Friday, June 24, 2016

Saudi Arabia in Iran's crosshairs - Dr. Reuven Berko

by Dr. Reuven Berko

Faced with the existential threat Iran poses to the region, the Arabs are realizing that Israel is not the adversary and that resolving the Palestinian problem is a relatively minor issue

The Saudi deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is currently in the United States discussing his country's new economic plan to reduce dependency on oil while improving its technological and military capabilities. In light of the worsening tensions between Iran and Gulf states, chief among them Saudi Arabia, Salman is undoubtedly carrying an urgent message of distress to the U.S. administration.

For years now Iran has waged a policy of destabilization and violence, aimed at taking control of the Saudi Peninsula, instituting Shiite rule over the Islamic holy sites in Mecca and Medina, dominating the oil market and its transportation routes in the Persian Gulf, expelling the Americans and the Saudis and pushing forward -- toward the rest of the world. In this regard, Iran's relationship with Qatar and Oman is akin to a handler and his agents. While these two countries supposedly represent the same interests as other Sunni states, in reality Qatar is funding the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts to undermine Arab regimes and incite against them at Iran's behest through Al Jazeera. Oman, for its part, is "selling the Arabs out" by mediating American-Iranian meetings on its soil. 

The final objective of Iran's slow but steady advance toward domination of the Persian Gulf -- which began years ago -- is Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the Saudis, Egyptians and other Gulf states, who have gathered together under the Gulf Cooperation Council, feel the Americans have chosen Iranian hegemony -- as an alternative crisis-management option in the region -- over of the "headache inducing" Sunni Arab states that are torn between conflicting interests and Islamist terrorist organizations fighting amongst one another.

Ever since the removal of Saddam Hussein, who served as a type of "anti-virus" to Iranian machinations, Iran has increased its "pyromaniacal" activities throughout the Middle East and even Africa. This activity is characterized by subversion, destruction and blood. The Iranians are igniting the flame in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and are waging a terror campaign in Yemen. They are active in Libya, Egypt and Gaza via Hezbollah (which helped plan attacks on the Suez Canal in 2008), and fund Sunni terrorist organizations like Hamas. Due to Sunni factionalism and foolishness, focusing on Israel as an enemy, the disjointed Arab states failed to deploy against Iran.

In the meantime, the Iranians are concentrating their subversion efforts in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and UAE, inciting sedition among their respective Shiite populations. In January 2016, the Saudis arrested 47 terrorists and hanged their Shiite leader, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. In response, the "Basij" (the ayatollah regime's paramilitary volunteer militia) torched the Saudi embassies in Mashhad and Tehran. This past week, Bahrain revoked the citizenship of the country's leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Isa Qassim, who served as an emissary of Iran. In response to this "crossing of a red line," Iran threatened to launch a regional war. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani warned Bahrain's Sunni regime that its "degradation" of citizens (the majority of whom are Shiites) would ignite a bloody regional conflict. As expected, Hezbollah parroted the Iranian condemnation while Saudi Arabia declared its support for Bahrain's legal measures. 

Faced with the existential threat Iran poses to the region, the Arabs are realizing that Israel is not the adversary and that resolving the Palestinian problem is a relatively minor issue. In the meantime, the U.S. administration is struggling to recognize radical Islam as a driving force behind global terrorism. It also refuses to acknowledge Iran's expansionist and nuclear goals, and its objectives regarding development of ballistic missiles. The dilemma is indeed a difficult one, because the Iranian Shiite "virus" and the "anti-virus" (Sunni Islamic radicalism) are equally dangerous to the world.

Dr. Reuven Berko


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Liar, Liar Pantsuit On Fire - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?

Editor’s note: Credit goes to Dr. Bob Shillman for the title of this article.

Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."

Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.

Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist cliches, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."

Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.

She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."

Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."

Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.

Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.

Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."

The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.

Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."

"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."

She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."

Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.

Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."

The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "

Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."

"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.

Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."

Moore continued:
"The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."
Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."

Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.

Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.

"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."

“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."

Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.

Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."

Not so. In fact, the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.

Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."

Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.

What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.

Matthew Vadum senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israeli Left Implodes, Still Doesn’t Understand Why - P. David Hornik

by P. David Hornik

Might abusive rhetoric be part of the problem?

Last June 8—four days before the terror attack in Orlando—two Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank opened fire in a Tel Aviv café, killing four and wounding six.

Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai, a member of the left-wing Labor Party, was quick to respond—by blaming Israel.

Saying that Israel was “maybe the only country in which another people is under occupation and in which these people have no rights,” Huldai continued: 

We can’t keep these people in a reality in which they are occupied and expect them to reach the conclusion that everything is all right and that they can continue living this way…. I know the reality and understand that leaders with courage need to aspire to reach [an agreement] and not just talk about it.

Considering that Huldai is a public official, mayor of a major city, it is putting it mildly to say that his words were full of ignorance and distortions. Israel is not an occupier in the West Bank. There are, however, numerous occupied peoples in the world. Palestinians in the West Bank have the prerogative to elect their own government and many other rights. The large majority of Palestinians—and certainly the terrorists among them—reject any Israeli claim to any land. So many attempts—by Israeli, American, and other leaders—to reach an agreement with the Palestinians have been turned down cold that any realistic Israeli leader understands that, at least for the time being, it’s an impossible goal. 

But beyond those points, there’s another: shooting up people in a café is a crime, known as murder. No claim of political grievance is exoneration for murder. That point is widely understood in civilized societies—though not by the mayor of Tel Aviv.

Huldai’s words, which sparked fury, would be less significant if they were an aberration. Unfortunately, statements of that ilk are typical of the Israeli left—including, amazing as it may seem, in the case of left-wing politicians seeking to gain public favor. 

Ehud Barak, a lifelong Laborite, is a former prime minister and defense minister. Before leaving politics in 2013, he was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense minister for four years. He was seen as Netanyahu’s close ally and fellow hawk on the Iranian issue, and worked hard—even dividing his party at one point—to keep Netanyahu’s coalition in power.

In a speech on June 16, Barak—who, as Netanyahu’s defense minister, had warned steadily that time was running out to stop Iran’s nuclear program—said that Israel faced “no existential threats.” He went on to accuse Netanyahu of “Hitlerizing” all threats to Israel, saying:

Hitlerization by the prime minister cheapens the Holocaust…. Our situation is grave even without [comparisons to] Hitler…. 

Barak, however, went on to give his own characterization of the current situation in Israel:

Only a blind person or a sheep, an ignoramus or someone jaded, can’t see the erosion of democracy and the “budding fascism.…” If it looks like budding fascism, walks like budding fascism and quacks like budding fascism, that’s the situation…. In capitals around the world—in London and Washington, in Berlin and Paris, in Moscow and Beijing—no leader believes a word coming out of Netanyahu’s mouth or his government’s.   

If it sounds unhinged, vicious, and appropriate for the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, that indeed is what it was. And while Barak, 74, disavowed any further political ambitions, he also said:

I call on the government to come to its senses, to get back on track immediately…. If it does not do that, it will be incumbent upon all of us—yes, all of us—to get up from our seats…and bring it down via popular protest and via the ballot box before it’s too late.

A week later, there is no sign that “all of us” are doing anything of the sort. Barak’s words have been dismissed by some as an attempt by a sidelined, no longer relevant politician to get back in the limelight.

But Isaac Herzog, opposition leader and Barak’s current replacement as Labor Party leader, is an active Israeli politician who still has—or claims to have—political ambitions. Strangely, then, Herzog’s rhetorical style is no more pleasing to the great majority of Israeli ears than Mayor Huldai’s or former minister Barak’s.

In October 2015, Herzog attacked Netanyahu and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, telling Netanyahu to “go home” and take Bennett with him, since their “policies have failed, and are leading us to another Masada”—referring to the mountain fortress where in 73 CE a Jewish group committed mass suicide rather than be taken captive by the Romans.

Herzog added: 

Netanyahu claims to be “managing” the conflict, along with Bennett. The way you are handling the conflict has turned into a knife to stab us in the back, a knife in the back of Israelis.

Now it turns out that, before the March 2015 elections, Herzog offered Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas a deal in which Israel would have ceded virtually the entire West Bank, agreed to divide Jerusalem, and kept only a “symbolic” military presence in the strategically crucial Jordan Valley. 

Herzog, true to form, had a ready justification: 

After rounds of wars and funerals nearly every year and over the past decade, I won’t listen to the mantra that threats can only be subdued through military force…. The right always offers us war and then runs to sign peace treaties. We are just offering to reverse the order and prevent hundreds of fathers and mothers from visiting military cemeteries. The right should also consider this.

Herzog said that in a report from June 19. Two days later it was reported that the Israeli left—which lost in a landslide in 2015—had fared even worse in a new poll, “crashing” and “imploding.” Herzog’s Labor Party had plummeted from 24 seats in the current Knesset to 9, with the whole bloc getting 14 seats in the 120-member Knesset, or at most 34 if one counts the Yesh Atid party—which many consider centrist—as left-wing. 

The Israeli left has, of course, other problems besides its rhetorical style. Most of its members no longer claim to be socialist. Israelis rightly view its “peace” ideology as shrill and outmoded. Opposite the repeatedly elected Netanyahu—who runs Israel skillfully as a pragmatic centrist—the left, and particularly Labor, appears to have no clear purpose or coherent critique to offer.

And yet, with all that, the Israeli left seems unable to absorb the fact that blaming Israelis for terror attacks, accusing them of “budding fascism,” painting their leaders as back-stabbers and engines of war, and trying to scare them with talk of “military cemeteries” is also no way to make a positive impression on them. One can wait years for the left to stop striking out blindly and viciously and instead try some introspection. It doesn’t happen.     

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel. His memoir, Destination Israel: Coming of Age and Finding Peace in the Middle East, is forthcoming from Liberty Island later this year.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why Is the U.S. Embracing Iran - AGAIN? - Peter Huessy

by Peter Huessy

America is apparently bent on repeating -- yet again -- the historic wrong turn it took in 1979 by once again embracing the radical Islamic regime in Iran. Why would the U.S. administration think doing the same thing again will have a different outcome?

  • "You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans," Ayatollah Khomeini said, and promised to President Jimmy Carter that Iran would be a "tolerant democracy."
  • Although the State Department has in its just released annual report on world-wide terror designated Iran as the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, the Obama administration has assisted Iranian militias in Iraq with air support, provided intelligence to Hezbollah's allies on Israeli air strikes, and has steadfastly refused to use any military force against any elements of the Assad regime.

Senior leaders from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are in Washington, meeting with top U.S. diplomatic and defense officials, and are deeply concerned America has significantly worsened the situation in the Middle East by creating a "strategic partnership" with Iran.

Thirty-seven years ago, U.S. President Jimmy Carter paved the way for Iran's Islamic theocratic dictatorship to come to power, according to newly declassified secret documents, reports the BBC Persian News Service. The documents show that Carter pledged to "hold back" the Iranian military from attempting a coup, which would have prevented the return of the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from France.

The documents also reveal that the Carter administration believed -- erroneously -- that bringing Ayatollah Khomeini into power in Iran, and in the process abandoning the Shah, would preserve American interests, keep the Soviets out of the region, protect U.S. allies, and ensure the flow of oil to the world's industrial nations.

In one of his many messages to President Carter, Khomeini played into that belief. "You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans," Khomeini said, and promised that Iran would be a "tolerant democracy."

Unfortunately, the mullahs did not stop their terrorist ways; and the U.S. government, through successive administrations, did not stop them, either.

The Reagan administration, for example, deployed "peacekeepers" to Lebanon under Congressionally-mandated rules of engagement that, tragically, only facilitated the Iranian- and Syrian-directed bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and embassy in Beirut.

Then, the Clinton administration refused to lift an arms embargo and provide weapons to Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, ensuring that Iranian weapons and influence would fill the void.

The result of decades of the U.S. policy in Iran is that since Islamic terrorists took power in Tehran in 1979, Iran has murdered thousands of Americans[1] -- in addition to those killed in the bombings in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the African embassies, and the World Trade Center in New York.

U.S. court decisions have so far held Iran responsible for more than $50 billion in damages owed to American citizens for these terror attacks, which directed by the mullahs and their terrorist proxies.

America's military has also suffered. Thousands of American and allied soldiers have been killed and maimed by Iranian Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan.[2]

It could be argued that the United States has at times had to make deals with unsavory countries. It was allied with the Soviet Union, for instance, in the fight to destroy Nazism in World War II. So, the thinking might go, a genuine agreement to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program might require some compromise and thus a type of "partnership".

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during talks in Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

The Obama administration has, in fact, sought to justify its embrace of Iran by citing the assumed benefits from a nuclear agreement with Iran.[3] But the current "nuclear deal" with Iran is not a real agreement. The Iranians never signed it.

Members of Iran's parliament reviewed it and made it clear that they would only adhere to those parts of the agreement they liked, insisting in a public statement, released after the review, that the U.S. had no reciprocal flexibility.

While the Obama administration tried to portray the agreement as one which would "dismantle" much of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, the facts were that Iran was able to keep an "industrial sized nuclear program". Elliot Abrams describes the Iranian strategy on its nuclear program as trading "permanent American concessions for Iranian gestures of temporary restraint".

Even worse, under the "deal" Iran would ultimately be able to become a full-fledged, legitimate nuclear power in roughly ten years. Additionally, despite promises and signed UN resolutions to the contrary, Iran's ballistic missile program continues, giving Tehran the largest missile inventory in the Middle East.

Thus, the current US "tilt" toward Iran has not been a carefully calibrated outreach to a dangerous adversary. It has been instead a firm embrace of a dictatorship that has not only killed thousands of Americans, but continues to undermine U.S. and allied interests in the Gulf and elsewhere.

Moreover, although the State Department has in its just released annual report on world-wide terror designated Iran as the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, the Obama administration has assisted Iranian militias in Iraq with air support, provided intelligence to Hezbollah's allies on Israeli air strikes, and has steadfastly refused to use military force against any elements of the Assad regime. In 2014, President Obama wrote to Supreme Leader Khamenei that any US military action in Syria would "target neither the Syrian dictator nor his forces".

Destroying ISIS or stopping terrorism against America and its allies cannot be achieved by embracing Shia terrorists directed by Tehran.

The Sunni nations of the Gulf, North Africa and the Mediterranean might be willing to provide leadership and manpower in a coalition to oppose Iran's doctrine of Shia conquest. However, although the U.S. administration has repeatedly talked about such a coalition, America's actions have continually embraced and helped Iran. As Michael Doran has explained, the result of the American administration's embrace of Iran "has been the development of an extremist safe haven that... stretches from the outskirts of Baghdad all the way to Damascus."

The U.S. could enter into talks with the Saudis, Egyptians, other Arab states and other countries in the region to help them build a coalition to oppose Iran's plans to achieve hegemonic status in the Middle East.

Is reform in the region even possible? Or is the U.S. now solidly locked into an embrace with an increasingly hostile and violent Iran?

Reform in the Middle East does not come easily, but the "Arab Spring" illustrates that positive change can take place. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, as President Carter mistakenly did in 1979, has embraced the mullahs, who immediately sidelined any reformers who might have been democratically inclined. In Egypt, the U.S. then actively helped bring the extremist Muslim Brotherhood to power, until twenty-two million Egyptians themselves apparently decided they had tasted enough of such repression and revolted; and in Afghanistan, the U.S. pathetically kept looking for the "moderate wing" of the Taliban.[4]

America is apparently bent on repeating -- yet again -- the historic wrong turn it took in 1979, by once again embracing the radical Islamic regime in Iran. Why would the U.S. administration think doing the same thing again will have a different outcome?
Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, and was the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation for more than 20 years. He is now the National Security Fellow at the AFPC, and Senior Defense Consultant at the Air Force Association.

[1] For the details about Iran's involvement in 9-11 see For Iran complicity in conducting other terror attacks against the United States in Beirut, Khobar Towers, and the African embassies, see Clare Lopez speaking at the Center for Security Policy. Also in documents recently translated from the "Abbottobad" material seized in the raid on Osama Bin Laden's Pakistani hideout, Joseph Braude host of the New York radio show "Risalat," reveals that according to Bin Laden, "Our main artery for funds, personnel and communication" is Iran.
[2] Testimony of Lt General Michael Flynn, (Retired), former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, 10 June 2015, the Joint Foreign Affairs and HASC Subcommittee, House of Representatives.
[3] See for example, these assessments of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA): "Our Iranian Allies", "The Iran Deal Wasn't About Nukes At All", and "The Iran Deal, One Year In: Economic, Nuclear, and Regional Implications."
[4] This aspect of the "Arab Spring" and the Administration's response is detailed by Walid Phares in The Lost Spring, 2014, Palgrave Macmillan.

Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, and was the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation for more than 20 years. He is now the National Security Fellow at the AFPC, and Senior Defense Consultant at the Air Force Association.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Funding Israel’s Missile Defense -- and America’s - Shoshana Bryen

by Shoshana Bryen

The American defense establishment wants, needs and appreciates Israeli missile defense capabilities and innovation. Money spent in cooperation with Israel on missile defense greatly expands the reach of American R&D dollars.

Congress has passed a $576 billion Defense Appropriations bill for 2016 with a wide and bipartisan majority: 282-138, according to Defense News. The Obama administration takes issue with various parts of the bill, including presenting a six-page memo specifically calling for the elimination of Congress’s allocation of $635 million for Israel.

The money for Israel includes $268.7 million in R&D for U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense programs; $72 million for the procurement of Iron Dome; $150 million for the procurement of David’s Sling; $120 million for procurement of Arrow III; and $42.7 million for U.S.-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the administration opposed the funding increase for Israel because it “would consume a growing share of a shrinking U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s budget… Additional support for Israel means fewer resources that are available for critical U.S. programs at a time when the missile threat from North Korea, in particular, is increasing.”

Here’s a thought for Adm. Kirby and the administration: Man up.

Fund U.S. missile defense programs – and the rest of the U.S. defense budget -- at levels appropriate to the threat America faces without shortchanging an ally facing broad, increasing and unremitting threats.

How did we get here?

Thirty years ago, Israel was invited to join President Reagan’s missile defense program by LTG James Abrahamson, the first director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO). It was a serious philosophical leap for the IDF, which had until that time understood the only response to rockets and missiles to be offensive -- hence escalatory. If Hizb’allah fired one at Israel; Israel fired two in return until the “international community” sought a ceasefire. Uzi Rubin, former director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO), explained in inFOCUS Quarterly:
The IDF high command was generally skeptical about the strategic value of active defense, and doubted Israel’s defense industries’ ability to master the required technologies. This skepticism was mirrored by the media and elaborated on by civilian military analysts. Only shock and dismay from missiles and rockets hitting Israel’s undefended population centers in 1991 (the Gulf War) and 2006 (the Second Lebanon War), coupled with Iron Dome’s successful defense on the Gaza front brought a change of heart…
U.S.-Israel collaboration – through the Arrow I and II and upcoming Arrow III programs and the Green Pine radar, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome -- took Israel’s response to the burgeoning missile threats from Hizb'allah, Hamas, and Iran off the “hair trigger.” The Israeli government didn’t have to escalate at the first rocket, but could calculate its response and tell its public, “We can defend you, we are defending you, and we will continue to do so.” [In 2014, Iron Dome had a 90% success rate -- 4,594 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli targets, 735 were determined to threaten populated areas and all but 70 of those were intercepted.]

It was and remains a brilliant collaboration, from which the U.S. has benefitted. Even in 2013, at a moment of U.S.-Israel political tension, Vice President Biden used the AIPAC Policy Conference to promote U.S.-Israel security cooperation, emphasizing American support for Israel’s missile defense program as coin of the realm. Four points have been repeatedly emphasized by American administrations -- Democrat and Republican:
  • Israel makes excellent use of the money and accounts for it in a well-established manner -- unlike, say, much larger appropriations for Pakistan or Afghanistan.
  • The American defense establishment wants, needs and appreciates Israeli missile defense capabilities and innovation. Money spent in cooperation with Israel on missile defense greatly expands the reach of American R&D dollars.
  • By law, nearly 75 percent of the money must be spent in the U.S. So the U.S. not only reaps the benefits of cutting edge Israeli R&D, but U.S. defense contractors benefit from their association with Israeli companies as well.
  • Congress has mandated that Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME) -- its military advantage over conventionally armed adversaries – must be maintained, including through financing of necessary weapons.
Adm. Kirby’s complaint about the expense is part of a familiar dance during the Obama years. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration shortchanged money for Israel’s missile defense programs. Congress would complain and put the money in, and the president would sign the bill with Israel’s money in it. Defense News noted in 2012:
The Obama administration’s recently released budget request details a cut in funding to the “Israeli Cooperative,” as the jointly developed Arrow and David’s Sling programs are known, from $106.1 million in fiscal 2012 to $99.9 million in fiscal 2013. And since Congress more than doubled the administration’s request last year to $235.7 million, President Obama’s budget would more than halve the cooperative’s funding. Moreover, this marks the third consecutive year (emphasis added) that the administration has requested less funding and it will not be the last, according to its own budget projections.
And, indeed, the 2013 request (for 2014 spending) was $96 million, to which Congress added $174 million. The 2014 request (for 2015 spending) added $96.8 million for the “Israeli Cooperative.” At that point, The Jewish Policy Center noted, “Although the bipartisan effort in Congress keeps the money at a relatively even level, this is a terrible way for the Obama Administration to do business.”

Which is a second thought for the administration: missile defenses are, as the name implies, defensive measures. Absent an enemy with offensive plans and capabilities, the threat recedes. So if you get Hizb’allah, Hamas, and Iran -- for starters -- to forego their offensive missile programs and offer a peace with Israel that ensures that the Jewish State will be a legitimate, permanent part of the region, Israel’s missile defense appropriation would not need to be nearly as high. Make North Korea forego its missile program, Adm. Kirby, and you won’t have to worry about fewer resources being available for American programs either.

Short of that unlikely scenario, Israel -- and the U.S. -- will need cooperative missile defense programs for the foreseeable future. And Israel, it appears, will need Congress to ensure that the money is there.

Shoshana Bryen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Guccifer 2.0 hack reveals DNC collaboration with foreign billionaire to ‘alter the electorate’ - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Hansjörg Wyss is accelerating a $100 million registration and get-out-the-vote plan in order to more quickly impact elections and the U.S. policy landscape

The Democratic Party is collaborating with a foreign billionaire who has repeatedly violated our laws by illegally contributing to elections here, in a project to achieve its progressive agenda by “altering the electorate,” according to an authentic-looking document leaked by a hacker of the DNC computers who uses the name Guccifer 2.0.  Can you say, “Sinister global cabal”?

Lachlan Markay of the Free Beacon highlights this revelation from the DNC Hack:
A Swiss billionaire and seven-figure Clinton Foundation donor is pouring millions of dollars into a nonprofit voter registration and turnout operation and appears to have shared information about the project with the Democratic Party, a leaked document reveals.
Hansjörg Wyss is accelerating a $100 million registration and get-out-the-vote plan in order to more quickly impact elections and the U.S. policy landscape, according to a document detailing the proposed work by his charitable group, the Wyss Foundation.
On the surface, voter registration drives are supposedly nonpartisan and a public service, hence qualifying for charitable tax-deductible (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) status. But in practice, mobilizing those who are apathetic enough to require external stimulus to register and vote usually means helping Democrats, who depend on poorly-informed people voting on the basis of emotion and casual impressions based on the simplistic propaganda coming their way. And, in fact, the leaked memorandum entitled “Wyss Foundation Democracy Strategy Discussion Memo,” acknowledges as much.
Unmarried women, youth, and people of color – low-income populations who tend to be reliably progressive on economic and women’s inequality issues—do not participate equally in the democratic process. They are not registered, don’t turnout, and drop-off in non-presidential years. Since elected officials respond more to their voting constituents, policies are more conservative than the preferences of the young, unmarried, of-color majority. If low-income people voted at the same rate as high-income people, it would be easier to achieve the Foundation’s policy goals and it would ensure that the victories lasted beyond the foundation.
The memo acknowledges the partisan (this memo was shared with the Democrats only) political motivation for its “charitable” activity:
1.     In the short-term, highly-targeted (but relatively expensive) strategies could be used to increased registration – and ultimately participation – by the emerging progressive majority, closing the voting gap faster and substantially advancing the Foundation’s policy agenda by:
  • Creating a surge of registration in tipping-point geographies to accelerate change;
  • Engaging the new majority in the political system around the Foundation’s issue-agenda, through political engagement in a limited set of states important to our issue work and through targeted communications work to reach key demographics about the importance of voting.
The memo foresees eventually relying on government funding to gin-up participation by casually-engaged or unengaged potential voters after a tipping point is reached through its relatively expensive privately funded efforts.
We believe these efforts will alter the electorate….
But this will take time and money, so the memo outlines where its funds can best be applied, and seeks other private funds, in conjunction with the DNC’s efforts. “Given the high cost, this would have to be done in partnership with other funders.”
A hundred million bucks! But when you think about it, pretty cheap to gain control of the political system of the United States of America.

Markay reports:
The Wyss Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, meaning it cannot finance explicitly political projects. But the group sees opportunities to shift the electorate in ways that advance its policy agenda under a nonpartisan banner.
The foundation did not respond to questions about its funding plan and why its strategy memo ended up in the hands of the Democratic National Committee. It was one of a number of internal documents released by a hacker who claims to have breached the DNC computer network.
Wyss, a Swiss citizen, has donated to numerous federal and state political campaigns despite legal bans on political contributions by foreign nationals. While the law provides exceptions for lawful permanent residents, Wyss revealed in 2014 that he does not have a U.S. green card.
In addition to political campaigns, Wyss has generously supported the Clinton Foundation. The foundation’s website states the Wyss Charitable Endowment has given it between $1 million and $5 million.
Wyss’ now-defunct HJW Foundation previously employed Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who received $87,083 from the group in 2013 for consulting services.
Podesta is the founder and former chairman of the Clinton-friendly Center for American Progress. Wyss is a CAP board member and has donated more than $1 million to the group since 2011.
The Wyss Foundation is also a member of the Democracy Alliance, a leading left-wing donor club that is financing efforts similar to the foundation’s work on registration and turnout operations.
Other members of the Democracy Alliance include George Soros, Peter Lewis, and Herb and Marion Sandler, whose World Savings issued lots of mortgages that defaulted in the 2008 meltdown, but because it was sold to Wachovia Bank (which subsequently failed owing to the vast liabilities it had acquired from the Sandlers) with remarkably good timing, the Sandlers emerged with billions of dollars of wealth.

All of these billionaires are committed to this same sort of fundamental transformation, mobilizing and manipulating casual and uninformed voters to support their agenda.

And now we know they are part of an international plot.

Don’t expect the mainstream media to get too interested in this, though, because it might interfere with the Democrats’ agenda to gain control and work for the little people, just as Hillary has done with her Wall Street pals.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Muslim Migrant Sex Assault Comes to Idaho - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

But the big story is the law enforcement and media cover-up.

The first hint that something was amiss with this story came in the initial media report about it: Idaho’s “KMVT has confirmed that a reported sexual assault that possibly occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartments is being investigated by the Twin Falls Police Department. The incident allegedly occurred on June 2.” Why the five-day gap between incident and news report? Unexplained. Even more curiously, the story added: “Several unconfirmed reports concerning the case are circulating on social media.” Why would social media be filled with unconfirmed reports about this particular sexual assault? Unexplained.

The explanation for both of these curious aspects of the story came from Twin Falls residents, who began a petition asking that authorities act against the perpetrators, explaining:
The little girl was at the FAWNBROOK apartment buildings where both her parents and grandmother reside. She was playing in between those two apartment units when 3 boys (from 2 Syrian refugee families, ages 8, 10, 13) pulled a knife on her, held it to her throat, forced her into the laundry unit, stripped her naked, raped, and urinated on her. The 13 year old “coached” the younger boys as he videoed. Due to age restraint the boys could not ejaculate but did urinate on her.
But at a local city council meeting, instead of being outraged by this incident and determined to bring the guilty to justice, council members were openly contemptuous and hostile toward citizens who were expressing their concerns about it. Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs was dismissive: “There was no gang rape, there was no Syrian involvement, there were no Syrian refugees involved, there was no knife used, there was no inactivity by the police. I’m looking at the Drudge Report headline: ‘Syrian Refugees Rape Little Girl at Knifepoint in Idaho’ – all false.”

The only problem with this was that Loebs’ string of denials left the essentials of the story intact. The perps were not Syrian, but they were Muslim migrants. There was no rape, but there was sexual assault. The Twin Falls residents’ petition was revised:
This little girl, as stated in the news, was assaulted, and urinated on by three boys under the age of 18. The boys took her into a laundry room and proceeded to take part on the previous stated actions which was videotaped by the eldest boy. The incident as well as the video was submitted to the police department. However, due to the ages of the children involved, this case is being sealed. Many people in this community are in awe, and outraged that minimal consequences will be served to these boys and their parents for this vile incident.
An eyewitness to the incident, Jolene Payne, recounted:
This happened three weeks ago around 3:30. I was sitting on my porch patio and I looked over and saw this boy taking pictures with a camera. He was from Africa or somewhere overseas, standing outside the laundry room taking pictures of kids in the laundry room. I found them in there. I knew there was something going on because the boy (with the phone camera) was acting funny, he was taking pictures but he was telling the two younger boys what to do….The door was cracked enough for him to see the pictures he was taking. I opened that door and I almost fainted when I saw what was going on and here I’m a nurse. What a pitiful thing for a poor little girl to go through.
The worst thing was the way they peed all over her clothes and on her too, and I thought that was one of the meanest things I’ve ever saw done....The little girl had no clothes on. The boys took them off. The littlest boy said "we didn’t do it, he told us to," pointing to the older boy. They’re just kids that have a mother and they moved here from overseas. The women don’t even talk any English, some of them do, but others don’t. They wear long dresses and long black things on their heads.
Since this horrifying story involved Muslim migrants, the mainstream media went into full cover-up mode, focusing on Loebs’ denials to portray the whole thing as right-wing anti-immigrant hysteria. As Daniel Greenfield has noted, that, not the sexual assault, became the story:
Story of Syrian refugees raping Idaho girl is false: authorities - New York Daily News
No, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho: Right-wing urban myth - Salon
False story on social media charges Syrian refugees raped Idaho girl - Spokesman
We have seen in recent days, with the White House’s inept attempts to conceal Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen’s Islamic declarations, that covering for Islam seems to be what the Obama administration considers its primary responsibility. The mainstream media, always in Obama’s pocket, is following along: Muslim migrants brutalizing a little girl in Idaho? That’s not a story. Angry Idaho residents protesting against law enforcement inaction about the assault? That’s not a story, either. Idaho residents getting some details of the story wrong? That’s a story – see, folks? This isn’t about the risks and dangers of importing huge numbers of Muslim migrants. It’s about the racism and xenophobia of ordinary Americans. As are all mainstream media stories having anything to do with Islam in the U.S.

Robert Spencer


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

US intelligence community backs strict Pollard parole conditions - Yoni Hersch and Israel Hayom Staff

by Yoni Hersch and Israel Hayom Staff

"Some of the sources and methods used to develop some of the intelligence exposed by Mr. Pollard not only remain classified but are still in use by the intelligence community today," senior American intelligence official tells U.S. Parole Commission.

Jonathan Pollard walks outside the federal courthouse in New York City, November 2015
Photo credit: AP

Yoni Hersch and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Anti-Semitic incidents in US surge by 50% in 2015 - Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

by Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Anti-Defamation League says that 941 reported anti-Semitic incidents in 2015 included 56 assaults in addition to harassment, vandalism • Colleges are hotbeds for harassment of Jews, with university campuses comprising 10% of anti-Semitic incidents.

An "eviction" notice distributed to Jewish university students by pro-BDS activists

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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