Saturday, November 8, 2014

Will Obama Seal His Deal With the Devil? - Lee Smith

by Lee Smith

By boasting of enabling Iran’s bloody nuclear hopes, the Obama administration ushers in the age of Renfield and Dracula

Being president of the United States is often described as the most powerful job in the world not because the president can remake America with the stroke of a pen (he can’t), or because the United States is the most powerful nation in the world (although that helps), but because of the unrivaled power it gives the executive to chart America’s course in the world. At home, the president may not be able to do much about the roads, taxes, or even delivering the mail. Abroad, he can start and stop wars, make enemies into friends (and vice versa), and otherwise determine the tone and often the direction of the entire planet—or at least that part of the planet that responds to American economic, diplomatic, and military cues. Which is one good reason why that even presidents who come to office proclaiming their disinterest in foreign policy—like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—often wind up their second terms in office focused on the one policy area they can actually control.

With the Senate falling into Republican hands, then, the Obama Administration will naturally turn more of its attention to foreign policy. So, what’s on tap? The first and easiest prediction that any number of pundits have made is that the administration will circumvent Congress and push through a permanent agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program when the deadline comes up Nov. 24.

Any deal with Iran, the administration seems to believe now, is better than no deal at all. In fact, as we learned last week, the administration has already helped Iran get across the nuclear finish line—and they’re bragging about it. Lost in all the noise about an unnamed Obama Administration official telling journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is a chickenshit,” for example, was the even newsworthier comment of another unnamed official who crowed that it is now too late for Israel to stop the Islamic Republic from getting a nuclear weapon—thanks to the White House’s own deliberate campaign of deception.

The White House fooled Netanyahu into believing it was serious about the military option, the Obama aide said. And now, he continued, the Israeli prime minister has no options left besides to whine and complain. “Two, three years ago, this was a possibility,” he explained to Goldberg. What sidelined the Israeli leader, the official continued, “was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

The president has long insisted that his policy was not to contain or deter a nuclearized Iran, but to prevent the clerical regime from acquiring the bomb. According to the administration official quoted by Goldberg, this posture was simply a lie. Now Israel is going to have to learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb because, as Obama sees it, it’s in the American interest.

And there’s more. The reason that the White House wants Iran to have a bomb is that it’s the quickest route to what it really wants—which is a larger regional accommodation with Tehran. As Obama has explained, Iran is a rational actor that pursues its interests. If you fight the Islamic Republic, it’ll just make it angrier and more dangerous, so it’s best to try to get on its good side. A world where the United States and Iran are friends and allies will be a safer, more peaceful place. Or so Obama and his advisers seem to believe.

Another way to understand the upcoming new era in U.S.-Iran relations is as the age of Renfield. As horror fans will recall, Renfield is a character in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He’s not a real vampire, but a madman whose appetites—for vermin and the proximity to power—are fed by the master whose evil he enables. Renfield, observes Dr. Seward, the asylum’s supervisor, “has certain qualities very largely developed, selfishness, secrecy, and purpose.” In the age of Renfield, people align themselves with darkness because it has the appearance of strength. In an era of robust American leadership, administration officials tasked to speak to the press praise allies and curse adversaries openly; when they criticize friends, it’s done in private and without invective. In the age of Renfield, faceless parasites hurl insults at allies from the shadows.

In the age of Renfield, what America’s regional partners most fear about the Islamic Republic is what makes it most appealing to the White House. Yes, Iran is an expansionist power that threatens total war against its neighbors. But that just means Tehran is an ideal regional enforcer. Saudi Arabia can barely manage its own citizens—who go off to wage jihad in Syria—never mind control hundreds of millions of Sunni Arabs in other countries. And Israel commands the loyalty of only 6 million Jews. In contrast, Iran now asserts de facto control of four Arab capitals—in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. For Obama, a president who believes he was elected to get the United States out of the Middle East, it’s a no-brainer—the Iranians can get things done in the region precisely because they are so vicious. As Renfield says of the count, “he began promising me things, not in words but by doing them.”

As for Bibi, he got outmaneuvered like an earnest but comically stiff hero in a B-film remake whose girlfriend is busy making out with Dracula. Bibi got played by a whole team of Renfields who vouched for Obama’s baseline bona fides regarding Israeli security—from policymakers like Rahm Emanuel and Robert Wexler to former ambassadors to Israel like Daniel Kurtzer and Martin Indyk. Now that the cat is out of the bag, you’d think some of them might take offense that their personal honor was compromised by a White House that boasts about having helped an American adversary and deterred a longtime U.S. ally. You’d think some of them might be annoyed that they gave their word that Obama has Israel’s back—now that it turns out that Obama was bluffing and deliberately stringing the Israelis along. But no one’s making too big a deal out of Obama playing Renfield to the Islamic Republic’s regional Dracula because he made everyone who vouched for him into an enabler, too. Washington is full of Renfields.

Accordingly, the next logical move for those who said Obama would strike to protect Israel is to rationalize that his not striking was actually in Israel’s best interests: All Obama did was to take away the keys to the F-15s. Had Netanyahu taken matters into his own hands, an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would’ve unleashed a wave of terror against Israeli and Jewish sites around the world. Moreover, it would’ve enraged the European powers that will soon be investing billions in Iran’s petroleum and automobile sectors.

