Beyond the Iran Deal: Why Trump’s refusal to ‘kick the can’ just saved generations - Van Hipp

 

by Van Hipp

China and Russia are taking note that President Trump is different

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

The national security experts of the deep state called him "unqualified" when he sought the presidency in 2016. They said he was reckless. Some 50 former GOP national security officials said he "would put at risk our country’s national security." And even one former secretary of Defense called him "cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons." 

Turns out they really didn’t know much about Donald Trump. They didn’t understand that he viewed keeping the American people safe as his top responsibility as commander in chief. And they didn’t grasp his commitment to ensure that the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, a radical Islamist regime that had vowed "death to America," never acquired a nuclear weapon. 

The free world has long been concerned about Iran’s nuclear program.  And it’s their nuclear ambitions, when combined with the ever-increasing range of its ballistic missile capability, that poses the greatest threat. Over the years, steps have been undertaken to try and delay or slow down Iran’s nuclear efforts. The Stuxnet cyberattack in 2010 destroyed many spinning centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz facility. Experts believe this set Iran’s nuclear program back approximately two years.  Regardless of these efforts though, Iran would always reconstitute and expand its nuclear program, thumbing its nose at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) along the way.

Video

In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or "Iran Deal," was negotiated with U.S. government support, and the support of the vast majority of national security experts who opposed Trump’s candidacy in 2016. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then candidate Trump called it a "horrible, one-sided deal" because it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program, and that it would allow Iran’s nuclear efforts to continue as restrictions are phased out. Fortunately, in 2018, President Trump, determined that Iran would never have a nuclear weapon, formally withdrew the U.S. from the Iran deal.

To me, another non-starter for the Iran deal was that Americans were not permitted on IAEA inspection teams. As President Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, said at the time, "No Americans will be part of the IAEA team." This was ludicrous. The United States is the largest donor to the IAEA. American taxpayers provide over 25% of the IAEA’s budget. There should be an American on each IAEA inspection team.

Video

Iran has also exported its nuclear and ballistic missile know-how. It has been the chief enabler of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Using open-source intelligence (OSINT), I first revealed to Fox News in 2012 that Iranian experts were at a North Korea missile launch. I further revealed that Iran and North Korea were both using the same miniaturized nuclear warhead design that can be traced back to the infamous Pakistani scientist, Dr. A.Q. Khan. On September 1, 2012, in Tehran, North Korea signed an agreement with Iran focused on scientific and technological cooperation. During the visit of the North Korean delegation to Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei announced that both countries must reach goals despite pressure and sanctions from others. Japan’s Kyodo News Agency reported that after the agreement was signed, Iran stationed staff in North Korea to strengthen cooperation in missile and nuclear development.

We shouldn’t be surprised. As the Federation of American Scientists pointed out in the late 1980s, Iran has been in bed with North Korea since the early 1980s and helped fund North Korea’s missile development. When we look at Iran’s Shahab missile, we see it looks an awful lot like the North Korean Taepodong missile.

Video

 

Last year, on June 22, 2025, President Trump made the right decision with Operation Midnight Hammer to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. And he made the right decision with Operation Epic Fury, to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, a day after the IAEA reported suspicious activity at Iran’s uranium enrichment sites that were bombed last June. As Senator Lindsey Graham aptly put it, "The mothership of terrorism is sinking. The captain is dead. The largest state sponsor of terrorism — Iran — is close to collapsing." Earlier intelligence had also revealed that Iran was rebuilding its ballistic missile program last fall after receiving several shipments of sodium perchlorate from China. Sodium perchlorate is the main precursor of the propellant for Iran’s ballistic missiles. 

The elites who opposed President Trump from the start helped structure the Iran deal, which would have eventually allowed Iran to resume its nuclear ambitions. Prior administrations gave Iran a lifeline by transferring enormous sums of cash. President Trump, though, stuck with his gut that America, our children and our grandchildren, would not be safe with an Iran that possessed nuclear weapons, combined with long-range ballistic missile launch capability. He made the right decision for this, and future generations of Americans. And China and Russia are taking note that this president is different. The security of the American people is foremost with him, and he doesn’t kick the can down the road. The entire world is seeing what real American leadership looks like.

 

Van Hipp

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/beyond-iran-deal-why-trumps-refusal-kick-can-just-saved-generations

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

‘Very grave’ threat of Iranian sleeper cells in US, experts warn - Aaron Bandler

 

by Aaron Bandler

“The Iranians are going to strike us where we are least defended,” Michael Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute, told JNS.

 

An FBI agent listens to the operation pre-briefing for Operation Dead Hand in Los Angeles on Jan. 30, 2024. Credit: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Iranian sleeper cells in the United States are a concern that should be taken seriously in the aftermath of U.S. and Israeli strikes that killed Ali Khamenei and other Iranian regime leaders over the weekend, experts told JNS.

“They pose a very grave threat,” Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum, told JNS. “The Iranians are going to strike us where we are least defended.” 

Past incidents show that sleeper cells exist, including a thwarted 2011 Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to Rubin. In that plot, the Iranians were working with cartels “to whom they were outsourcing some of the operation,” he said.

“That’s what we need to be most worried about. An Iranian sleeper cell might not be comprised of Iranians. It might be an Iranian-hired cell tapping into other existing criminal networks,” Rubin told JNS. 

That shouldn’t be a surprise, since the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has interacted with Venezuelan and Bolivian drug dealers, according to Rubin. And when it came to the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, “the Iranians were relying on Lebanese emigres,” Rubin told JNS.

Most Popular

Trump’s critics have a lot riding on the Iran conflictMarch 2, 2026

Iran boasted of being able to produce 11 nuclear bombs, Witkoff saysMarch 3, 2026

‘50% of Iranian missile launchers destroyed’March 2, 2026

The bombing killed 85 people and injured more than 300. In April 2024, an Argentine court found that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible for the attack.

Rubin told JNS that when Iranian Americans visit Iran for benign reasons, “they are interrogated at the border, and any phone or computer that they have is basically going to be sucked dry.” 

If the Iranian regime found anything on their phones or computers that it can use as blackmail, it will do so now, according to Rubin.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, told JNS that the Iranian regime “has for many years attempted to establish capabilities and networks in the United States that are able to carry out such operations on demand at the decision of the Iranian leadership.”

“I think U.S. law enforcement, thankfully, has been quite effective in thwarting these plots in conjunction with our allies and partners around the world, but this is a threat,” he said. 

“There is a capability that the Iranian regime has. It maintains relationships with transnational criminal syndicates, and those transnational criminal syndicates have the ability to carry out operations in the United States,” Brodsky told JNS. “It should be taken seriously.”

Law-enforcement officials have addressed the matter. Kash Patel, director of the FBI, stated on Saturday that he “instructed our counterterrorism and intelligence teams to be on high alert and mobilize all assisting security assets needed” and that the FBI “remains at the forefront of deterring attacks here at home.” 

Kristi Noem, U.S. homeland security secretary, also stated that she is “in direct coordination with our federal intelligence and law enforcement partners as we continue to closely monitor and thwart any potential threats to the homeland.”

Rubin told JNS that law enforcement may be on top of the issue, but “if the Iranians try hard enough and have enough strategic patience, we do eventually let down our guard.” 

He cited the attempt to assassinate Salman Rushdie in 2022, which left the writer partially blind.

“Terrorists think outside the box, and unfortunately, the American security establishment is not very good at thinking outside the box,” Rubin said.

Based on past plots that the United States has thwarted, the Iranian regime targets current and former U.S. government officials, Iranian dissidents, Jewish community members and critics of the regime, according to Brodsky. 

The Iranian regime has sanctioned Brodsky, his boss, and United Against Nuclear Iran, he told JNS.

“It’s not just that they’re freezing the nonexistent assets that we have in Iran, or denying us our ability to travel to Iran when we would never do so,” he said. “Along with the designation comes cyberhacking attempts and all kinds of threats to the people involved.”

Brodsky sees the designation as a “badge of honor.”

“This is a regime that is one of the worst in the world,” he said. “It’s abused the Iranian people and has engaged in a massacre last month which killed, just in the span of a couple of days, around 32,000 people, with totals not seen since Nazi Germany.”

Brodsky and Rubin told JNS that it’s unknown how many sleeper cells there are in the United States. Rubin said that the “nature” of sleeper cells is that there’s no way to know how many there are.

Rubin suspects that “there will be assassinations of prominent Jewish community leaders, of rabbis and so forth, because the Islamic Republic and its agents don’t differentiate between Judaism and Israel.”

“In this case, their goal is simply to show strength by reach,” he told JNS. “Everyone needs to be vigilant and recognize that we’ve never faced a danger like we face today as the Jewish community in the United States.” 

Aaron Bandler

Source: https://www.jns.org/very-grave-threat-of-iranian-sleeper-cells-in-us-experts-warn/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

US speaks with Kurdish leaders as militias consider ground operation in Iran - report - i24NEWS

 

by i24NEWS

President Trump has reportedly spoken with Kurdish leaders in Iraq as Iranian Kurdish militias prepare potential ground operations in western Iran

 

Kurdish Peshmerga fighters stand in front of an ISIS sign at the entrance to Hawija, Iraq, on March 9, 2015.MARWAN IBRAHIM (AFP/Archives)

Iranian Kurdish militias have recently consulted with the United States about potential attacks on Iran’s security forces in the western part of the country, according to sources familiar with the discussions. 

The consultations come as U.S. and Israeli forces continue strikes on Iranian targets, creating what Kurdish leaders see as a rare operational opportunity.

Iran’s Kurdish population, concentrated in the northwest along the border with Iraq in a region often referred to as Rojhelat or Eastern Kurdistan, has a long history of resistance against Tehran. 

Kurdish opposition groups, including the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) and the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), have maintained bases in Iraqi Kurdistan for decades following repeated crackdowns by Iranian security forces. These groups have periodically conducted cross-border operations into western Iran, though Tehran has historically responded with heavy military reprisals.

---

A senior Kurdish official told CNN that opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in western Iran in the coming days. “We believe we have a big chance now,” the official said, citing the impact of U.S. and Israeli military pressure on Iranian forces. The official added that the militias anticipate support from both U.S. and Israeli forces.

IDF spokesperson addresses the media

In addition, President Donald Trump reportedly spoke by phone with Kurdish leaders in Iraq on Sunday to discuss the ongoing U.S.-Israel campaign against Iran and potential next steps, according to multiple sources.

