Saturday, December 18, 2021

What the public doesn't know about an attack on Iran - Yoav Limor

 

by Yoav Limor

For the last six months, the IDF has been working feverishly to prepare for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It entails incredibly complex strategic and diplomatic planning, along with preparations for possible responses from Iran, Hezbollah, and Gaza.

A lot of words have been devoted in the past few weeks to the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. One after another, senior officials in the defense establishment and the political echelon have made it clear that as far as Israel is concerned, "all the options are on the table" when it comes to stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

There is a clear purpose to these threats: to push Western powers to take a more aggressive line on Tehran. They are mostly aimed at the US administration, which has consistently declared that it will not allow Iran to nuclearize, but in effect, is taking a passive stance. To put it simply, Israel is telling the world that if it won't stop Iran, we will have to take military action. 

Israel made a similar threat a decade ago, one that was backed up by practical plans for an attack: Israel wanted the world to see that its air force was drilling long-range flights and strikes, and wanted it to know that it was discussing the optimal timing for an attack. US intelligence – and that of other countries, obviously – did not miss the IDF's announcements of high alert ahead of a possible imminent attacks. 

All this did the job. The world was pressured by the possibility of an Israeli strike, and took action. The US launched secret talks with Iran, which led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. Iran stopped enriching uranium and got rid of the stocks of enriched uranium it already had. The possibility of an Israeli attack was taken off the table, followed by accusations back and forth between the political leadership (Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) and the military leadership (Gabi Ashkenazi and Meir Dagan) at the time about what the correct course of action had been, and who torpedoed whom. 

While the Iran nuclear deal was in effect, Israel fell into a certain complacency. Assuming that as long as the deal was valid, there would be no military action against Iran's nuclear program, the plans for a strike were shelved, and never underwent the necessary updates and adjustments needed to keep them relevant in light of the changes of the past 10 years. 

Even after the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, Israel was still asleep at the wheel. The assumption was that one of three scenarios would play out: The Tehran regime would collapse under the crippling sanctions the US applied after it pulled out of the deal; the Iranians would beg to sign a new deal, and it would be possible to make it a better, stronger, longer-term one; or Donald Trump would be reelected and order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. 

None of these came to pass. The Iranians proved impressively determined, and today – despite a terrible economic situation that includes 30 million people living below the poverty line, crumbling infrastructure, and the Iranian rial at an unprecedented low – they aren't blinking when it comes to their nuclear program. 

This hardline policy is being led by a brutal regime that has not been destabilized, and apparently won't while US President Joe Biden is in office (and most likely wouldn't have happened even if Trump had been reelected). 

The American withdrawal from the deal prompted the Iranians to hit the gas on their nuclear development. It didn't happen immediately, but in the past few years they have made impressive progress, not hesitating to skip over their commitments under the deal, especially in everything having to do with a ban on installing advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to a high rate, in large quantities. Recently, they also started enrichment at an underground facility at Fordo, which is much better-defended against a possible attack. 

Israel is following this all closely, but took too long to respond. For example, to attack Iran, it will be necessary to refuel mid-air. Currently, the IDF depends on 50-year-old aircraft that need to be replaced immediately. At the end of 2018, then-Defense Minister and IDF Chief Avigdor Lieberman and Gadi Eizenkot approved a broad equipment acquisition plan that included the purchase of new fueling aircraft. But the new IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, wanted to delay the decision so it would fall in line with his multi-year plan. Then Israel found itself in a political maelstrom of repeated elections and no state budget. The result: a two-year delay to the decision (which was finally approved at the end of 2020 and inked in early 2021) and therefore to the acquisition of the equipment. 

The IDF was waiting for a budget from outside (a "box," as it is termed in the military) to start preparing again for the possibility of an attack on Iran. Kochavi preferred to channel funds to other things, like the multidisciplinary Tnufa unit he set up as part of his multi-year plan. When other high-ranking IDF officers, primarily Israeli Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin disputed his decision, Kochavi responded that that IDF would be given a "box" like it had previously to deal with the Iranian issue and other matters, like air defense and the construction of security barriers. 

When Biden was elected US president, the option of an American attack on Iran was dropped, and then the penny dropped for Israel. At the start of this year, Kochavi revived the military option in an aggressive speech at the Institute for National Security Studies. Once the new government was forced, he got the "box" he had been hoping for – special funding of over 5 billion shekels ($1.6 billion) for three years for preparations to attack Iran. 

As a result, for the past six months the IDF has been working feverishly to make the military option a relevant tool. The Israeli military currently has plans and capabilities, but the attention and resources allow it to improve them with every month that passes. This, incidentally, is why many senior Israeli officials support a return to the previous bad deal; it might not keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but it will keep it farther away from them, and will allow Israel time, after which – in another three to five years – it should have an effective battle plan against Iran, of which attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities are only one element. 