The Europeans aren’t the only ones who’ll be gorging on table scraps—the nuclear agreement means there will be enough for all the Renfields of the world to feed. For Obama there’s a likely trip to Tehran to celebrate his historic achievement—reconciliation with the Islamic Republic after 35 unnecessary and costly years of enmity. For diplomats and policymakers there will be exciting meetings with their exotic Iranian counterparts. It was all a big misunderstanding, and now the old wounds—the toppling of Mossadeq, the takeover of the U.S. embassy—will be healed. Who in the end, besides the maniacs, is truly opposed to the benefits of peace?

There have always been Renfields, those who see darkness as strength. The academics and journalists who idealized the Soviet Union even after Stalin’s crimes were made public. The racists and anti-Semites whose hatred and fear is sublimated into collecting Nazi or Klan paraphernalia. The Hezbollah and Hamas groupies who flock to Beirut and Gaza to absorb the dark charisma of the resistance. The Islamic Republic always had its own Renfields, too, from Michel Foucault, who reveled in the orgiastic violence of the revolution, to former American policymakers like Flynt Leverett, whose case for the regime was never about its ostensible moderation but rather about his yen for its particular brand of violence.

What’s new is that an entire foreign policy establishment, led by the White House, has embraced the charms of the enabler. Bureaucrats who order the rape, torture, and murder of Iranian dissidents, the mid-level IRGC officials who manage the regime’s terrorist operations abroad, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas—they’re ready for their moment in the spotlight. Hey, did you see the Diane Sawyer piece on what Qassem Suleimani’s got on his iPad? Soon, an invitation to dine at Javad Zarif’s Tehran villa will become the hottest ticket in the foreign service: the tastiest, tenderest lamb shank, and the dill rice is to die for!

In honor of the new age of American policy in the Middle East, I propose a toast to Renfield—whose talents are selfishness and secrecy—the man of the moment. Raise your glasses high, gentlemen. Just don’t ask what’s in the glass.

Lee Smith


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians' "Car Intifada" and Obama's Peace Process - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

It is hard to see how Abbas can return to the negotiating table while many Palestinians, at his behest, are busy thinking about how to kill Israelis.
It is not enough for Kerry to listen to what Abbas or Erekat are telling him in English. Instead, Kerry and Obama should listen to what Palestinian leaders and activists are telling their people in Arabic. Perhaps they will understand that as long as the incitement against Israel continues, there is no chance — zero — for the success of any peace process.

It began as a "children's intifada" in Jerusalem, where Palestinians aged eight to 18 were encouraged to take to the streets and throw stones and shoot fireworks at vehicles driven by Israelis and policemen.

Now, however, Palestinians are referring to it as a "car intifada" after two Palestinian drivers deliberately ran over Israelis in Jerusalem over the past two weeks.

The "car intifada," which has claimed the lives of four Israelis, including a three-month-old infant, is being hailed by many Palestinians as a "natural response to Israeli crimes."

The "crimes" they are referring to are visits by Jewish groups and individuals to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority [PA], Hamas and Islamic Jihad are using these visits to stir up Palestinians against Israel. The recent terror attacks in Jerusalem are the direct result of this campaign of incitement.

The widow of Ibrahim Akkari, the 48-year-old Palestinian who drove his car into a group of Israelis in Jerusalem on November 5, said that her husband was influenced by TV scenes of clashes between Palestinians and Israeli policemen at the Temple Mount.

The widow, Amira, said that her husband carried out the attack in retaliation against Israeli "assaults" on the Aqsa Mosque. "He was martyred for the sake of the Aqsa Mosque," she said.

Security camera footage from the "Shimon Hatzadik" light rail station in Jerusalem shows four victims lying on the tracks as the terrorist, Hamas member Ibrahim Akkari, speeds away in a white van (upper right), November 5, 2014. One person was killed and 14 others were wounded in the attack.
Recent statements by PA President Mahmoud Abbas may also have convinced Akkari to go out and run over Israelis. Two weeks before the attack, Abbas called on Palestinians to "use all means" to protect the Aqsa Mosque.

"It is not enough to say the settlers came (to the Temple Mount), but they must be barred from entering the compound by any means. This is our Aqsa, and they have no right to enter it and desecrate it," Abbas told Fatah activists during a meeting in his Ramallah office.

As if not enough, Abbas indirectly encouraged Palestinians to resort to violence against Israel by praising the Palestinian who shot and severely wounded activist Rabbi Yehuda Glick in Jerusalem on October 29.

A special Israeli police unit caught up with the shooter a few hours later and killed him in a gunfight.

In a letter to the family of the would-be assassin, Mu'taz Hijazi, Abbas wrote: "With anger, we have received the news of the vicious assassination crime committed by the terrorists of the Israeli occupation army against your son, who will go to heaven as a martyr defending the rights of our people and its holy sites."

The letter of condolences contradicts Abbas's promise to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to work toward calming the situation and refrain from fiery rhetoric that leads to more violence and bloodshed.

What is more disturbing is the widespread support among Palestinians for the recent terror attacks in Jerusalem.

This support is being expressed mostly on social media, where Palestinian activists have launched campaigns that praise the perpetrators and encourage others to follow suit.

The most popular campaign is entitled Daes, which translates into "run over" in Arabic. Daes is also a reference to Daesh, the Arabic acronym for ISIS. The online campaigns feature cartoons that encourage Palestinians to use their vehicles to kill Israelis.

One cartoon depicts a child wearing a Hamas headband and driving a car. The caption reads: "O Palestinian, drive, drive forward!"

The activists have published many other similarly-themed cartoons as part of their campaign to encourage Palestinians to launch terror attacks on Israel.

One of many cartoons published by Palestinian activists and their supporters in the Daes ["run over"] social media campaign, aimed at encouraging Palestinians to run over and kill Israelis with their cars.
The anti-Israel campaign, and the incitement by Abbas, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups, coincide with Kerry's renewed effort to revive the stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Earlier this week, Kerry met in Washington with a Palestinian delegation, headed by chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, to discuss ways of resuming the peace talks.

But Kerry and the Obama Administration seem to be living on a different planet. While they are trying to find ways to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, Palestinian leaders and organizations are busy inciting their people against Israel.

Even worse, Palestinian activists are busy organizing online campaigns urging and encouraging Palestinians to launch terror attacks on Israelis. It is hard to see how Abbas can return to the negotiating table while many Palestinians, at his behest, are busy thinking about how to kill more Israelis.

The Obama Administration would do well to understand that it is a waste of time to talk about any peace process when Palestinian leaders and activists are openly glorifying those who use their vehicles to kill Israelis.

The Obama Administration is talking about reviving the peace process while Abbas is telling his people that Jews are "desecrating" the holy sites in Jerusalem and praising an assassin as a "hero" and "martyr."

It is not enough for Kerry to listen to what Abbas or Erekat are telling him in English. Instead, Kerry and Obama must also start listening to what Palestinian leaders and activists are telling their people in Arabic.

Moreover, it would also be a good idea for Obama and Kerry to go online and view the most recent Palestinian campaigns that encourage and applaud terror attacks on Israelis. Perhaps then they will understand that as long as the incitement continues, there is no chance — zero — for the success of any peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Khaled Abu Toameh


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Abbas is busted as a 'partner' - David M. Weinberg

by David M. Weinberg

For more than a decade, we were told that Mahmoud Abbas was the most reasonable Palestinian leader Israelis could hope for; that he was Israel's best partner for peace; that he was the moderate with whom a grand compromise deal could be reached. Israelis wanted to believe this so much.

But then came the Abbas who walked away from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's outrageously generous territorial offer in 2008, and the Abbas who refused peace talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even after the latter froze settlement construction.

Then there was the "PaliLeaks" opportunity (secret diplomatic documents about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process) to ready the Palestinian public for compromise with Israel. But Abbas ran away from that gateway too, vigorously denying the hints of compromise with Israel on refugees, Jerusalem or borders that were in the leaked documents.

Ever since then, Abbas has become an aggressive and deceitful Palestinian irredentist -- the farthest thing from a peace partner. He has used every international forum to spew extremist vitriol against Israel and seek the criminalization of Israel. When he speaks to Palestinians, he legitimizes terrorism against Israel and glorifies terrorists. He has cozied up to Hamas and Iran and he explicitly rejects compromise on the key issues that would have to be the at the core of any peace agreement with Israel.

Let's review Abbas' appalling U.N. record. 

In his 2011 speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Abbas called Yasser Arafat a man of peace. He spoke of Israel as a "brutal," "aggressive," "racist," "apartheid," "horrific" and "colonial" military occupier. He accused Israel of a "multi-pronged policy of ethnic cleansing" and of "targeting Palestinian civilians by assassinations, air strikes and artillery shelling."

He suggested that Israel's demand for recognition as a Jewish state would "transform the raging conflict in our inflamed region into a religious conflict and a threat to the future of a million and a half Christian and Muslim Palestinians, citizens of Israel." He spoke of Christian and Muslim historical connections to the Holy Land -- and only theirs. And, in his most revealing remarks, he spoke of 63 years of Israeli occupation, implying a threat to the sovereignty of pre-1967 Israel. 

Abbas hewed resolutely to maximalist Palestinian goals, including refugee demands, which are the Palestinian recipe for dismantling Israel in the long term. He demanded a state on all of the pre-1967 territories, with only "possible minor and mutually agreed upon land swaps of equal size and value." (Note the phraseology: "possible" and "minor").

In fall 2012, Abbas sought to turn the established framework for peace upside-down; to get his statehood "declared" by the international community without having to compromise with Israel; to claim the end result of the peace process without having to engage in any process.

He addressed the U.N. General Assembly and urged the international community to "compel the government of Israel to respect the Geneva Conventions" and "impose a solution" on Israel. Abbas then accused Israel of numerous crimes, including ethnic cleansing, terrorism, racism, inciting religious conflict, apartheid, house demolitions, dispossession, imprisoning "soldiers of freedom," settlement colonization and more.

In 2013, Abbas told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel is preparing a new "nakba" (catastrophe) for the Palestinians. He demanded that the U.N. invoke "the full and complete implementation of international law" to penalize Israel's presence "as an occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory." And he threatened to indict Israel in the International Criminal Court.

Abbas subsequently swore to "never" recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people, "never" forgo the so-called right of return to Israel of Palestinian refugees, "never" accept Israeli security control of Jordan Valley and other key air and ground security assets, "never" allow Jews to live in Judea, and "never" accept Israeli sovereignty in any part of the Old City of Jerusalem.

In September this year, Abbas stood before the U.N. General Assembly and accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip: "Israel's jets and tanks brutally assassinated lives and devastated the homes, schools and dreams of thousands of Palestinian children, women and men and in reality destroying the remaining hopes for peace." 

He asserted that Palestinians faced a future in a "most abhorrent form of apartheid" under Israeli rule. He said that instead of rectifying "the historic injustice" of the 1948 "Nakba" (again, note the reference to 1948, not 1967), Israel had committed "absolute war crimes" and "state terror." He went on to rant about "racist and armed gangs of settlers who persist with their crimes against the Palestinian people, the land, mosques, churches, properties and olive trees," and talked about a "culture of racism, incitement and hatred" in Israel. 

Even Justice Minister Tzipi Livni was forced to call this a "horrible" speech, and the State Department spokesman admitted that the speech was "unhelpful" and worthy of "concern."
(Yet note: U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry did not rush to publicly reprimand Abbas, as they have notoriously done repeatedly with Netanyahu over much lesser offenses).

More recently, Abbas has taken to explicitly exhorting and inciting to Palestinian violence against Israel in Jerusalem. 

"We must prevent the settlers from entering the Noble Sanctuary in any way. This is our Al-Aqsa and our church. They have no right to enter and desecrate them. We must confront them and defend our holy sites," Abbas fulminated on Oct. 17.

Note the dark, incendiary, inciting references to "settlers" who "desecrate" the Temple Mount and must be prevented from entering the area "in any way."

Taking the cure from Abbas, the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry spread flammable lies about Israeli "plans to destroy" the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Its spokesman told the official PA daily newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that "the Israeli government has been carrying out a plan to Judaize Al-Aqsa mosque (that is, the Temple Mount plaza), and the rate of escalation and repression against Al-Aqsa is increasing. ... [Israel is moving toward] dividing it geographically and according to time, destroying it and building what is referred to as 'the Temple' in its place. ... Ongoing calls have been made by the extreme Right to enlist a large number of settlers to assault Al-Aqsa mosque in order to perform their Talmudic rituals in it."

"Talmudic rituals" is rank and derisive PA parlance for Jewish prayer at the holiest site on earth to the Jewish people.
A direct line runs from such vociferation to the attempted assassination of Jewish activist Yehuda Glick last week. Abbas' intemperate rhetoric essentially paved the way towards the attack. It gave a Palestinian Authority presidential imprimatur to the attempts to turn the Temple Mount into the hottest battleground between Israel and the Arab world. 

And sure enough, Abbas wrote a Nov. 1 "letter of encouragement and support" to the family of Moatez Hijazi, the Palestinian terrorist who tried to assassinate Glick and who was shot dead while resisting arrest by Israeli troops. Abbas called Hejazi a "shahid" (martyr) and said that "he rose to heaven while defending our people's rights and holy places." Abbas described Hijazi's death as "an abominable crime" carried out by "terror gangs of the Israeli occupation army." He had nothing condemnatory to say about the terror attack on Glick.

So how far can Abbas go in opposing real negotiation and compromise, encouraging violence, venerating terrorists, and pushing the criminalization of Israel internationally -- while still being considered a paragon of peace by the Israeli Left and the Obama administration? What will it take for them to move beyond Abbas and consider other options?

This is an important question because of a critical historical precedent: Israel suffered similarly with Yasser Arafat during the Oslo process. Then too, the Left and the Clinton administration become so attached to the Palestinian leader and the concept of negotiations with him that they ignored his support for terror and his stoking of hatred for Israelis and Jews.

When critics of the Oslo process brought up evidence of Arafat's actions they were dismissed as enemies of peace. Any attention paid to Arafat's "flaws" was considered to be a distraction from the need to concentrate on advancing peace negotiations.

The same pathetic process is repeating itself with Abbas. His extremism is being ignored, his obstructionism is being overlooked and his critics are being dangerously disregarded.

David M. Weinberg


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Exposed: Obama Helped Decade-Old Plan to Create IS - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

Although the birth of the Islamic State and the herald of the caliphate are often regarded as some of 2014’s “big shockers,” they were foretold in striking detail and with an accurate timeline by an al-Qaeda insider nearly one decade ago.

On August 12, 2005, Spiegel Online International published an article titled “The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaeda Really Wants.”  Written by Yassin Musharbash, the article was essentially a review of a book written by Fouad Hussein, a Jordanian journalist with close access to al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who pioneered the videotaping of beheadings “to strike terror into the hearts” of infidels (Koran 3:151).

As Hussein explained in the introduction of his book Al Zarqawi: Al Qaeda’s Second Generation: “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaeda members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.”

And in fact the book details the master plan of al-Qaeda—in its “second generation” manifestation known as the “Islamic State” which follows much of Zarqawi’s modus operandi—to resurrect a caliphate.  This plan is sufficiently outlandish that Yassin Musharbash, the author of the Spiegel article reviewing Hussein’s book, repeatedly casts doubt on its feasibility.  Thus al-Qaeda’s plan is “proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness”; there is “no way” al-Qaeda can follow the plan “step by step”; “the idea that al-Qaeda could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd”; and the following “scenario should be judged skeptically.”

Yet it is all the more remarkable that much of this plan—especially those phases dismissed as infeasible by Musharbash (four and five)—have come to pass.

In what follows, I reproduce the seven phases of al-Qaeda’s master plan as presented in Musharbash’s nearly ten-year-old article (in bullet points and italics, bold for emphasis), with my commentary interspersed for context.  Phases four and five are of particular importance as they describe the goals for recent times, much of which have come to fruition according to plan.

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps
•The First Phase Known as “the awakening”—this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby “awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaeda as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”
Much of this is accurate and makes sense.  Sadly, if any eyes were opened after the 9/11 attacks on American soil, they weren’t Western eyes—certainly not the eyes of Western leadership, mainstream media, and academia.  But to many Muslims, the strikes of 9/11 were inspiring and motivating, giving credence to Osama bin Laden’s characterization of America as a “paper tiger.” A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11, Americans responded by electing a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, even as he continuously empowers in a myriad of ways—including banning knowledge of Islam—the same ideology behind the strikes of 9/11. Meanwhile, the average Muslim relearned the truths of their religion, namely that the “infidel” is an existential enemy and jihad against him is a duty, as al-Qaeda and others had successfully shown.
•The Second Phase “Opening Eyes” is, according to Hussein’s definition, the period we are now in [writing in 2005] and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the “Islamic community.” Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaeda wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
This too is accurate.   Among other things, the “Islamic community,” the umma, began to be more visible and vocal during this time frame, including through a rash of attacks and riots following any perceived “insult” to Islam, growing demands for appeasement, and accusations of “Islamophobia” against all and sundry.  If there weren’t any spectacular terror attacks on the level of 9/11, young Muslim men were quietly enlisting and training in the jihad—or in western parlance, “radicalizing.”  Al-Qaeda went from being an “organization” to a “movement”—international “radicalization.”  Most importantly, Iraq, as the world now knows, certainly did become the “center for all global operations” with an “army” of jihadis set up there.
•The Third Phase This is described as “Arising and Standing Up” and should last from 2007 to 2010. “There will be a focus on Syria,” prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and—even more explosive— in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaeda’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
Much of this third phase as described and transpired seems to have been an extension of phase two.  In retrospect, there certainly appears to have been a focus on Syria, even if the jihad started there one year behind schedule (2011).  And many of the jihadis were “already prepared” and “some are in Iraq.”   None of this was a surprise, of course, as U.S. intelligence always indicated that if American forces withdrew from Iraq, the jihadis would take over.
•The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaeda will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaeda.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
This is immensely prophetic.  Recall that the timeline given (2010-2013) coincides remarkably well with the so-called “Arab Spring,” which culminated with Islamic terrorists and their allies taking over the leadership of several Arab countries formerly ruled by secularized autocrats: Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (which plays Dr. Jekyll to al-Qaeda’s Mr. Hyde); Libya, al-Qaeda/Islamic jihadis; ongoing Syria, al-Qaeda/Islamic jihadis (or their latest manifestation, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda’s “second generation”), etc.  It should be remembered that in each of these nations—Egypt, Libya, Syria—the Obama administration played a major role in empowering the jihadis, though in the name of “democracy.” 
•The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaeda hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
Again, right on time: the “Islamic State” declared itself the “caliphate” in 2014, with many Muslim organizations and persons around the world pledging their allegiance, if not imitating their slaughter, with inspired “lone wolves” already beheading “infidels” in Western nations.   And if the administration helped empower jihadis during the “Arab Spring” and in the name of “democracy” in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, it helped the creation of the Islamic State by withdrawing U.S. military forces that were keeping al-Qaeda at bay in Iraq.  Recall that in 2007 George W. Bush said that “To begin withdrawing [military forces] before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States.  It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.  It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.  It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.  It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” All of these predictions have proven remarkably prescient—not because Bush was a prophet but because U.S intelligence clearly understood the situation in Iraq, and briefed Obama on it just as it did Bush. Yet, in 2011, Obama declared the Iraq war a success and pulled out American troops, leaving the way wide open for the jihadi master plan of resurrecting the caliphate to unfold.
•The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
This needs clarification.  While many assume that the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” is between Muslims and non-Muslims, this is not always the case.  Soon after the announcement of the caliphate, the Islamic State made clear that it was in the phase of waging jihad on “apostates” and “hypocrites,” meaning all the “apostate” or “infidel” Arab leaders like Bashar al-Assad, as well as Muslim populations that are insufficiently “Islamic.”  It is for this reason that the new caliph took on the name of “Abu Bakr”—the name of the first historic caliph (632-634) whose caliphate was characterized by fighting and bringing back into the fold of Islam all those Arabs who broke away after Muhammad died.   Afterwards, when all the Arab tribes were unified under the banner of Islam, the great historic conquests, or jihads against neighboring “infidels,” took place.
•The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.
Phase seven remains to be seen, as it is has another five years to go.  As for the world being “so beaten down by the one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” actor Ben Affleck reflected this sentiment recently when he kept apologizing for Islam by saying Muslims “are a billion and a half.”   At any rate, considering that the preceding phases have all largely come to pass—with a passive West doing nothing to prevent them, that is, when not actively aiding them—there is certainly no good reason to think Western leadership will stop the final phase from occurring: a unified, aggressive, expansionist, and eventually possibly even nuclear armed caliphate preparing to terrorize its neighbors on a grand scale—just like its historic predecessor did for centuries.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fatah Homes in Gaza Bombed Ahead of Arafat Rally - Tova Dvorin

by Tova Dvorin

Senior Fatah members' homes were bombed overnight, leading unity PM Hamdallah to cancel visit; Hamas denies involvement.

A series of explosions were heard overnight in Gaza, Palestinian Arab media said Friday - allegedly at the homes of senior Fatah representatives in the Hamas-controlled region.

Despite the mysterious blasts no casualties were reported, but suspicions remain high that Hamas is behind the attack, in order to deter Fatah supporters from attending next week's annual rally in remembrance of former Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist Yasser Arafat.

Hamas denied involvement in the explosions overnight. 

"Hamas condemns the bombings on Fatah members' homes in the Gaza Strip," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri stated to the press Friday. "We urge security forces to investigate the matter and prosecute those involved." 

In response to the explosions, unity government Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah cancelled his visit to Gaza scheduled for Saturday, a senior source in Ramallah told Yediot Aharonoth.

Hamdallah had been set to accompany EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini in her visit to the area, but due to the blasts that plan was cut short.

The instance marks yet another crack in the facade of the Hamas-PA "unity government," which has been slowly crumbling over the past several months - despite recent efforts to present a "united front" to the international community. 

Differences of opinion have surfaced over several issues, including the war in Gaza, reactions to the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers, and the delayed payment of wages for government workers in Gaza in the weeks leading up to Operation Protective Edge. 

But those differences turned the factions explicitly against one another after Hamas staged dozens of executions of Gazans allegedly "collaborating with Israel" - or working for Fatah - prompting at least one Fatah official to compare Hamas to global jihadist group Islamic State (ISIS).

The IDF and the Israel Security Agency (ISA or Shin Bet) revealed earlier this year that a large-scale coup had been planned by Hamas in Judea and Samaria to overthrow the PA and Abbas's Fatah party, under orders given from Hamas officials abroad. 

Since then, Hamas has also refused the PA's demands that it let it supervise rebuilding in Gaza - furthering sowing discord between the two factions. It was also Fatah who exposed Hamas's human trafficking operation of Gaza residents to Europe in October. 

More recently, Hamas and the PA remain divided over whether to present the Arab uprisings as an "intifada" to the international press, with Hamas openly calling the rioting and recent terror attacks a "third intifada" and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas insisting otherwise, even as he urges more terror attacks.

Tova Dvorin


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran increases stockpile of uranium by 8% in the last two months - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

In a confidential report to member states, the IAEA says that Iran has increased its stockpile of refined uranium gas 8% over the last two months - a clear sign that the Islamic Republic has no intention of stopping its enrichment program.

It's not even clear that they intend to slow it down. The Iranians continue to add centrifuges to their main enrichment facility at Nantanz, which accounts for the increase.

The report also charges Iran with failing to adequately address the belief that they have worked on an atomic bomb design.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran had still not provided information it was due to produce more than two months ago to help advance a long-running IAEA inquiry into suspected nuclear weapons research.
The confidential document was issued to IAEA member states less than three weeks before the Nov. 24 deadline by which Iran and six global powers are seeking to end a decade-old standoff over the Islamic Republic's atomic activities.
"Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures," it said.
The IAEA was referring to two steps that Iran had agreed to carry out by late August, by providing information concerning allegations of explosives tests and other activity that could be used to develop nuclear bombs.
Iran denies any intention of seeking atomic weapons, saying its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity.
The U.N. agency said the two sides last met on Nov. 2 in the Iranian capital and had agreed to meet again as soon as possible, but not before Nov. 24. "There is no progress, basically," one diplomat familiar with the Iran file said.
The continuing deadlock in the IAEA's investigation suggests that any renewed headway will probably have to wait until after the negotiations between Iran and the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia are concluded.
Iran wants the talks to lead to a removal of international sanctions on its oil-dependent economy, but Western officials say it must step up cooperation with the IAEA to help clarify longstanding concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
To go ahead and ink a deal when the IAEA says they're not sure Iran isn't trying to construct a bomb is irresponsible. Given the president's domestic problems, he probably thinks he needs this :historic" deal to cement his legacy. Iran still hasn't agreed to the intrusive inspection regime that the western powers want in order to keep an eye on the Iranian nuclear program. That too, may be jettisoned if Obama thinks it stands in the way of a deal.

No wonder the president doesn't want the Senate voting on this turkey.

Rick Moran


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

President's Lawyer: Jerusalem = Crimea - Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

While virtually all politicos and pundits eyes were focused on the elections, President Obama’s solicitor general Monday was quietly dropping a bombshell in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a case being heard by the high court involving a U.S. citizen’s passport, Donald Verrilli in oral arguments compared the status of Jerusalem to that of the Crimea. Verrilli is the president's lawyer and seen as his voice on all true constitutional questions.

Just as U.S. consular officials would not list “Crimea, Russia” on a birth certificate for an American citizen born in that region seized by Russia earlier this year, we could not inscribe “Jerusalem, Israel” on nine-year old Menachem Zivotovsky’s birth certificate without officially recognizing Jerusalem as a part of the Jewish State. Obama appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor went so far as to brand any recognition of united Jerusalem by the U.S. as “a lie.”

The Obama administration’s non-position position has been that Jerusalem’s status was laid out in elaborate detail by Victoria Nuland in this famous response to a reporter’s question in 2012. The then-State Department press secretary Nuland danced around the question by saying the status of Jerusalem is the subject of “final status negotiations.”

But this week, the President’s lawyer went much further than Nuland’s nuances when on Monday he compared Jerusalem’s status to that of Crimea. The Crimea is that portion of Ukraine overrun by pro-Russian rebels and effectively incorporated into the Russian republic.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine was roundly condemned by the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and to a greater or lesser degree, the countries of the NATO alliance. Russia’s aggression triggered economic, legal, and diplomatic sanctions imposed by America and our allies.

Young Menachem’s parents have gone to court seeking to force this administration to honor a 2002 law signed by President George W. Bush. That measure officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and calls for the U.S. to move our embassy to that historic city. The Zivotovskys are asking only that their son’s U.S. passport list Jerusalem as a part of Israel.

Ironically, George W. Bush issued one of his disputed “signing statements” as he penned his signature to the measure (which included many other items favored by his administration). Mr. Bush demurred from following through on those portions of the bill relating to Jerusalem.

It was these “signing statements” that candidate Barack Obama had denounced when he stumped the country. He noted that he, unlike Mr. Bush, had taught constitutional law. And therefore he, unlike the incumbent, would not resort to this unconstitutional practice should he occupy the Oval Office.

We might say President Obama has “evolved” on this matter, too. Now, he sends his solicitor general into the nation’s highest court to seethe with hostility to Israel.

It was one thing for Victoria Nuland in 2012 to repeatedly dodge the reporter’s question about the capital of Israel. Despite the outrage her statement provoked then from American friends of Israel, she did not, she claimed, prejudge what that final status for Jerusalem would be.

Now, the Obama administration’s mask has dropped. In publicly comparing Jerusalem to Crimea, President Obama’s top lawyer is branding Israel’s position in Jerusalem illegitimate, the product of naked aggression.

Where to start in responding to this dog’s breakfast of errors? First, Jerusalem was reunited in 1967 as a result of a defensive war fought by Israel. Egypt’s dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser had rallied the Arabs to “drive the Jews into the sea.” Jordan joined in Egypt’s war effort. So did Syria. All of those states were defeated in that unprovoked war.

Second, Jerusalem has always been viewed by the Jews as their capital. And it was so viewed by most of the civilized world. And no other occupying power has ever made Jerusalem its capital. Not the Greeks, the Romans, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Turks, the British, the Jordanians. Not one of these powers has ever named Jerusalem as its capital.

Third, President Obama went to a reunited Berlin in 2008 to deliver an address before adoring masses of Germans. He has never questioned Germany’s right to name its own capital, even though Germany fought two destructive world wars against the United States. The historic irony abounds because it was in Berlin that the Holocaust of the Jews was plotted by the Nazis.

How disgraceful it is, therefore, to see President Obama’s solicitor-general branding united Jerusalem as illegitimate by likening its status to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The new Republican Congress needs to address this shameful Obama administration policy. Leaders of the new House and Senate majorities should use the authority the American people have just overwhelmingly conferred upon them to right the Obama administration’s historic wrong. They should heed the advice of Winston Churchill: “Let the Jews have Jerusalem: It is they who made it famous.”

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama’s Amnesty By Blackmail - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Ignoring voters’ historic coast-to-coast repudiation of his disastrous policies this week, President Obama is now threatening to move forward unilaterally with a massive immigration amnesty by the end of the year.

At his first post-election press conference Wednesday, instead of embracing conciliation as a responsible adult might do, Obama, the petulant Chicagoland thug, pulled a switchblade. Obama tried to blackmail newly emboldened congressional Republicans, vowing to enact amnesty through executive fiat if Congress doesn’t play ball.

Republicans’ newly won control of the Senate and enhanced majority in the House of Representatives means the Republicans who just gave Obama’s Democratic allies a savage electoral beat-down are now in a better position to give Obama the unprecedented immigration amnesty he wants. As the president said,
So before the end of the year, we’re going to take whatever lawful actions that I can take that I believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system … at the same time, I’ll be reaching out to both [incoming Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell, [House Speaker] John Boehner, and other Republican as well as Democratic leaders to find out how it is that they want to proceed. And if they want to get a bill done — whether it’s during the [approaching] lame duck [session of Congress] or next year — I’m eager to see what they have to offer.
Although McConnell and Boehner have been all over the map on immigration amnesty in recent months, since the election they have said they will not be pushed around by the president on the issue of amnesty.

Acting unilaterally on immigration would be “a big mistake” akin to “waving a red flag in front of a bull,” McConnell said. Such action “poisons the well for an opportunity to address a very important domestic issue.”

Boehner also said unilateral action would “poison the well.” The House Speaker warned Obama, “when you play with matches, then you take the risk of burning yourself, and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”

Contrary to what Obama said, there are virtually no lawful actions Obama can take on amnesty, but the president has always viewed laws as speed bumps on the road to social justice. The wily former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer promised to ignore the separation of powers prescribed by the U.S. Constitution and implement Third World-style government-by-decree. He said:
But what I’m not going to do is just wait. I think it’s fair to say that I’ve shown a lot of patience and have tried to work on a bipartisan basis as much as possible, and I’m going to keep on doing so. But in the meantime, let’s figure out what we can do lawfully through executive actions to improve the functioning of the existing system.
Obama, a master of rhetorical tricks, hasn’t actually been patient. He already illegally granted an amnesty benefiting certain categories of illegal aliens. A recently uncovered government procurement order suggests his administration may be planning to issue 34 million work visas and green cards without the required legal authorization from Americans’ elected representatives in Congress.

As for reaching out to the GOP, Obama is lying as usual. He has no interest in working with congressional Republicans. He has only slightly more interest in working with congressional Democrats. He’s a megalomaniacal, authoritarian leader who is only comfortable when he’s calling the shots.

Reporter Jon Karl embarrassed Obama during the presser by pointing out that “Mitch McConnell has been the Republican Leader for six years, as long as you’ve been President.” Karl continued, “But his office tells me that he has only met with you one-on-one once or twice during that entire six-year period.”

Obama didn’t acknowledge that fact and awkwardly segued into a discussion of sharing some Kentucky bourbon with Sen. McConnell even though he admitted he didn’t know if McConnell drinks bourbon.

Parts of Obama’s strange prepared statement were laced with practiced platitudes as the nation’s Chief Executive dismissed the election results as irrelevant:
Still, as president, I have a unique responsibility to try and make this town work. So, to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too. All of us have to give more Americans a reason to feel like the ground is stable beneath their feet, that the future is secure, that there’s a path for young people to succeed, and that folks here in Washington are concerned about them. So I plan on spending every moment of the next two-plus years doing my job the best I can to keep this country safe and to make sure that more Americans share in its prosperity.
Of course people who do not vote can’t actually be called “voters,” but thinking has never been the strong suit of this man who thinks “Austrian” is a language and who celebrates “Cinco de Quatro.” In Obama’s disordered mind he didn’t really lose, even though he proudly boasted mere weeks ago that the election would be seen as a referendum on his administration. “I’m not on the ballot this fall … but make no mistake, these policies [of mine] are on the ballot — every single one of them,” he said on the campaign trail.

Obama doesn’t seem to accept the new Republican majorities in both houses of Congress as politically legitimate, as J. Christian Adams argues. This contempt for Americans who don’t toe the leftist line is part of the Left’s deep-seated hatred of the American system of governance. Adams explains:
It is a favorite fable among far-left groups like the Advancement Project and Demos that more voters is always good and fewer voters is always bad. They firmly believe that the path to a progressive policy wonderland is to get everyone with a heartbeat to vote.  This is part of an even older fable that the ‘system’ robs the underclass of power through laws, rules, racist constructs and oppressive societal structures – like having to make the effort to register to vote, for example.
It’s all the usual blatherskite we’ve come to expect from Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizers. If they win, they shout to the heavens that they’ve secured a thunderous mandate from We The People; if they don’t win, they try to discredit the results.

And it’s quite a contrast from the way Obama acts when his side wins.

Days after Obama’s first inauguration he brazenly flaunted his new political legitimacy in a closed-door meeting with congressional leaders. Republicans would have to do his bidding because, as he baldly stated, “I won.”

Republicans still have to submit to the Dear Leader because he claims to have a mandate from the whole of the American people.

As his approval ratings continue to plummet Obama seems oblivious to the contempt that normal, patriotic Americans feel for him as they lose their jobs and their health care because of his socialist meddling. And he cannot seem to fathom the brutal, historic thrashing his party received in congressional elections on Tuesday.

On Tuesday the GOP flipped control of the Senate, winning at least 52 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 242 seats. Republicans captured governors’ mansions in –of all places– Democrat-dominated Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland, and will control at least 66 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber).

Meanwhile, President Obama is scheduled to meet today at the White House with congressional leaders to discuss legislative matters, including amnesty.

But if Obama really believes he has the power to enact an amnesty by presidential decree, why bother having such a meeting? The president’s phone and pen ought to suffice to rewrite immigration laws.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.