Yes, Trump’s Going to Dump the Iran Deal

2382670775-1

Center for Security Policy, by Fred Fleitz, November 14, 2016:

In the days following Donald Trump’s victory, a variety of experts — mostly Trump critics — pronounced that, despite Trump’s frequent statements during the presidential campaign that the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran is one of “the worst deals ever made by any country in history,” he has no choice but to stick with the agreement after he assumes office.

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif was one of the first to insist as much, claiming a Trump administration cannot back out of the nuclear deal because it is not a bilateral agreement between the United States and Iran but “an international understanding annexed to a Security Council resolution.”

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (which The Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith once described as “the tip of the spear of the Iran lobby” in the United States) echoed Zarif’s statement. In a November 11 Foreign Policy article, he argued Trump can undermine the Iran deal but cannot directly dismantle it because the JCPOA is a multilateral agreement “codified by the UN Security Council.” Any attempt by a Trump administration to renegotiate the deal would violate international law and isolate the United States, Parsi said.

Even some conservative experts have suggested Trump probably won’t try to significantly modify or discard the nuclear agreement, but will instead try to goad Iran into withdrawing by strictly enforcing the deal.

But Trump senior national-security adviser Walid Phares poured cold water on speculation that Trump plans to walk back his statements about the Iran deal, when he commented on Facebook over the weekend that the “Iran Deal will be dismantled.”

phares-iran-deal

This firm statement by Phares confirmed previous statements he and Mr. Trump have made that the deal is a dangerous agreement that needs to be either significantly renegotiated or abandoned. As an expert who has followed the Iran nuclear program for many years inside and outside of government, I would like to expand on their statements by offering three key points about the nature of the deal and ten guidelines for renegotiating it.

1. The Iran deal is a dangerous fraud.

Donald Trump was exactly right when he called the Iran deal a “horrible” and “disastrous” agreement. The U.S. agreed to huge concessions to get this agreement, from no restrictions on Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism to no inspections of military facilities. There were secret side deals withheld from Congress that permitted Iran to inspect itself for past nuclear-weapons work and receive secret planeloads of cash in exchange for freeing U.S. hostages. To get the $150 billion in sanctions relief Iran wanted, there was another secret side deal — also withheld from the U.S. Congress — which granted Tehran exemptions for failing to meet some of the agreement’s key requirements.

So what did the United States get for these concessions?

Not much. The Obama administration claims the deal keeps Iran a year away from a nuclear deal for ten to 15 years. But in fact, the time to an Iranian nuclear bomb will drop dramatically under the deal, since Iran will be able to enrich uranium, develop advanced centrifuges, and, with Chinese assistance, finish construction of a heavy-water nuclear reactor that will produce one-quarter of a weapon’s worth of plutonium per year.

It will be very hard to verify the agreement since military sites — where Iran is likely to conduct covert nuclear-weapons work — are off limits to inspectors. The deal dumbed down the IAEA’s quarterly Iran reports, making it difficult for the world to know the true extent of Iran’s compliance. Certainly, there already have been reports of significant Iranian cheating.

Further, the deal was supposed to improve Iran’s international behavior.

Instead, from ballistic-missile tests to increased support to Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Tehran’s behavior in the Middle East has significantly worsened. Just in the last year, Iran has captured and held at gunpoint ten U.S. sailors and fired anti-ship missiles at American and UAE ships. Is this what a new era of cooperation with Iran was supposed to look like?

2. The deal is not legally binding on us.

Knowing that a bipartisan majority of Congress opposed the nuclear deal and that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it as a treaty, the Obama administration arranged to go around the Senate by negotiating the deal as an executive agreement endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. Because Security Council resolutions are binding on all U.N. members, it could therefore be argued that the nuclear deal was binding on the United States even though it had not been ratified by the Senate.

But that is not how our constitutional order works. American presidents historically have decided which international agreements are to be treated as treaties, but the Iran deal specified that it be ratified by the Iranian parliament.

If President Obama wanted to make a long-term international agreement binding on the United States, he needs consent from Congress. Anything else is a serious affront to the Constitution, and no U.N. endorsement changes that.

(This is not the only example of President Obama’s lawless approach to international agreements: The Paris climate-change agreement was deliberately negotiated to make it binding on the United States without Senate ratification and difficult for a future U.S. president to cancel. The same principles apply, however, and I expect President Trump pull out of the climate agreement as soon as possible.)

3. It’s not a true multilateral agreement.

The Obama administration also attempted to entrench the Iran deal making it a multilateral agreement, but this was just window-dressing.

The deal is technically a multilateral pact agreed to by Iran, the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but it is actually a bilateral agreement negotiated almost entirely between the United States and Iran. Iran has only looked to the United States for additional concessions since the deal was announced, and if we want to end the deal, we can.

So it is clear the deal must be either discarded or substantially renegotiated, and that we have every right to do so.

The first steps to renegotiation should be (1) assembling a new anti-Iran coalition of our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states, and (2) imposing new sanctions on Iran in response to its nuclear program, ballistic-missile program, sponsorship of terrorism, and belligerent behavior. Russia and China could be allowed into the new coalition, but they should not be given a veto over any new agreement. This coalition also must be kept out of the United Nations.

Building the new coalition and renegotiating the agreement won’t be the easiest task, but given Iran’s belligerent behavior and the power new U.S. sanctions can have, a strong president and secretary of state can do it.

An agreement that truly addresses the threat from Iran’s nuclear program and the wider threats Iran poses will require reversing all of the irresponsible concessions made to Iran by the Obama administration.

Such negotiations must start from the following ten guidelines:

  1. Iran must cease all uranium enrichment and uranium-enrichment research.
  2. Iran cannot have a heavy-water reactor or a plant to produce heavy water.
  3. Iran agrees to robust verification, including “anytime, anywhere” inspections by IAEA inspectors of all declared and suspect nuclear sites.
  4. Iran must fully and truthfully answer all questions about its past nuclear-weapons-related work.
  5. Iran must agree to limitations on its ballistic-missile program.
  6. Sanctions will only be lifted in stages, in response to Iranian compliance with the agreement.
  7. Iran must agree to end its meddling in regional conflicts and its sponsorship of terror.
  8. Threats by Iran to ships in the Persian Gulf, U.S. naval vessels, and American troops must stop.
  9. Iran must cease its hostility toward Israel.
  10. Iran must release all U.S. prisoners.

Renegotiating or terminating the Iran deal will not just end the threat from a dangerous international agreement.

It will signify that this agreement was an aberration by an incompetent U.S. president who tried to subvert the U.S. Constitution, and it would send a powerful message to the world that the Obama administration’s policies of American weakness and appeasement are over.

Trump critics have argued that renegotiating or terminating the nuclear deal would isolate the United States and hurt America’s global stature. But in reality, President Obama’s foreign policy has already undermined America’s reputation around the world.

Fixing or killing the Iran nuclear deal will be President Trump’s first step toward restoring America’s global leadership.

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org.

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

A bill that enjoys bipartisan support is already making its way through Congress. YOU can help speed up that process.

Clarion Project, November 13, 2016:

Donald Trump will work to pass legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, said Walid Phares, a foreign policy advisor for the president-elect.

Speaking to the Egyptian news outlet Youm7, Phares said the legislation, which was already approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was held up due to the Obama administration’s support of the group.

Clarion Project spearheaded a campaign to educate legislators and move the bill forward over the past year.  The bill currently has bipartisan support.

See below for a list of senators and representatives and their stance on the bill and what you can do to move the bill forward.

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the bill, which identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

You can read Clarion’s thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The bill included is an unprecedented opportunity to educate members of Congress about the Muslim Brotherhood‘s involvement in terrorism.  It reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it is banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The bill also outlines how the Brotherhood is linked to CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The U.S. designated the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas— in 1997, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S.

You can tell your representatives to support the legislation in less than one minute by using our online form.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

 

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

 

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA)  

 

 

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

 

Click here to easily contact your representatives with just a few clicks! Please let us know if you receive a position statement.

FBI counter-terror expert sees historic Islam pivot

CCTV image of three suspected jihadists in Brussels airport bombing March 22, 2016

CCTV image of three suspected jihadists in Brussels airport bombing March 22, 2016

WND, by Leo Hohmann, March 25, 2016:

The Muslim Brotherhood and its various offshoots have chosen 2016 as the year they will turn their focus away from the Middle East and toward the Western democracies seen as ripe for revolutionary activity, says a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and Islam expert.

The revolutionary jihad movement that swept through the Middle East and North Africa as part of the “Arab Spring” is starting to take root in Europe with attacks already carried out on Paris and Brussels, said John Guandolo.

This movement will eventually spread to the United States, said Guandolo, a former Marine and instructor at the U.S. Army War College who now provides training to law enforcement agencies that want to learn more about the jihadist network in the U.S.

That network is operated, he said, by the International Muslim Brotherhood through its many front organizations. Among them are the Muslim-American Society, or MAS; Muslim Student Association, or MSA; Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR; Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA; and North American Islamic Trust, or NAIT.

John Guandolo

John Guandolo

Guandolo, author of the book “Raising a Jihadi Generation,” said the Muslim Brotherhood is teaming up with the Black Lives Matter movement to create violent events that will surprise many police agencies in cities across the U.S.

