became a legal resident, he engaged in open activism for a radical global jihadi ideology. He focused on an anti-Western, anti-U.S. agenda, launching political attacks on Australia’s policies and on its military. His narrative was global and could fit the goals of any jihadi movement in the world, whether it be Salafi or Khomeinist. Being a Shia, he was originally identified as linked to al Qaeda or ISIS, but being opposed to the Iranian regime, he was not linked to Hezbollah. Then new information appeared—basically from his own web site—that he abandoned the Shia faith and moved to the Sunni faith. He used the narrative of Salafi Sunni jihadists when he announced he abandoned the Shia. He called them “rafida,” a term used by al Qaeda and ISIS.

So what do we make of his case? Academic scholars and experts are puzzled by this man who changed his name to Sheikh M’an (not man) Haroun Mu’nis (not Munis) شيخ مأن هارون مؤنس . He was Shia and he shifted to Sunni, but we do not have a document proving this. What we are dealing with is a concept I advanced in my book Future Jihad (2005): the idea of “mutant jihadists.” Nine years ago I warned that the jihadists could and would mutate from their original state into another more complex, adaptive entity. From Salafi jihadists in al Qaeda, they could move to ISIS—as we saw in Iraq and Syria—or from Muslim Brotherhood to Salafi jihadis—as we saw in Libya. But mutating from a Shia to Sunni jihadist, by converting from one sect to another, is a more complex case. The reality is, however, that the opposite, moving from Sunni to Shia jihadism, is also occurring. Over the past decade, many Arab governments have complained about Iranian efforts to convert Sunni to Shia, but in recent years, Salafi jihadists have also succeeded in converting Shia into their brand of jihadism. Even more complex is the fact that individual jihadists—such as Sheikh Mu’nis—would move from one sphere to another by themselves. Are they helped, assisted, or even funded? Anything is possible in the world of jihadism.
I argued a decade ago that once the global jihadi movement starts to expand, we will see many transformations and mutations. Not every jihadi will look like another, nor will they have to necessarily belong to a particular movement or organization. What links all of them is the common core of jihadism. All jihadists are fighting for a common cause against a common enemy, the infidels. Radical Islamists and jihadists can fight among themselves over who will lead and what the final goal might be, but their global direction is unified against a common enemy. To understand this fundamental reality, one has to understand what can be defined as “global jihadism,” an ideology explained in Future Jihad, an ideology I have been briefing governments, the U.S. Congress, and counterterrorism agencies about for over a decade. 
 Unfortunately, the Obama administration abandoned the identification of the jihadi ideology under pressure from the Islamist lobby, representing the agendas of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime. Since 2009, Washington no longer recognizes nor deals with the jihadi ideology. And Western governments somehow follow this U.S. example. This refusal to identify jihadism explains how and why the United States and many liberal democracies, both in their governments and academia, have been unable to detect the threat, define it, and produce appropriate antidotes. Even advanced think tanks and foundations have been trailing behind in the strategic detection of the jihadi phenomenon.
 The “chocolate shop jihad” in Sydney demonstrates how jihad can mutate and strike from unexpected quarters. But it also demonstrates how weak the intellectual and political establishment is in preempting and countering the threat. All the West now has is law enforcement capacities. And the sad state of affairs has local law enforcement attempting to fix the mistakes committed by national political elites.  
Dr Walid Phares is the Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group on Counter Terrorism TAG and the author of The Lost Spring

Video: EMET’s Annual 9/11 Memorial Dinner

watch-9-11-memorial-live-stream

EMET, Sep. 11, 2014:

On the thirteenth anniversary of the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the United States and the Western world face the same threat by genocidal Islamic terrorists that were responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil.
The so called Islamic State, or ISIS, has brutally murdered thousands of innocent civilians, and has extended its reach deep into western and northern Iraq and across Syria. The so called Islamic State’s beheading of American journalist James Wright Foley prompted limited US airstrikes in Iraq.  ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi recently said in a video interview “We will humiliate them [U.S. soldiers] everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House.”  At the same time, the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise; more than 100 Americans have traveled to Syria to join Al Qaeda-inspired terror groups, and two Americans who have joined ISIS have already been killed. In the past few months, terrorism charges have been filed against several Americans to prevent homegrown terrorists.
What are the critical lessons that the U.S. should take from the 9/11 attacks? What should the United States do to safeguard our homeland and prevent future attacks on U.S. soil? How can the U.S. stop the rise of homegrown terrorism?
Please join us as we hear from national security and counterterrorism experts on these issues, and more.  EMET is privileged to host author and scholar Dr. Walid Phares; co-founder of the Reform Party of Syria Farid Ghadry; Muslim Brotherhood expert Kyle Shideler; and Founder and President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, Sarah Stern.

Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr. Phares briefs and testifies to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He now teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University.

 

Farid Ghadry

Farid Ghadry is a Syrian-American businessman committed to peace in the Middle East. His concerns about Islamic extremism is a mobilizing factor for other Syrian-Americans to combat terror. Mr. Ghadry is the only Syrian-American ever to be invited to address the Knesset in Israel. He also addressed the EU Parliament as well as US Congress on matters related to freedom and human rights in the Middle East.

 

Sarah Stern

Sarah Stern is the Founder and President of EMET. Sarah has more than 30 years of experience on Capitol Hill, and has helped pass many pieces of legislation, speeches and congressional resolutions. Her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Middle East Quarterly, Israel Today, Frontpagemag.com, Breitbart, InFocus, The American Thinker, The Jerusalem Post, and the Washington Jewish Week.

 

Kyle Shideler

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has preciously served as the Director of Research and Communications for the Endowment for Middle East Truth, as well as the Senior Researcher, and Public Information Officer for several organizations in the field of Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications as well as briefed legislative aides, intelligence and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues.

Gathering Storms: The Iranian Drive for Nuclear Weapons

Sand-in-HourglassBy Andrew Harrod:

“Iran is now at the last lap of the nuclear marathon,” Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli Minister for Congressional Affairs, stated during a January 14, 2014, conference call.  Sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) after a January 8 EMET/Center for Security Policy (CSP) panel on Iran (video here), the two policy discussions highlighted growing dangers from an uncontained Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear weapons were part of an Iranian “long term strategic vision” dating from the 1980s, Lebanese-American Middle East scholar Walid Phares explained at the Russell Senate Office Building.  Along with these “fissiles,” Iran was developing missiles as weapons delivery vehicles, an arsenal currently capable of striking Israel and in the future targets like Moscow.  Iran’s Islamic Republic “perceived itself as a superpower” challenging infidels such as the Israeli “Little Satan” and the American “Greater Satan” with an international revolution analogous to Soviet Communism. The subsequent presentation by Andrew Bostom on canonical Islamic anti-Semitism recurring throughout history emphasized the troubling ideological nature of the Islamic Republic.

There is in Iran currently, however, “nothing to compare” with Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, Phares determined.  Despite contrary hopes, Iran betrays the “opposite of reform.”  Phares dismissed impressions of Islamic Republic moderation as manifesting how this regime is “not predictable on the tactical level” while maintaining a consistent strategic vision.  The Islamic Republic is willing to go “very far” in the name of pragmatism and “sell you anything.”  Iran, for example, is currently claiming to be “part of the war on terror” alongside the United States in opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq, a “narrative” of “common enemies” designed to impress “Ivy League experts.”  Yet “there is no difference” between the infamous Islamic Republic founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the current Islamic Republic Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Phares’ fellow panelist, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer and CSP fellow Clare Lopez, similarly rejected prospects of the Islamic Republic reforming.  Contrary to “people with stars in their eyes,” current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is not any moderate but rather a “long term insider of the regime.” Among other things, Rouhani helped plot the 1994 Buenos Aires Jewish cultural center bombing.  Ettinger likewise described Rouhani as a “con artist” and “master of taqiyya” who had been “misleading the world community for ten years” as Iran’s nuclear negotiator.  Lopez also dismissed any debates in the Iranian parliament or majlis over the November 24, 2013, Iranian nuclear agreement between “hardliner” and “moderate” elements as merely “theater” for foreigners.

Deceit, rather than reform, is far more likely coming from the Islamic Republic, in accord with the canonical saying of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (hadith) cited by Lopez that “war is deceit” (Bukhari 4.52.269).  Former Rouhani adviser Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini’s televised description of the nuclear deal as emulating the treacherous 628 Hudaybiyya truce made by Muhammad emphasized such calculations for Lopez.  Given past Iranian concealment of nuclear facilities at Lavizan-Shian and Parchin to avoid international inspections noted by her, the Islamic Republic had a proven track record of duplicity.

Phares additionally analyzed how the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s failure to acquire nuclear weapons led the Islamic Republic to develop regime defenses before obtaining nuclear weapons.  Thus Iran is seeking to consolidate a “geographic space” from Afghanistan to Lebanon, including a NATO-like alliance formed with “Papa Assad,” Syrian ruler Bashar Assad’s father and predecessor Hafiz. While this alliance allows for Iranian penetration of Lebanon through Hezbollah, Iran has also made its influence felt in Africa and Latin America.

Distressing to Phares, President Barack Obama’s administration actually looks to Shiite Iranian influence along with that of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to stabilize the Middle East.  A key “benchmark” for Phares was Obama’s recognition of continuing Islamic Republic rule by not supporting the 2009 Green Revolution that came “very close” to “shaking off” the Iranian regime. The 2013 nuclear deal now implies “recognition of influence in the region” for Iran in places like Syria, an “undeclared Yalta agreement” in return merely for Iran’s promise to abandon nuclear weapons.  “Why on Earth did we partner with the Ikhwan” or (MB) in Egypt, an astonished Phares asked, while noting Lebanon’s 2005 Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution as examples of pro-democratic movements with which the United States could ally.

“We betrayed them in 2009” and “unfortunately failed to support them in any way,” was also how the Iran expert Michael Ledeen described American policy towards the Green Revolution during the conference call with Ettinger.  Yet the Islamic Republic is a “hollow regime…quite clearly terrified” of opposition movements in Ledeen’s judgment, contrary to assessments of the regime as stable.  Islamic Republic repression of public gatherings and intellectuals reminds Ledeen “a lot of the last days of the Soviet Union.”  Indeed, current Iranian opposition movements are “much bigger” than past Soviet dissident groups and Iranian security services are not as effective as their former Soviet counterparts like the KGB. The “Iranian people do not like this regime,” Ledeen concludes, something Rouhani’s ultimately empty “great reputation as a reformer” has not changed.

“Bring it down…support the Iranian people,” is thus Ledeen’s policy recommendation for regime change in Iran.  In fact, this “third option” between eventual acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons and any military counter-proliferation strike is the only viable long term Iran strategy.  Yet the “folly” of the American government not contacting Iranian opposition figures amazed Ledeen, who himself regularly communicates with them.  “If I can contact them, believe me the American government can contact them,” Ledeen says.

Read more at Front Page

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

download (55)Center For Security Policy, Published on Jan 16, 2014

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

 Introduction

Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Clare Lopez

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author/editor of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Andrew Bostom

Dr. Andrew Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed works The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: from Sacred Text to Solemn History, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism and the recent monograph The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope.” Dr. Bostom’s forthocoming monograph is entitled, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Shi’ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran. Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in the New York Post, Washington Times, The New York Daily News, Pajamas Media, National Review Online, The American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at his:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/

Mark Langfan

Mark Langfan is a noted security analyst who in 1991 created a 3 dimensional topographic raised-relief map system of Israel. Viewing the 3D Israel map one can easily and quickly be informed of many of the underlying resource and security issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict such as West Bank water resources and Israeli ‘defensible’ borders. Over the past 20 years, Mark has briefed many Congressional and Senate offices, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Israel Desk, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Mark wrote and published seminal articles concerning the Israeli/Middle East region including the 1992 “Demilitarization Risks” warning of future Palestinian Katyusha rocket barrages from vacated Israeli territory, the 1995 “US Troops on Golan Quicksand” warning of the unique topographic dangers of deploying US Troops to the Golan Heights, and the 2006 “Iran: The 4th Reichastan” exposing the Iranian arming of Iraqi Insurgents against US forces, and of Iran’s other regional and strategic goals. Mark has published numerous articles in newspapers and security journal. For more information visit www.marklangfan.com.

This presentation by Mark Langfan with Erick Stakelbeck shows the maps better:

Video: Walid Phares on jihadi propaganda war against the West

In an interview with Fox News, Dr Walid Phares author of ‘The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East,’ and of the newly released French book ‘Du Printemps Arabe a l’Automne Islamiste,’ said “Saudi Arabia, but also Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE and other Gulf, as well as Egypt, are frustrated with the Obama Administration on the issues of Syria, Iran and declining partnership with the US.”

Phares said “the Arab moderates were mobilized by Washington to pressure Syria’s, before the Administration suddenly pull out from the confrontation with the help of a Russian diplomatic maneuver. Also Washington engaged in a unilateral rapprochement with Iran’s regime without a consultation with its Arab and Middle East allies.”

Phares said “it would be as if the US, in the middle of the Cold War, would run to Moscow for dialogue, before it positions itself in between the USSR and Great Britain. Would that make sense? If you have allies in the region, you consult them and as one bloc you deal with Syria and Iran.

The Arab frustration is not about security matters, it is about the ailing partnership between the Obama Administration and America’s allies in the region.”

 

Walid Phares: The mother of information on the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the US will come from Egypt

6-e13598740988101

Walid Phares on the Malzberg show: “US apologist media, in its ivory tower, is disconnected from Egypt’s reality unlike Arab and European media and the blogosphere”

In his interview on Steve Malzberg’s radio show, Dr Walid Phares said: “Most US media, particularly the apologist press is disconnected from Egypt’s realities and doesn’t seem to understand that there was a deep popular revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood and that an overwhelming majority of Egyptians rejects the Ikhwan and their Jihadi allies. Unlike Arab, Russian and European media and the American radio shows and blogosphere, the apologist media is not representing the facts. They can share the facts and then opine, but they are so fooled by their advisors that they got themselves separated from Egypt reality. Let them stay in their ivory towers until they are out of funds.” Phares provided a comprehensive analysis of the Egyptian campaign against the Brotherhood and the Jihadists in Egypt.”

Take the 10 part course: The Muslim Brotherhood in America

Louie Gohmert delivers major speech criticizing US policy of partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood

1005437_10201441479741920_1894926056_n

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the uprising and protests in Egypt over the Morsi administration. He talked about America’s national security abroad. He also weighed in on the United States image in the Middle East.

 

Walid Phares made this comment on his facebook page:

Congressman during speech in the Capitol: “CNN friend of the Muslim Brotherhood not of the Egyptian people”

A unique scene today was when member of the US House of Representatives Louie Gohmert from Texas blasted CNN for “reporting in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and not about the millions of moderate Egyptians, seculars and Copts, who demonstrated in a real revolution on June 30.” According to several observers in Washington “Gohmert delivered the most powerful speech in the defense of reformers, democracy seekers, seculars, Christian Copts and Muslim moderates in Egypt in the history of the US Congress, to date.” One observer said “Gohmert has launched a moral revolution in US Foreign Policy.”

 

 

“Zimmerica…”

!cid_part2_02060003_08020209@earthlinkFacebook post by Walid Phares:

Egypt… Ikhwan invasion
Libya… Ansar in Benghazi
Tunisia..Nahda regime
Mali .. France battles Ansar el Dine
Gaza … Hamas gets weapons
Lebanon..Hezbollah prepares for Israel
Syria… 100,000 killed
Turkey AKP occupy Taqseem
Iran … Nuclear Bomb on its way
Nigeria..Churches burning
Britain .. Soldiers killed in neighborhood

United States…Zimmerman…