Any operation from Iraqi Kurdistan into western Iran would mark a significant escalation, as the region has long been tightly controlled by Iranian security forces. Kurdish fighters moving into western Iran would face a challenging environment, but the current conflict has created what they see as an unusual window of opportunity to strike, potentially altering the balance of resistance within the country.

i24NEWS

Source: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-us-speaks-with-kurdish-leaders-as-militias-consider-ground-operation-in-iran-report

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israeli F-35 shoots down Iranian fighter jet in historic first for aircraft - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

This marks the first time an F-35 has ever achieved a confirmed air-to-air takedown.

 

(illustrative) A Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet performs during the International Aerospace Exhibition ILA on the opening day at Schoenefeld Airport in Berlin, Germany June 5, 2024.

(photo credit: AXEL SCHMIDT/REUTERS)

An Israeli F-35I downed an Iranian YAK-130 in the first fighter jet dogfight of the war, the IDF announced at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning.

The Russian-made YAK-130 started production in the 1990s.

It is generally used as an advanced training aircraft for pilots of the more advanced Russian SU-57 and other such aircraft, but can also be used as an attack aircraft.

On Sunday afternoon, the IDF had bombed Iranian fighter jets moments before they could take off.

Two fighter jets, one an F4 and one an F5, were already out on the runway and preparing to take off when the IDF struck.

A Yakovlev Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft performs during the International Army Games 2016, in Dubrovichi outside Ryazan, Russia, August 5, 2016. (credit: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS)

YAK-130 more advanced than previously destroyed Iranian Jets

Iran's air force, including the F4 and F5 fighters, is mostly antiquated and no real match for Israel's F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s, but the YAK-130 is more advanced than some of the others.

Any Iranian fighter jets could be problematic for Israeli and American drones and generally complicate the battle space, making it harder for close-range "stand-in" attacks.

Israel and the US established general air supremacy in the Tehran area, where they can carry out stand-in attacks, hovering above potential targets unimpeded for an extended period, within the first two days of the conflict.

First time in 40 years IDF shot downs aircraft

The last time the Israeli Air Force shot down an aircraft was on November 24, 1985, during an aerial engagement over Lebanon. In that clash, an Israel Air Force F-15 “Baz” downed two Syrian MiG-23 fighter jets.

Later, the IDF released footage of the Air Force targeting dozens of Iranian air defense systems during Operation Roaring Lion. The military stated that this bolstered the IDF's aerial superiority throughout Iran, according to a Wednesday press release.

British F-35 downs Iranian drone

As the Israeli F-35 Adir made its first manned combat kill, British Royal Air Force (RAF) F-35B jets recorded their first confirmed combat kill, shooting down an Iranian drone over Jordan. The UK said that the interception marked "the first time an RAF F-35 has destroyed a target on operations."

The RAF received their F-35 jets in 2012. The stealth fighters reached initial operational capability status in 2018.

The RAF also intercepted hostile Iranian drones in Iraqi airspace with a Typhoon aircraft using an air-to-air missile to down a drone heading towards Qatar.

Anna Ahronheim contributed to this report  

Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-888768

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Some Gulf countries are already fighting against Iran, IDF says - Yonah Jeremy Bob

 

by Yonah Jeremy Bob

Foreign reports have indicated that the Saudis, the UAE, Qatar, and possibly others may already have attacked Iran or have expressed interest in doing so.

 

Debris lies scattered in the aftermath of a strike on a police station, in Tehran, Iran, March 4, 2026

(photo credit: MAJID ASGARIPOUR/WANA (WEST ASIA NEWS AGENCY) VIA REUTERS)

The IDF said on Wednesday that some Gulf countries are already in the fight against Iran.

IDF sources would not identify which countries or their different levels of involvement.

However, foreign reports have indicated that the Saudis, the UAE, Qatar, and possibly others may already have attacked Iran or have expressed interest in doing so.

US President Donald Trump - Operation Epic Fury. March 2, 2026. (credit: SCREENSHOT/ X / @WhiteHouse)

IDF says that Trump will not cut the war short

In addition, the IDF said that it does not believe US President Donald Trump will cut the current war short in the coming days.

Moreover, the IDF said that from familiarity with the Trump administration and top US defense officials, there is no current sense of pressure to artificially shorten the war due to outside pressures, such as domestic American political criticism.

Polls have shown 75% of Americans are unhappy with the war, and the US Congress is expected soon to vote on whether to restrain Trump's authority to continue the war, though the vote may be symbolic, since even if it passes by a slim majority, the US president could veto it short of a two-thirds super majority.

Next, the IDF said that over 1,000 American soldiers are physically present in Israel to assist with joint war coordination with the IDF.

There have been around 4,00-5,000 telephone calls, cockpit radio communications, and other communications between Israeli and US officials every day since the start of the war in a stunning, unprecedented level of coordination.

According to the IDF, there is also constant communication "in English" with other countries in the region under the CENTCOM umbrella.

The IDF complimented America on having 10 times the level of refueling capacity compared to Israel, allowing them to reuse aircraft more rapidly for additional air strike sorties.

Breaking down military responsibility, Israel has mostly handled western Iran, parts of Tehran, and some of central Iran, while the US has mostly handled southern Iran, parts of Tehran, and Israel hopes eventually to handle eastern Iran. 

Yonah Jeremy Bob

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-888792

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Bangladesh: Escalating Islamic Extremism and the Exploitation of Ali Khamenei's Death - Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

 

by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

The party's reaction to Khamenei's death therefore aligns with a broader Brotherhood pattern: portraying Islamist leaders as martyrs, condemning Western military intervention, and mobilizing street sentiment against perceived external aggression.

 

• While Jamaat has often participated in electoral politics, its long-term objective has remained unchanged: the establishment of a theocratic state under Islamic jurisprudence.

• Within hours of the news [of Iranian Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khameni's elimination].... Jamaat-e-Islami...[s]enior leaders delivered speeches accusing the United States and Israel of "murder" and calling for mass mobilization.

• Even though organizationally separate, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat have maintained ideological synergy and periodic cooperation across South Asia and the Middle East. Both movements frame global politics as a civilizational struggle between Islamic governance and Western liberalism

• The party's reaction to Khamenei's death therefore aligns with a broader Brotherhood pattern: portraying Islamist leaders as martyrs, condemning Western military intervention, and mobilizing street sentiment against perceived external aggression.

• In Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan issued statements condemning the US and praising Khamenei. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly expressed condolences, referring to Khamenei as a "martyr," signaling Islamabad's diplomatic tilt toward Tehran....

• In India, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind characterized the US-Israeli strikes as aggression and described Khamenei in reverential terms.

• China's engagement with Islamist political actors is not ideological but strategic... that Jamaat's anti-American rhetoric may not merely be reactive but part of a broader geopolitical appraisal.

• Historically, some Western policymakers have viewed Islamist parties as "moderate" alternatives to more violent jihadist factions. However, the Brotherhood's track record across the Middle East -- from Egypt to Gaza -- illustrates that participation in elections does not necessarily equate to ideological moderation.

• Jamaat's present mobilization over Khamenei underscores that its core worldview remains rooted in a civilizational narrative that positions the United States as an adversary.

• Even media outlets such as Al Jazeera have continued narratives sympathetic to Iran.

• By framing Khamenei's death as martyrdom and Western aggression, they reinforce their narrative of global Islamic victimhood.

• The danger lies not only in street protests but in gradual ideological conditioning. By presenting Iran's theocratic regime as a victim of Western aggression, Jamaat implicitly legitimizes clerical rule and the fusion of religion and state power.

• The protests over Khamenei's elimination are not merely about Iran. They are about ideology.

• For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and New Delhi, the lesson should be clear: political Islam movements cannot be evaluated solely through electoral participation, diplomatic engagement or even promises of prosperity. Their doctrinal commitments matter. The events unfolding in Bangladesh demonstrate that beneath tactical flexibility lies an enduring ideological project -- one that continues to view global politics through the lens of religious sovereignty and civilizational struggle for global control.

Pictured: Activists of the Jamaat-e-Islami party hold posters of Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a protest against the US and Israel in Dhaka, Bangladesh on March 1, 2026. (Photo by Munir Uz Zaman/AFP via Getty Images)

The elimination of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in a joint US-Israeli military operation has triggered a predictable wave of outrage against the West across hardline Islamist networks.

In Bangladesh, however, the reaction has revealed something deeper and more consequential: the enduring ideological character of Jamaat-e-Islami, not yet designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, and its strategic alignment with transnational Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

For decades, Jamaat-e-Islami has sought the gradual transformation of Bangladesh into a Sharia-governed Islamic state. Its founders were directly inspired by the ideological framework of Abul A'la Maududi, whose writings paralleled and intersected with the Brotherhood's vision of an Islamic order governed not by popular sovereignty but by divine law. While Jamaat has often participated in electoral politics, its long-term objective has remained unchanged: the establishment of a theocratic state under Islamic jurisprudence.

The events following Khamenei's death have exposed the party's ideological reflexes. Within hours of the news, Jamaat-e-Islami and its affiliated student wings began organizing protest rallies, funeral prayers (Janaza), and processions across major cities and university campuses in Bangladesh. Senior leaders delivered speeches accusing the United States and Israel of "murder" and calling for mass mobilization.

This was not spontaneous grief. It was ideological theater. The spectacle extended beyond Sunni Islamist circles. Members of Bangladesh's Shia community organized a protest procession from the principal Shia religious center in Dhaka, Hussaini Dalan Imambara. During the march, demonstrators chanted slogans condemning the United States. The Imambara has historically maintained connections with Iran's diplomatic mission in Dhaka, underscoring Tehran's long-standing religious and cultural outreach in Bangladesh.

Such mobilization is consistent with Jamaat's ideological lineage. Although Bangladesh is a Sunni-majority nation, the party has demonstrated tactical flexibility in aligning with Shia Iran when strategic interests converge - particularly in opposing the United States and Israel. Ideological differences between Sunni Brotherhood movements and Iran's clerical regime have historically been secondary to shared hostility toward "Western liberalism" and "Zionism".

To understand Jamaat's posture, one must revisit its roots. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, articulated a revolutionary doctrine that fused religion and state power. It rejected secular nationalism and promoted the restoration of an Islamic polity governed by Sharia. Maududi's Jamaat-e-Islami, established in British India in 1941, developed a framework parallel to that of the Muslim Brotherhood, that called for an "Islamic revolution" through gradual social Islamization and political activism.

Even though organizationally separate, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat have maintained ideological synergy and periodic cooperation across South Asia and the Middle East. Both movements frame global politics as a civilizational struggle between Islamic governance and Western liberalism.

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh has never formally renounced this objective. Its political participation has functioned as a tactical means rather than an ideological transformation. The party's reaction to Khamenei's death therefore aligns with a broader Brotherhood pattern: portraying Islamist leaders as martyrs, condemning Western military intervention, and mobilizing street sentiment against perceived external aggression. Jamaat's branches in neighboring countries followed suit.

In Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan issued statements condemning the US and praising Khamenei. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly expressed condolences, referring to Khamenei as a "martyr," signaling Islamabad's diplomatic tilt toward Tehran despite its complex strategic balancing act.

In India, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind characterized the US-Israeli strikes as aggression and described Khamenei in reverential terms. These synchronized reactions reflect a transnational ideological network rather than isolated national responses.

Additionally, after a 2024 upheaval widely described by critics as a "jihadist coup", Jamaat has reportedly strengthened ties with Beijing. In September 2024, China's Ambassador to Bangladesh, Yao Wen, met Jamaat's emir Shafiqur Rahman and described the party as a "well-organized political force". Subsequent exchange visits between Jamaat representatives and Chinese counterparts signaled a deepening relationship.

China's engagement with Islamist political actors is not ideological but strategic. Beijing's priority is influence and leverage, particularly in regions of geopolitical competition. For Jamaat, Chinese recognition offers international legitimacy at a time when relations with Western policymakers appear uncertain. This evolving alignment suggests that Jamaat's anti-American rhetoric may not merely be reactive but part of a broader geopolitical appraisal.

Problematically, weeks before Bangladesh's February 12 general elections, The Washington Post published a report citing an unverified audio clip suggesting that Washington preferred Jamaat-e-Islami in power. Although unconfirmed, the claim fueled speculation about US strategic calculations in South Asia. The Washington Post's affection towards Islamists is not new. After the elimination of Khamenei, it affectionately mentions the murderous Iranian mullah as "avuncular" with "bushy white hair and easy smile".

Historically, some Western policymakers have viewed Islamist parties as "moderate" alternatives to more violent jihadist factions. However, the Brotherhood's track record across the Middle East -- from Egypt to Gaza -- illustrates that participation in elections does not necessarily equate to ideological moderation.

Jamaat's present mobilization over Khamenei underscores that its core worldview remains rooted in a civilizational narrative that positions the United States as an adversary.

The regional response to the strikes on Iran has also revealed troubling patterns. Despite decades of Iranian destabilization across the Middle East -- through proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthi movement -- few Muslim-majority governments have openly criticized Tehran's actions. Even media outlets such as Al Jazeera (such as here and here) have continued narratives sympathetic to Iran.

French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement emphasizing stability but avoided addressing the Iranian people's decades-long repression. Meanwhile, geopolitical caution appeared to outweigh normative commitments to democratic transformation.

For Islamist movements like Jamaat-e-Islami, this ambiguity provides rhetorical space. By framing Khamenei's death as martyrdom and Western aggression, they reinforce their narrative of global Islamic victimhood.

Bangladesh occupies a sensitive geopolitical position. It is a Muslim-majority democracy with significant economic ties to the West and strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific.

The convergence of Jamaat-e-Islami with more overtly radical groups -- including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Hefazat-e-Islam, and others -- raises concerns about the normalization of extremist discourse. While these groups differ in tactics, their shared commitment to Sharia governance creates ideological continuity.

The danger lies not only in street protests but in gradual ideological conditioning. By presenting Iran's theocratic regime as a victim of Western aggression, Jamaat implicitly legitimizes clerical rule and the fusion of religion and state power.

The protests over Khamenei's elimination are not merely about Iran. They are about ideology. Jamaat-e-Islami's reaction reflects a worldview shaped by the Muslim Brotherhood's foundational doctrines: rejection of secular governance, hostility toward Western liberalism, and aspiration for a Sharia-based order. Its willingness to align rhetorically with Iran's clerical regime -- despite sectarian differences -- underscores the primacy of ideological convergence over theological division. For policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and New Delhi, the lesson should be clear: political Islam movements cannot be evaluated solely through electoral participation, diplomatic engagement or even promises of prosperity. Their doctrinal commitments matter. The events unfolding in Bangladesh demonstrate that beneath tactical flexibility lies an enduring ideological project -- one that continues to view global politics through the lens of religious sovereignty and civilizational struggle for global control.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhuryis an award-winning journalist, writer, and Editor of the newspaper Blitz. He specializes in counterterrorism and regional geopolitics. Follow him on X: @Salah_Shoaib

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22316/bangladesh-islamic-extremism

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Mamdani’s hypocrisy: Ignoring Iranian victims to target Israel - opinion - Douglas Altabef

 

by Douglas Altabef

Mamdani slams Israel and the US but ignores the brutal oppression of Iranian citizens by the Iranian regime.

 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at a church last month. Mamdani declared the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran as ‘catastrophic’ and ‘illegal,’ the writer notes.

(photo credit: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

The man who ran for the mayoralty of New York City on a platform of addressing a “crisis of affordability” there has once again weighed in on foreign affairs. Fresh off his juvenile threats to arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he dare appear in New York City, Mamdani labeled the attacks by the US and Israel on the Iranian mullah regime as “catastrophic” and “illegal.”

These were probably meant as obligatory words of condemnation, but they are worthy of note and comment. There is a world of difference between “ill-advised” or “risky” and “illegal.” What makes this operation illegal is not something that Mamdani, in all likelihood, is capable of explaining.

But the charge of “catastrophic” is jaw-dropping. Why? Simply because the regime that Mamdani clings to and defends has been murderous to its own citizens.

As a municipal fiduciary on behalf of the people of New York, Mamdani should have been at the forefront of seeking to defend the people of Iran. Tens of thousands of regular citizens, facing their own crisis of existential affordability, have been brutally mowed down on the streets and in hospitals throughout Iran.

Like almost all other Progressives, infinitely sensitive to non-existent “genocide” by Israelis on Gazans, Mamdani has not dared to raise his voice against the murderous mullah regime.

Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, shakes the hand of a cab driver while campaigning in Manhattan's Upper East Side neighborhood during early voting, in New York City, US, October 27, 2025 (credit: MIKE SEGAR / REUTERS)

The catastrophe, as he sees it, is the assassination of the key figures in the world’s most oppressive regime. The catastrophe is the possible usurpation of the regime itself, with the potential for an Iran that could be life-affirming for its citizens, in part because of the cessation of Iran’s imperialistic ambitions to destroy the West.

Mamdani’s enmity for Israel and the US

The real catastrophe is therefore the attempt to defeat the destruction of the West, preeminently Israel and the United States. Mamdani’s enmity for Israel is well known, but he has now tipped his hand as being opposed to the future well-being of the US.

The tip-off, the smoking gun of the revelation of Mamdani’s enmity, was his charge that the Western allies were deliberately bombing civilians. This is a projection on a world-class scale. Not only is it not true, but it is the mother’s milk of those whom Mamdani is trying to protect.

The implication of what Mamdani is saying is truly shocking. The killing, inadvertent though it might be, of Palestinians, hell, of anyone by Israelis, is the stuff of war crimes.

However, the deliberate, brutal, and sadistic murder of Iranian Muslims by a murderous theocratic regime is not something to condemn, and certainly not worthy of delegitimizing the regime itself.

The inescapable takeaway then from this is that there is no human rights concern for the dignity of all, but rather the sectarian and highly politicized interest in who is being killed by whom.
Mamdani ends his finger-pointing sermon by cleaving to his mission to address affordability in New York, as if affordability was inadvertently edited out of the mantra of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But his hypocrisy does not enable him to see that the people he is not only ignoring, but is also ignoring their persecution; these people are facing an existential affordability crisis, not just a cost-of-living one.

These are people willing to put their lives on the line because they have been given no hope, no future, no recompense. Their crisis dwarfs the one that Mamdani focuses on, and effectively disparaging it renders him small and inconsequential.

But not unique. Based on the absence of outrage for the protesters on the Progressive Left, one must conclude that they either are siding with the regime or have decided that civilian victims are getting what they deserve because they trusted Trump to save them.

Since the protesters were out in strength before President Donald Trump threw his support to them and encouraged their protests, blaming him for their presence is of a piece with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

But the lack of support, a tacit form of condemnation, is a way of supporting the mullahs. If so, the question is why that should be. And the answer is that all of this is a classic example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Progressives share a profound antipathy for the West, rivaling that of the mullahs. They are not inclined to break common bonds and turn on a group that is furthering their own agenda of self-contempt and hatred.

The upshot of all of this should be profoundly disturbing both to those who respect the inherent rights of citizens everywhere and especially those who cherish Western values and civilization.

A failure to condemn mullah repression, compounded by condemnations of actions designed to end it, should be a red flag to anyone caring about the Western future.

Mamdani’s “catastrophe,” the Progressives’ “catastrophe,” is what is keeping the West from descending into a civilizational abyss.

We need to be openly, loudly, and proudly embracing the brave Iranian protesters and the Americans and Israelis who are seeking to alleviate their travail.

Douglas Altabef is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu and a director of the Israel Independence Fund.

Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-888626

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House Oversight Committee concludes Tim Walz' administration knew of fraud, failed to act - Steven Richards and John Solomon

 

by Steven Richards and John Solomon

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s administration was made aware of fraud in benefits programs early in his tenure, but failed to take action to stop it, an interim report based on testimony from nine state officials concluded.

 

Senior Minnesota government officials, including Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, were aware of claims of widespread fraud in the state’s federally funded welfare programs for years, but failed to act other than to retaliate against whistleblowers, the House Oversight Committee concluded in a report released Wednesday. 

Both Walz and Ellison are scheduled to testify before the committee on Wednesday at 10:00 AM, the committee previously announced. They are likely to face questions from the committee about fraud schemes estimated to have cost taxpayers as much as $18 billion and that were first reported by Just the News in summer 2024.

Dozens of defendants, many of them Somali immigrants who settled in Minnesota, have been indicted or convicted in a sweeping federal fraud investigation.

Walz and Ellison were aware of fraud

“Testimony obtained by the Committee reveals that Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison were aware of widespread fraud in social service programs, lied about their knowledge of the fraud, and retaliated against employees who dared to raise concerns,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said in a statement. 

“Instead of protecting vulnerable Americans, they handed over billions in taxpayer dollars to fraudsters and threw their own state employees under the bus,” Comer added.  

The committee launched an investigation in December into allegations of fraud in Minnesota’s public benefits programs after fresh evidence of daycare fraud in the state’s federally-funded childcare benefits program surfaced that month. 

The new video evidence allegedly showing empty daycare facilities registered to serve hundreds of children aligned with warnings from the state’s legislative auditor dating back to 2018 that there were persistent signs of fraud in the program, Just the News reported. 

The investigation also centered on a Minneapolis fraud ring connected to the state’s Somali immigrant community that exploited the state’s federally-funded food program. The Department of Justice first charged 47 people in 2021 as part of a $250 million scheme involving the nonprofit Feeding Our Future that prosecutors alleged diverted federal COVID-19 relief funds for personal gain. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who served during the Biden administration, called it the largest pandemic-era fraud scheme ever identified. 

Testimony from nine state officials

Walz, who was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2024, previously acknowledged there is fraud in his state, but said his administration has made it a priority to root out for years. 

However, the Oversight Committee believes the evidence shows the opposite, that Walz and his senior officials knew about the fraud concerns from the very beginning of his tenure and ultimately failed to act to address it before facing public backlash and pressure from the federal government in recent months. 

That evidence comes from testimony gathered by the committee from nine current and former Minnesota state officials that oversaw the benefits programs within the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and the Department of Human Services (DHS), the two government bodies that oversaw the programs at the center of the fraud allegations. 

You can read the Oversight Committee’s report below: 

File

The Cost of Doing Nothing_How Tim Walz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota's Fraud Explosion_3.4.26_FINAL-1.pdf

State officials said Walz’s government knew about fraud concerns in early 2020

Though Walz originally said that he was informed about suspicious activity related to Feeding Our Future in November 2020, but he could not recall the precise date, one MDE official told the Oversight Committee that the Minnesota government had received complaints about the program as early as 2018.  

MDE Assistant Commissioner Daron Korte, whose agency oversaw the money funneled to the Feeding Our Future food program from federal pandemic-era relief funds, confirmed that such complaints were received between 2018 and 2021. 

He testified that Gov. Walz’s office would have been informed of the concerns by April 2020 and that Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office would have received a notice also.   

When threatened with a lawsuit, Minnesota officials resumed funding 

Once MDE found in March 2021 that Feeding Our Future was in “serious deficiency,” the agency moved to cut off all funding to the organization. However, despite officials acknowledging the agency’s authority to unilaterally cut funds, it resumed payments by April 30, 2021 over fears that the nonprofit would sue, Korte told congressional investigators. 

“[We] could unilaterally make that decision, but we just knew, with Feeding our Future, it was going to end up in court and had the potential to be overturned,” Korte testified. 

Feeding Our Future’s founder and executive director Aimee Bock – who was eventually charged and convicted as part of the million dollar fraud scheme – threatened MDE with a lawsuit in April 2021 claiming racial discrimination if funding was terminated. The nonprofit formally filed the lawsuit in November that year alleging violations of state law. 

Minnesota official approved more food program sites after fraud concerns

Because of the threat of the lawsuit, MDE approved an additional four sites administered by Feeding Our Future even after fraud concerns had been raised by the agency. Korte said the agency did this because the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to provide a justification under federal law for the state to cut off the funds.

“I think they were supportive generally of what we were saying we wanted to do, but they weren't willing to provide anything in writing. And we felt like, without having that backup from USDA that we just didn't have firm enough ground to stand on to continue to deny those sites in the face of the threatened lawsuit,” Korte told the committee. 

Walz’s office received notice of fraud concerns in daycare program

Officials also testified that Walz’s office knew about fraud concerns in the state’s Child Care Assistance Program, which funded daycare services in early 2019. Former DHS Commissioner Tony Lourey told congressional investigators that he was in communication with Walz’s then Chief of Staff Chris Schmitter about such concerns that year, the testimony shows. 

As Just the News previously reported, the Minnesota state legislature was also made aware of pervasive fraud in the Child Care Assistance Program in 2018, the year before Walz was sworn in as governor. Minnesota's legislative auditor brought concerns about widespread fraud in the program to both the legislature and state officials that year. 

One investigator cited in the report claimed that fraud rates could exceed 50% of all government funding for the program. The auditors reported that some child care centers recruit eligible mothers by offering kickbacks using government funds. They also identified signs of overbilling in as many as 72 of the top 100 recipients of state money.  

Steven Richards and John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/5amoversight-committee-concludes-tim-walz-administration-knew-fraud-failed-act

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Supreme Court orders lower courts to stop ignoring a century of parental rights precedents - Greg Piper

 

by Greg Piper

Unlike federal abortion rights, the right to direct a child's upbringing is "deeply rooted" in American history and tradition and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," majority says, reinstating ban on California's "gender secrecy" policies.

 

A majority of the Supreme Court is finally losing patience with lower courts it perceives as looking for ways around both long-established and recent precedents, tacitly answering complaints by more conservative justices that the high court was routinely ignoring rulings that flagrantly violate its precedents.

In an emergency order Tuesday night, six justices rebuked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking a permanent injunction against California's so-called gender secrecy policies, which require school districts to hide students' gender confusion from their parents and even falsely tell parents their children aren't presenting as the opposite sex at school.

Reportedly the most overturned federal appellate court since 2007, the 9th Circuit "brushed aside" last summer's parental rights precedent Mahmoud, wrongly limiting its application to school curricular decisions, while relying on a nonbinding opinion from the nearly-as-overturned 6th Circuit, the unsigned opinion says.

The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment free exercise claim because California's policies "substantially interfere with the 'right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,'" the majority said, quoting Mahmoud and the 1972 Amish school opt-out precedent Yoder upon which it's based.

The justices marveled that the 9th Circuit refused to apply "strict scrutiny," the most stringent legal standard for the government to meet, despite the fact that California's "unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition" is a greater attack on parental rights than the "LGBTQ storybooks" in Mahmoud, also subject to strict scrutiny.

This is "the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation," said the Thomas More Society, representing the plaintiffs. 