He said parts of the strategy leaked out at the annual convention of the Muslim-American Society on Dec. 28, 2015, in Chicago.

Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, was very upfront about the U.S. Muslim community’s embracing of Black Lives Matter.

“We have direct evidence of Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas working with anarchists and Black Lives Matter,” Guandolo told WND. “You have Nihad Awad saying, ‘Black Lives Matter is our matter,’ and ‘2016 is our year to make our mark.’”

At that same convention, another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Khalilah Sabra, the executive director and project developer for the Muslim Society of America’s Immigrant Justice Center, was even more blunt.

“We are the community that staged a revolution across the world,” she said. “If we can do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?”

Watch video of Nihad Awad and Khalilah Sabra speaking at the MAS-ICNA Convention:

Khalilah Sabra

Khalilah Sabra

Guandolo sees a further coming together of the Muslim Brotherhood entities and the forces of radical revolutionaries associated with Black Lives Matter.

“Sabra is a senior executive in the Muslim Brotherhood, but she also represents the Department of Justice in their executive office of immigration review, and she’s saying we had a revolution in the Middle East, why can’t we have one in the U.S.?” Guandolo said. “That is astonishing. These two movements are taking parallel paths.”

While Brussels was one of the most unprotected and jihadist-friendly cities in Europe, other cities are also vulnerable, not only in Europe but in America, he said.

Making the same mistakes

Guandolo said the U.S. is probably less than 10 years behind Europe in terms of the advancement of Islam.

“You have a different situation here. We’re much larger than any of the countries in Europe, and we have some significant cultural differences. But we are making the same mistakes,” Guandolo said.

“We have Jewish and Christian leaders falling over themselves to kiss the asses of Muslims, and they clearly have no clue to what Islam teaches — when Muslims are teaching one another — nor do they understand the jihadi network here and that almost all the major U.S. Muslim organizations are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Guandolo is advising several states right now on security issues and has uploaded a wealth of information, including original source documents from the Muslim Brotherhood, on his website, Understanding The Threat.

“I do get a lot of these questions from state leaders, and I tell them, ‘You’re going to see individual acts of jihad,’ but you should think in terms of one precipitating event,” he said.

For example, in California a couple years ago, there was an attack on the power grid.

“And if they had not been able to shut that down quickly, you would have had a large portion of California without power for up to a year,” Guandolo said. “We still don’t know who did that, but it was a handful of individuals armed with weapons and wire cutters, and that could have been a huge precipitating event followed by riots and shootings. You just can’t make this stuff up. They are preparing the battlefield in every way, and we are asleep at the wheel.”

Guandolo still works in law enforcement and once commanded a SWAT unit in Washington, D.C.

“I can tell you most SWAT teams are in no way prepared for what is coming,” he said. “And I’m not talking about their equipment. They are just not mentally prepared for real, raging battle, a battle that can last eight to 10 hours on the streets. They’re not prepared for that, but that’s where we are heading.”

10,000 ISIS fighters ready to launch attacks?

While the Islamic movement is still largely focused on the Muslim world – trying to get Muslims to be Shariah compliant and to support jihad in places like Egypt, Syria, North Africa and Asia – that is getting ready to change.

“Formerly more moderate countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey and Jordan,” he said, are being pressured to become more hardline.

“So their focus, per their stated strategy by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood since 2010, really was focusing on the Muslim world. But this is the year that their strategy is supposed to turn,” Guandolo said. “They’re entering that time where they turn focus to the West.”

“So just imagine that instead of 400 fighters in Europe ready to launch attacks, just imagine if it were 10,000 of them going into Italy and storming Rome,” he added. “We think that’s incomprehensible but I would say we need to prepare for that. That day is coming. Our leaders have no clue about the history of the West’s battle with Islam. The West has fought nine wars with Islam. It’s getting ready to happen again.”

Among the presidential candidates, Guandolo sees some who he considers a work in progress and some who will never wake up to reality because they have too many ties to the wrong people.

None of the candidates are schooled in the strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood to the extent that is needed, he said, but Ted Cruz and Donald Trump offer hope that they can get up to speed based on some of their early choices as foreign-policy advisers.

Walid Phares

Walid Phares

Trump, for instance, is getting advice from Walid Phares, a former senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Joseph E. Schmitz, a former Defense Department inspector general, both of whom Guandolo says “get it” about Shariah and jihad being the basis of Islamic teaching worldwide. These men received critical reviews in the New York Times, which said that, other than Phares, they were unknown to insiders, who were “left scratching their heads.”

In an interview Thursday with WND and Radio America, Phares, a Lebanese Christian scholar and Fox News terrorism analyst, said the fight against Islamic terror needs to be waged at the ideological level, not just with aggressive law enforcement.

Cruz’s choices of former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney was mocked by Politico, which said Cruz was drawing “from the anti-Islam fringe.”

If the establishment media are lambasting the choices by Trump and Cruz, that’s good news for conservatives who have been unhappy with the weak response of President Obama, who refuses to even utter the words “Islamic terrorism.”

Guandolo said Trump’s selection of Joe Schmitz is particularly hopeful.

“I know he understands Shariah and how it doesn’t work in our system, and he certainly understands the Muslim Brotherhood is all over this country and he understands their network,” Guandolo said.

“But then you have Mrs. Clinton, who just came out and said ‘we have a few extremists’ in Islam. Really? How many is a few? I don’t even know what that means at this point.”

States grappling with Muslim influx

Guandolo said even the most well-prepared, most conservative states, like Texas, have yet to fully grasp the extent of what they are up against. Texas has received more Muslim refugees than any other state other than California since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“In a state like Texas it’s interesting to look at the dynamics. There’s a huge jihadi presence there but you have a huge problem with false pride,” he said. “People are of the mindset ‘this is Texas, we’ll kick their butts,’ but the people they’re working with in the Muslim community are all jihadis. There’s also a huge number of people in the security community that understand what’s going on, that get it, but they fear they won’t be allowed to take action.”

Part of the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is to cast any criticism of Islam as “Islamophobic” thereby pitting Americans against Americans.

That strategy is working, Guandolo says.

“A lot of the problem is you’ve got communities battling themselves, as far as identifying the threat and what to do about it,” he said. “Humans will long tolerate great abuses, but there’s going to come a tipping point. The problem is that the tipping point for Americans – if it comes too far after the bad guys have had an advantage – we’re in trouble. That’s what’s happened in Europe. You’re dealing with leaders that are just psychotically disconnected from reality.”

The Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum” captured by the FBI in a 2004 raid lays out a strategy to use America’s own leaders and its own liberal policies to destroy the U.S. from within.

“The Muslim Brotherhood says it will destroy America … ‘by our hand,'” Guandolo said. “And so if they can get the leaders on their side while at the same time the people are waking up to what is really happening, it is their goal to destroy our faith, not just our faith in God but faith in our system, in our leadership, in our security apparatus. When citizens lose that faith and their leaders become so corrupt – not in the sense that they’re stealing money but in that they are not fulfilling their duties to protect – then you have set the stage for exactly what the Islamic jihadis want. So when they strike there is not an adequate response.”

The Explanatory Memorandum also revealed that nonviolent “civilization jihad” and later violent jihad will be launched from the mosques.

The U.S. now has upward of 2,500 mosques, and Guandolo says at least 75 percent of them are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood through NAIT and other organizations.

The coming tragedy

“So think about a Paris-type scenario in your town or city, where you have two or three explosions and grenades going off. Then you just marry up two or three other events around the country. They don’t have to be big events, just two guys going into a school with grenades and start sawing people’s heads off,” he said. “You will have Americans losing their minds. Government will say, ‘Simmer down, we don’t know what this was,’ when everybody who still has a functioning brain knows exactly what it was.”

Guandolo says the Brotherhood has been developing its network of mosques in the U.S. since the 1980s.

He said the key to understanding Islam is to listen to what the top Islamic thinkers and imams are saying to other Muslims, then disregard what they say to non-Muslims.

“Islam is what Islam says it is. When Muslims teach Muslims, when they teach one another, they say jihad is obligatory and Muhammad is the perfect example of a man and he is Allah’s messenger and he just went out and did jihad,” Guandolo said.

‘The worst of all creatures’

Is there a peaceful, mystical form of Islam?

Guandolo says there is, but you won’t find it preached in any mainstream American mosque.

“It’s in the homes of people who may self-identify as Muslims and are teaching their children there is a way to live outside of Shariah, but the fact is that is not taught in any mosque or Islamic school. And what they teach is what Islam is.”

He points to Surah 98:6 of the Quran.

“Allah said in Surah 98:6 that non-Muslims are the ‘worst of all creatures.’ That does not mean everyone who self identifies as a Muslim is living according to Shariah, but that is not Islam as taught in the mosque. When someone seeks to impose Shariah on someone else, they’re a threat and we need to be aggressively pursuing them and we are not.”

Dr. Walid Phares: ISIS in America

Jihad-in-America1In this short briefing, Walid Phares gives an overview of the “jihadist strata” in the U.S. beginning with with the Muslim Brotherhood’s arrival in the 1960’s and subsequent penetration of all of our institutions.

Published on Dec 28, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, December 15, 2015.

Also  see:

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: