Friday, September 25, 2015

Is the Iran Deal a Dud? - Peter Huessy

by Peter Huessy

  • Two new studies have confirmed that this fear is justified. Iran will be able quickly to produce nuclear weapons fuel even under the terms of the JCPOA.
  • Iran can emerge in 15-20 years, or less, as a nuclear power with the potential, at a time of its choosing, "to make enough weapon-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons within a few weeks." – David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
  • If sanctions failed to do the job, and if Iran engaged in future illegal nuclear activity -- no matter how serious -- would the U.S. use military force? When the U.S. and its allies discovered that North Korea had illegally built a nuclear weapon and massively cheated on the agreed framework, did anyone use military force to stop its effort? No.
  • The likelihood is far greater that the U.S. will look the other way in order not to admit that the deal it agreed to is a dud.
  • Iran has already repeatedly attacked the United States, from the murder of 241 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, to the attack on Khobar Towers; the murder of Americans over Lockerbie; the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; the attack on the USS Cole; has been complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001; is still holding four Americans hostages and, openly, is daily threatening America again.

Congressional supporters of the nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and the P5+1 partners, seem to see matters from the perspective of whether the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) and allied intelligence agencies will be able to detect future Iranian cheating.[1]

Possibly feeling confident that they will be able to, Congressional supporters may have concluded that the agreement will buy the United States and its allies sufficient time to re-impose sanctions to ensure future Iranian compliance with the deal.

Let us assume for argument's sake that the IAEA and allied intelligence services will, in fact, readily detect Iranian cheating on the new nuclear deal. This anti-cheating detection capability -- critically important as it is -- would largely entail determining that Iran was enriching more uranium than allowed or keeping such enriched material, contrary to the terms of the agreement.

However, is this self-assurance adequate to be sure we will not be facing a future Iranian nuclear capability? No.

Remember the supporters of the JCPOA told Congress in April and May that they would not agree to a bad nuclear deal but would walk away from the table and agree to no deal as an alternative? Whatever happened to that?

According to the President of the United States, in 12 years the breakout time will be near zero. Although the Secretary of Energy subsequently sought to clarify that breakout time could never be zero, the "nuclear beans," so to speak, were spilled.

The real issue, then, is what nuclear weapons capability Iran will have if or when its rulers decide to break out of the JCPOA agreement. In short, does the deal in the out-years put Iran in a better position than today to then break out and produce a small nuclear arsenal? Yes.

Two new studies have confirmed that this fear is justified. Iran will be able quickly to produce nuclear weapons fuel even under the terms of the JCPOA.

First, David Albright, the respected head of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), in a new assessment explains, "A critical criteria [sic] of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a twelve month breakout timeline for Iran's remaining gas centrifuge program."

However, he continues, "this 12 month criteria [sic] does not hold if Iran were to re-install the advanced IR-2m centrifuges during a breakout. Breakout timelines of seven months result if these centrifuges are re-installed."

Furthermore, says Albright, the JCPOA's most serious shortcoming is that it almost ensures that Iran can emerge in 15-20 years as a nuclear power with the potential, at a time of its choosing, "to make enough weapon-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons within a few weeks."

Second, according to Greg Jones of Proliferation Matters, the Arak heavy water reactor will produce spent fuel that, according to the JCPOA, should be sent out of Iran "within one year from the unloading from the reactor or whenever deemed to be safe for transfer by the recipient country."[2]

"A reactor of this design," Jones explains, "will certainly generate weapons-grade plutonium as part of its operation."[3]

A reprocessing plant constructed surreptitiously at a military base could extract the plutonium from this spent fuel and be converted to a metal sphere required for a nuclear weapon in a week, in a facility the size of a "few glove boxes."

Once the plutonium sphere is completed, "it could be mated with the non-nuclear components in a matter of hours."

The Arak heavy water reactor, in Iran, is capable of producing plutonium. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

When the U.S. and its allies discovered that North Korea had illegally built a nuclear weapon and massively cheated on the agreed framework, did anyone use military force to stop its effort? No.

Now, let us again concede for argument's sake that the reason the U.S. did not use military force against North Korea was that the capital of South Korea, Seoul, happens to be 35 miles from the DMZ, and faces up to 17,000 North Korean artillery tubes. It was assumed that if the U.S. used military force to shut down North Korea's nuclear activity, North Korea would retaliate by attacking South Korea. So the United States, it was argued, was deterred by the North Korean threat.

But, we are assured, with Iran things would be different because sanctions would be put back in place.

However, the "snap-back" of sanctions, which are meant to enforce elements of the deal if Iran starts cheating, will realistically not snap back.

First, the other members of the P5+1 all want to do business with Iran's new "market" and the $100-150 billion they expect will be coming to Iran for these expected massive purchases.

And second, as all the business deals initiated prior to the snap back of sanctions will remain unaffected, the immediate result of "snap back" sanctions will be minimal at best.

If one looks at the record since 1979, one would not have a lot of confidence that the U.S. will take effective action, or even action of any kind, against Iran. If sanctions failed to do the job, and if Iran engaged in future illegal nuclear activity -- no matter how serious -- would the U.S. use military force?

Iran has already repeatedly attacked the United States, from the murder of 241 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, to the attack on Khobar Towers; the murder of Americans over Lockerbie; the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; the attack on the USS Cole; has been complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001; is still holding four Americans hostages and, openly, is daily threatening America again.

Iran is also responsible for killing between 500 and 1000 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with its explosive devices.

This list of Iran's murder of Americans, and others, does not even include many years of Iran illegally violating its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Did the U.S. ever take subsequent military action? No.

Would Iran's retaliatory capability before -- or especially after -- having nuclear weapons preclude future U.S. and allied military action? In April 2012, a Washington Post story said retaliation could be problematical, warning "Iran bolsters retaliatory capability in the Gulf."

Since then, Iran's military capabilities have markedly increased and will only continue to do so.[4] This will be especially true with the eventual elimination of the current embargoes on Iran receiving conventional weaponry and missile technology. On top of that, Iran will receive over $100 billion in escrowed oil revenue, in addition to the vast new revenues it is expected to receive from all the new business it is expected to do.

Supporters of the Iran deal, however, say they are absolutely certain that if Iran breaks out of the agreement, the U.S. will stop Iran by implementing "snap back" sanctions. The likelihood is far greater that the U.S. will look the other way in order not to admit that the deal it agreed to is a dud.

So far supporters of the JCPOA claim there is no alternative but going to war with Iran. In reality, the war choice may well be between a bad war now, when Iran has conventional weapons, or a worse war later, when Iran has a nuclear capability. Or doing nothing militarily -- which is largely what the West seems to have chosen for the past 36 years. Some would suggest that now that option is tantamount to surrender.

There are other choices, but the West seems not to have wanted to take them. It is not known if the current administration even investigated them.

What seems clear is that the current administration hoped Iran would become a regional partner and assumed this deal would get them there. But what if it does not?

What the current administration muscled though with a contorted vote from a partisan minority may end up creating a hostile Iranian regional hegemon that is eventually armed with nuclear weapons.[5]

Supporters say that even if Iran will able to produce nuclear weapons and have tens of billions more to fund conventional weapons, ballistic missiles and terrorism, the delay is worth the time bought. At least for a decade or more (but in reality, possibly far less) there will be no Iranian nukes appearing on the horizon.

That indeed is the nub of the issue. Although the West thinks it is buying a temporary contraction in the Iranian nuclear weapons fuel production capability (if one assumes there are not, nor will be, any clandestine enrichment facilities), in return what the West gets in the future is an expanded Iran nuclear military capability that the West hopes Iran will not exercise.

[1] See for example these essays: "Why Saying 'Yes' to the Iran Deal Is Safer Than 'No'," "Senator Corker and the Nuclear Agreement," "Iran deal increases chance of armed conflict," and "Nuclear Distraction: Inattention Has Put The U.S. In Danger"
Critically important as well is the history of our intelligence community downplaying Iran nuclear weapons developments. The US intelligence community incorrectly assured us for years that Iran did not have a serious nuclear program -- as they also did with North Korea and Libya. We are now assured that the community will absolutely discover whatever bad stuff Iran is up to, even knowing full well -- if Iran does not subsequently stop whatever it is that we discover-- such information could lead to war. The Iran National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 is very illustrative of this problem as well. It was designed to forestall military action against Iran as it concluded that Iran's nuclear program had stopped in 2003. We know the "stopped" description referred to warhead design work only at one facility that had been discovered (and likely moved elsewhere) and not uranium enrichment and other nuclear activity. The NIE report was part of a campaign to take Iran policy off the political table as an issue in the upcoming Presidential election campaign. If there was no military nuclear program, then there need not be any debate over whether military force was required to be used to stop the program. See Wall Street Journal, "Panetta Warns of Iran Threat," by Jay Solomon, June 17, 2010.
[2] Gregory S. Jones, "An Iran Nuclear Deal That Spreads Nuclear Weapons," August 10, 2015.
[3] Personal communication with the Gregory Jones by the author.
[4] James Clapper, "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the United States Intelligence Community", Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Testimony before the Select Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2014.
[5] Walter Russell Mead reports that the Washington Post examined the administration's Iran policy and concluded, in Mead's words, that "... in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies." See "Why the White House Is Getting Lonelier on Iran," The American Interest, Feb 6, 2015.

Peter Huessy


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

Time to Dismantle the UN Human Rights Council - Jagdish N. Singh

by Jagdish N. Singh

  • What makes the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) ignore such rights violations? The answer is simple: most of the member states of the Council are themselves the worst violators of rights of their own citizens, and they are trying to save each other through a conspiracy of corruption.
  • When Hamas was raining rockets down on Israel, most members of the UNHRC seemed unconcerned that Jerusalem might have had moral and legal obligations to protect its citizens.
  • The horror is that so many corrupt countries go along with it to protect their own corruption. More sickening is that countries pretending to stand for freedom, such as the United States, fund nearly a quarter of the UN's budget.
  • It is time for those who truly care about human rights to dismantle this show.

Like it or not, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a big flop. It does not care a fig for what it is supposed to do: promote and protect human rights in general, and freedom of association, assembly, expression, belief and religion, sexual preference and women's rights and the rights of racial and ethnic minorities in particular.

The past record of the UNHRC shows it has overlooked rights violations in a large part of the world in general and the Middle East in particular. The UNHRC has notoriously been obsessed with inventing rights violations by Israel, the Middle East's only democracy, where women and minorities -- the most oppressed sections in most of the nations in the world -- enjoy equality in law and practice both. Since March 2006, when the UN General Assembly brought the UNHRC into existence, it has condemned Israel 61 times, compared to just 55 condemnations of all other nations in the world combined.

How many times has the UNHRC condemned states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which oppress their own citizens -- women and minorities in particular -- and inspire many states to follow them?

What makes the UNHRC ignore such rights violations? The answer is simple: most of the member states of the Council are themselves the worst violators of the rights of their own citizens, and they are trying to save each other through a conspiracy of corruption.

The mandate of the UNHRC Advisory Committee experts is too restrictive for them to look into the rights abuses of the states they themselves belong to. Experts tend to pass time discussing some vague, high-sounding priorities, initiatives, working methods, procedural efficiency measures and proposals, such as creating a world human rights court for ensuring citizen safety and human rights.

Recently, the UNHRC voted on a resolution that condemned Israel for human rights violations allegedly committed during the 2014 Israeli strikes on Gaza. Forty-one countries voted in favor of the resolution. The United States alone voted against it. India, Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay and Macedonia abstained from voting.

The McGowan Davis Commission Report on the Israeli strikes claims that the Israeli military deliberately targeted civilian areas and residential buildings. The UNHRC brought it to a vote and called on Israel and Hamas "to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court" -- another unaccountable, biased and politicized group.

Although the McGowan Davis Report also criticized Hamas for violence against Israeli citizens, its net effect amounted to equating Hamas, a lawless, terrorist actor, with Israel, a democratic state with a sound judicial system.

That approach to life is something that most member states of the UN Human Rights Council have in common with Hamas. Neither group seems to believe in secular democracy or human rights. The Hamas Charter preaches the politics of hatred and violence against Israel, but Hamas does not spare even its own people, whom it used freely during the war last year as cannon-fodder before the eyes of international television crews. Hamas threw many of the more progressive Palestinians off the highest floors of buildings in Gaza when it took over in 2007 and expelled officials of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah. Hamas activities have also included the support of the so-called "Axis of Resistance": Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Jihad.

After Hamas's parent movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, came to power in Cairo, then Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi blessed Hamas.

In June 2014, senior Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal, Fauzi Barhum, and Mushir al-Masri praised the abduction and murder of the three Jewish teenagers.

When Hamas was raining rockets down on Israel, most members of the UN Human Rights Council seemed unconcerned that Jerusalem might have had moral and legal obligations to protect its citizens by resorting to "Operation Protective Edge," aimed at countering more than 11,000 attacks from Gaza into Israel since Israel totally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Given the pattern of lawless, unpunished (often rewarded) behavior of many member states just now -- such as Iran, rewarded for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty by being fast-tracked to building nuclear weapons; Russia, which invaded Ukraine with no push-back; and China, which has been building military land-fill islands throughout the South China Sea while encountering no serious negative response -- why shouldn't the leaders of Hamas employ a practice illegal under the Geneva Convention -- using the civilian population in Gaza as hostages -- to protect themselves, and dub the impending civilian casualties as "Israeli crimes against humanity"?

By contrast, any perceived infraction by Israel of the even most trivial nature is treated as an international catastrophe.

The horror is that so many corrupt countries go along with it to protect their own corruption.

More sickening is that countries pretending to stand for freedom, such as the United States, fund nearly a quarter of the UN's budget.

It is time for those who truly care about human rights to dismantle this show.

Jagdish N. Singh is a senior Indian journalist based in New Delhi, India.


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

Russia vs the West in Syria - a One-Way Street - Alexander Maistrovoy

by Alexander Maistrovoy

Iran's Mullahs have friends already, and they sit not in Washington, but in Moscow.

A new round of the "Great Game"[1] in Syria is evidence not so much of the growing power of Moscow, as of the intellectual helplessness and degradation of the West

Western leaders, the media and experts state the obvious: the Kremlin is trying to save Assad. Of course it is, but principal points remain outside of the focus of their attention.

It is not only about Syria. It’s about two polar ideologies, two worldviews incompatible with each other.

At one extreme, we see the time-honored tradition based on the primacy of national interests and perceptions of those involved as Empire. At the other extreme, there is a schizophrenic conglomeration of amateurism, idealism, Neo-Marxism ideology, quasi-religious utopias of the universal triumph of democracy “for all, here and now” and violently distorted conceptions of human rights and civil liberties.

The first outlook generates calculating and cynical, but predictable policies. The second one paves the road to hell.

Which geopolitical aims are pursued by Moscow in Syria?

Russia has only two allies in the Middle East - Iran and Syria. The Kremlin came to the conclusion that without the direct intervention of the Russians Assad’s regime would be doomed, because Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would not withstand the onslaught of the Islamists for long. 

The fall of Assad’s regime would jeopardize the Iranian regime as well. Lebanon together with Hezbollah would not survive, and Shiite government in Iraq would be threatened by "jihadists". Moscow in that case would lose its influence in the Middle East completely – such a situation is unacceptable to the Kremlin.

Obama may cherish illusions that Iran's Ayatollahs will become US allies for as long as he wants them to, but in Tehran they even don’t try to conceal their contempt for him. Mullahs have friends already, and they sit not in Washington, but in Moscow. Both sides coordinate every step. Commander of the Quds Force general Qasem Soleimani visited Moscow twice - in August and in middle of September - where he met with Putin and the Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu. On behalf of the Russians, continuous contacts between Tehran and Moscow are maintained by the Russian President's Special Representative in the Middle East and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

The second key point is related to Islamist threat. Putin's calls to destroy ISIS are not just empty rhetoric. The defeat of Assad would be the triumph of "jihadists", and the flame of "Green revolution" under the banner of the Prophet would inevitably spread to Muslim regions of Russia - the Caucasus, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. It can inflame the “soft underbelly” of Russia too – secular Muslim republics of Central Asia. 

On September 15-17, presidents of five countries of The Collective Security Treaty Organization - Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan - held a summit on strategic security issues in Dushanbe. Dushanbe - the capital of Tajikistan - was chosen for a reason: it is an outpost of Russia on the border with Afghanistan. Besides the Taliban, it is being infiltrated now by ISIS agents as well, and Moscow is aware of this danger. 

Putin assured the Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, that Russia will support him in any case, but it is impossible to stop ISIS while remaining entirely on the defensive, and Putin prefers an offensive campaign. Unlike the Europeans, Russia doesn’t accept returning "jihadists", who went to fight for the Caliphate - Russians prefer destroying them in Syria. One of the main aims of Russians in Syria will be Chechen militants, penetrating into Syria via Turkey. Russia intends to hunt them, and modern attack helicopters Mi-28NE called “Night Hunter” have already arrived in Latakia.

The third point – starting from the 18th century, the Russian Empire, and after it the Soviet Union, sought to increase its presence in the "South Seas" - the Mediterranean. It would turn Russia into a leading player in world politics, would let it go beyond the Eurasian steppes and dictate its own terms to the West. Over a number of years Putin has been counting on the development of the Russian Navy, which has become a strong force.

Russia's principal goal is preserving Syrian Latakia - its main base in the Mediterranean, and creating new bases. Obama's mediocre policy facilitates the rapprochement between the Kremlin and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and today the two countries are negotiating the construction of a naval base in Egypt. The Eastern Mediterranean becoming Russian – the aim that was unachievable in the face of such statesman-rivals as Palmerston, Disraeli, Churchill, Truman and Reagan, became ridiculously easy with Obama.

The fourth point - Russia wants to show to the whole world that it is a power that under no circumstances abandons its friends and allies to their fate. Putin didn’t betray Assad in his hour of need, and thus made it clear (for West especially) that “all roads lead to Rome”, i.e., to Moscow. It was a useful lesson – now all countries in the region apply for mediation not to Washington, Paris or London, but to the Kremlin. 

They manipulate Obama, cynically obtaining American weapons and technology from him, but it is Russia that they consider the power capable of influencing events.

Arabic Sheikhs – the minister of foreign affairs of the UAE Abdullah Sultan Al Nahyan, Saudi ministers of defense and foreign affairs Salman Al Saud and Adel al-Dzhubeyra –have already visited Moscow and now it is Benjamin Netanyahu’s turn.

Russia is not an ally of Israel, but for Netanyahu it is much easier to come to an understanding with Putin than with Obama, and the involvement of the Kremlin can prevent the worst-case scenario, such as the supply of S-300 and upgraded weapons to Hezbollah. It is curious to note that in numerous interviews to Russian media during a previous visit to Moscow, that Netanyahu emphasized excellent mutual understanding with Putin.

As far as I know, Moscow planned to offer a deal to Netanyahu: the participation of "Gazprom" in Leviathan gas field development on the northern border of Israel in exchange for curbing Iran and Hezbollah. Blackmail? Yes, to a certain degree, but at least it is much more explainable than the demands to return to “Auschwitz borders”[2] immediately.

Point number five. Russia assumes the mission of the protector of Christian minorities in the Middle East, in the same way that it protected the Eastern Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and Great Britain, represented by Lord Shaftesbury [3], protected Jews in Holy Land.

From 2012, this role is played by the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society headed by Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and the Mayor of Moscow, Sergey Sobyanin.

And eventually, all of these efforts coming out of Moscow are based on the deep, uncompromising belief in Russia’s rightness and its divine mission; and not without reason, nowadays, they emphasize the continuity from Bysantium in Russia.

What does the West set against Russia? It betrays its allies by encouraging their worst enemies. This is done senselessly, egregiously, in ways harmful to own strategic interests. The West betrayed Qaddafi, who successfully collaborated with Europeans and held back Islamic fundamentalism and hordes of migrants from Africa. It betrayed Hosni Mubarak, and then tried to push el-Sisi into a corner, hindering his war with terror – in the name of  the Muslim Brotherhood that hates the West. It betrayed the former Yemeni President Abdullah Salah, who helped the US in the fight against al-Qaeda. It betrayed Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies in the name of the disastrous deal with Iran, a country which dreams of destroying the US and doesn’t conceal it. 

Yes, it betrays – in dirty, cowardly and hypocritical fashion - Israel, its last stronghold in the Middle East, this in the name of the mythical "Palestinian people" that never existed. This "people" was the inspired invention of the KGB and the Arab League and turned out to be the "sacred cow" of postmodern culture. 

The US betrayed the friendly Kurds - in the name of "good relations" with the psychopath Erdogan, whose hatred of the West is no less than that of Ali Khamenei. It betrayed - in the name of political correctness - Christians of the Middle East inseparably connected to Christian civilization.

While Russia is building its Empire, the West is concerned with self-destruction. This is a "suicidal syndrome" in the name of "progressive thinking" that killed both the progress and thinking. 

The result of this contest is predictable. History does not like idiots, and especially "useful idiots."

The writer is author of the soon to be published book "Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger).”


1. The “Great Game” was the strategic rivalry between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Asia in 19-th century;

2. In 1969 Israel foreign minister Abba Eban called the 1967 borders “Auschwitz borders”;

3. Lord Shaftesbury (1801 - 1885) advocates of Christian Zionism in Britain, he was President of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Alexander Maistrovoy is author of the soon to be published book "Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger).”


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

Mandatory Muslim Immigration in the EU - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

The European Union's plan to force poorer nations to accept thousands of refugees.

On Tuesday, national sovereignty gave way to mandatory multiculturalism in the European Union. A plan to relocate an additional 120,000 Middle Eastern migrants was imposed by EU ministers over the objections four Eastern European countries adamantly opposed to the plan. Slovakia’s Robert Fico illuminated the resistance. “As long as I am prime minister, mandatory quotas will not be implemented on Slovak territory,” he declared in Bratislava.

Slovakia was joined by the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary. Finland abstained from the vote. Yet despite the quartet’s disapproval, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, led by France and Germany, pushed through the plan proposed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker during his annual State of the Union address in Strasbourg earlier this month. The plan called for 160,000 migrants to be forcibly redistributed from Italy, Greece and Hungary to all other member states, save Britain, Ireland and Denmark, who remain exempt from EU treaties. In addition, Junker called for a review of the “Dublin system” that determines which EU nation is responsible for asylum claims.

In order to make the plan more politically palatable, 66,000 migrants are currently slated for relocation, joining 40,000 migrants approved for asylum in July. The remaining 54,000 had originally been allocated to Hungary where they are currently camped out. But Budapest refused to abide a plan it characterized as an invitation to economic migrants. Thus, those migrants will be reallocated in 2016, possibly among Greece, Italy, Croatia and Austria, bringing the overall total of relocated migrants to 160,000. The plan is ostensibly limited to Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean asylum-seekers, but the details have yet to be worked out. All of those migrants are people who have purportedly crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey and northern Africa, fleeing the unrelenting violence in Iraq and Syria. 

Luxembourg minister and meeting chairman Jean Asselborn stated that ministers “would have preferred to have an agreement by consensus,” but nonetheless expected objectors to fall into line as required by the law. Germany has been the focus of resentment on the issue, no doubt due to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Sept. 7 announcement that her nation would take 800,000 refugees this year at a cost of $6.6 billion ,and 500,000 per year over the next few years. Less than a week later, German interior minister Thomas de Maizière announced Germany would be imposing border controls in the southern part of the nation for what Merkel called “urgent security reasons.” Austria and Slovakia followed Germany’s lead shortly thereafter as wishful thinking gave way to the inconvenient reality of as many as half a million migrants flooding into the EU.

The plan itself, whereby the tens of thousands of migrants landing in Italy and Greece will be involuntarily moved by their respective national police forces to other EU nations is the epitome of wishful thinking. Those police forces are already overwhelmed, and the plan to relocate migrants bore little resemblance to the reality expressed by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHRC), which insists 120,000 people represents just six days’ worth of arrivals at the current influx rate. "A relocation programme alone, at this stage in the crisis, will not be enough to stabilise the situation,” insists UNHRC spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

Fleming is correct. After Hungary closed it border, refugees headed west towards Croatia, and that nation allowed tens of thousands to cross into Europe. Now Croatia has blocked off part of its border with Serbia, because they can’t process migrants fast enough. It noted that 35,000 migrants crossed its border in the week following the Hungarian shutdown. In the Austrian town of Nickelsdorf, 8000 new arrivals filled the town square, as local officials insisted no accommodations were available because existing camps were full. And of the more than 4 million migrants that remain in countries near Syria, at least 270,000 Syrians have requested asylum in Europe.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban expressed the sense of frustration felt by many in the EU. "They are overrunning us,” he told his nation’s Parliament. "They’re not just banging on the door, they’re breaking the door down on top of us. Our borders are in danger, our way of life built on respect for the law, Hungary and the whole of Europe is in danger. Europe hasn’t just left its door open but has sent open invitation... Europe is rich but weak, this is the worst combination, Europe needs to be stronger to defend its borders.” Hungary has passed a law allowing the army to use rubber bullets, tear gas and net guns to maintain control over migrants on its border.

Unsurprisingly Orban was criticized by European colleagues, such as Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek, who, prior to Tuesday's meeting, declared Eastern European foreign ministers were "absolutely dedicated" to finding a solution with their EU partners. Since the Czech Republic was one of four nations utterly opposed to the agreement, such optimism was short-lived. “Soon we will find out that the emperor has no clothes,” he tweeted after the plan was announced. "Reason lost today.”

One suspects reason was never in play. As The Telegraph’s Janet Daley warned earlier this month, European elitists have used the now famous image of a dead child washed up on a Turkish beach “to support the notion of Western guilt,” even as Bashar Assad’s murderous regime gets a pass. "For some reason, the appalling photographs of the bodies of children who had been deliberately gassed by the Assad regime, laid out on a concrete floor in Syria two years ago, were not sufficiently moving to compel the world to take action,” she writes. "Are dead children only a moral outrage when they are on the beaches of Europe?”

Elitist outrage is more like it, as Daley notes Germany’s magnanimity, which they and other economically advanced EU nations can afford, stands in stark contrast to the economically struggling eastern bloc nations that must initially accommodate that high-mindedness. "Imagine if you were a poor householder, just managing to keep your financial head above water while you attempted to turn your circumstances around, and a very wealthy neighbour decided to throw open his doors to the needy – and one obvious way that those in need could reach that welcoming haven was by tramping through your house," Daley explains. "Might you find yourself inclined to be unhelpful in the hopes of discouraging others from taking the same path?”

Millions of ordinary Americans are undoubtedly pondering the same question. In addition to the hordes of illegals embraced by our own ruling class, the Obama administration intends to "significantly increase” the number of “worldwide migrants" this nation takes in over the next two years, reaching a total of 100,000 by 2017. Apparently the reality that the legal and illegal immigrant population in the United States has reached a record-breaking 42.6 million, or about one-out-of-eight residents in the U.S.—more than double what it was in 1980—remains insufficient with regard to the “fundamental transformation of the United States” the American left desires. And while the similar elitist-driven multicultural force-feeding devolving the Europe ethos is much more immediate, make no mistake: both are equally inexorable should current trends on both sides of the Atlantic continue.

In Europe, the bill is coming due for a continent that largely relied on America to do the heavily lifting in response to Islamic terrorism, even as it remained largely contemptuous of the “vulgarities” associated with a military response to the problem. America is facing the twin deficits of a ruling class determined to shove illegal immigration down the throats of a recalcitrant public, and a feckless Obama administration whose foreign policy of phony red lines in Syria, leading from behind in Libya, untimely troop withdrawal in Iraq, and the apparent determination to manipulate intelligence regarding ISIS in the administration’s favor, has precipitated the largest refugee crisis since WWII.

It is a refugee crisis tailor made for ISIS and other Islamic terror groups to exploit with impunity. On both continents, Third Worldism, in all its attendant dysfunction, is "breaking the door down on top of us,” even as our unconscionable leaders bemoan those who resist the cultural Armageddon it represents. Leaders whose ongoing love affair with multiculturalism is nothing more than an apology for the Western culture they disdain, even as millions of those Third Worlders are irresistibly drawn to its cornucopia of bounty and beneficence. Bounty and beneficence they will ultimately undermine with the blessings of the apologists who, despite this massive flow of humanity in only one direction, believe no culture is better than any other. It doesn’t get more ironic—or suicidal—than that.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


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

The Refugee Crisis and Sweden's Perfect Storm - Nima Gholam Ali Pour

by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

The disaster on the horizon is there for all to see.


In these days I am very worried about Sweden. Never before has the disastrous immigration policy that Sweden implements been so obvious in its failure, as it is these days, when Europe is in the middle of a refugee crisis. Each week, Sweden receives thousands of asylum seekers from the Middle East. At the same time, there are three important questions that the Swedish government cannot answer. The Swedish government does not know where these tens of thousands of asylum seekers will live, how they will be working and how this new wave of immigration will be financed.

Sweden is today going through its worst housing crisis in 50 years. The figures are frightening. According to Boverket, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Sweden needs to build half a million homes by 2020. But the government's costly housing initiative that will cost $387 million annually will only lead to 250,000 new homes by 2020. That is the situation today. How the situation will be after the refugee crisis, and how many homes will be needed by then, no one knows. But a whole generation of Swedes will grow up in a society where homelessness will become part of everyday life.

According to the municipal housing office, Boplats Syd, in 2014 you had to wait 1049 days on average in a queue before you could get a tenancy in western Scania, an area where Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, is included.

In August, Sweden had an unemployment rate of 7 percent. Among young people (15-24 years) in Sweden, the unemployment rate in August was 20 percent. This means that one in five young people in Sweden are unemployed. Unemployment among young people born abroad is 70 percent higher than unemployment among young people born in Sweden.

Most economists in Sweden agree that the asylum seekers coming to Sweden will find it difficult to get jobs in the Swedish labor market, since Sweden is the country in the European Union with the lowest number of low-wage jobs. 2.5 percent of people who work in Sweden have low-wage jobs. This is extreme even in a Scandinavian context, when the same figure for Finland, Denmark and Norway is 5.9 percent, 7.7 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively. In other words, it is difficult to get your first job in Sweden, a painful fact which affects immigrants and young people. The asylum seekers coming to Sweden will probably face prospects of unemployment for several years.

When the new center-left government took over last year, Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson's first message to the Swedes was that the "barns are empty." In a Swedish political context, this means that government finances are weak. This message was followed up later with the government saying that it could not afford any major reforms. Thus, it is unclear how Sweden will finance this wave of immigration, where thousands of people from the Middle East arrive in Sweden every week.

Already in February 2015, before the refugee crisis began in earnest, the Swedish Migration Agency announced that it needed an additional $2.2 billion to finance its operations. Because adequate housing is lacking in Sweden, the Migration Agency has to pay for migrants' accommodations, which means that the more asylum seekers come to Sweden, the more the Migration Agency's costs increase.

Even the municipal costs will increase as newly arrived migrants often become a heavy financial burden for schools and social services. Sweden already has high taxes. This migration wave cannot be funded by taxpayers when the "barns are empty."

Today, no politician in Sweden can really explain how this wave of migration is going to be financed. The only option that remains is to impair the social safety nets in Sweden in order to finance the migration wave.

Amidst this dystopian situation where it is obvious that Sweden is facing a socio-economic and geopolitical disaster, there are influential people in Sweden who want to get as many migrants as possible into the country. The Swedish aviation industry has asked the government to amend regulations so commercial airlines can fly non-European nationals seeking asylum, to the European Union. Most newspapers in Sweden celebrate the people who welcome asylum seekers to Sweden. Traffickers smuggling migrants to Sweden are portrayed as heroes in the media. Recently, Swedish police officers uploaded a movie on social media where they welcome refugees to Sweden. Celebrities and newspapers call for tax increases so Sweden can accept more asylum seekers.

But while large parts of the Swedish establishment want to open Sweden to the asylum seekers from the Middle East, Sweden is isolating itself in a European and Scandinavian context. Other countries in Europe are not so enthusiastic about receiving too many migrants. In Finland, people are demonstrating against asylum seekers and Denmark sends the asylum seekers to Sweden. Germany has temporarily left the Schengen Agreement and introduced border controls. Sweden and its migration policy are isolated and seem extreme in the European and Scandinavian context.

Already the migrants who come to Sweden have started to protest. Asylum seekers require homes and jobs, and when they do not get this the reaction becomes anger and frustration. Right now, about 7,000 asylum seekers come to Sweden on a weekly basis. If the number of asylum seekers coming to Sweden each week does not increase, which it will do, more than 90,000 additional asylum seekers will come to Sweden before the end of the year. There will not be job opportunities or housing for them.

With the migration policy that Sweden has now it is inevitable that unrest will break out next year, or sooner. It is important to understand that Sweden is a country with 9.5 million inhabitants. More than 50 per cent of the Swedish municipalities have no more than 20,000 inhabitants. During this year and the next, many of these Swedish cities will undergo radical and irreversible changes due to the migration waves.

When instability begins in Sweden, it will be important to remember that the figures that showed what a disaster Sweden was heading towards were there for all to see. Sweden, whose cities often have less than 20,000 people received more than 100,000 asylum seekers in one year, but it had no homes or jobs to offer these asylum seekers. There is every reason to be worried about Sweden now. Sweden is sailing against the perfect storm.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour


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

Importing Our Own Destruction - Joe Herring

by Joe Herring

This "refugee crisis" could be a death knell for Western nations, because Islam arrives not to "blend in."  It arrives to take over

The 1,400-year-long cycle of Islamic violence is fed not by injustice or fresh new assaults on sovereignty.  Rather, it pre-exists the rise of Western capitalism by several centuries, and it constitutes the heart of the Muslim world.  The cycle is fueled by Muslims' fundamental organizing principle: Islam.

There is no place on Earth where a significant population of Muslims are present that does not also live with regular Islamic-inspired violence and disruption.  This applies to both Muslim enclaves in Western democracies and Muslim-dominated nations around the world.  Where Islam is, violence and civil tension follow.

Are all Muslims like this?  No, they aren't.  Just as all Catholics don't abstain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent, there is a continuum of adherence to religious principles found in Islam.  However, every religion has its universally accepted core elements – shared tenets that are foundational to the faith.

It is the "supremacist" core element of Islam (note: this is an aspect of Islam, not a perversion or interpretation) that ensures the reliability of the cycle.  The battle is the aim – the jihad that cannot rest until the Earth has submitted entirely to Islam.

What does this mean for the United States?  The Obama administration is pledging to accept tens of thousands of "refugees" from Syria and Iraq.  Recent reports indicate that this number may rise exponentially in coming months. 
The United States has already accepted hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants from around the world, and to date, their assimilation into American society is proceeding at a snail's pace, if at all.

Warnings have been issued by European governments that terrorists (elements of ISIS and al-Qaeda) have inserted themselves into the stream of Muslim migrants currently invading Europe. 

This warning, while important, misses the larger issue entirely: that the importation (en masse) of Muslims brings with it an ideology bent on the destruction of the host nation.  Islam arrives not to "blend in."  It arrives to take over.

By some estimates, the composition of the "refugee" arrivals is upwards of 70% males of military age.  War refugees flee their countries with wives and children, while migrants traveling for economic opportunity or other reasons typically send a father or son ahead to prepare the way for the rest of the family to follow.

There are certainly some war refugees amid the masses currently flooding Europe, but they are just as certainly a minority of the whole, and the likelihood that these Muslim men, coming from Muslim-dominated nations, intend to culturally assimilate into the societies of Europe is statistically nil.

Over the coming months, America will be asked (then told!) to accept "our share" of "refugees."  Incomprehensibly, these "refugees" will be almost entirely Muslim, despite the fact that it is the Christian and other non-Muslim residents of the region who are truly in danger, with tens of thousands already slaughtered and enslaved as a part of the current pogrom of subjugation under the heel of Islam.

It has been said that just because a group of Sunni Muslims is fleeing extermination from a group of Shia Muslims – or vice versa – that doesn't mean that either is innocent in the conflict.  Should the pursued become more numerous than the pursuers, they will immediately turn and put their former tormenters to the sword.  Each flees from each other, but neither is really a "refugee."

It is important to ask, if this is indeed a refugee crisis with hundreds of thousands fleeing their war-torn homelands, why now?  The Syrian civil war has been going on for years.  ISIS has been operating for nearly as long.  It seems reasonable to conclude that the genesis of this migration lies elsewhere.

If you are a well-informed reader, then you have heard the term "civilizational jihad," the process by which Muslims seek to overwhelm host nations through immigration and the exploitation of Western values of religious tolerance and liberty. 

The present surge of Muslims into Europe is not a spontaneous response to deteriorating conditions in the Middle East.  Instead, it is a carefully orchestrated migration to swell the populations of existing Muslim enclaves in Europe to the breaking point.

The subsequent social disruptions will have native Europeans calling for action to bring the migration to a halt by any means necessary.  In the mind of the Muslim Brotherhood (at whose behest this "migration" began), it is a win-win. 

Ideally, the Europeans will grow so uncomfortable with the influx of Islamists that they'll support increased action to remove Assad, thereby restarting the "Arab Spring" and handing the Brotherhood an essential jewel for their planned caliphate crown.

At the very least, the cause of civilizational jihad will be advanced more in a matter of months than it would have progressed in decades of orderly immigration and high birth rates. 

Either scenario is catastrophic for the West and is functionally equivalent to giving Typhoid Mary an unlimited EuroRail pass.

We screen new arrivals at the border for diseases because we don't want to permit the importation of infections to which we have little or no natural immunity.  In the case of Islam, we are indeed importing the infection itself, subsequently refusing to quarantine the carriers from the native population out of a misguided sense of tolerance.

Germany has committed to accepting millions of Islamic "refugees" over the next ten years – 800,000 this year alone, followed by half a million more each year thereafter – in the hopes that the infusion of new laborers can offset the ridiculously anemic birth rate of native Germans.  Combine migration at such extreme levels with a government so enamored of multiculturalism that they will prosecute their own citizens for speaking against the policy, and you have the stuff of an invasion.

Under what circumstances has any nation permitted an influx of a different culture at such extreme levels and remained sovereign?  I'll give you a hint…it hasn't ever happened.  Ever.

Unless Germany reverses course, it will become a Muslim nation within 15 years, and native Germans will live under the rule of their new Muslim overlords, dhimmis in their own land.

Remember, someone asking for political asylum is not guaranteed to be deserving.   Each of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an asylum seeker when they arrived on our shores.  How'd that work out?

Joe Herring writes from Omaha, Nebraska and is the communications director for the Global Faith Institute.  He welcomes comments at


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

Huma Abedin and the web of influence-peddling revealed in newly released emails - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

A very ugly picture of the ways of the power elite, using government, foundation money, and influence peddlers to get what they want.

The slow-motion exposure of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State is revealing the way things get done at the upper reaches of government and society, and it is a very ugly picture, indeed.  Most Americans (75%) now believe that corruption is widespread in government, and they don’t know the half of it.  Newly released emails obtained by Politico reveal how correct they are, and as the old saying goes, the scandal isn’t so much the laws that may have been broken, but what is legal and perfectly normal these days among the power elite.

Rachel Bade of Politico traces the web of influence-peddling centered on “consulting” firm Teneo, which eventually employed Hillary’s very close aide, Huma Adedin (aka Mrs. Anthony Weiner, aka Señora Carlos Danger), while she was still on the public payroll, in a highly questionable arrangement.  The object of the emails was to obtain an unsalaried presidential appointment for a client of the firm.  What makes this all the more revealing is that the client was the head of a big-money nonprofit, Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation.  This taxpayer-subsidized, purportedly public-spirited organization paid Teneo 5.7 million dollars in 2012 alone!  That’s an awful lot of “public relations work.”  Why is money being diverted from medical research or whatever to an influence-peddler, in order to burnish the résumé of the president of the foundation?  Oh, and one more thing: the Rockefeller Foundation is a “huge” donor to the Clinton Foundation.

The emails tell quite a story:
In the April 10, 2012, exchange, Teneo President Doug Band — a close confidant of Bill Clinton — asked Abedin to help him get Rodin nominated to the President’s Global Development Council, an unpaid post.
The Rockefeller Foundation at the time was both a Teneo client and a Clinton Foundation donor — and Band made that point in his email to Abedin.
The email subject line read: “She is expecting us to help her get appointed to this.”
“Judy rodin,” he wrote to Abedin in the shorthand email. “Huge foundation/cgi supporter and close pal of wjc[.] Teneo reps her as well[.] Can you help?”
“Wjc” is often used as shorthand for Bill Clinton. And “foundation,” likely means Clinton Foundation. (snip)
In the message to Abedin, Band forwarded along the full conversation, whereby multiple Teneo employees openly discussed who in power they could contact to help get their client Rodin assigned to the new post.
“Could someone from [Sen. Chuck] Schumer’s office place a call to the WH?” Orson Porter, senior vice president of Teneo, asked Tom Shea, the managing director.
“Doug is willing to push with Valerie or HRC, but I can’t find out who the decision maker is,” Shea replied, perhaps referring to Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama.
Eventually, Porter sent the email up the chain to Band.
“Hey brother — it’s been a lift in the [W]hite [H]ouse,” he wrote to Band. “She is not on anyone’s friend list — VJ’s office promised to send it up the flag pole, but they will need to hear from someone outside of us — I keep pushing Tom to have a congressional office send a note. Do you think Bruce Reed would be helpful?”
Reed was Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff.
Porter, in a separate message a few minutes later, told Band “a [H]uma call to USAID would be helpful.”
Band forwarded that to Abedin with his short note.
More than a month later, Teneo checked up on their request. Forwarding the entire conversation again to Band, Orson wrote on May 22: “DB, I haven’t heard anything from the WH on this appointment (Judy R_. Did you have any luck with the State Department?”
Band again forwarded that to Abedin, who two days later sent the message to her Clinton email. (snip)
Ken Miller, who would go on to become a senior adviser or with Teneo Holdings, reached out to Abedin to arrange “a time to discuss Doug Band and Teneo” sometime in early July 2012. It appears he was considering an opportunity with the company and wanted her take.
“I am considering doing something with them and would value your perspective,” Miller, then president of Ken Miller Capital, wrote July 2, 2012.
As Politico notes, it is still unclear when Huma began her work for Teneo.  But whether or not she was in an active conflict of interest at this point, these emails establish conclusively that millions of nonprofit dollars were changing hands as influence was attempted to be exercised to win a favor and prestige for a foundation executive.  The picture is one of people operating at the pinnacle of institutional prestige in order to enhance their position in the power elite, and using vast resources donated as “charity.”

Thomas Lifson


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