Saturday, April 11, 2015

EMP Nuclear Attack Fears Have US Reopen Cheyenne Mountain - Mark Langfan

by Mark Langfan

Days after Iran deal, Pentagon acts fearing nuclear missile attack that would burn out America’s electronic-based defenses.

Admiral William Gortney
Admiral William Gortney
The Pentagon has decided to reopen the Cheyenne Mountain Air Defense facility, which housed the heart of America’s air and missile defense of North America. The facility had been mothballed in a “cost-saving” move in 2006.

Last week, Admiral William Gortney, head of US NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and US Northern Command, reversed that decision and announced the Pentagon was spending an opening ante of $700 million to oversee reactivation of the Cheyenne mountain-embedded facility.

The reason - the Pentagon's fears of a nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack by a missile that would burn out America’s overly-dependent defense, which is based on modern electronics.

US NORAD and US Northern Command aren’t just acronyms. They represent the last-ditch American defense of the continental United States homeland. NORAD originally stood for North America Air Defense Command, but now stands for North American Aerospace Command. US Northern Command is the area-specific designation of the US military command that is responsible for the continental United States homeland.

Given the current US military fear of an inter-continental ballistic (ICBM) missile attack with an EMP nuclear-device, Admiral Gortney explained that "because of the very nature of the way that Cheyenne Mountain's built, it's EMP-hardened. And so, there's a lot of movement [in the Pentagon] to put [military] capability into Cheyenne Mountain and to be able to communicate in there."

Cheyenne Mountain Reuters
In early 2013, this author warned against a similar Iranian “Fatwa-compliant” EMP attack against Saudi Arabia, and a North Korea EMP attack against South Korea.

In an even more startling admission, Admiral Gortney revealed that his “primary concern” was whether the Pentagon was “going to have the space inside the [Cheyenne] mountain for everybody who wants to move in there, and I'm not at liberty to discuss who's moving in there."

The Cheyenne mountain bunker is a half-acre cavern that was carved into a mountain in the 1960s that was originally designed to withstand a Soviet nuclear attack. During the Cold War, the United States feared a Soviet nuclear attack scenario that would feature an opening Soviet “EMP decapitation” nuclear attack.

Such a nuclear attack was not the launch of a massive Soviet nuclear first-strike against American cities, but instead, a first-strike Soviet “EMP decapitation” attack that would explode a nuclear device high-above the United States, burning out all of America’s command and control communication systems, and thus severing America’s President from being able to order the US military to retaliate.

By first electronically destroying America’s communications systems, the Soviets would thus have “decapitated” the US’s ability to respond to a secondary more massive follow-on Soviet nuclear attack on American cities.

Thus, a successful Soviet nuclear EMP attack on the US would have "trumped" the concept of MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, because America would have been unable to retaliate and destroy the Soviet Union in response to a Soviet nuclear attack.

During the Cold War, airmen stationed inside the massive complex were poised to send warnings and firing codes that could trigger the launch of America’s vast web of nuclear missiles. Now, in light of the latest nuclear EMP dangers hanging over the United States, the US military, and the United States of America- itself, once again hopes to be protected by the mountains of Colorado.

There is speculation that the renewed fears of an EMP nuclear attack are not unrelated to Iran's nuclear program.

At the start of the month a framework deal was signed allowing the Islamic regime to keep its nuclear facilities and continue enriching uranium at limited levels, although Iran has said it will used advanced centrifuges after a deal is signed meaning it would be poised to rapidly achieve a nuclear arsenal.

It has been noted that the deal does not at all address Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, which as noted is necessary in conducting an EMP attack.

Mark Langfan


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

Why Palestinians in Yarmouk Are Unlucky - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

For Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders, the desire to punish Israel is stronger than the will to save the lives of thousands of Palestinians being killed in Syria by the Islamic State and starved by the Syrian army, which has been besieging Yarmouk for 700 days.
Instead of devoting their energies and efforts to stop the massacres in Yarmouk, PA officials were busy preparing a new draft resolution to be submitted to the UN Security Council, establishing a timeline for ending Israeli "occupation."
The Arab foreign ministers who met in Cairo earlier this week to discuss ways of backing the new Palestinian bid, deliberately ignored that, as they were chatting and sipping coffee, Palestinians were being slaughtered and forced to flee their homes in Yarmouk.
For the PA, Jews participating in a marathon seems to be more serious and life-threatening than Islamic State terrorists beheading Palestinians and destroying Palestinian homes in Yarmouk.
"All that is left for us to do is howl, slap and cry." — Ashraf al-Ajrami, former Palestinian Authority minister.

As Palestinians were being killed and beheaded by Islamic State terrorists in the Yarmouk refugee camp near Damascus over the past week, Palestinian leaders once again proved that delegitimizing and isolating Israel is more important than caring about their people.

After seven days of fighting, Islamic State is now in control of nearly 90% of the camp, which once used to be home to more than 150,000 Palestinians. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) estimates that since the beginning of the civil war in Syria four years ago, the population of Yarmouk has dropped to 18,000.

Part of Yarmouk, near Damascus, after being damaged by fighting. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas leaders have expressed deep concern over the Islamic State takeover of Yarmouk. Over the past week, these leaders issued daily statements strongly condemning the "massacres" in Yarmouk and calling for an end to the fighting. But they have stopped short of calling for an emergency meeting of Arab leaders to stop the attack on the camp.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas decided earlier this week to dispatch senior PLO representative Ahmed Majdalani to Syria for talks aimed at ending the crisis and saving the lives of the camp residents.

In some parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian activists held sit-in strikes and small rallies in protest against the "heinous crimes" perpetrated by Islamic State against Palestinians in Yarmouk.

But the decision to dispatch the PLO official to Syria and the limited protests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are unlikely to help the Palestinians in Yarmouk. Nor will they deter Islamic State terrorists from proceeding with their crimes.

The Palestinians in Yarmouk are unlucky, mainly because they are being attacked and killed by Muslims, and not by Israel. An Israeli attack on the camp would have drawn worldwide condemnation and protests, with Palestinian and Arab leaders rushing to seek the intervention of the UN Security Council and the international community.

The Palestinians in Yarmouk are unlucky because their leaders in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are still busy fighting each other over power and money. This is a power struggle that has been going on since Hamas drove the PA out of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007.

They are also unfortunate because Palestinian leaders seem to have other things on their minds, such as proceeding with the campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel in every possible international forum. For PA leaders, the desire to punish Israel is stronger than the will to save the lives of thousands of Palestinians being killed by the Islamic State and starved by the Syrian army, which has been besieging Yarmouk for more than 700 days.

Instead of devoting their energies and efforts to stop the massacres in Yarmouk, Palestinian Authority officials were busy during the past week preparing a new draft resolution to be submitted to the UN Security Council, establishing a timeline for ending Israeli "occupation."

The proposed resolution, of course, does not make any reference to the Yarmouk tragedy. The Arab foreign ministers who met in Cairo earlier this week to discuss ways of backing the new Palestinian bid deliberately ignored that, as they were chatting and sipping coffee, Palestinians were being slaughtered and forced to flee their homes in Yarmouk.

Instead, PA officials were traveling from one country to the other to advance their campaign to punish and isolate Israel.

Jibril Rajoub, Chairman of the Palestinian Football Association, was in Cairo to demand that the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) suspend Israel's membership. Rajoub did not see any need to travel to Syria to try to help his people in Yarmouk.

It is worth noting that FIFA President Sepp Blatter said he was opposed to the Palestinian bid. "[S]uspension of a federation for any reason is always something which harms the whole organization," he said. It is hard to see how suspending Israel's membership in FIFA would help any Palestinian, especially those who are being starved to death and slaughtered by the Syrian army and the Islamic State.

While the fighting in Yarmouk continued, PA President Mahmoud Abbas flew to Doha for talks with the emir of Qatar. The PLO's official news agency reported that Abbas and the emir discussed "bilateral relations and the latest developments concerning the Palestinian cause." Again, there was no reference to the plight of the Yarmouk residents. It later transpired that Abbas went to Qatar to ask for a $100 million loan.

Although Abbas's ruling Fatah faction did express concern over the Yarmouk tragedy in a series of laconic statements published in the past few days in Ramallah, Fatah proved once again that Palestinians being butchered, starved to death and forced out of their homes is not more important than the campaign to punish and isolate Israel.

Instead of talking about that the Islamic State's and Syria's war crimes against Palestinians, Fatah continues to boast that it is spearheading the campaign against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

Here is what Fatah spokesman Osama Qawassmeh had to say while the fighting in Yarmouk was underway: "The Palestinian leadership is determined to pursue its efforts to prosecute Israel for war crimes. We will present to the International Criminal Court all the necessary documents that implicate Israeli war criminals."

The Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information also seemed to be more concerned with a "settler marathon" than with the lives of Palestinians in Yarmouk.

In a statement issued in Ramallah, the ministry condemned a planned marathon by settlers as an "aggression against Palestinian territories and continuation of Israeli arrogance." The ministry called on all international institutions and human rights groups to "focus on the terror of settlers, which is this time disguised in sports clothing."

For the Palestinian Authority, Jews participating in a marathon seems to be more serious and life-threatening than Islamic State terrorists beheading Palestinians and destroying Palestinian homes in Yarmouk.

Were the Palestinian leaders to invest 10% of their anti-Israel efforts to help their people in Yarmouk and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians would be in a much better situation today. However, these leaders are obviously determined to remain obsessed with Israel at the same time as they continue to bury their heads in the sand about ISIS's slaughter of their people.

Summing up the state on apathy toward the suffering of the Palestinians in Syria, Ashraf al-Ajrami, a former PA minister, remarked: "The Palestinian situation is at its worst phase. The PLO has lost the ability to move and defend the Palestinians in all places. The various Palestinian factions are incapable of forming a Palestinian force to protect the refugees. The Palestinian leadership is also incapable of ending the division between Fatah and Hamas. All that is left for us to do is to howl, slap and cry."
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

Iran framework deal sounding more and more like it doesn't exist - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

And it isn't just that the two sides aren't on the same page as far as what was negotiated in the framework deal. They are talking about two different deals - one with sanctions lifted immediately upon implementation and one where sanctions are lifted gradually.

The framework agreement with Iran announced last week by the White House consisted of a 2 page memorandum outlining what the deal covered.

But there have been so many differences in interpretation by Iran and the US, that it makes you wonder if there's any agreement at all?

The Hill:
Iran supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that the United States is “lying” about the terms of a framework nuclear agreement will not derail the negotiations, the White House said Friday.

“The test of whether or not that framework can be memorialized in a deal is not going to be a comment on any given day by a particular Iranian leader,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters.

Whether a final deal is reached will depend on the ability of negotiators from the U.S., Iran and five other world powers to produce a document by the end of June that “meets our core objectives of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Rhodes said. 

Khamenei on Thursday accused the U.S. of publishing a fact sheet about the framework agreement that misrepresented what was agreed to, particularly on the pace of sanctions relief and inspections of nuclear sites.

The ayatollah’s comments raised concerns that the differences between Iran and other world powers would be too vast to reach a final deal by the June 30 deadline.

Republicans, meanwhile, have seized on his remarks to argue that the “framework” announced last week wasn’t really a deal at all.

“The Ayatollah and President Obama appear to be talking about two separate agreements and unfortunately, I can’t say I’m surprised,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is considering a run for president in 2016, said in a statement Friday.

“President Obama wants a deal way too badly, and his administration has been trying to sell a deal which may not actually exist,” he added.

Under the framework agreement, Iran would accept limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions that have crippled its economy.

Iran has called for the sanctions to be removed upon the completion of a deal, but the U.S. and its negotiating partners want them lifted gradually as Iran proves it is abiding by the terms of an agreement.  

Basically, Rhodes is saying only we can spin what the deal means, not the Iranians.

And it isn't just that the two sides aren't on the same page as far as what was negotiated in the framework deal. They are talking about two different deals - one with sanctions lifted immediately upon implementation and one where sanctions are lifted gradually. One where nuclear inspections are severe and complete and another where military sites are off limits to inspectors. One where the facility at Fordow is converted into a kind of nuclear school and another where research can continue as well as 1000 centrifuges can continue spinning.

It takes a lot of cynicism to pull off this kind of diplomatic lie, as well as complete confidence that the press won't make a big deal about it. But in the end, the administration is either going to have to cave in to the Iranian interpretation of the agreement, or walk away from negotiations.

Which do you think more likley? 

Rick Moran


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

There is No "Better Deal" with Iran - Efraim Inbar

by Efraim Inbar

Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal – which will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P-5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions and details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. Moreover, the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will result in little change. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal – which will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the US agreed to the "Joint Plan of Action" on Iran's nuclear program. Already back then, the US decided not to insist on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several UN Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment. Washington also disregarded the security concerns of its allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which is no surprise. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: The capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; an agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

With no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, we are progressing toward the North Korean model.
Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran's nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). 
Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama's administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the US is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region – a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.
It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.
Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama's penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) have led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the US Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama's deal with Iran fulfills only one main function – to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb, that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

Efraim Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.


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

The Arabian Candidate - William Kirkpatrick

by William Kirkpatrick

-- let's --fast forward to relatively recent times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised. After all, even President Obama had relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood. So it would have been silly to make something of it.

In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. Hence, the title “Manchurian Candidate.”
The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system.

In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings who looks vaguely like Angela Lansbury (only scarier) manipulates herself into high political office.

In her case, teams of brainwashers are not required, since she has brainwashed herself into believing that foreign governments are dumping truckloads of cash into her family foundation because she’s such a charming and intelligent woman. And also because Arab sovereigns like nothing better than to do their part to improve the lives of the poor, the hungry, the environmentally underserved, and kids who need braces—in short, the very causes for which the foundation was founded.

Another similarity is that in the film, the Angela Lansbury character has some sort of hypnotic power over her son, the unwitting assassin. Whenever it begins to dawn on him that something funny is going on, she flashes a Queen of Diamonds playing card and he falls into a catatonic state of complete obedience. In the present situation the Angela Lansbury look-alike has merely to flash the gender card and, presto, skeptical voters fall back into line.

There are parallels to other movies as well. Today’s Queen of Diamonds has a secret server in her home so that her exchanges with foreign dono—I mean “diplomats”—can’t be traced. I’m not sure if the server takes up only one room of the palatial house, or a whole suite of rooms. And who knows what’s in the cavern-like basement? It’s all faintly reminiscent of those James Bond thrillers in which the villain’s remote island estate sits atop a vast underground military-industrial complex.

At some point the analogy breaks down. You could still convince a sixties audience that leftists were willing to sell out the country. We, on the other hand, have convinced ourselves that we live in a brave new world where such things never happen—at least, not in modern Western societies. No one would dare to pull a fast one on us because we’re just too smart. We’ve grown up watching CSI, we went to schools that taught critical thinking, and our history texts were written by Howard Zinn. We’ve also been nurtured on relativism, so if it were discovered that Arabs controlled the White House, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “at this point, what does it matter?”

The Clinton-Arab connection actually goes back to the time when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and worked to secure a hefty Saudi contribution to a Middle-Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas. But let’s skip all that and fast forward to relatively recent times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed her longtime aide Huma Abedin as Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department. When it was discovered that Abedin’s family was deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, very few eyebrows were raised. After all, even President Obama had relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood. So it would have been silly to make something of it.

It’s probably just a coincidence that while working for the Clintons, Huma herself was the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which—you guessed it—is a Muslim Brotherhood journal. Before that, and while still interning at the White House, she was an executive board member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at George Washington University. The MSA was the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and George Washington was the first Muslim president. Well, the latter hasn’t yet been firmly established, but it’s just a matter of time until those Saudi-funded Mid-East studies professors at the University of Arkansas and the Saudi-funded professors at Georgetown (Bill’s alma mater) discover the prayer rug in the attic at Mount Vernon. It’s also probably a coincidence that, like her boss, Huma conducted State Department business using her own personal e-mail address, connected, one supposes, to the same master server that served her master so well… er, mistress.

Abedin also worked until recently for the Clinton Foundation. Again, this is no doubt a pure coincidence and, as the old saying goes, it has nothing to do with Islam. Although CSI investigators would have a field day with such coincidences, today’s government officials seem curiously lacking in curiosity. In 2012, Michelle Bachmann and four other House members wrote letters to the Inspector Generals of several government agencies asking them to conduct an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the government. They were particularly concerned about Human Abedin in view of her family connections and influential position. They noted that the Clinton State Department had “taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests.”

The request was dismissed by numerous congressmen and senators as “offensive,” “insensitive,” and even “hurtful.” By that time the machinery of the “Islamophobia” industry was already in high gear and it was deemed prudent even by Republicans to defend Abedin and to damn her accusers as McCarthyites.

Still, the case for an inquiry seemed strong. As one McCarthyite, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, observed, even if Abedin was innocent of any wrongdoing, the State Departments own guidelines about foreign family connections would disqualify her for a security clearance for such a sensitive position.

But then, again, a lot of people in sensitive positions don’t seem to qualify for a security clearance. For example, if all your closest relatives were leftists or communists, if your chief mentors were, respectively, a member of the Communist Party and a radical left-wing preacher, and if you used to hang out with known terrorists, you probably couldn’t get a job as a night watchman at an auto parts warehouse. On the other hand, if someone with the same background throws his hat into the presidential ring, he can become Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and get to set foreign policy.

He also gets to appoint Secretaries of State. It shouldn’t be any surprise if they turn out to be the kind of people who can’t be bothered with security checks. Such people seem to live in an ethereal realm that puts them above suspicion and above conflicts of interest. Normally, when a Secretary of State receives tens of millions in donations from countries that support the spread of a radical ideology, it would be a sign that something is terribly wrong. For an analogy, ask yourself if you would keep someone on at your firm if she had access to sensitive trade secrets and yet received huge gifts from rival corporations while conducting company business on her private server.

You would probably get rid of her pronto. But that’s only if you apply the normal rules of logic—which apparently don’t apply to Secretaries of State appointed by President Obama. If you applied such logic, you might also think there was something awkward about the fact that current Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter is married to an Iranian who has extensive family ties in Iran. As Kenneth Timmerman points out, the FBI usually won’t grant security clearance to “individuals who are married to nationals of an enemy nation or have family members living in that country, for fear of divided loyalties or, more simply, blackmail.” Of course, you would have to be some kind of conspiracy nut to think that having vulnerable in-laws in Iran would in any way compromise Secretary Kerry’s negotiations with the representatives of a country whose leaders routinely indulge in “death to America” rhetoric.

Undoubtedly, the President consulted with his senior adviser Valerie Jarrett about the matter. Since Jarrett was born in Iran and spoke Persian as a child, she would, by current standards of expertise, be assumed to have deep insight into the Persian mind. She could have assured the president that “Great Satan” and “Death to America” are typical of the rhetorical exuberance that characterizes the rich and vibrant Iranian culture. Moreover, she could have allayed any concerns about blackmail. Anyone who has studied “Cliff Notes on Islam” knows that blackmail runs counter to the deeply held beliefs of the mullahs.

Jarretts’ family left Iran when she was five, but apparently those five years were enough to qualify her as an expert on Iranian affairs. According to Discover the Networks, it was revealed in 2012 that for several months, Jarrett “had been leading secret negotiations with representatives of Iran’s Supreme leader… in an effort to normalize relations between the U.S. and Iran.”

The mind spins at the –what’s the word?—the audacity of it all. But the curious thing is not that there are people in high places willing to put self-interest ahead of the national interest. Such people are always with us. The curious thing is that the American people and the American press accept it with such equanimity. During the Obama-Clinton-Kerry-Jarrett-Abedin years, Russia seized the Crimea, ISIS seized large parts of Iraq and Syria, the Taliban re-established itself in Afghanistan, allies stopped trusting us, enemies were emboldened, the Middle East was set on fire, and the Army was drastically reduced. Oh, and the way was cleared for Iran to have nuclear bombs. Future generations—if there are any—will wonder what we were thinking.

What we were thinking, they may discover, goes something like this (in shorthand brain language): “Mustn’t think that! Mustn’t say that! Not nice! What will people think!” You’d have to go back to the Victorian era to find another society with so much concern for propriety of thought and speech. Thomas Sowell put his finger on the phenomenon in a recent editorial. When it comes to matters of survival, he observed, we have “put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.”

He’s right. A sort of suicidal etiquette that chokes off common sense has grown up in our society. Under the rules of the new etiquette, we aren’t allowed to say that the Emperor has no clothes. We dare not even point out that the Emperor and his ministers appear to be throwing open the gates to the enemy.

Let’s see: The people of the United States elect as president a man they know very little about. When it becomes obvious that he has deep leftist sympathies combined with deep Islamist sympathies, they elect him again. He, in turn, appoints one Secretary of State who is beholden to Arab largesse, and then, after she steps down, he replaces her with a man who practices folk-song diplomacy and has close family ties with Iran.

The Manchurian Candidate? On one level, the current situation is so full of farce, that a serious drama like The Manchurian Candidate couldn’t do it justice. If you were to make a movie of the current mandarin mess, it might be better to play it for laughs—an Austin Powers-type spoof or something along the lines of Abbott and Costello meet the Manchurian Candidate.

On another level, the situation is so fraught with apocalyptic dangers that only a deadly serious doomsday film—something along the lines of Fail Safe—could bring home the enormity of our current folly. In any event, there’s a title ready made for it. If the first Obama election could be called Death Wish I, and his re-election, Death Wish II, then the election of Hillary Clinton would deservedly merit the title, Death Wish IIIThe Final Chapter.

William Kilpatrick is the author of Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. Visit his site,, for more of his commentaries.


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

J-Street & New Israel Fund Post-Zionism: Calling for the Destruction of the Jewish State - Matan Peleg

by Matan Peleg

Freedman’s words express the complete and total denial of reality contained within the post-Zionist approach; a denial of history and a denial of politics.

Marcia Freedman is not well known. Yet she is a former Member of Knesset for the Ratz party (predecessor to the Meretz party), and one of the few Members of Knesset who emigrated from Israel following her Knesset term and returned to her country of birth – the United States.

During the recent J Street conference Freedman successfully and succinctly expressed the classic post-Zionist approach that calls into question the existence of the state of Israel as a Zionist state – meaning, a Jewish and democratic state.

Her words are worthy of consideration:
“If we think about Zionism as an attempt to create a homeland for the Jewish people, rather than a Jewish state, then we have a lot of space in which to think about Zionism, and we have a lot of space to think about what this country of Israel ought to look like in particular, with respect to the Palestinians from whom we took the land. We took this land, and we displaced a people who are now struggling for their place in the world…”
Freedman then went on to further argue that:
“I suspect that it’s the idea that somehow or other a Jewish homeland cannot create a secure refuge and center for the Jewish people unless we are the majority in that state is one that we really need to start thinking about… Let’s not talk about separation, let’s talk about cooperation. Let’s not talk about keeping control, let’s talk about losing control and integrating and becoming a state of all of its peoples. That is what we need to be thinking about, and there is no reason, there is no internal contradiction between that and between having a state that is a secure refuge and homeland for the Jewish people… If then it [Israel] were a true democracy in all respects, that guaranteed and fiercely protected the rights of all minorities, including the governing rights of minorities, then I think we can begin to imagine a Jewish homeland, a homeland for the Jewish people, in which we are a minority. Because we are a protected minority, and our mission of having a homeland and refuge for the Jews in case of need, is secured by the state, no matter who is in power.”
Freedman’s words express the complete and total denial of reality contained within the post-Zionist approach; a denial of history and a denial of politics.

First, let’s look at her denial of history:
  • “Zionism as a secure refuge and center for the Jewish people, rather than a Jewish state.”
Freedman is just plain wrong. The Zionist movement, which was reawakened in the modern era under the leadership of Theodor Herzl, never spoke of a “secure refuge and center for the Jewish people,” rather it specifically stated that “Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.” Even in the state’s Declaration of Independence, the term “Jewish State” is specifically mentioned six times, while the word “democracy” isn’t mentioned even once.  Of course, this due to the clear understanding that the Zionist movement is a democratic one.
  • “The Jews stole the Palestinians’ land.”
This is simply a lie. The Jewish Settlement (the Yishuv) in modern times deliberately avoided, mainly out of fear, settling alongside or within Arab communities. Quite the contrary. Before the founding of the country, the Yishuv bought swampland and desolate areas at exorbitant prices with the intention of settling those lands. If Freedman is referring to the Arab houses which stood empty following the 1948 War of Independence, and which were (partially) used as housing for Jews, this is a war that the Jews did not start, and one the Jews neither wanted nor desired. Therefore the hostile – initiating – losing party, as in every place and every time in history, must suffer the consequences.

So, to Mrs. Freedman – I’m sorry we won. Truly, no one thought that in the War of Independence, a tiny Jewish settlement would defeat the armies of seven Arab states and all of the Arab residents of the land, who received assistance from the British. And if she is referring to Judea and Samaria (“the West Bank”), here too Freedman is showing an obvious disconnection from reality. The source of all of the Palestinians’ problems is and always has been their almost religious “resistance,” which the Arabs are so proud of. We’ve already grown accustomed to the fact that every time we try to make peace, Israeli buses begin to explode.

So is it really any wonder that a sane political solution has yet to be found? A fair and true analysis would entirely reject any Jewish fault for the Palestinians’ condition. You can ask Hamas in Gaza. One week after the government of Israel emptied the entire Gaza Strip of Jews in 2005, Hamas sent a suicide bomber to nearby Beer Sheva in order to show that the resistance would continue. Later they perpetrated a brutal and murderous coup against Mahmoud Abbas’ forces, and from that day, until today, have been launching nonstop rocket attacks against civilian citizens of Israel.

The denial of political reality:
  • “Let’s not talk about separation, let’s talk about cooperation.”
Freedman is uttering a breathtaking fabrication. There is no separation between Jews and Arabs in the State of Israel. She knows this because she once lived here. In Israel there are Arab judges (as well as an Arab justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, who was the chair of the Israel Central Elections Committee in the recent elections). There are Arab police officers, Arab doctors, Arab students study alongside Jewish students, and the list goes on.

So it’s not clear what kind of “cooperation” she is talking about that doesn’t exist. And if we assume for a moment that Freedman is referring to Judea and Samaria again and not to the rest of Israel, then we need merely to remind her that any attempt at cooperation between Jews and Arabs in Judea and Samaria led immediately and directly to terrorism and to the murder of Jews.

It has always been this way. It was that way before the country was even founded. The slaughter of the Jewish community in Hebron in 1929 (19 years before the state of Israel was founded) is but one example out of a myriad of such examples that continue to this day.

By the way, the very clear separation that does exist in Judea and Samaria is actually at the behest and initiative of the Palestinians themselves. What this means, is that Jews may not enter Arab settlements or villages. Over the years, the Palestinians have killed or tried to kill every Jew that entered their villages, whether on purpose or by accident. As mentioned earlier, the principle of “resistance,” which the Palestinians are so proud of, is the source of all of their problems.
  • “If then it [Israel] were a true democracy in all respects, that guaranteed and fiercely protected the rights of all minorities… we can begin to imagine a Jewish homeland.”
Not only is Freedman again lying, but she is displaying a complete lack of awareness of the state of minorities in the Middle East. Here, the only minorities in the Middle East who are NOT being persecuted slaughtered or who suffer from a lack of human rights are those that live in the Jewish state.

A casual read of a daily paper drives this point home in gruesome detail. Syria, Iraq and Yemen are all their own Hells on earth. Even now, Coptic Christians in Egypt suffer from a lack of civil rights. There is not one Arab state where Arabs of Palestinian descent enjoy equal human rights, despite their being Arabs, descended from Arabs, just like all the other Arabs who live around them.

Embarrassingly from Freedman’s perspective the sovereign Jewish State is the only one in the region that provides minorities with human rights and protects them. Is it any wonder that in recent years, more and more minority leaders in Israel are coming out and calling to strengthen Zionism? (For instance, Father Gabriel Nadaf, founder of the Forum for Recruiting Arabic-speaking Christians in the Israel Defense Forces, and Anet Haskia, a Muslim mother whose son serves in the IDF’s Golani Brigade and recently ran in the primaries for the nationalist “Jewish Home” party, among many more).

Analytically, the post-Zionist approach is the stuff of fantasy. The Jewish people are the only people in the Middle East that provide stability and human rights to all its citizens, whoever they may be. Not surprisingly, things in Israel are far from perfect. But unless one is applying a cynical double standard of behavior, the state of minority rights in Israel completely outshines those in all of the surrounding Arab States.

This detached approach championed by Freedman, by the way, is not a new one. She merely expresses it well. The former CEO of the New Israel Fund, Hedva Radovanitz, told the US Embassy’s political advisor in February of 2010 that “in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”

The cloak of Zionism that the New Israel Fund and J Street have appropriated for themselves are deliberate manipulative fabrications. There is nothing at all to connect Zionism and a state of all its citizens.

Any call to nullify the state of Israel as a Jewish state – as a Jewish and democratic state –is tantamount to a call for the murder of all Jews and, ironically, most of the minorities living in the land of Israel.

Matan Peleg is CEO of the Im Tirtzu Movement.


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

The Threat of Islamist Terrorism in Yarmouk - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

It is a sad commentary on the ineptitude of Palestinian organizations that they appear incapable or unwilling to help their own people when attacked by fellow Muslims.

Horrors and chaos in the Arab world never cease. The continuing catastrophe of the brutal civil war in Syria has so far led to 210,000 deaths and 11 million driven from their homes. The latest horror is the siege and battle between Islamic groups taking place within that country in April 2015 in the Yarmouk refugee camp, a few miles from the center of Damascus, Syria.

Established in 1957, the camp was the home of an estimated 180,000 Palestinians, and some Syrians, before the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011. It was the largest Palestinian community in Syria. It had its own schools, mosques, hospitals, heath care centers, and public buildings. However, it was not an official refugee camp.

For more than three years Yarmouk has been under siege by blockade by the Syrian Assad regime, which conducted the initial assault in December 2012. More than 200 people died of hunger, malnutrition, and dehydration. The regime then fought against armed forces of the Free Syrian Army and the al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate. As a result many of the inhabitants were forced to flee.

No condemnation of that brutality by both sides of civilians and violations of human rights came from the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Security Council, or any other international organization, or from any Arab country. Noticeably, the Palestinian Authority failed to protect the Palestinians in Syria during the ongoing fighting.

On April 1, 2015, Yarmouk was invaded by 600 fighters of the Islamic Republic of Iraq and Syria (IS), apparently allied with fighters from some brigades of the al-Nusra Front, which led to violence, looting, beheading of civilians, and destruction of much of the facilities of the camp. The situation is close to a humanitarian disaster. Insufficient food is entering the camp to meet the minimum requirements for the inhabitants.

The camp is now a devastated area, 70 per cent of which has been destroyed. About 18,000, of whom 3,500 are children, remain trapped in the camp, suffering from lack of food, water, and medical help. In callous fashion, even graves in a cemetery have been destroyed by the use by the fighting groups of barrel bombs, and innocent people are being used as human shields. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on April 9, 2015 called the Yarmouk situation the deepest circle of hell, beginning to resemble a death camp.

At last, the UN Security Council at an emergency session on April 6, 2015 called for the protection of civilians in the camp and for ensuring humanitarian access to the area. Pierre Krahenbuhl, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) called the situation “beyond inhumane.” The reality for the trapped Palestinians is one of survival. No official aid convoy has been able to reach the beleaguered inhabitants since December 2014.

The cruelty by all sides in this conflict is mixed with the maneuvering of the participants in a situation of complex and changing alliances of ally and foe. It is difficult to understand the machinations or the attitude of Palestinian groups who are divided or uncertain about their standpoint. In the Yarmouk fighting, some Palestinian groups fought against the Assad regime. More importantly, three Palestinian groups, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Palestinian Liberation Army, and Fatah al-Intifada, joined the fight against IS. To add to the confusion, the Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis group, affiliated with Hamas, has been fighting with the Free Syrian Army fighters against government forces as well as against IS.

It is a sad commentary on the ineptitude of Palestinian organizations that they appear incapable or unwilling to help their own people when attacked by fellow Muslims. The lack of clarity is even more perplexing. The official Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representative, Ahmad Majdalani, said that Palestinian groups had agreed to action by Syrian government forces to expel IS from Yarmouk. However, the PLO on April 9, 2015 officially announced it would not be drawn into the conflict.

The actions of the Assad regime are equally puzzling. It allowed IS to infiltrate the south of Syria and the area of Yarmouk in order to counter the moderate opposition to the regime, and to discredit al-Nusra. The Assad regime did not oppose the entrance of IS fighters into Yarmouk. While some brigades of al-Nusra helped IS, officially an enemy against which it had fought elsewhere in Syria, other brigades of the group did not do so.

The only explanation for the actions of Assad seems to be that IS, while building its Caliphate and expanding its territory, has not been hostile to the Assad regime, whereas the al-Nusra Front has always been an enemy of Assad. The Front is part of an alliance of an anti-Assad rebel coalition, called Jaysh al-Fateh, which is seeking to create an administration in the part of Syria that it controls. Nusra therefore has been and remains a direct and growing threat to the regime.

In the midst of the Yarmouk disaster, a number of questions can be raised. The first is essential: why are Palestinians still in a camp that has existed for 58 years, and why have they not been integrated into Syrian society? The comparison is startling between this Arab apathy and the resourcefulness of the State of Israel that has absorbed millions of refugees, including more than 750,000 from Arab countries. Moreover, why have the Palestinians, grandchildren of those who claim to be refugees, been persecuted by fellow Arabs, first by the Assad regime and then by IS?

The hypocrisy on Middle East issues of supposedly humanitarian groups has long been notorious and remains appalling. Even now, the United Church of Christ, a Protestant denomination that claims 900,000 members, is planning to consider at its General Synod in June 2015 two resolutions calling on the Church to divest from Israel, and another Israeli actions towards Palestinians as apartheid. No resolutions are proposed by the Church on the “apartheid” of Palestinians in Syria, or elsewhere in the Arab world, or the inhumane suffering and violent removal of 90 per cent of them from their Yarmouk camp by fellow Muslims.

Yarmouk was the site of the famous battle in 636 between Muslim Arab forces and the army of the Byzantine Empire. The result was a decisive victory for the Muslims and the beginning of the Islamic conquests in the world. Today, for IS the capture of Yarmouk, so close to Damascus, is a major victory, militarily and symbolically. The Western democratic world, including the United Church of Christ, would do well to preoccupy itself with countering that victory, rather than squander its time and resources in pointless anti-Israeli resolutions in international organizations.  

Michael Curtis


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

Iran Presents Its Suicide Drones - MEMRI


In late December 2014, the Iranian Army conducted the "Muhammad Rasul Allah" naval and ground exercise, covering 2.2 million square kilometers and reaching eastwards beyond the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden. According to Iranian reports, in this exercise drones were used for suicide missions for the first time.
Iranian Army ground forces commander Ahmad-Reza Purdastan said: "This exercise saw our first use of a suicide drone that can be used to attack aerial and ground targets. This is a mobile bomb. In accordance with the existing capabilities of the [Iranian] industry, we have improved the range and operational capabilities of our drones. They currently carry better equipment and are furnished with more sophisticated cameras. These drones are the ground forces' long arm on the battlefield."[1]
Ground forces deputy commander Kiomars Heydari said that Iran had modified the Yasir drone for suicide missions,[2] and added that the exercise had featured three types of suicide drones.[3] Ground forces operations officer Ali Mehrabi added, "Iran has the ability to modify all its drones for suicide operations... In the next maneuvers, we will expand this capability."[4]
The Iranian website Tasnim, which is affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), explained that suicide drone operations are effective even though the drone is lost, because they inflict heavy losses on the enemy by targeting advanced platforms such as aircraft carriers, warships, jets, and helicopters. On December 31, 2014, the Iranian website Mashregh News, which is affiliated with security circles, presented 10 drone models and said that while some of them were already being used for suicide missions, others could be modified for such operations. According to the website, these drones, with a range of 250 km, are meant to be used against Israel, but it is safe to assume that this threat was also directed against Saudi Arabia due to its oil war against Iran.[5]
It should be mentioned that Iran sees developing its drone array as an important foundation for its deterrence capability and for its ambition of achieving regional military hegemony. Thus, in a March 6, 2015 Iranian TV interview, IRGC deputy commander Hossein Salami: "Today, we have reached an important point in our drone technology. Our capabilities are so advanced that, for instance, one of our stealth drones can fly for 30 hours straight. Its operational range is 3,000 km, and it is extraordinarily effective in identifying and attacking targets."[6]
The following is a review of the Tasnim and Mashregh News articles: 

Tasnim: Suicide Drones – An Effective Tool To Target Enemy Aircraft Carriers, Warships, And Jets

On January 6, 2015, Tasnim stated: "Suicide operations have been carried out by humans as well as by speedboats – [this is a tactic] invented by the Islamic Republic in the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq War, but nowadays, drones can destroy targets in suicide operations, and not just by [firing] bombs or missiles...  

"Few countries are currently active in this arena. Last year, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that its newest suicide drone would be inaugurated by 2016... Although the cost of such a mission – meaning the destruction of the drone itself – seems high, such drones are vitally important in wars. Thus, for example, a suicide drone striking the hull or bridge of an aircraft carrier during a war, or a suicide drone destroying a warship's radar, could disable the vessel completely, or at least seriously hamper its mission... [Additionally,] if a suicide drone strikes a fighter jet, spy plane, or hostile helicopter... it will bring it down, which is why a suicide drone can also function as a defensive missile."[7]

Mashregh Presents 10 Iranian Drone Models Suitable For Suicide Operations

On December 31, 2014, Mashregh News posted an article reviewing Iranian drone models that could be used for suicide operations:[8]
"The great and mighty 'Muhammad Rasul Allah' exercise conducted by the military of the Islamic Republic of Iran have ended... and dozens of new military developments were successfully tested by various units. One of these developments, that sent shockwaves across international media, were the suicide drones. This achievement was so important that the prime minister of the Zionist regime, Netanyahu, demanded, at a meeting with an American Republican senator, that the illegal sanctions on Iran be ramped up.

"Which Iranian Army drones can be used as suicide drones? The most important attribute, underlined in this exercise numerous times with regard to drone models, is the 250-km range of this new Iranian Army weapon...

"A suicide drone with a range of 250 km is very likely one of the ground forces' drone [models] that have been modified for suicide missions: ... the Saeqa, the Mohajer-2, the Mohajer-4, the Yasir, the Advanced Mohajer-2... Each of these drones can very accurately hit its target if it is equipped with new and accurate guidance systems. Additionally, if there are relay points within a range of 250 km, the drone can also relay images for optical homing and increase its striking accuracy.

"The Saeqa 

"Several models of this drone are produced under the same name. Saeqa-1 can fly for 60 minutes at 250 km/hr and can therefore easily reach a range of 250 [km]. It is a delta-wing drone with lower than average radar detectability, designed by local experts and manufactured on an industrial scale. It is one of Iran's fastest drones and it is used as an artillery weapon.

Saeqa drone

"The Saeqa-2 drone's top speed is 230-250 km/hr, and it can fly for 45-60 minutes. This model can be modified into a suicide drone with a 250-km range. Its control station functions as a relay for the telemetry required to guide and control it, and the drone has both uplink and downlink capabilities – meaning that it can both receive flight information and store and display data.

"In complete autopilot mode, the waypoints of the flight path and altitudes are stored in the drone's onboard memory by the pilot at the ground [control] station. The drone enters mission mode and follows a path that has been preset by the pilot using GPS and an altimeter.

"The Raad/Raad-85

"This model is also a variant of the Saeqa, and is equipped with a 10-kg warhead for suicide operations. Its range is 100 km and it can broadcast images until it strikes the target. Accordingly, the operator can improve striking accuracy with a deviation of less than one meter while receiving telemetry on the updated status of the target. Additionally, if a more important target is spotted in the footage, it can be prioritized and targeted instead.

"Considering that this model was developed by the army's ground forces, it seems more logical that initially they would construct an [improved] model with greater range, but it should be noted that aircraft usually cruise under top speed. Therefore, it can be deduced that Saeqa drones cannot fly 250 km with a warhead without the appropriate improvement and upgrading.

" The Mohajer-2/Advanced Mohajer-2

"...Iran's ground forces have this drone, whose range can reach 250 km because of its top speed of 210 km/hr and its ability to fly for 90 minutes. This drone has already shown that it can carry 12 30-kg RPG rockets. Therefore, even considering the reduction in velocity from carrying a heavy load, the Mohajer-2 can be made into a 250-km range suicide drone.

Mohajer drone

"The Advanced Mohajer-2, which was recently presented at the aerospace industries exhibition in Kish [in southern Iran], and which also participated in the 'Muhammad Rasul Allah' exercise, can remain in flight four times longer than its standard variant. Therefore, this model can also reach an operational range of 250 km and can carry out suicide operations.


"Another drone of Iran's ground forces... is the Mohajer-4, which is considered the best option for [suicide] missions. This drone, whose different variants can remain in flight for three to seven hours at a top speed of 200 km/hr, participated in ID missions near American aircraft carriers, and has therefore proven its ability to penetrate advanced American aerial defense nets.

Mohajer-4 drone

"This drone can film and photograph, broadcast live images (the control station can record the footage), plan its course, carry out computer-guided missions, [operate on] autopilot, and continually transmit flight telemetry, and is the perfect model for carrying out suicide missions.


"According to the ground forces drone unit commander, this drone, which is similar to the American ScanEagle, can remain in flight for eight to 10 hours. Therefore, if its top speed is 100 km/hr, it can easily reach a range of 250 km.

"This craft's [ability] to carry a munitions payload is unclear... It seems to lack the ability to carry heavy cargo, while drones such as the Mohajer-2 and the Mohajer-4 can carry medium-sized payloads and, in addition to their onboard cameras, [also] have a front-facing camera on the drone's nosecone.


"The Toofan is another type of Iranian drone; it locates and destroys the enemy by using an optical tracker. The drone was designed for combat suicide operations. Due to its small size, it can approach the enemy after a simple undetectable launch, from various points, and because of its high speed it is difficult for the enemy to react in time. The drone is constructed of lightweight radar-absorbing materials and has a very small radar cross-section. A front-facing camera in the nosecone transmits live images until the moment of impact, to increase homing accuracy.

Toofan drone

"This drone's top speed is 250 km/hr and it can fly for over an hour. It was designed from the outset for suicide missions, and since it is equipped with state-of-the-art avionics, it is a viable option [over other suicide drones].

"Its small dimensions and radar cross-section, as well as its ability to shut off its engine as it approaches the target, allow it to remain undetected by the enemy until the moment of impact. In addition, after several attacks from such drones, the enemy will panic..."
[1], December 26, 2014.
[2] Tasnim (Iran), January 6, 2015.
[3] Fars (Iran), January 5, 2015.
[4] Tasnim (Iran), January 6, 2015.
[6] Tasnim (Iran), March 6, 2015.
[7] Tasnim (Iran), January 6, 2015.
[8] Mashregh (Iran), December 31, 2014.



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