Still, Israel could find itself having to decide on a strike before that, for a number of reasons: the nuclear talks could collapse, leading to Iran continuing its nuclear program until it reaches the nuclear threshold; a temporary deal that Iran will constantly challenge; or a return to the original nuclear deal, which Iran would secretly violate. And there could be other reasons that have nothing to do with its nuclear program, like an Iranian attack on Israel using cruise missiles fired from Yemen or Iraq in response to some Israeli action or other. An attack of this type, especially if it results in wounded, could lead to an Israeli strike on Iranian turf. 

According to Sima Shine, former head of the Mossad's research division and now a senior researcher at the INSS, "No Israeli prime minister will allow Iran to become a nuclear power on his watch. The question we need to ask ourselves is what we want to achieve by an attack, and how capable we are of doing it." 

This question is not part of the public discourse in Israel, which is limited to whether there will or will not be an attack. For the Israeli public, an attack means that planes will suddenly appear in the Iranian sky, drop bombs that will send Iran's nuclear facilities up in flame, after which our heroic pilots will return home and be greeted with cries of joy, which is what happened after the strikes on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. 

"The Iranian project is farther away, better defended, and more compartmentalized than the projects attacked in the past," says Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin. 

Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin: The Iranian project is farther away, better defended, and more compartmentalized than the projects Israel attacked in the past

"In Iraq and Syria, we had the advantage of surprise, and here, we don't. Israel has already proven that it can find creative ways of overcoming these obstacles, but it's a much more complicated event," Yadlin says. 

The dramatic change is not only in comparison to the destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian reactors, but also to the situation that existed in 2010, when the option of an attack was first raised. Then, the Americans controlled Iraq and there was a need to coordinate with them, and Iran's nuclear program was much newer and less protected. Since then, Iran has started using the Fordo facility, scattered sites related to its nuclear program throughout the country, and tripled its air defenses, adding dozens of batteries – including Russian S-300 systems as well as systems the Iranian military developed based on Russian and Chinese systems. Iran's air defenses are much more advanced than those of Syria, which the IAF is able to handle in the strikes it carried out there. 

The planning stage for an airstrike on Iran is longer than you might think. A senior IDF official told me this week that "There won't be a situation in which someone makes a decision and 24 hours later there are planes in Tehran. We'll need a long time to get the system ready for war, because our working assumption needs to be that this won't be a strike, but a war." 

This definition, war, is part of how the IDF's thinking has evolved in the past few months. It is no longer looking at a localized strike on nuclear facilities, but preparing for war. This will be a different war from any we have known – no 7th Division or Golani or shared borders, but multiple different fronts in which battles are waged in multiple ways. One need only watch the maritime battles being waged between Israel and Iran in recent months to understand the potential, which extends far behind Iran's borders to the missile and rocket systems its satellites maintain in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. 

Attacks like these require models – mock training on identical targets at similar distances, to get the system used to what is expected of it on the way to Iran and back. In the past, the IDF would train relatively easily; the enemy was always behind technologically and unable to detect the preparations. Anyone who did, like the Americans – in the case of the strike on Syria's reactor – would have been in on the secret anyway. 

Today, the world is equipped with sensors everywhere that will not allow a large contingent of aircraft to take off without alerting the enemy. To obscure the preparation, the IAF will need to create an ongoing routine of drills, which comes at an immense expense – money, fuel, replacement parts, flight hours, and reservist days. 

At the same time, Israel will have to make sure all its systems are operating at full capacity. First and foremost, air defense, which will react to anything that looks like a response on any scale, and the Military Intelligence Directorate and the Mossad, which will have to make an unprecedented effort ahead of any strike, collecting not only information about the Iranian nuclear program but also tactical and operational intelligence that will allow it to strike effectively. 

While all this is happening, Israel's ground forces will have to be on the highest alert, ready for the possibility of a war in the north or with Gaza, or both, all without leaving any signs. They will have to up the preparedness of various units, step up drills, and supply missing equipment. It's not easy to do all this in secret. Leading up to the attack on Syria's reactor, the army was forced to adopt trickery in order to prepare for a possible Syrian response. Syria opted not to respond, but the Iranians might behave differently. 

It takes time to make all these preparations. The IDF is waiting for four Boeing KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling aircraft, but it could take years for them to arrive, and the Americans are refusing to let Israel jump the line and deliver them sooner. It will also take months to refill the warehouses with Iron Dome interceptor missiles and other IAF precision equipment. 

A decade ago, the IDF would have needed a few years to get ready. Then, too, it was impossible to shift the military into a state of immediate readiness, and when it was put into attack mode – and that happened a few times – the directive was for it to be ready within 16 days of the moment the political leadership gave the green light. At the time, the IDF wanted to cut down the preparation time as much as possible, because it kept it from other activities and also because it came at a heavy cost to the economy. Ashkenazi would say that "In every round of preparations, El Al is half-grounded, because its pilots are on reserve duty with me." That was true for other systems, as well, some of which have been bolstered since then – namely, military intelligence and cyber. 