"The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country," special counsel Paul Jonna said.

The court's conservative wing fractured on whether to reinstate all or part of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez's permanent injunction, with only justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voting to protect teachers from compelled participation in the state's deception. 

Teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West originated the case, and their lawyers at the Thomas More Society said the partially reinstated injunction "effectively shield[s] teachers as well, since the class-wide parental victory prohibits the very policies that teachers were being compelled to enforce."

The 9th Circuit misread Benitez on the scope of the injunction, which only applies to California parents who object to the policies or seek religious exemptions, rather than all parents with children in California public schools, the SCOTUS majority said, questioning the 9th Circuit's understanding of class certification rules.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh used much of their concurrence, penned by Barrett, to rebut the dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that accused the majority of "throwing over [California's] policies in a slapdash way" by issuing a ruling via the so-called shadow docket.

It was the 9th Circuit that rushed to judgment by blocking the permanent injunction early in California's appeal, and the high court recognized "the risk of irreparable harm to the parents" from that decision, the concurrence says. 

"Under California’s policy, parents will be excluded – perhaps for years – from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing" if the state gets to keep forcing schools to mislead parents through the appeals process, Barrett wrote. She emphasized Benitez only imposed the permanent injunction "after a full merits process."

Responding to Kagan's criticism that the unsigned opinion would be understood as the high court's final judgment against California's policies while the case continues on appeal, Barrett said SCOTUS needed to issue "general course correction" because the 9th Circuit "significantly misunderstood" Mahmoud.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only member to conclusively reject the plaintiffs' petition, rather than just fault the majority's perceived procedural violations. Justice Neil Gorsuch was the only majority member to add no comment of his own.

"The Court’s majority delivered a clear message: Schools can't play therapist or activist without parental consent," the conservative Heritage Foundation said. "This is a huge win for constitutional principles, contrasting sharply with the liberal dissenters who sided with secrecy over transparency."

"Once again, the Supreme Court has made clear that parents do not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids, especially not government bureaucrats," said Mark Rienzi, president of religious liberty law firm Becket.

'Everyone agrees that children’s safety is the overriding equity'

The edict from SCOTUS is likely to send shockwaves through other litigation that turns on how broadly or narrowly to read Mahmoud, giving an edge to plaintiffs who argue it protects parental rights far beyond curricular decisions.

A diverse coalition is supporting a SCOTUS petition to overturn the 9th Circuit's dismissal of a parental challenge to Washington state's law that allegedly sanctions "kidnapping" of gender-confused runaways. Several also backed the California gender secrecy petition.

Suburban Boston's Lexington Public Schools could find itself scrambling to settle a recent lawsuit over its refusal to show parents LGBTQ curricula in advance while demanding they identify specific lessons for opting out. The district also claims books that promote "mere tolerance" are exempt from Mahmoud notification and opt-out mandates.

Just last month, a Colorado parental rights group exposed a school district that used morning announcements to repeatedly invite students to LGBTQ discussions with a teacher during lunch.

The unsigned opinion emphasizes one set of parent plaintiffs didn't learn their daughter's middle school had been secretly transitioning her for a year until "she attempted suicide and was hospitalized." Even though the girl was involuntarily rehospitalized months later, her new high school kept treating her as a boy.

Another set of parents yanked their daughter, who has "sometimes identified as a boy" since fifth grade, from her middle school after the principal refused to confirm whether it was treating her as a boy, the opinion says. Sending the girl to private school is "financially and logistically infeasible," so she's still at risk in her new public school.

California asserted its "compelling interest in student safety and privacy" by "cut[ting] out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents," rather than narrowing its policy to hide gender identity from "parents who would engage in abuse" while granting religious exemptions, the opinion said.

The "subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds" are also likely to succeed because they enjoy "the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health," which includes gender confusion, it said. 

Parents can't wait to vindicate their constitutional rights "during the potentially protracted appellate process," the majority said, citing its ruling against New York's COVID shutdown policies that targeted houses of worship.

"Everyone agrees that children’s safety is the overriding equity," and Benitez's injunction "promotes child safety by guaranteeing fit parents a role in some of the most consequential decisions in their children’s lives" without empowering abusive parents.

The three-judge concurrence responded to Justice Kagan's allegations that the majority was expanding the "controversial doctrine" of substantive due process on a whim, circumventing the normal appellate process.

Precedents going back to the Roaring Twenties confirm that substantive due process includes "a parent’s right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health," such as how to respond to gender confusion that risks self-harm, the concurrence said. 

The Dobbs ruling that overturned federal abortion rights, meanwhile, was grounded on the court's finding that abortion rights were not "deeply rooted" in American history and tradition or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," it said, rebutting Kagan's argument.

Kagan's dissent questioned why the majority intervened in the California challenge when a "carbon copy" petition, from the 1st Circuit decision in Foote that upheld secret gender transitions, has been pending on the SCOTUS merits docket for several months.

"By recent count, almost 40 cases raising due process and/or free exercise objections to similar school policies are currently in the judicial system (with several recently decided by appellate courts), so this Court would not have to wait long" to take a case that would answer such questions, the dissent says.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed Kagan. "Foote could allow the Court to reaffirm the fundamental rights of parents and, most importantly, clearly establish the standard for review in future cases," he wrote. 

Greg Piper

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-court-orders-lower-courts-stop-ignoring-century-parental-rights

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter