Friday, January 24, 2020

The EU Needs to Take Tougher Stance Towards Iran's Mullahs - Majid Rafizadeh

by Majid Rafizadeh

It is incumbent upon the EU to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran.

  • It is worth noting that the EU did announce a positive step. In light of the revelations concerning Iran's assassinations plots, minor sanctions were imposed on sectors of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, as well as on Saeid Hashemi Moghadan, the deputy intelligence minister.
  • However, these do not go nearly far enough, particularly if the EU is inclined to continue its support for the JCPOA.
  • It is incumbent upon the EU to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities.

It is incumbent upon the European Union to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities. Pictured: The EU's then High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, Federica Mogherini (left), laughs with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during her August 2017 visit to Iran. (Image source: European External Action Service/Flickr)

The European Union really needs to do two things as soon as possible: stop criticizing the Trump administration for its Iran policy, and halt its appeasement policies toward the ruling mullahs of Iran who have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity, not only in Iran but abroad.

On January 19, 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated their commitment to keep Iran nuclear deal alive. Europe has been working to implement a special purpose vehicle that will allow countries to continue trading with Iran, despite US sanctions, known as INSTEX.

Most recently, many innocent citizens of Canada, Iran and the EU were killed when an Iranian missile downed a Ukrainian passenger plane. The Iranian leaders first attempted to mislead the international community, veil the truth, and deny any involvement in the strike. The Iranian government also rejected cooperating with international investigators. "We will not give the black box to the manufacturer [Boeing] or America," said Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran's Civil Aviation Authority.

The killing of 176 innocent people -- albeit accidental, and the attempted cover-up, not accidental -- reveals that Iran's theocratic establishment prioritizes military adventurism over human life. After the passenger plane was shot down and 176 people lost their lives, Iranian leaders praised their "successful" military operation. Former IRGC commander-in-chief Mohsen Rezaei appeared on Iran's Channel 3 and offered his congratulations to the IRGC's missile attack:
"I extend my congratulation (sic) for taking harsh revenge to the Leadership [Khamenei] and the novel nation who 'suffered' from Soleimani's [death]. This operation was, in fact, the bombardment of both the authority and prestige of the United States."
When the regime rushed to conceal evidence after shooting down the European plane, CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer tweeted:
"CBS crew just visited the #Ukrainian airlines crash site west of Tehran. Nine am local time. Virtually all pieces of the plane were removed yesterday - say locals. Scavengers now picking site clean. No security. Not cordoned off. No sign of any investigators."
After Tehran, however, was faced with overwhelming evidence, including credible intelligence reports from several governments as well as a video showing that the plane was hit over Tehran, the Islamic Republic was forced to admit that it had shot down the passenger plane.

The IRGC's shooting down of the passenger plane has sparked anger and fury inside Iran and abroad. Iranians took to the street protesting the regime and demanding that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei resign.

In the first demonstration against the ruling mullahs since the death of the Iranian General Qassem Soleiman, people can be heard chanting in front of Tehran's Amir Kabir University: "Commander-in-chief [Khamenei] resign, resign", "Death to the liars" and "Death to Khamenei!"

People have also been criticizing the regime for its belated admission and attempts to conceal the truth. Hesham Ghanbari, 27, a university student in Tehran told Reuters:
"Why should I vote for this regime. I don't trust them at all. They lied to us about the plane crash. Why should I trust them when they don't trust people enough to tell the truth?"
The regime, in turn, is resorting to its usual modus operandi of cracking down on the protesters with savage force.

Many of the Iranian people are familiar with the regime's careless or willful killing of innocent people. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of people were killed two months ago by the regime forces when people demonstrated against a hike in gas prices.

The Iranian government has also been implicated in a series of assassination and terrorist plots across Europe, some successful others not, but all have been traced back to Tehran. European officials also foiled a terrorist attack that targeted a large "Free Iran" convention in Paris, attended in June 2018 by many high-level speakers -- including former US House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.

Iran's attacks were also evident in 2018 in Denmark, where officials accused Tehran of attempting to assassinate one of its citizens. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen emphasized the seriousness of the plot:
"An Iranian intelligence agency has planned an assassination on Danish soil. This is completely unacceptable. In fact, the gravity of the matter is difficult to describe. That has been made crystal clear to the Iranian ambassador in Copenhagen today."
It is worth noting that, the EU did announce a positive step. In light of the revelations concerning Iran's assassinations plots, minor sanctions were imposed on sectors of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, as well as on Saeid Hashemi Moghadan, the deputy intelligence minister.

However, these do not go nearly far enough, particularly if the EU is inclined to continue its support for the JCPOA.

It is incumbent upon the EU to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities.

  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The US Must Facilitate Regime Change in Iran - Peter Huessy

by Peter Huessy

Aiding the Iranian people to oust the regime does not -- require the US to launch a full-fledged war with the Islamic Republic.

  • Aiding the Iranian people to oust the regime does not, however, require the US to launch a full-fledged war with the Islamic Republic.
  • On the contrary, a four-pronged strategy of maximum pressure -- involving continued financial pressure on the mullahs; helping local forces expel Iranian proxy groups from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen; supporting the Iranian protesters through a robust social-media campaign promising a future without repression and terror, and using appropriate military force to deter and protect our interests -- would get the job done without troops on the ground.

The goal of US policy on Iran, really to exert "maximum pressure," should be the change of the mullah-led regime in Tehran before it is armed with nuclear weapons, becomes the hegemon of the Persian Gulf and commands much of the world's oil and gas. Pictured: Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (left), and President Hassan Rouhani. (Photo by Behrouz Mehri/AFP via Getty Images)

The goal of US policy on Iran, really to exert "maximum pressure," should be the change of the mullah-led regime in Tehran before it is armed with nuclear weapons, becomes the hegemon of the Persian Gulf and commands much of the world's oil and gas. Iran is already seeking to take over Iraq, OPEC's second-largest crude oil producer, with the fifth-largest oil reserves, in the world.

But helping to spur the end of the Iranian empire -- or, at least, keeping its power in check -- cannot be accomplished without a clear knowledge and understanding of the nature of the regime.

As much of the mainstream the media and members of the political class revealed in their comments about the January 3 targeted killing of the mass murderer, Qasem Soleimani -- commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- there is a grave misunderstanding, particularly among Democrats, about the ideology and terrorist threat that the regime poses to the United States and the rest of the world.

Take Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Or), for example. The 22-year veteran of the US Congress recently seemed to justify Iranian aggression against the US. In a newsletter on his website on January 7 -- in which he criticized the killing of Soleimani, Blumenauer wrote, in part:
"...Most Iranians have an affinity for the United States, dating back to the constitutional revolution of 1905. America was respected, revered, and appreciated. But it was the United States that chose to side with the British in overthrowing a popularly elected government in Iran in 1953 in order to restore British control over Iranian oil. We were partners in restoring the Shah to the throne, replacing their democracy and ushering in an era of repression. The United States helped foster the Iranian revolution where we were perceived as being their enemy. There was a reason Iranian crowds chanted 'death to America."
To set the record straight: The so-called "coup" in Iran in 1953 was more complicated than is reported. The Iranian Constitution at the time -- prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and replaced him with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- gave the Shah the power, which he exercised, to dismiss then-Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The reason the Shah dismissed his prime minister was that Mosaddegh was turning over Iran's British-managed oil fields to the Soviet Union and negotiating with the Kremlin to establish a military base in the Persian Gulf -- both of which the Shah's British and American allies viewed with alarm.

The real root of Iran's current global terror campaign, which it carries out through the IRGC, is religious, ideological and hegemonic.

According to the section of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran titled "An Ideological Army":
"In establishing and equipping the defense forces of the country, the focus shall be on maintaining ideology and faith as the foundation and the measure. Consequently, the Army of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Pasdaran Revolutionary Corps are formed in accordance with the aforementioned objective. They will undertake the responsibility of not only guarding and protecting the borders, but also the weight of ideological mission, i.e. striving (jehād) on the path of God and struggle on the path of expanding the sovereignty of the law of God in the world; in accordance with the Qur'anic verse: 'Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies' (8: 60)."
In other words, Tehran seeks to "expand sovereignty of the law of God in the world" in accordance with the Quran. To achieve this, the ayatollahs need to take control of the Persian Gulf -- and the trillions of dollars of oil wealth that it contains -- as well as nuclear weapons.

Killing Soleimani, a key figure in accomplishing the above goal, triggered a debate about US foreign policy in relation to Iran that makes no sense. To argue that an enemy combatant with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands should not have been targeted, critics of the Trump administration would have to claim that Soleimani had no role in terrorist attacks against America, or that whatever role he played was justified in some way.

Even though a number of critics of the Trump administration acknowledge that Soleimani was key to Iran's hydra-headed terror state, in a new twist, some are claiming that the New Year's attack on the US Embassy compound in Baghdad and the January 7 attack on American troops were acts of retribution over Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers in 2015, which incidentally the Iranians never signed.

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama, seems to think that those missile attacks, and other terrorist activities perpetrated by Iran or its proxies, would not have taken place had the US administration upheld the JCPOA – which, by the way, Obama had effectively bribed Tehran into accepting by awarding it $150 billion. In an interview with MSNBC on January 8, Rice said:
"In the years since the signing of the deal in 2015, up until President Trump's unilateral withdrawal abandoning our allies against the advice of his advisers, there were no proxy attacks by Iranian proxies on US personnel in Iraq. There were no efforts by Iran to attack our drones in the Persian Gulf or attack shipping... President Trump decided recklessly to withdraw unilaterally from the nuclear deal and to impose so-called 'maximum pressure' — crippling sanctions — and it was in the wake of that that we found ourselves in this escalatory cycle that's led to where we are today."
Rice failed to mention something that Obama, Trump, Israel and other observers has known all along: Iran never actually upheld its side of the JCPOA – which in any event was a bad deal: it did not prevent the development of long-range ballistic missiles, and merely postponed the time at which Tehran could continue enriching uranium for building an unlimited number of nuclear bombs.
Aiding the Iranian people to oust the regime does not, however, require the US to launch a full-fledged war with the Islamic Republic. On the contrary, a four-pronged strategy of maximum pressure-- involving continued financial pressure on the mullahs; helping local forces expel Iranian proxy groups from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen; supporting the Iranian protesters through a robust social-media campaign promising a future without repression and terror, and using appropriate military force to deter and protect our interests -- would get the job done without troops on the ground.

Meanwhile, Washington should work on building European consensus on negotiating a new nuclear agreement that ends Iran's uranium enrichment and dismantles its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs.

Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981. He also is a guest lecturer on nuclear deterrent studies at the US Naval Academy. He was also for 22 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Barack Obama should be key witness in impeachment trial, not Joe or Hunter Biden - Neil Braithwaite

by Neil Braithwaite

After indicating that he was acting on a clear directive from President Obama, Biden spelled out what can only be characterized as a threatening and time-sensitive quid pro quo.

Besides the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky, the second most important transcript is of Joe Biden's comments at a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations. (See below.)

Here's why:
It's been interesting to hear Republican politicians, Trump-supporters, a few objective journalists, conservative political pundits, and even President Trump himself continue to argue that Joe Biden was the person responsible for threatening a quid pro quo to a group of Ukrainian government leaders involving a billion-dollar loan guarantee from the USA and a prosecutor investigating corruption at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. All of these people also argue that Joe, along with his son Hunter, should be called as witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial to expose the truth of their corruption in the Ukraine.

What has been glaringly overlooked in this whole situation is that Joe Biden was technically not the person responsible for the idea of a quid pro quo in that situation, because Biden was merely the official U.S. representative delivering the quid pro quo ultimatum to the Ukrainian leaders. In his own words, Joe Biden clearly establishes this fact.

Referencing the transcript below, Biden implies that because Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk had not yet taken "action against [fired] the state prosecutor," Ukraine was not going to get the billion dollars from the USA. At this point in his story, Biden says the Ukrainian leaders challenged him, saying, "You have no authority. You're not the president." Biden said his response to their challenge was, "Call him." That's the irrefutable statement that implicates President Obama in the quid pro quo.

After indicating that he was acting on a clear directive from President Obama, Biden spelled out what can only be characterized as a threatening and time-sensitive quid pro quo. Biden told the Ukrainian leaders, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Biden then ended his comments about this incident, saying, "Well, son of a b----. He [the prosecutor] got fired."

Based on Joe Biden's comments, it would seem there is a big question that only President Obama can answer.

Obama needs to be asked if he directed Biden to withhold the billion dollars from Ukraine if the Burisma prosecutor was not fired.

If Obama says he did not direct Biden to threaten a quid pro quo, then not only is Biden a liar, but he has directly implicated himself in a corrupt scheme to both protect and enrich his son Hunter in his bogus job with Burisma. He also clearly misrepresented himself by usurping the authority of President Obama in dealing with a foreign leader.

Also, if Obama did not direct Biden to threaten a quid pro quo, why hasn't he come forward to expose the truth and clear his name?

If Obama admits that he directed Biden to threaten the quid pro quo, then Obama directly implicates himself in the same corrupt scheme to both protect and enrich Hunter Biden. More importantly, if Obama did direct Biden, as Biden says he did, he committed the exact same act President Trump is being accused of doing — and is being impeached for by the Democrats.

In any case, questioning Obama under oath will prove once and for all if President Trump was right to inquire about Biden's corruption in Ukraine on his phone call with the president of Ukraine.

Now, for the record, it's not "Quid pro Joe"; it's "Quid pro O."

Joe Biden, 23 January 2018 — appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations:
And that is I'm desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made — I mean, I'll give you one concrete example. I was — not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to — convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't.

So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to — or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said — I said, call him.

I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a b----. (Laughter.) He got fired.

Neil Braithwaite


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump gave a brilliant speech in Davos at the World Economic Forum - Andrea Widburg

by Andrea Widburg

For Trump, it was about doing his best for the American worker because he knew that, unleashed, American workers could create economic miracles

While America settled in for a week of pointless impeachment agony before the Senate, Trump was in Davos speaking in glowing terms about a revitalized America that has at its center the well-being of the American worker. He also gloriously rejected Greta Thunberg, that neurotic prophet of doom and gloom, and her dead-end ideology.

Trump began with his standard recitation of America's extraordinary economic accomplishments on his watch. What made this speech special, though, and elevated it to brilliance, is how Trump explained the philosophy that created these staggering economic benefits. For Trump, it was about doing his best for the American worker because he knew that, unleashed, American workers could create economic miracles:
America achieved this stunning turnaround not by making minor changes to a handful of policies, but by adopting a whole new approach centered entirely on the wellbeing of the American worker.
Every decision we make — on taxes, trade, regulation, energy, immigration, education, and more — is focused on improving the lives of everyday Americans. We are determined to create the highest standard of living that anyone can imagine, and right now, that's what we're doing for our workers. The highest in the world. And we're determined to ensure that the working and middle class reap the largest gains.
A nation's highest duty is to its own citizens. Honoring this truth is the only way to build faith and confidence in the market system. Only when governments put their own citizens first will people be fully invested in their national futures. In the United States, we are building an economy that works for everyone, restoring the bonds of love and loyalty that unite citizens and powers nations.
Trump promised his audience that they could do the same in their own countries. To help them, he listed some of the initiatives his administration put into place to spur the economy. The long list includes lowering business taxes, creating Opportunity Zones in distressed communities predicated on low taxes, and reducing job-killing regulations.

On a grander, less micro scale, Trump spoke about restoring America's constitutional roots:
We're also restoring the constitutional rule of law in America, which is essential to our economy, our liberty, and our future. And that's why we've appointed over 190 federal judges — a record — to interpret the law as written. One hundred and ninety federal judges — think of that — and two Supreme Court judges.
Of course, Trump talked about his work ending predatory trade practices and bad trade deals. In that context, he made an interesting observation about President Xi:
Before I was elected, China's predatory practices were undermining trade for everyone, but no one did anything about it, except allow it to keep getting worse and worse and worse. Under my leadership, America confronted the problem head on.
Our relationship with China, right now, has probably never been better. We went through a very rough patch, but it's never, ever been better. My relationship with President Xi is an extraordinary one. He's for China; I'm for the U.S. But other than that, we love each other.
It's probable that Trump garnered Xi's respect, which is the foundation for liking someone. We cannot like those whom we do not respect. They are almost certainly friendly rivals now, not deadly enemies.

Trump's last boast was about America's energy independence and clean energy. That led him, wonderfully, to reject unequivocally the Greta Thunbergs of the world:
This is not a time for pessimism; this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action.
But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday's foolish fortune-tellers — and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don't let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the '70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.
We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom.
In America, we understand what the pessimists refuse to see: that a growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome any challenge — any challenge by far.
With this speech, Trump elevated himself from businessman and politician to visionary, statesman, and true patriot. It reminded people how petty, pointless, mean-spirited, and undemocratic the Democrats are being as they work ceaselessly to overturn the 2016 election and put the fix in for the 2020 election.

Andrea Widburg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Death Spiral of the Islamic Republic - Michael Ledeen

by Michael Ledeen

The hit on Soleimani was so well-organized, leading terrorists ran for the hills.

The elimination of Qassem Soleimani has produced surprising results. It turns out that the United States received intelligence on Soleimani’s movements from a variety of sources, some within his Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, others from Israel’s vaunted intelligence apparatus. 

The operation against Soleimani and his ilk was so well-organized that leading terrorists in Iraq ran for the hills:
U.S. officials have intercepted chatter and received confirmation that terrorist leaders in Iraq have been fleeing the region and have gone into hiding fearing United States intelligence capabilities after the successful airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani.
Undoubtedly some of the terrorist leaders are cutting deals with U.S. intelligence, and the events of this weekend suggest that at least some of that information has made its way to Iraqi demonstrators. The anti-Iranian demonstrations continue, and the divisions within the regime are becoming ever more intense:
Far from a unifying national symbol as some supposed, Soleimani has become a deeply divisive figure within the Middle East region. Fractures over the late Commander also reveal deep-seated divisions within Iran and the failure of the Islamic Republic’s brand of culture and identity politics. Like Iran’s official identity, the country’s regional role and Soleimani’s image have left Iranians disunited. Internal unrest, decades of mismanagement and regional adventurism are revealing the limits of Islamic Republic’s Shiite-based rhetoric and its failure of combining that with a viable notion of nationhood.
Scores of IRGC officials have been arrested by their comrades. Most of the arrestees are said to be Soleimani loyalists, and there are reports of missing officials very far up in the Quds Force. According to the ongoing reports from the Free Iran Herald, carried by the Gateway Pundit,
A source inside IRGC tells me that since yesterday evening, 56 of IRGC commanders have been arrested by the IRGC’s intelligence organization. According to the source, knows as Haj Vahid, one of Soleimani’s most trusted in Iraq is missing since the strike on Soleimani.
Is Haj Vahid helping Soleimani’s enemies? And where is he? 

Wherever he and his colleagues may be, the Iranian people, after the days of public celebration of the life of Soleimani, are not celebrating him anymore. It was one thing when he was viewed as untouchable, but quite a different matter once his vulnerability to U.S. Special Forces was exposed.

The removal of Soleimani et al from the battlefield undermines Iran’s plans for an expanded push against American and Israeli forces throughout the Middle East, and encourages the increasingly broad-based revolt against the Iranian regime. So it is that the Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese peoples are fighting against the mullahs and their agents. And once again, the killing of Soleimani gave hope to the people who are targeted by the brutal thugs of the Tehran regime. 

Two careful observers of Iranian events—Banafsheh Zand and Harold Rhode--see the downfall of Soleimani as a crucial turning point in the downfall of the Islamic Republic, provided that Washington applies relentless pressure.
Both Zand and Rhode see the Soleimani strike as a potential turning point for Iran, but both insist that the Iranian protesters will need unwavering support from the Trump administration to continue building momentum. Rhode cautioned that the regime will try to stay in power at all costs and will, not simply bow to international economic and diplomatic pressure, however fierce.The same applies to Iraq and Lebanon.
“Soleimani was betrayed by fellow IRGC members. They are killing each other,” said Zand.
Rhode, who lived through the events of 1979, when the shah was overthrown, knows that the key to the future of Iran, and hence of the Middle East, is the people’s perception of the durability of the regime:
“It is important that the Trump administration stay strong and not show Iran any weakness and respond to any aggression with overwhelming strength,” said Rhode, while noting that crippling international sanctions administered by the U.S. are taking a severe toll on the country as well as the stability of the Islamic regime.
“With all that is going on,” he said, “it is hard to imagine how much longer the regime could survive.”
Meanwhile, the Tehran regime will kill as many people as it possibly can, hoping to rattle President Trump and to drive its enemies into silence. 

It’s a desperate strategy.

Michael Ledeen


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Cops: Muslim Sex Grooming Gangs “Didn’t Understand That It Was Wrong" - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Why Manchester cops didn’t protect young girls from Muslim sex grooming gangs.

Call it a tale of two girls. And a tale of two Englands.

One is an actress who grew up to marry a prince, lavished with luxuries, amassing a fortune, before her tantrums and antics drove her to depart her newfound royal family for a Canadian billionaire’s manor.

The other was put into foster care when she was only 8, by the age of 13 she was being raped by a Muslim sex grooming gang, and by 15, Victoria Agoglia was already dead of a heroin overdose injected by the 50-year-old Muslim pedophile who had been abusing her. Today, she would have been a woman.

Unlike Meghan Markle, Victoria never got the opportunity to marry a prince or even grow up. And while the media weeps for Markle, who is departing for Canada because of some tabloid tales, the story of Victoria, once again in the news because of the release of an independent report on the sex grooming gangs of Manchester, shows what true social injustice looks like. It’s not bad publicity for a celebrity.

It’s a girl who was abandoned to the worst imaginable abuses because intervening would have been politically incorrect.

The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian.

Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.”

Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find.

A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester.

Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.

“There was an educational issue. Asian males didn’t understand that it was wrong, and the girls were not quite there. They were difficult groups to deal with. We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” Constable B said.

And so they didn’t.

More young girls and women were raped. Some of the perpetrators were later arrested. The full scope of the abuse and the cover-up will never be known. The independent report tells us a little of the horror.

The Muslim sex grooming gangs in South Manchester targeted girls from broken families who were taken to care homes. This was not accident or chance. As the report notes, the “offenders understood that a specific children’s home in Manchester was used as an emergency placement unit for children entering the care system and this maintained a steady supply of victims.” And the Muslim sex groomers made sure to be on hand and ready so that the “children were befriended as soon as they arrived.”

These were some of the same tactics used by Muslim sex grooming gangs in Rotherham, Bradford, Huddersfield, Rochdale, Aylesbury, Oxford, Newcastle, Bristol, and Telford, suggesting some level of coordination between grooming gangs from various cities. Possibly over the internet. It’s an angle that the authorities have shown no interest in following up because of its potentially explosive nature.

Some previous Muslim sex grooming gangs were set up among taxi drivers. This gang, according to the report, was based out of the “Asian restaurant and takeaway trade.” Again, by Asian, they mean Indian, Afghan and Pakistani cuisine, kabobs and curry, not Egg Foo Yung and General Tso’s Chicken. These traditionally Muslim businesses served as coordinating networks for the rape and abuse of children.

The migrant populations that destroyed the English working class, displacing them and taking their jobs, leaving men without purposeful work, wives without husbands, and children with broken homes, then completed the hat trick by drugging, raping, and killing the daughters of the working class. And the authorities shrugged because the girls were the worthless leavings of broken homes and a declining populace, the Mohicans and Incas, the Bushmen and the Picts, ragged remnants of defeated tribes brokenly making way for a new conquest, their daughters subjugated by the arrogant colonizers.

There are brief snapshots of the horror of this New Britain: notes from a lost investigation into lost lives.

“Carers reported to police that a child had provided information stating that she was being pursued/threatened/coerced into having sex by two men who were Asian,” a brief summary mentions. “A child begged her carers to get her away from Manchester as she was too involved with Asian men. She disclosed that an Asian man known by his nickname ‘made her do things she didn't want to do’”.

While girls have been the focus of many of the stories, some of the predators also went after boys.

“Child 14 was a male looked after child who regularly went missing,” the report also notes. There were “references from other young people that he was being prostituted by Asian and gay men.”

Despite its thorough documentation, the report ends in a bureaucratic sea of missing information.

In 2005, senior officers of the Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council members attended a meeting at Manchester Town Hall and announced the shutdown of the investigation. The report mentions that, "The review team has requested a copy of the minutes for that meeting but neither GMP nor Manchester City Council was able to provide a copy."

It’s no doubt been logged and filed in the same place as Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide videos.
Constable B’s rough answers tell us certain truths about the cover-up. The investigation of Muslim sex grooming gangs was too likely to offend the wrong people. And the behavior of the Muslim pedophiles, who abused young girls and addicted them to drugs, was attributed to cultural differences.

The nameless Constable B tells us the true scope of the problem. Manchester cops like him know that this is habitual and that it’s taking place on a level vastly beyond the scope of Operation Augusta. It’s not 57 girls or 97 suspects. It’s thousands. “We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” he said.

That’s what you say about vast social issues that involve entire communities and a way of life.

Muslim sex grooming gangs, like drugs or prostitution, are too widespread to be enforced out of existence because, like college students and pot, the culture doesn’t accept that they are wrong.

The police did nothing because these were not isolated crimes by criminals, but clashes of morals and values between two communities, one of which does not believe that child rape is wrong because its sacred texts tell it that Mohammed married Aisha and consummated his marriage when she was 9.

There are nearly 2 million child marriages in Pakistan. The notion that a woman’s consent to sexual relations matters is an utterly foreign concept in a culture where unaccompanied women are fair game.

The child rapists did not believe that their actions were wrong under Islamic law. And they weren’t.

The Manchester City Council and the GMP just accepted this reality as they have accepted it so often. They buried the minutes, shut down the investigation, and walked away from the screams of the girls.

They did it for multiculturalism, integration, and community relations. They did it for social justice.

We know that no real action was taken because the girls were troubled. They didn’t matter. And their bodies and lives could be sacrificed for the greater good.

The real tragedy is not that the rapists didn’t understand it was wrong. It’s that the UK no longer does.

As the media moans over Meghan Markle, sob stories rolling in of the injustice of tabloid headlines and the prejudice of the Brits, it is worth remembering those nameless girls who were sacrificed to progress.

They were not worked to death in factories. The brand of progress is no longer Dickensian. Instead it’s Markleite. It demands that we look away from the broken bodies in the chimneys of social justice, to bury away these cinderellas of the postmodern age until Blake’s angel comes with his bright key.

The princess of social justice is in. And the cinderellas who never get asked to the ball, who never grow up or meet their prince, who are taken by taxi to drug dens, shot up, abused, and then turned out, are obstacles to the brand of progress that Markle, Stormzy, and the rest of the social justice crowd of the ‘Cool New Britain’ that is quick to stomp on offensive speech and quicker to look away from the horrors of the new golden age of acid attacks, sex grooming gangs, and nail bombs at teen girl concerts, represent. There is no fairy godmother for them. Only little black coffins and filing cabinets.

Bodies are buried in coffins and the truth is buried in filing cabinets, along with the unasked questions

There is a red Mercedes linked to four of the young girls. Who was behind the wheel of the car “used in the procurement of the victims”? Where did it go? Who knows.

Ask the GMP. Ask the lost and the dead.

The notes and minutes are missing. The truth has been buried in little black coffins along with the bodies of young girls like Victoria. England might once have been theirs. Now it belongs to their abusers.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'I’m Saddened by the White Man’s Emasculation' - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

An African intellectual sets the record straight.

Michele Antaki—a former UN interpreter, journalist, and translator—has written and sent me the following exclusive summary of a recent speech given in French by Ernest Tigori, an Ivorian intellectual and political activist, exiled in France, and winner of the 2017 Nelson Mandela Prize for Literature.  In his new book “L’Afrique à désintoxiquer” (“Detoxifying Africa”), he explains why it is crucial to lead Europe out of repentance for its alleged crimes in Africa, and lead Africa out of infantilization. He presented it to great acclaim at a recent patriotic forum in Paris.  Antaki’s write-up begins:
Since the 1990s, Tigori has vigorously denounced the political class ruining his country, and the general lack of prospects compelling Africans to leave their countries in droves, in search of a better future.

Welfare Europe is a powerful magnet for the thousands who keep washing up on its shores, lured by the promises of this new Eldorado (coined by Jean-Marie Le Pen). Meanwhile, the exodus causes standards of living to decline steadily back home, as well as human safety and the value of human life itself, often reduced to that of merchandise.

It saddens me to see the white man too emasculated to put up any resistance 

Regarding Europe, Tigori warns that uncontrolled migration from the South to the North shore of the Mediterranean may destabilize it beyond repair and that ethnic wars could well be looming on the horizon.

“It saddens me”, he says,” to see the white man beating his breast over and over, too emasculated to put up any resistance to people who’ve come to threaten him on his own doorstep”. He believes that a toxic mix of guilt, “human rightsism”, political naivety and crass ignorance of History have a debilitating effect on Europeans’ capacity to fight the invasion.

He accuses the corrupt African leaders of destroying the lives of hundreds of millions of human beings in all impunity, but is equally critical of the ideologues who are paving the way for them. They should stop blaming it all – slavery, the slave trade, colonialism, neocolonialism and racism – on a forever repentant Europe, who now has to carry the burden of this mass immigration to atone for its supposed sins against Africa.

Tigori explains how the History of black Africa from the 15th to the 20th centuries has intentionally been falsified in the 1940s by Stalinist strategists and their Communist followers, whose covert aim it was to tarnish the image of Western European nations, in order to drive them out of their colonial possessions and take their place. Up until now, that is 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the lies have stuck.

He has harsh words, too, for fake humanists and do-gooders, wolves in sheep’s clothing who jump on the humanitarian bandwagon to better conceal their motives. These predators are deft at playing gullible public opinion like a fiddle, while reaping juicy profits in their smuggling rings and transnational underground networks.

The myth the author debunks is twofold. No, Europe is not responsible for the practice of slavery in black Africa, nor is it guilty of colonial crimes. And, no, Africans did not allow themselves to be enslaved or colonized as “poor hapless victims”.

He goes on to explain how the myth of Europe’s debt towards Africa is perpetuated by certain powers that have a stake in keeping it alive. This myth, born out of Cold War Soviet anti-Western propaganda, is now serving another variety of the same agenda.

Before the arrival of the first European caravel, Africa was already practicing slavery

Regarding slavery, Tigori explains that in 1324, almost 150 years before the first European caravel arrived on the African Atlantic coast, Malian king Kankan Moussa made a pilgrimage to Mecca with almost 10 tons of gold and thousands of slaves that he sold to the Maghreb, Egypt and Arabia.

Even earlier, the sale of slaves through the desert caravans made Ghana prosper until the 11th century AD.

Something else that is not always known, insists Tigori, is that at the time of the great discoveries of the 15th century, contacts between Europe and black Africa were very peaceful. To wit, diplomatic relations were established between Portugal and the Kongo kingdom; the latter got Christianized and sent its children to study in Lisbon beginning in the 16th century.

In the 15th century, Africa as a whole was still practicing slavery. America had just been discovered; it was therefore quite natural for Africa to provide the slave labour needed to build the Americas. This was seen as a great business opportunity, as much for local potentates who acted in complete sovereignty, as for European merchants. This trade lasted for more than three centuries. It bears repeating over and over until it sinks in, emphasizes Tigori, that this trade happened strictly between local leaders and European merchants, as European governments had not yet set foot in Africa. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Africa included powerful kingdoms such as Ashanti, Dahomey, Kongo, and the notion that they could have been forced by mere merchants to sell their people to slavery against their will is simply ludicrous.

Colonization ended, not started, the practice of slavery

 The political claims of European states in black Africa only date back to the early 19th century, precisely at the time when Europe had committed itself to fight the slave trade.
The first thing to point out is that the generalization of colonization, at the end of the 19th century, happened with African majority support.  It marked an important turning point in the history of black Africa. And if the populace was in favor of colonization, it was because it could see what Europeans had to offer, which was infinitely better than the treatment they received from their own rulers. The author forcefully and categorically debunks the myth of a colonization that got imposed upon Africa.

The second point to remember, he adds, is that colonization ended, not started, the practice of slavery, as is falsely claimed.

Thirdly, colonization set in motion the development of the African territories through the creation of hospitals, schools, the construction of roads, bridges, railways, the exploitation of the soil and subsoil, etc.

The first territories administered by the Europeans coexisted with powerful independent African states. Such was the case of the Ashanti kingdom, where life under the British protectorate was a lot preferable to the brutality of the Ashanti yoke.

Besides, observes Tigori, if slavery and colonization forever destroyed a people’s capacity for self-reliance, it would have long been known. The Slavs would have been destroyed through their many centuries of bondage; and the Mameluks would never have been able to seize power in Egypt in 1250.

If we really want to talk about the misfortunes of our peoples, says Tigori, “then we’d better concern ourselves with those youngsters who are dying today in the Mediterranean, trying to flee a continent that offers them zero prospect.”

“Criminal colonization” was an invention of Stalinists to get Africans to rise against the Western colonizer

The case he compellingly makes is that the brief colonization of black Africa by Europe, far from being a crime, brought many benefits. “Criminal colonization” was an invention of the Stalinist strategists to get Africans to rise against the Western colonizer. As in Indochina, the Communists wanted to open a front in black Africa to annihilate an already weakened Western Europe after WWII.

The French Communist Party and its followers, among whom was Jean-Paul Sartre–the existentialist philosopher–and other intellectuals, were traitors who worked for the Soviet Union and against their own country.

“It is a real pity that our perception of the slavery period should be influenced by simplistic or twisted ideological constructs”, deplores the author. “This skewed perception is a remnant of a long-gone Cold War, and it should be time for everyone to turn the page”.

Associations that claim to fight racism, xenophobia or islamophobia, aim to assault Western civilization

To understand why this hasn’t happened, he says, one must realize that the revolutionary left of the Communist era isn’t dead. It has morphed into something else but lost none of its capacity to harm.  And here comes the punch line :“a great many associations that claim to fight racism, xenophobia or islamophobia, aim in fact to assault Western civilization; the revolutionary left is hiding in their midst to ensure its own survival”.

Here is why it is so important, he insists, to enlighten Africans about the realities of the last five centuries, so as to make them immune to the manipulations of these highly efficient agencies targeting them.

“European Africanists have come, ever since the 1940s, from that “self-righteous, one-track-minded and intolerant left, which views critics as reactionaries and doesn’t accept the rejection of its fatwas”, he adds. The black man has suffered so much, they claim, that the West must cut him some slack and tolerate his inadequacies and misbehavior. But this complacency had serious adverse effects, warns Tigori. Since independence, it led to covering up the misconduct of the African elites, for whom accusing the West became an easy copout. African leaders don’t even need to question themselves – they are automatically absolved by incriminating the West. “Being a leader in Africa is a gravy train, the most comfortable job around”, he mocks.

African elites, being accountable to no one, betrayed their masses. Their mediocrity reflects now in the desperation of their youths who die trying to cross the Sahara and the Mediterranean.

Africa must not accept being dictated its own narrative by failed ideologues, says Tigori, it should free itself from the sway of its European leftist masters who are condemning it to perpetual victimhood. It is an unhealthy situation; it is creating a mental block that is preventing Africa from growing up.

The author believes that it belongs to Africans to set the record straight, after reconciling with their past. Dignity can only come at the price of a confrontation with History, its dark pages as much as the shinier ones. “It is a History in which Africans, apart from the brief colonial period, have kept their sovereignty”, insists the author. Africa should not seek the repentant gaze of Europe to evade responsibility—particularly when repentance is not due. “It is about time to decolonize people’s minds”.

The problems of Africa cannot be blamed on Europe’s racism or white supremacism
To explain why postcolonial Africa is still lagging behind, racism is often cited. “Racism? Nonsense!” snaps Tigori. “Racist countries don’t open up so much to immigration. Europe is the least racist continent in the world! Why do you think Syrian or Afghan migrants choose Europe instead of joining their rich Gulf neighbors?”

Besides, he says, Africans are in no position to complain about racism in Europe when in their own countries they are tearing each other apart or engaging in tribal killings. But again, if they think they are surrounded by racists, all they have to do is go back home where they’ll find tender loving care.

Illustrating the pervading hypocrisy was a comment made by a leftist reader of the author that, although he was right, he shouldn’t say “certain things” because “the racists will seize on the opportunity!”  In order words, if the truth is in conflict with the ideology, it is the ideology that must stay and the truth that must go.

Being black allowed him to better deliver his message, says the author. A white person could not have spoken the way he did about black Africa without being labelled a racist, neocolonialist, Afro-pessimist or what have you. African media circles and academia thrive on the denunciation of white supremacism on the basis of which unending reparation is sought.

The problems of postcolonial Africa, concludes Tigori, can neither be blamed on the historical myth of its colonial enslavement, nor on the present-day myth of Europe’s racism, xenophobia or white supremacism.

They should rather be attributed to its local elites who continue to betray the masses through their lawlessness, corruption, nepotism, lack of economic rationality, widespread mismanagement and more. Since 1960, he says, bloodthirsty African dictators who looted their countries have done much more harm to their people than the European colonial masters.

At independence, Africa had 9% of the world’s population and a share of 9% of world trade. It enjoyed relative wealth compared to the rest of mankind. Today, with more than 17% of the world’s population, its share of global trade has fallen to less than 2%. It is therefore postcolonial Africa that has become impoverished.

The last word is left to the author’s publisher:

Ernest Tigori stands out from the black elites who are mostly incapable of self-criticism and waste their time whining instead of being harder on themselves. His sharp analysis of realities and political courage make him a delightfully offbeat author. For the Europe-Africa partnership to regain strength, it is important that Africans get over their unaccountability and infantilization, and that Europeans get rid of their repentance.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter