The Iranian Negotiations That Never End

yh (1)Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, June 29, 2015:

It is quite possible that no matter how many concessions Obama makes, there will never be a final agreement with Iran. The deadlines have already been extended so many times that the only reliable thing about the negotiations is that somewhere near the edge, the negotiators will declare that they are close and extend the formerly final deadline some more. And then some more again.

There is currently disagreement over the last agreement that was agreed to in order to extend the deadline. If you find that confusing, so does everyone else.

According to the British Foreign Minister, “There are a number of different areas where we still have major differences of interpretation in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne.”

We are no longer negotiating the issue; instead we’re negotiating the negotiations. The last attempt at getting the PLO to negotiate with Israel collapsed at the negotiating the negotiations stage when the Israeli pre-negotiation appeasement was deemed insufficiently appeasing by the PLO and John Kerry.

Obama will have to offer the Iranians even more concessions, on and under the table, to get them to negotiate the negotiations. Iran’s past nuclear work won’t be looked at and now even nuclear inspections may be off the table. At this rate, we’ll soon be negotiating how many bombs Iran gets, how many bombs it gets to use and then how many countries it gets to nuke.

We’ve already gone from an agreement to shut down Iran’s nuclear program to an agreement to temporarily slow it down to a probable short term agreement with sanctions relief and no inspections. Obama has officially disavowed a military solution so the only thing for Iran to negotiate is how to extract the most sanctions relief without actually conceding anything that matters.

And each time it looks like there’s progress, the Supreme Leader winks and pulls the rug out from under Kerry. Everyone from the Viet Cong to the Sandinistas to Assad has learned how easy that is, so that the more we concede, the more Iran demands. The negotiations approach a finish line and then stall.

Or as an anonymous official put it, “It feels like we haven’t advanced on the technical issues and even gone back on some.”

But that’s typical for the Middle East where no agreement is final and negotiations are just a means of taking the temperature of the other side while keeping them off guard. Agreements are not solemn arrangements, they are a theatrical display. What we take absolutely seriously, they view as a farce.

The Iranian negotiations with an agreeable lackey who pulls back at the last minute and a dictator behind the scenes who denounces the whole thing are a repetition of the disastrous Israel-PLO peace process which have been going on and off for decades with no actual peace or even much of a process.

The only purpose of such negotiations is to extract concessions without actually giving anything in return. Countless preliminary agreements can be negotiated, but no final agreement comes into being. The entire process runs on misleading claims of success by Western negotiators. The terrorist leaders tell their own people that they are committed to destroying the infidels, but this is dismissed as “appeasing the hardliners” by our own negotiators who are desperately invested in their credibility.

The more Iran acts out, the more the negotiators are forced to misrepresent the scale of the disaster to keep the negotiations going. The Iranians lie to the negotiators. The negotiators lie to us. Then the Iranians recant the possible concessions that they dangled as bait in front of the negotiators and the negotiators tear out their hair and promise us that the whole thing will be settled with an extension.

Read more


Also see:

Daniel Pipes explains “the Obama doctrine” on foreign policy

obama-foreign-policy (1)

Published on Apr 12, 2015 by Rebel Media

Ezra Levant reports for

Dr. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum says that there’s a coherent strategy underpinning the apparent chaos we’re witnessing around the world, especially in the Middle East.

Pipes explains that the situation makes sense if viewed through the lens of an “Obama doctrine”: “Snarl at your friends, smile at your enemies.”

Part of it is incompetence on the President’s part, says Pipes, but much of what’s happening is the direct result of Obama’s anti-American ideology — and even his personal psychology.

This thought-provoking, in-depth interview covers a lot of ground: the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and much more.

Cheney: If You Wanted a President ‘To Take America Down … It Would Look Exactly Like What Barack Obama’s Doing’

obama-e1421810834486Truth Revolt, by Jeff Dunetz, April 8, 2015:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been critical of President Obama since he took office six years ago, but on Tuesday evening’s Hugh Hewitt Radio Show he went further than ever before, saying that if there were a president who tried to take the country down, he would do exactly what Obama was doing.

Appearing on the program with his daughter, former State Department official Liz Cheney, the former V.P. criticized Obama for weakening “our position in the world,” reducing “our capacity to influence events,” “turning our backs on our allies” and encouraging “our adversaries.”

After welcoming them to the show and discussing their book on foreign policy to be published on September 1, Hewitt asked the pair about some of Obama’s comments made about the Iran nuclear deal:

Hewitt: Liz Cheney, former senior State Department official, you are also the head of the Iran/Syria policy and operations group when you were at State. Let me play for you President Obama from Sunday, a small pull, cut number three if we can have that, Adam, from Sunday.

Obama (Tape): Well, I think that it’s important to recognize that Iran’s a complicated country, just like we’re a complicated country.

Hewitt: Liz Cheney, is Iran a complicated country just like we’re a complicated country?

L.Cheney: Boy, Hugh, I cannot even imagine an American president saying any sentence that has Iran in it and says they’re just like us. I mean, it’s outrageous. Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. They’ve got the blood of hundreds if not thousands of Americans on their hands. And they are continuing their attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon. And I thought it was so telling the day that the administration sort of went out and proclaimed victory in the nuclear talks, that when the Iranian foreign minister came out, he said we aren’t going to stop enriching, we aren’t going to shut down any facilities, and all of the sanctions are going to be lifted. That’s his interpretation of the deal. And so you know, this president, to be in a situation where he’s aligning our policy with that of Iran is breathtaking, and it’s really shameful.

Hewitt: Let me play for both of you a cut from earlier today. The President sat down with an NPR reporter who asked him about Scott Walker’s statement on this show last week, that he’d repudiate the emerging Iran hologram, I don’t call it a deal, on day one. Here’s what the President said:

Obama (Tape): Any president who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling into question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries. If that starts being questioned, that’s going to be a problem for our friends, and that’s going to embolden our enemies. And it would be a foolish approach to take, and you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.

Hewitt: Vice President Cheney, you’ve been boning up on foreign policy since you entered the House 30 years ago. What do you make of that statement?

D. Cheney: Well, it starts from a flawed presumption on Obama’s part. For most of the last 70 years since World War II, we’ve had a bipartisan accord in this country between Democrat and Republican, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, the Bushes, believed that America had to play a leading role in the world, that we needed to maintain a first class military capability to do that, and occasionally use it, that the world works best with U.S. leadership. The first president, really, who doesn’t, no longer believes that fundamental truth, is Barack Obama. And what he’s saying in his criticism of Governor Walker I think probably Governor Walker welcomes. It’s almost like a paid commercial. I heard today that as soon as the statement came out from Obama criticizing the Governor, he immediately sent out letters to all of his supporters. I’m glad he did that. I think it’s a mark of the weakness of this president that he’d say such a thing.

Hewitt: Let me play a couple of other cuts from the Sunday interview, cut number eight, Adam, please:

Obama (Tape): What we’ve also seen is that there is a practical streak to the Iranian regime. I think they’re concerned about self-preservation.

Hewitt: And cut number nine:

Obama (Tape): I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their publics.

Hewitt: So Mr. Vice President, you dealt with Iran a lot both as Secretary of Defense, and eight years as Vice President. Do they strike you as a practically minded and responsive regime?

D. Cheney: Absolutely not, Hugh. This is the most, one of the most radical regimes in history, headed up by the mullahs who believe in a very, sort of, I think, twisted version of the Koran, who are sworn to destroy Israel, who always have these big meetings. They did just this week, because they were negotiating in Geneva, shouting Death To America. This is a totally radical regime that is the premier sponsor of state terrorism in the world, and Obama’s about to give them nuclear weapons. It’s, I can’t think of a more terrible burden to leave the next president than what Obama is creating here.

Hewitt: Is he naïve, Mr. Vice President? Or does he have a far-reaching vision that only he entertains of a realigned Middle East that somehow it all works out in the end?

D. Cheney: I don’t know, Hugh. I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing. I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had.

The questioning turned to the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the trial and conviction of Dick Cheney’s former aide Scooter Libby, whom the former V.P. strongly believes was railroaded. Then Hewitt asked the Iran deal and Congress:

Hewitt: Last question, and we have a minute, Mr. Vice President, so I’ll end with you. Do you think President Obama’s Iran deal is headed to a Woodrow Wilson-like League of Nations defeat in the Congress?

D. Cheney: I think it is. My sense of it is that the members of Congress are much more realistic in their expectations of what Iran is prepared to do. They’re familiar with the history. They know the background. They’ve been around long enough, and I think are far more realistic in their assessments of Iran than Barack Obama is. I trust the Congress at this stage, not the President.

Also see:

The Ideological Islamist Threat



The radicals are waging a war of ideas the West refuses to fight.

WSJ, Feb. 18, 2015:

President Obama opened this week’s White House Conference on Violent Extremism with a speech about community-based counter-radicalization efforts, and his Administration is being roundly mocked for its refusal to use terms like “Muslim terrorism” or “Islamism.” The mockery is deserved. Foreign policy is not a Harry Potter tale of good versus He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. And war cannot be won against an enemy we refuse to describe except in meaningless generalities.

But there is a deeper problem with the Administration’s semantic dodges. Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Boko Haram and other jihadist groups are waging more than a military conflict. They are also waging an increasingly successful ideological war for the soul of Islam and its 1.6 billion followers.

Their version of jihad is gaining adherents precisely because it is motivated by an idea that challenges the values and beliefs of moderate Islam, the West and modernity. The free and non-fanatic world won’t win this deeper struggle if the Obama Administration refuses even to acknowledge its nature.

The 9/11 Commission Report put this front and center. Its second chapter, “The Foundation of the New Terrorism,” traces what it calls “ Bin Ladin ’s Appeal in the Islamic World.” It discusses the late al Qaeda leader’s faith in “a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith.” It underscores bin Laden’s reliance on Muslim theologians, from Ibn Taimiyyah in the 14th century to Sayyid Qutb in the 20th. And it explains how bin Laden turned Islam into a licence for murder.

“Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahilyya,” referring to a world of licentiousness and unbelief. “No middle ground exists. . . . All Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.”

None of this is denied in the Muslim world, which is well aware of the increasingly radical bent of mainstream Islamist theology. Not for nothing did Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi recently visit Cairo’s al-Azhar university, Sunni Islam’s premier center of religious learning, to warn leading clerics of where Islam is heading: “Let me say it again, we need to revolutionize our religion.”

That’s exactly right, but it’s hard to see how such a revolution might take place—much less who might carry it out—if Islam can barely be mentioned in the context of a conference on “violent extremism.” In his speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged that “al Qaeda and ISIL do draw selectively from the Islamic texts,” and he called on Muslim leaders to reject grievance narratives against the West.

But the President also insisted that the West must never grant al Qaeda and Islamic State “the religious legitimacy they seek” by suggesting they are Muslim religious leaders rather than mere terrorists. That’s a fine sentiment, but it elides the fact that the two categories aren’t mutually exclusive. The Islamic State may speak for only a minority of Muslims, but it is nothing if not Islamic in its beliefs, methods and aims. Ignoring that reality for the sake of avoiding injured feelings helps nobody, least of all Islamic State’s many Muslim victims or Islam’s would-be reformers.

The useful analogy here is to the Cold War, when the world was also challenged by an ideology that professed its superiority over an allegedly decadent West. The difference then is that Western leaders didn’t shrink from describing the evil of that ideology and defending the superiority of our way of life. The same needs to be done now.

This will have to include more sophisticated arguments to counter radical Islamism. Jihadist ideology has gained millions of adherents because it makes fundamental claims about personal virtue and social justice. Countering that narrative requires something more than making an appeal, as State Department spokesperson Marie Harf did this week, to working on “root causes” such as insufficient schooling and job opportunities in the Arab world. There is little or no correlation between poverty and Islamist extremism, many of whose most notorious figures are wealthy and well-educated.

It will also require far more support for reform-minded Muslims, from granting political asylum to persecuted Muslim intellectuals to funding civil society groups seeking to spread liberal concepts of individual liberty and religious tolerance.

Above all, we need to recognize that the strength of radical Islamists is directly correlated to their battlefield success, and the growing perception that they are the strong horse against moderate Muslim leaders. Communist ideology lost its appeal when it was seen to fail against the prosperity and freedom of the West. Islamic State will lose its allure when it is defeated and humiliated in the arena it cares about most, which is the battlefield. Mr. Obama and other Western leaders must summon the will to win the war on the ground, or they will find themselves in permanent retreat in the war of ideas.

CIA expert: Obama, Osama share Mideast goal

Clare Lopez

Clare Lopez

WND, By GARTH KANT, 8/13/14:

WASHINGTON – Clare Lopez looks more like the prototypical all-American mother she is than the highly trained government spy she was for 20 years.

Sitting across the table at a Washington eatery, the somewhat petite, charming blonde with a friendly and engaging smile was generally soft-spoken but often emphatic in delivery, especially while unloading a bombshell analysis that turned the common understanding of U.S. foreign policy on its head.

According to the former CIA operative, President Obama’s plan for the Middle East is just what Osama bin Laden wanted: removing U.S. troops and putting the jihadis in power.

Lopez spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. She currently manages the counterjihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

Lopez told WND she sees a pattern in Obama’s actions, or inaction, that reveals his blueprint for the Middle East and Northern Africa is to let the warring jihadi factions, the Sunnis and the Shiites, divide the region into two spheres of influence, and for the U.S. to withdraw.

“The administration’s plan, I believe, is to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands,” Lopez asserted.

When WND remarked that was just what Osama bin Laden had demanded, Lopez pointed out that is the aim of all jihadis, “Because that is what Islam demands, that foreign forces be kicked out of Islamic lands.”

Does Obama think if we leave the Mideast the jihadis will then leave us alone?

“I don’t know,” she said. “I can just see the pattern that is enabling the rise of Islam, empowering the Muslim Brotherhood domestically and abroad, alienating and distancing ourselves from our friends and allies and debilitating the American military.”

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden

Even if she doesn’t have inside information, the former spy said, “I can see what he is doing; it seems to be a clear agenda. It is clear that is what he is doing.”

WND spoke with Lopez about the current crisis in Iraq, in which the Islamic terrorist army ISIS has blitzed across the country, capturing large chunks of territory while slaughtering Christians and other Muslims and threatening genocide. In a wide-ranging interview, the foreign policy expert also assessed the current state of the Mideast.

She believes Obama’s hesitance in the face of the horrific violence in the current crisis comes from a basic mistake, not recognizing the true motivation of the jihadis is an ideology of relentless conquest.

But she isn’t advocating a return to the Iraq War. Lopez believes the U.S. should protect its interests and those minorities facing genocide, but otherwise, let the warring parties sort it out, for the time being.

Lopez believes regimes such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey play all sides of the jihadi game and have “enabled a monster in ISIS” they can no longer control, and “they should be allowed to reap what they’ve sown.” Furthermore, she maintained, U.S. leadership has proven incapable of sorting out who’s who or who’s backing whom.

Besides, she observed, there isn’t much else left for the U.S. to protect in Iraq.

When WND asked her if Iraq is lost, she had a startling but succinct reaction: “Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. I liken it to Humpy-Dumpty. It’s fallen off the wall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put it back together again.”

Given that bleak assessment, the former CIA operative described what she believes the U.S. must now do to preserve its core interests in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf region:

  • Protect American personnel and facilities at the Embassy in Baghdad and the Irbil and Basra consulates with either airstrikes or evacuation.
  • Provide as much humanitarian aid as possible to beleaguered minorities facing genocide, as well as to friendly countries like Jordan that are burdened with overwhelming economic demands to care for millions of refugees.
  • Stand by allies and partners in the region, especially Israel and Jordan.
  • Help the Kurds survive by providing diplomatic support, intelligence, logistics and modern weapons.
  • Deploy a Special Forces capability to the region to gather intelligence and provide early warning of threats to U.S. interests, and provide the ability to project power and influence as required.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently criticized Obama for not arming what she called moderate rebels in Syria when the civil war there began, which, she claimed, could have prevented the rise of ISIS.

WND asked Lopez if it really would have been possible to form a credible, non-Islamist, fighting force.

“No, I don’t think it was possible to find a truly credible, capable, pro-Western force in Syria,” she said. “Yes, there were those who were not jihadi. Early in the conflict in Syria, in 2011, there were (acceptable) groups. There were military defectors from Assad’s regime who could have been classified as genuinely secular. Pro-Western? Not so sure. Genuinely pro-democracy? Not so sure.”

(Lopez also explained she doesn’t use the term Islamists, “because I can’t figure out a difference between Islam and Islamism. It’s either Islam or it’s not Islam. They are either Muslim or have declared themselves not to be Muslims, in which case, they’re apostates.”)

When WND asked whether the U.S. should have armed those groups, the former CIA operative said she was not sure that would have been effective, simply because their numbers were never going to be credible and significant enough in size and capability to overthrow Assad.

Did Obama really have bad intelligence on ISIS, as he had claimed?

Lopez said it was hard to know, but he was “certainly getting bad intel” in general.

“The CIA has proved it is completely incapable of operating in this environment,” she said. “But I’m not on the inside, and can’t be sure what they are telling him. What we do know is what we see.”

As an example, she described how U.S. special forces were sent to Jordan to train people who turned out to be jihadis, even though it was reported they “vetted everybody.”

“They vetted them and asked, ‘Did you ever belong to al-Qaida?’ and they said ‘Oh, no – not me!’ But did they ever ask them what their ideology was? They’re not allowed to. We’re not allowed to define our enemy so how can we even identify our enemy? So, we fall into things like this where we actually train future ISIS jihadis, according to the Jordanian security officials.”

Lopez lauded the reporting of WND’s Aaron Klein in exposing the U.S training of what would become ISIS troops, saying, “Aaron is super. I did a radio interview with him in Tel Aviv. He is a very good reporter, very careful.”

Regardless of the quality of our intelligence, somehow, she said, we still ended up training the bad guys.

“We gave them tactics, intelligence and arms,” she noted.

Purported ISIS massacre in Iraq

Although it is often said the devil is in the details, in this instance, Lopez said the problem is really the administration’s myopic view of the big picture.

The analyst described a U.S. leadership that simply no longer recognizes the threat posed by the jihadist agenda, whether from ISIS or Iran, to U.S. regional interests, to friends and allies and, eventually, to the homeland itself.

“This sort of understanding demands a sharp reversal of existing policy that refuses even to acknowledge the Islamic ideology that animates this enemy’s threat doctrine. Only once that basic professional responsibility is met can an overall strategic policy that makes any sense be formulated and implemented.”

Lopez spoke of three keys to understanding the big picture and what is wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

  • One was the aforementioned failure by the administration to appreciate that the jihadis are motivated by ideology, not political grievances.
  • Another was the fact Obama appears bent upon empowering rather than confronting Iran.
  • And, last but not least, she asserts the jihadist organization the Muslim Brotherhood has deeply infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

‘Obama wants to empower Iran’

Lopez doesn’t just think Obama wants to withdraw entirely from the Mideast.

She believes he wants to turn most of it over to Iran.

“I am convinced that this administration intends Iran to become the nuclear power hegemon of the entire Persian Gulf region – and that includes especially the oil-rich areas. This includes the east coast of Saudi Arabia as well as southern Iraq and Iran itself.”

Lopez said the key to understand the president’s behavior is in a book written by a fellow former-CIA operative, “The Devil We Know,” by Robert Baer.

“I now believe this book is the blueprint for the Obama administration’s Middle East plan,” she explained.

She strongly disagrees with the book’s premise that the U.S. should empower and partner with Iran, and says it is mistaken on a number of points, but it is still important because the recommendations it made to the then-incoming administration in 2009 seem to have been adopted by Obama.

Lopez said the author knows Saudi Arabia very well and absolutely hates the Saudis. His premise was the Obama administration ought to assist Iran to become the dominant power of the Persian Gulf, and, essentially, the entire Middle East.

“I am not making this up. You can’t make this up to save your life,” she marveled.

Lopez said the book advises America to seek a truce with Iran, deal with it as an equal and reach settlements on one issue at a time, “until Iran is ready for détente and maybe more.”

And, she believes the Obama administration is, in fact, following a plan to let Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East, with the intention of turning the state that sponsors more terrorism than any other, into a security partner of the U.S.

The Persian Gulf

“We pull all our forces out, which has been done, and we let them take over,” Lopez explained. “I think that’s already underway. This book’s argument says Iran should be enabled to do exactly what it is doing, which is take over the entire Persian Gulf region.”

She then quoted from the book: “We cannot and should not stand in the way of Iran’s quest to dominate Islam.” That includes throwing Israel under the bus, she added.

WND asked why the Obama administration would do something, were it known, that would be widely perceived as opposed to the best interest of the U.S.

“Its not in the United States’ best interests, but it is one way of getting us out of Muslim lands, which is what this administration wants done. They are trying to be even-handed between the Shiites and the Sunni, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood clamoring in their ear,” she said. “So, what happens? Arab Spring. North Africa goes to the Sunnis: al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. They should be happy with that: They get Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. The Persian Gulf region goes to Iran.”

And Iran is permitted to be a nuclear power.

“I think it already is a nuclear power,” Lopez said. “I think they have functioning warheads. They obviously have functioning missiles, including ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). The Pentagon has published openly its estimate by next year, 2015, Iranian ICBMs will be capable of reaching the continental U.S. from Iran. This is open, unclassified, open-source publication.”

WND noted that made sense out of remarks Obama recently made that we were witnessing “a transition from an old order to a new order” in the Mideast, along with “the terrible violence that occurs as a result,” which seemed to indicate he believed the bloodshed was akin to birth pains.

Lopez said Americans have no clue what he is talking about, which is dividing the Middle East between two sets of jihadis, Sunni and Shiite.

Just in case it wasn’t already clear enough, she spelled out exactly what Obama’s plan would mean: A return to the barbaric past of the Dark Ages.

“So, the plan of this administration is to pull out of the Middle East, allow it to revert to Islamic control, as in the caliphates of old, or imamates, in the case of the Shiites. And to allow Islam to resurge, which is exactly what’s happening.”

WND asked, Obama’s plan is to take us back 1,300 years?

“Well, not us, but to let the Middle East do that,” she clarified.

“There have been monkey wrenches,” she said. “Syria was supposed to be (reserved) for Iran and under the control of (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad. He winds up with a rump state. Syria is another Humpty-Dumpty. Also, the Kurds are a fly in the ointment. They are Muslims, but not jihadis. They should be our natural allies in the Middle East. Recent events have forced the hand of the administration to assist the Kurds, especially as they are assisting such minorities as Yezidis and Christians to escape this savage slaughter.”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Lopez described how the administration had no other option but to support the Kurds now because ISIS has captured so much top-of-the-line American weaponry from the fleeing Iraqis, and they now have access to income from the oil wells they’ve captured as well as their income from kidnap ransoms.

She added, none of the shocking ISIS behavior, including beheadings and attempted genocide, should be considered strange or unknown, because “it is totally in keeping with Islamic doctrine. There is nothing ISIS is doing that is not what Muhammad did. It is completely according to Islamic doctrine, law and scripture, as well as Muhammad’s biography. But people now look at it and they’re horrified, as we all should be.”

But why, WND asked, would Obama have threatened to bomb Assad last summer for his alleged use of chemical weapons, if he wanted to see Iran’s influence spread?

That brought her to what she described as the biggest problem in the big picture, the influence of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood over the U.S. government.

‘The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government’

Lopez said Obama only threatened Assad, “because of the infiltration of his government by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are clamoring in his ear at the National Security Council, ‘Do something, do something.’”

“They wanted help for their Muslim Brotherhood brothers. But the Middle East and Syria is designated for Iran, so what’s Obama gonna do? He decided on half and half. Give the Muslim Brotherhood Sunnis a little bit of aid, but not enough to overturn Assad. Make the Brotherhood happy. But don’t overturn Assad. And, at the same time, back and support Iran to be the hegemon.”

Lopez said, in addition to infiltrating the administration, the Brotherhood has established influence over many branches of the federal government over the last few decades.

She asserted the infiltration accelerated in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, picked up even more steam during the George W. Bush administration and is now in “hyper-drive” during the Obama administration.

The analyst maintains that infiltration has caused our elected political leadership, political appointees, the intelligence community and the military to all become “gradually blindfolded to what actual Islam really is.”

“They became incapable of seeing the history of Islam, the doctrine, the law, the scripture that motivates and animates Islamic terrorism,” she explained. “Those things became divorced. You were not allowed to talk about them anymore. Between 2011 and 2012 there was an actual purge in our government that removed hundreds of pages of presentations, PowerPoint presentations, curriculum and the instructors. They were taken out of all government curriculum, including the military.”

How could this have happened?

“It was done under the request, pressure and urging of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, as a matter of fact, were the advisers who oversaw the purge. They were the ones who actually supervised the purge.”

Through intermediaries?

“No, directly,” she replied. “They were tapped to become advisers about what should be removed from the curriculum.”

Was this when former Egyptian Muhammad President Morsi was still in office in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was our supposed ally?

Lopez said the purge of references to Islamic terrorism in U.S. government materials occurred from late 2011 into 2012. Morsi became president in the summer of 2012, so the purge was well under way before that.

“But it was the purge and the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood within our leadership that predisposed the Obama administration to be supportive of the Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere through what they call the Arab Spring.”

Lopez said the closest adviser for the National Security Council has been an imam named Muhammad Magid.

“He heads up something called the ADAMS Center, the ‘All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center,’ near Dulles airport. He is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood’s grand mufti of Sudan. He is also the president of something called ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim Brotherhood front group in the country. And, ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding trial.

Imam Muhammad Magid

Indeed, in February 2013, WND’s Diana West warned that Magid was working with the National Security Council with the support of John Brennan, who for four years was the president’s top counterterrorism adviser and is now CIA director. West reported then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough also heaped praise on Magid. McDonough is now Obama’s chief of staff.

WND also reported that one of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam even claims that Brennan became a Muslim while serving overseas. Brennan did, indeed, serve as CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the 1990s.

Whether the claim about Brennan is true or not, from the above accounts, it appears Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the Obama administration could not have reached much higher.

Lopez explained that ISNA’s close connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is indisputable.

“ISNA is actually listed by the Muslim Brotherhood on its own documents called the ‘Explanatory Memorandum,’ which was submitted in evidence at that Holy Land Foundation trial; that’s how we know about it. The last page is a list of organizations, and it says it’s a list of our friends and the organizations of our friends. And ISNA is one of them.”

Lopez’s Center for Security Policy describes the Explanatory Memorandum as the guide to the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals, modus operandi and infrastructure in America, as written in 1991 by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was “certainly not intended for public consumption.”

“Magid, the head of ISNA, is probably the closest adviser to our national security council. Inside the White House,” she said. “See how this works?”

So, WND asked, the enemy is our consultant on how to deal with our enemy?

Lopez said, not only that, but “all of this infiltration completely suborns our national security apparatus.”

“They’re very smart,” she added. “These guys are not camel-jockeys with towels on their heads. These are sophisticated operators. This has been going on for more than 1,300 years. It just happens that we live in the 21st century. That doesn’t make us unique or immune or in some kind of historical bubble.”

Is cultural jihad a bigger threat than the military jihad?

The former CIA operative said that is true inside the United States, but in the Middle East, the bigger threat is military conquest.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is the vanguard of Islam and Islamic jihad. The forces of Islam, historically, have conquered every, single major civilization they’ve ever taken on, except for two. Western Civilization, or whatever’s left of it, and the Han Chinese. The Muslims have defeated the Buddhists, the Byzantines, Christianity in the Middle East, Jews in the Middle East, Hindus and the Persians. This includes huge, sophisticated civilizations.”

Did Muslims conquer those civilizations by using the same methods as they are applying against us?

“In part, yes. Infiltration first. Co-option and subordination of leadership. These are intelligence terms, okay? I recognize this because of my background. Infiltration and subordination from within are intelligence operations. These are information operations. We are completely ignoring the information battle space and yet that is the one where they are defeating us first.”

Lopez described terrorist acts such as Sept. 11 as “punctuation marks” for the overall campaign. She described the attacks as warnings that say, “Look, we can do this to you, you can’t stop us from doing this to you, and if you don’t shape up and accept what we’re telling you to accept, you’re going to get more of it.” It’s also punishment because the West has not accepted the call to Islam.


She said to remember that Osama bin Laden gave us two warnings because Islamic doctrine obligates them to do that, and we should take them seriously when they warn us.

In her criticism of Obama’s Mideast policy, Clinton advised practicing containment against radical Islam. WND asked if instead of seeking an elusive peaceful coexistence, should the U.S. pursue a more Reaganesque policy of confronting and defeating the enemy?

“Certainly peace through strength should be our policy. But, when you’re talking about containment, it sort of brings up this image of ‘They’re over there, and we can just draw this barrier around them and hold them in.’”

She said there is a bigger problem.

“They’re already inside the wire,” she said. “They’re already deeply embedded inside our own national security infrastructure. It’s no longer a question of manning the barricades and pointing outward. They are inside.”

The former operative advised going back to an intelligence-led strategy that understands information operations, stealth operations, and how to conduct counter-intelligence within our own ranks.

“Very much as back in the ’30s, ’40s and the ’50s, when the communists infiltrated our government, and the same phenomenon took place, our top leadership refused to acknowledge that, refused to accept it, refused to confront it, even to the point that Joe McCarthy was vilified. And he was 100 percent correct about communist infiltration, as documents released after the collapse of the Soviet Union verified.”

WND noted she was identifying our top priority as cleaning out our own stables, but that even a change to a hawkish administration would not, by itself, improve security.

“No,” she said. “Unless they understand the things I’ve just been telling you, that won’t help. This infiltration took place over multiple administrations. It’s not a partisan thing. It’s institutional now.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Daniel Greenfield on “How Obama Surrendered Iraq” – on The Glazov Gang

Front Page:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He writes the blog, The Point, at

Daniel discussed “How Obama Surrendered Iraq,” outlining a Radical-in-Chief’s suicidal foreign policy [starting at the 8:30 mark].

The dialogue also involved an analysis of Obama’s disastrous Afghanistan give-away, more revelations on the Benghazi betrayal, the scandalous Taliban-Bergdahl swap, and much, much more:

Krauthammer: Obama’s West Point Speech ‘Literally Pointless’


Washington Free Beacon:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer called President Obama’s foreign policy address at West Point Wednesday “literally pointless,” adding it was “weak and defensive” and questioning using the platform of the U.S. Military Academy’s graduation to answer his critics.

“I think the speech was literally pointless,” he said on Special Report. “It was a defensive speech. It was an answer to the chorus of criticism, even from his side of the aisle, that it’s been a weak, leaderless, rudderless foreign policy, which it has been …  He set out this ridiculous contrast between extreme isolationism on the one hand and almost a caricature of intervention on the other … There’s not a person in American who’s asking for boots on the ground in Syria or in Ukraine … I think it was a very weak and defensive speech and there was no response from any of the cadets. It was quiet as a mouse.”

Krauthammer said a congressional source who served in the armed forces thought there was a “real pettiness and personalization” to Obama’s address, which drew bipartisan disdain. One CNN reporter even said the response by the cadets to Obama was “pretty icy.”

The Weekly Standard‘s Steve Hayes simply said Obama’s echoes of criticism of former President George W. Bush’s policies were a sign he “doesn’t really know what he’s doing.”

“He doesn’t have a clear foreign policy vision,” Hayes said. “The best way to define himself is to define himself in opposition to those who have criticized him. The problem with this speech was it was an attempt to retroactively impose some kind of doctrine on the chaos we’ve lived through over the past five-and-a-half years. It’s been an inconsistent, incoherent, sloppy foreign policy for five-and-a-half years with no apparent vision from the Commander in Chief, from the President of the United States.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson said Obama didn’t come close to solving his foreign problems with the speech, pointing out Obama’s habit of creating straw men in his addresses on both sides and positioning himself between them.

“What jumped out at me was how familiar it was,” Liasson said. “He pretty much reiterated his foreign policy approach, which is to set up two extremes, kind of cartoonish extremes, one, isolationism, the other, boots on the ground everywhere, and say ‘Hey, I’m not for either of those. We have to be strong, we have to lead, but we don’t always have to take military action.’”