All the preparations will have to be done in secret. "The issue of information security is dramatic in an event like this," said a high-ranking reservist officer. "We've never handled a challenge like this, and it's not clear if it's even possible to keep a secret like this for long." 

Keeping things secret will be a problem not only for the IDF and the defense establishment (the Mossad is an integral part of this mission, as well as the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and parts of the Defense Ministry), but also – and mainly – the government. Such a dramatic decision would need to be approved by the cabinet and the Opposition leader would need to be informed. This is what Menachem Begin did prior to the attack in Iraq when he informed Opposition leader Shimon Peres of the plan. Ehud Olmert also informed Netanyahu ahead of the attack in Syria. 

In this case, the cabinet will be frequently updated about preparations, and give the IDF authority to prepare for the operation. Only when the attack is imminent will the cabinet be asked to approve it. A very small group will decide on the final timing – the prime minister, the defense and foreign ministers, and possibly another minister, Lieberman, as a nod to his seniority and his status as a former defense minister. 

Anyone let in on the secret at any stage will be asked to sign draconic confidentiality papers. All officials will be ordered to keep it secret and it will be made clear that anyone who lets it out will face severe punishment. 

Even before a final decision on an attack, Israel will have to decide on its red lines. It will have to define them not only for itself, but also for the world. It will have to build international legitimacy for action. Without that legitimacy, a strike could have negative results and put Israel in the position of the aggressor, while giving Iran legitimacy to return to its nuclear project. In this case, Iran will argue that because its "nuclear research project" was attacked by a nuclear nation, it has to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from similar attacks in future. Israel would find it difficult to thwart that a second time. 

Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor says, "Building legitimacy in the world is complicated, because it's hard to do without exposing the operations, which would put the attack at risk." 

"We need to explain to the world not only why it's vital to stop Iran, but also that an action like this could hold it back for years," he says. 

Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor: We need to explain to the world not only why it's vital to stop Iran, but also that an action like this could hold it back for years

"It requires precise diplomatic preparatory work, which is also hard to do without giving anything away. The diplomats at the Foreign Ministry need to be in the loop, but none of them will know why, and certainly not when. The Mossad, the IDF, and the National Security Council will be responsible for delivering information. We can only work in full coordination with the Americans, both in terms of the military and diplomacy," Prosor adds. 

"With everyone else – the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, the Gulf States – we need to prepare the background. Take them step by step, explain why Iran is so complicated and warn them about what will happen if Iran becomes a nuclear threshold state, or heaven forbid, a nuclearized state." 

This process will have to work differently in every country. With the British and French, for example, Israel has intelligence agreements that allow a certain amount of material to be shared. It's likely that Israel will share some information with the Gulf states, as well, especially to enlist its new partners (and the ones that are still in the closet) to stand by its side on the day of the attack and during whatever follows. 

"Coordination with the Americans is strategic, it's at the core of our interest," says the senior IDF official. "They can give us lots of help in the attack itself – for example, intelligence or radar support, which are deployed in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and even search and rescue capabilities, and of course, in providing us military protection after the attack." 

As part of the new plans being drawn up now, the IDF is also preparing for the possibility to attack without coordinating with the Americans. 

"We don't need a green light from them, but it would be good if there were an understanding, an amber light, mostly so we don't surprise them," a former senior defense official says. "So this attack should come after the Americans despair of ever reaching a nuclear deal with the Iranians." 

As noted, the Americans controlled Iraq in 2010, and Israel needed to coordinate with them down to the smallest details in order to carry out a strike in Iran. This is no longer the case, but the Americans still have a significant presence in the region that could help Israel. It's unlikely that they will offer Israel use of their air bases in Qatar or their naval base in Bahrain, and there's no chance that any Arab state would agree to openly cooperate with Israel, exposing itself to a retaliatory attack by Iran. But localized, secret cooperation is a possibility, from helicopters to search and rescue services, to setting up various detection and interception systems. 

Because of the Arab boycott, until the start of this year Israel fell under the US European Command (EUCOM), even though it operated in the Central Command's territory, which necessitated complex coordination. After the Abraham Accords, Israel was moved to CENTCOM, which makes things simpler and creates a space for cooperation – starting with ongoing updates about strikes in Syria, to joint military drills. 

Preparations for an attack will require Israel to carry out frequent war games. It will have to practice every possible scenario on every front, and make sure that the political leadership is present. Our leaders don't like this, as they would prefer to leave themselves as much room to maneuver as possible and not show ahead of time what they will do in any given scenario. So the drills used various "former" officials to play the role of prime minister. When it comes to Iran, our political leaders would do well to show up in person and prepare for the day they will have to give the order and the ramifications of them saying "Go." 

The stage of the attack itself requires, first of all, a decision about what the targets are. The range of possibilities is almost endless – localized strikes on uranium enrichment facilities, strikes on any facility linked to the nuclear program, or an all-out attack that would also target missile launchers and Shahab missile manufacturing sites, cruise missile launching sites, facilities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and more. 

"The backbone of the [Iranian] nuclear program is the enrichment facilities at Qom [Fordo] and Natanz," says the senior IDF officer. 

Aside from these sites, Israel can also attack factories around Tehran that manufacture centrifuges, the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, the heavy water reactor at Arak, and the experimental site at Parchin. It will also be necessary to destroy the air defenses around all of these sites. 

Most experts think that the operation will have to focus only on the core of the nuclear program and its enrichment sites: "Make it clear to them that this is what we insist on, and that we have no interest in a full-scale war," the former defense official says. "But if they respond – we'll take the rest, too." 

Israel would prefer to carry out a strike like this in a single shot, which is why it would prefer that the Americans do it. They could attack, assess the damage, and go back the next day and the day after if necessary. Israel, however, is extremely limited because of the distance, its number of planes, and its need to defend itself against a response from multiple fronts the moment it attacks. 

Some officials think that Israel should take advantage of the opportunity of an attack to eradicate as many of Iran's capabilities as possible – and especially try to destabilize the regime through an attack on the IRGC. But that scenario is unlikely. Conversations with many defense officials past and present leads one to conclude that Israel would prefer a more focused action. 

In the future, Israel should have additional capabilities, but in the near future, it will depend on its abilities to carry out an airstrike on Iran. It would be a complex strike involving hundreds of aircraft. Presumably, the first planes to arrive in Iran would be the F35 stealth fighters, which would destroy Iran's air defenses. Then F15s and F16s would arrive, with the various weaponry they can carry and fire. 

The main factor is what each aircraft can carry for the requisite distance: the more fuel the plane is holding, the less weapons it can carry, and vice versa. So there will be a need for mid-air refueling, as well as decisions about what plane to send in to leave enough to defend Israel's own skies. There will also need to be precise plans about the kinds of ammunition to be used, the angles of attack, and the strikes on targets, especially underground ones. Of course, the selection of the combat pilots to fly the mission will be especially careful. 

"Everyone dreams of taking part in a mission like this. There will be a war between the pilots about who gets to be there," a veteran pilot says. 

We can assume that the airstrike will be accompanied by search and rescue forces in helicopters and on the ground, who will have been flown in secretly ahead of time or moved in on ships. Naval forces will also be moved toward the Gulf. Other aircraft will have to provide air coverage over a distance of 1,300 km. (807 miles) or more. 

There is no expectation that this attack will go smoothly, like the ones in Iraq or Syria. It's not only that Iran is much better defended, but also that an operation like this will inevitably face problems because of the enormous number of aircraft taking part in it. Planes could go down because they are hit or malfunction, and pilots could have to abandon their planes over enemy territory and be taken prisoner. 

Pilots will have to undergo complicated mental preparation, far beyond the usual, as will those who send them on the operation. The political leadership will probably ask the IDF for a probable casualty count, as well as the projected number of wounded in Israel as a result of an Iranian response. But even if the numbers are high, it's unlikely that they would cause any leader in Israel to ignore Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. 

It will be complicated to reach Iran by air. You don't need to be an expert to analyze the flight routes and possibilities: supposedly, all of Iran's neighbors – including Turkey – have an interest in working with Israel, given their common concerns about Iran. But it's doubtful they will want to be exposed as having allowed Israel to use their airspace to attack Iran. This is particularly true of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, and to a lesser degree Azerbaijan, which also shares a border with Iran. The IAF will know how to overcome this difficulty from an operational perspective and fly unseen (certainly on the way out), but this is another reason why extensive diplomatic preparations are necessary to create legitimacy and understanding so Israel can use a certain country's airspace en route to attack without having problems with it later. 

An airstrike will probably not be able to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. It's possible that some will require ground forces, which would go in secretly and plant materials that would make it possible to target the sites in the strike. This element significantly adds to the planning and problems of execution. There are a number of ways into Iran, but it's a huge country, difficult to get around, certainly when one has to do so covertly. The Americans will testify to this – they learned in 1980 when they landed for their failed attempt to free the hostages being held in Tehran. 

The former defense official notes that "If we attack and delay Iran's nuclear program by a year or two, it's as if we did nothing. We need to be sure that significant damage is done and we'll put them off [nuclear weapons] for many years." 

There are many officials in Israel who think that given the state of Iran's nuclear program, the mission is too much for Israel, and only the Americans (or the Americans with Israel) can pull it off. Others think that Israel can carry out an effective localized strike that will deal a blow to one aspect of Iran's nuclear program, but won't destroy it entirely. In making the decision, Israel will have to weigh not only the results, but also the ramifications: "the day after." Here, too, the range of possibilities is nearly endless, from the Iranians ignoring it to an all-out war in the Middle East. 

In 2010, the US warned that an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to a world war. The Americans were mostly bothered by the price they would pay, which they claimed would entail a US ground incursion into Iran to stop it. 

Yadlin says, "I thought then, and I think now, that there won't be a world war, or even a regional war. Even if there is an Iranian response against Israel, it will be moderate, and even if it causes damage, it won't be the end of the world. We certainly won't see another sack of Jerusalem here." 

Supposedly, the Iranians have three possibilities: a full-out response, a partial response, or no response. Middle East scholar Professor Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University thinks that there will be a response from Iran. 

"If they don't respond, it will send Israel a message that it can keep attacking them without interference, like it does in Syria. The attacks on oil tankers in the past two years proved that the Iranians aren't sitting quietly. They respond. Otherwise, why have they been making threats all these years and building their forces? They can attack us, or our allies, or both," Zisser says. 

The Iranian decision will to a large extent be dictated by the extent to which the Americans back the attack. 

"Iran can't risk a war with the US," the IDF official explains. "Even after Qasem Soleimani was killed, they made due with a symbolic firing of 16 rockets at the American base in Dir a-Zur, and that was only after they made certain that no soldier would be killed." 

Shine also thinks that the Iranians will respond, "but if the US is behind us, it will be completely different. This isn't the Syrian nuclear reactor, which was built secretly and no one knew about. Everyone knows about Iran, and it won't go unnoticed. Iran will have to decide whether or not to respond from its own territory, on its own, or through its satellites." 

Thus far, Iran has avoided launching open attacks from within its borders. It's not that it doesn't – the massive strike on Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil facility in September 2019 was secretly launched from Iran. Recently, Defense Minister Benny Gantz revealed cruise missile bases that the Iranians maintain at Kashan, north of Isfahan. That facility and others are operated by the IRGC Aerospace Force under the command of Ali Hajizadeh, whom Israel has already marked as the most problematic official in Iran after Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike two years ago. 

Iran can act on its own, even fire Shahab missiles at Israel. It has hundreds of them, and some might even have been fitted out with chemical warheads. It can also take action via its satellites: the Houthis in Yemen have precision capabilities, including long-range attack drones, as do some of the militias in Iraq, which have already used drones against US military bases. 

Israel's main concern will be how Hezbollah will respond. Will it launch a war, be satisfied with a symbolic response, or sit on the fence? This is a critical issue, and experts don't agree about it. 

"Hezbollah was built up and prepared precisely for this, and we can assume that it will use everything it has against us," Shine says. Zisser, on the other hand, thinks that Hezbollah will want to avoid a full-scale war. 

"[Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah will try to stay out of it. He might respond here or there, but it will depend on how much pressure the Iranians put on him. He might be satisfied with a symbolic response, to do his duty, and nothing more," Zisser says. 

The other side isn't the only one that will face tough decisions. Israel, for example, will have to decide whether or not, after an attack on Iran it will want to carry out preemptive strikes against Hezbollah's various sites, especially those linked to the group's precision missile program. The advantage of strikes like these is that they can take out specific capabilities that threaten Israel. The disadvantage: it will surely start a war with Hezbollah, and turn the strike on Iran into a war in the north. 

Most experts think Israel will avoid doing that. It will send Hezbollah clear warnings that the attack was directed at Iran's nuclear program, and if Hezbollah keeps quiet, that will remain its only goal. 

"If we do otherwise, if we take massive action in Lebanon, Hezbollah will respond significantly," Zisser says. "But if we act wisely, even its responses will be moderate, because they have no interest in the IDF taking a few divisions and invading Lebanon." 

The senior IDF official also thinks that Hezbollah won't rush to demolish Lebanon for Tehran's sake. "Nasrallah is a Lebanese patriot. He'll respond, but moderately. Assuming that the main target of the whole event is Iran's nuclear program, Israel should even accept some 'stings' from him, even a few casualties, and ignore it, to avoid a widespread conflict in the north." 

Yadlin also thinks that Hezbollah will keep itself in check, "But if it chooses to respond, it would be better for us to take action now, before it's defended by Iranian nuclear weapons." 

A war in the north, on any scale, will require Israel to call up massive forces, which will hinder its ability to wage an ongoing battle against Iran. It will certainly need to equip itself ahead of time with tens of thousands of Iron Dome and David's Sling interceptor missiles, only a small part of which have been agreed on and are due to arrive bit by bit in the next few years. This is in addition to the need for Arrow missiles to intercept long-range missiles. All this will cost billions, and only part of it is in place (and that was thanks to special US aid). For years, the IDF has been screaming that the country's air defenses fall far short of what is necessary, given the threats, and need massive restocking. 

It's likely that Iran will also prod Gaza to respond. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad already cooperates with it, and so does Hamas, to some extent. It could also try to attack Israel's weaker allies, like the Gulf states, or Israeli interests there. It will certainly try to attack Israelis, and Israeli and Jewish interests all over the world.

At the same time, Iran will take diplomatic action. "It will turn to its allies, especially Russia and China, and argue that Israel is the aggressor and ask for protection," Zisser says. "It might also use [the attack] as an excuse to try and return to its nuclear project, this time in the position of the one who needs protection against Israeli aggression." 

Therefore, Israel has to do everything so that the attack is as effective as possible, and if the first wave doesn't succeed – attack again, despite all the complications this would entail. This comes as a possible cost of an open war with Iran in which the two countries trade blows every so often. The IDF is also preparing for this possibility as part of its new plans. When they are in place, Israel should be ready for an all-out war with Iran, and not only isolated strikes on its nuclear project. 

None of this is expected to happen in the next few days or weeks, and probably not even the next few months. As long as the Iran nuclear talks are underway, and the US is reaching out to Iran diplomatically, an attack would be out of bounds because Israel would be accused of torpedoing the talks and its allies would turn on it, including Washington, which has already made it clear that it expects "zero surprises" at this time. Israel has no commitment to this, but won't act without coordinating with the Americans. That's what it did a decade ago, to avoid a conflict with the US that could have ramifications much broader than the Iranian issue. 

This "down time" is good for Israel. It can use it to try and influence the American (and European) moves and the nascent deal, while at the same time stepping up its military preparations, completing its plans, building models and equipping itself in order to reach a higher level of operational readiness. 

And when all this is done, if it turns out tomorrow that Iran lied to the world and is closer to a nuclear bomb than we thought, the decision-makers will have to decide whether or not to attack immediately. As always, it would be better if the Americans – who promised that Iran would never have nuclear capabilities – did it. But if the IDF takes charge, it will take several long weeks of preparation before an operation like this can get off the ground, less than optimally ready and with less certainty of success.

 

Yoav Limor

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/12/17/what-the-public-doesnt-know-about-an-attack-on-iran/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Gen. Flynn Persecutor Judge Emmett Sullivan Pivots to January 6 Defendants - Lloyd Billingsley

 

by Lloyd Billingsley

Under the Biden Junta, federal judges become the Democrat equivalent of Soviet commissars.

 

 

One week after his arrest, January 6, defendant Robert Geiswein was indicted by a federal grand jury. As Julie Kelly writes at American Greatness, Geiswein “has been behind bars ever since, denied bail while Judge Emmet Sullivan delayed his trial on numerous occasions.” Embattled Americans might recall Sullivan from the trial of Gen. Michael Flynn, President Trump’s pick for national security advisor.

“We should always remember that our country, was built upon Judeo-Christian values and principles,” Flynn told the Republican convention in 2016. Hillary Clinton, Flynn said, “put our nation’s security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private e-mail server.” On the other hand, “Donald Trump recognizes the threats we face and is not afraid to call them what they are.” That would be radical Islamic terrorists.

The “composite character” David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama did not want Gen. Flynn to become national security advisor. Obama then targeted Flynn to facilitate action against Trump.

In the course of his duties, Flynn came into contact with foreign nationals under routine surveillance by U.S. intelligence. American citizens in such encounters are normally redacted, but Democrats duly “unmasked” the identity of Gen. Flynn and leaked the information to the establishment media, a “10-year felony,” according to former prosecutor Trey Gowdy.

Samantha Power, the composite character’s ambassador to the UN, made seven unmasking requests for Flynn. CIA boss John Brennan, a Gus Hall voter in 1976, made two requests to unmask Flynn, with intel director James Clapper putting in three. On January 12, 2017, vice president Joe Biden requested to unmask the Trump pick.

FBI  boss James Comey set a perjury trap for Flynn, which led to charges of lying to the FBI. The establishment media presumed Flynn guilty, a tool of Russia, a traitor and so forth. The case wound up in court under federal judge Emmet Sullivan, a 1991 appointee of George H.W. Bush to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In 1994, President Clinton appointed Sullivan United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

As it emerged, the FBI agents weren’t sure whether their task was to get Flynn fired or get him to lie. When FBI misconduct finally came to light, the Department of Justice dropped the case against Gen. Flynn. Judge Sullivan opposed the dismissal and appointed former federal judge John Gleeson, a 1994 Bill Clinton pick, to argue that the DOJ decision to drop the case was improper. The former Clinton judge accused the Justice Department of a “corrupt, politically motivated dismissal” that constituted a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

Gleeson threatened to have Flynn prosecuted for criminal contempt on the theory that, if he was now claiming innocence, he must have committed perjury when he pled guilty. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell appealed and a three-judge panel agreed with Flynn. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Gen. Michael Flynn’s petition for dismissal and voted 8-2 to send the case back to judge Sullivan.

Flynn’s attorneys then filed documents with the court showing that FBI agents knew the case was bogus. As one wrote, “if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked.” Flynn’s attorneys again requested a dismissal, which was not granted. Judge Sullivan was not disqualified and did not recuse himself. The Clinton judge duly pushed the case past the November election but before he could issue a ruling, President Trump granted Flynn a full pardon.

Emmet Sullivan is the ideal judge to pursue the Biden Junta’s bogus case against the January 6 defendants now being held without bail.  So is Obama judge Tanya Chutkan, who calls January 6 “an unprecedented attempt to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” which it wasn’t.

Chukan handled the case of Imran Awan, the Pakistani IT man who ransacked the computers of Democrats on the intelligence and foreign affairs committees. Debbie Wasserman Schultz charged that Awan was put under scrutiny because of his religious beliefs. Former Clinton aide Chris Gowen said Awan’s arrest for bank fraud was “clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.”

In August of 2018, Chutkan sentenced Awan to time served, his one day in detention and 11 months of GPS monitoring and three months’ supervision. Awan was never formally charged with unauthorized possession of government materials.  As the New York Times headlined on November 25, 2020, “Congress Pays $850,000 to Muslim Aides Targeted in Inquiry Stoked by Trump.” Embattled Americans should be clear about what is going on here.

In the composite character’s  “fundamental transformation” of America, federal judges play the role of zampolits, Soviet commissars who enforced Communist Party rule. Chutkan and Sullivan serve the Biden Junta by persecuting the January 6 defendants. As Julie Kelly has documented, they are presumed guilty, denied bail, and languish in jail. Look for more political prisoners in 2022 as the Biden Junta strives to abolish justice in what remains of America. 

 

Lloyd Billingsley

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/gen-flynn-persecutor-judge-emmett-sullivan-pivots-lloyd-billingsley/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Administration Silent Against Iran's Mullahs' Terror Threat - Majid Rafizadeh

 

by Majid Rafizadeh

The Biden administration needs, once and for all, to abandon its appeasement policy towards Iran's ruling mullahs. They are in charge of a predatory regime that has understatedly been called the world's top state sponsor of terrorism. Yet the current US administration seems hell-bent on empowering them.

  • The conflict in Yemen means more to the Iranian regime than merely taunting its Gulf rivals. Rather, it seems to be an ideological crusade to unite the Muslim world under its own Islamist rule, one that will always see any attempts at peace as merely a delay in the process.

  • One of the Iranian leaders' main objectives in empowering their militias and terror groups in other countries is to export the Islamic Republic Revolution to other nations. This mission is, in fact, part of Iran's Constitution.

  • Iran's Army and Revolutionary Guards "will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of (Shiite) jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's (Shiite) law throughout the world ... in the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others." — Iran's Constitution.

  • The Biden administration needs, once and for all, to abandon its appeasement policy towards Iran's ruling mullahs. They are in charge of a predatory regime that has understatedly been called the world's top state sponsor of terrorism. Yet the current US administration seems hell-bent on empowering them.

The US Department of Justice announced on December 7, 2021 the successful seizure and forfeiture of two large caches of Iranian weapons. The arms were being shipped from Iran to the Houthis in Yemen, in yet another Iranian violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2140. One of the Iranian leaders' main objectives in empowering their militias and terror groups in other countries is to export the Islamic Republic Revolution to other nations. Pictured: Iranian Type 358 surface-to-air missiles that were seized by the US Navy on February 9, 2020. (Image source: US Navy via US Department of Justice)

In the wake of the largest seizure of arms and fuel from Iranian terror groups to date, the Biden administration has remained silent.

The US Department of Justice announced on December 7, 2021 the successful forfeiture of two large caches of Iranian weapons. The weapons reportedly included advanced arms such as "171 guided anti-tank missiles, eight surface-to-air missiles, land attack cruise missile components, anti-ship cruise missile components, thermal weapon optics and other components for missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles [drones]". The U.S. Navy also seized Iranian petroleum products from "four foreign-flagged tankers in or around the Arabian Sea while en route to Venezuela. These actions represent the government's largest-ever forfeitures of fuel and weapons shipments from Iran."

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- created as a military counterweight to the Shah's army to promote Iran's 1979 Revolution, and designated as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State -- orchestrated these shipments.

The IRGC is also the backbone of the clerical establishment in Iran. The senior cadres of the IRGC and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei enjoy the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policy and support for proxies. The IRGC, in addition, is engaged in the domestic repression of dissidents; the suppression of freedom of speech, press and assembly, and imprisoning political opponents. The Washington office of an Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has released a 175-page book, "The Rise of the Revolutionary Guards Corps Financial Empire," demonstrating that the IRGC controls more than half Iran's GDP and owns several major economic powerhouses and religious endowments, such as Astan-e Qods Razavi, in the northeastern city of Mashad. The NCRI also published another detailed book on 15 Iranian terrorist training centers, where the IRGC provides ideological, military and tactical training to foreign recruits, who are later dispatched to conduct terrorist activities in the Middle East and beyond.

These shipments of weapons, which were headed to the Houthis in Yemen, is yet another violation by Iran of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2140:

"Obligation to freeze all funds, other financial assets and economic resources that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the individuals or entities designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them; no funds, financial assets or economic resources to be made available to or for the benefit of such individuals or entities."

Unfortunately the Biden administration has remained silent -- presumably because it does not want to scuttle the prospect of reviving the flimsy, lethal 2015 nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, which in reality is a runway for the Islamic Republic, in a few years, to have an unlimited nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, the Houthis in Yemen have been fortunate enough to have Iran as a powerful ally in attempts to unseat the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, presumably to take possession of Islam's two holiest places, Mecca and Medina. The Houthis' Iranian backers will not let them run out of ammunition. The Iranian government continues to be persistent in smuggling illicit weapons and technology into Yemen

Iran's efforts to smuggle these illicit weapons to its militia and terror groups gives an insight into the tactics and long-term strategies of Iranian-trained and armed proxies across the Middle East. Their plans and agenda appear to be built on four pillars: destabilization, conflict, assassination, and the rejection of any solution that has Sunni or Western origins. The conflict in Yemen means more to the Iranian regime than merely taunting its Gulf rivals. Rather, it appears to be an ideological crusade to unite the Muslim world under its own Islamist rule, one that will always see any attempts at peace as merely a delay in the process.

The Iranian regime utilizes various methods -- through land, sea and commercial flights -- to smuggle weapons. According to Israel's former ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon:

"The Iranian Al-Quds Force packs weapons, ammunition and missile technology to Hezbollah in suitcases and puts them on Mahan Air flights... These planes fly directly to the airport in Lebanon or Damascus and from there the weapons are transferred on the ground to Hezbollah."

One of the Iranian leaders' main objectives in empowering their militias and terror groups in other countries is to export the Islamic Republic Revolution to other nations. This mission is, in fact, part of Iran's Constitution. The Constitution, its preamble states, "provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad." The Iranian Constitution goes on to say that Iran's Army and Revolutionary Guards

"will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of (Shiite) jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's (Shiite) law throughout the world ... in the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The Biden administration needs, once and for all, to abandon its appeasement policy towards Iran's ruling mullahs. They are in charge of a predatory regime that has understatedly been called the world's top state sponsor of terrorism. Yet the current US administration seems hell-bent on empowering them.

 

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

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18036/iran-terror-threat

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Texas Gov. Abbott shows completed section of state-made border wall, pledges to protect state's sovereignty - Peter Aitken

 

by Peter Aitken

Abbott said the state has raised around $54 million from private donations

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott debuted the first part of the state-made border wall Saturday, which he labeled a sharp rebuke of Biden’s "failure to do his job."

Abbott authorized the building of the wall six months ago, and then authorized $3 billion funding for the Texas Facilities Commission to bolster the building effort. Abbott stressed that the wall stands on either state land or land that private owners agreed to hand over for the wall. 

"Texas is taking what truly is unprecedented action: A state to build a wall on our border, to safeguard the sovereignty of our state and of our nation," Abbott said during Saturday's press conference

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Land Commissioner George P. Bush, and Texas Facilities Commissioner Steven Alvis watch a section of the border wall go up following Saturday's press conference. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Land Commissioner George P. Bush, and Texas Facilities Commissioner Steven Alvis watch a section of the border wall go up following Saturday's press conference. 

"Already this year there have been over 1.2 million people apprehended coming over the border illegally," Abbott said, noting the number did not include those who entered undetected. 

DRUG CARTELS FLOODING US WITH FENTANYL PILLS THAT COULD KILL YOU, DEA WARNS

He also raised the fentanyl crisis, saying that state authorities have seized "enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman and child in Texas, California, New York, Illinois, and Florida combined." 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks at a news conference where he signed two energy related bills, Tuesday, June 8, 2021, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks at a news conference where he signed two energy related bills, Tuesday, June 8, 2021, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Texas has therefore deemed it necessary to take action and establish a border wall, which is composed of steel bars. A TFC official said the materials and labor will come from local sources, including the steel used to produce the bars. 

BORDER CRISIS CONTINUES, NOVEMBER ENCOUNTERS UP 140% OVER SAME TIME LAST YEAR

Abbott pointed to billions of dollars worth of material from the federal wall project that remains unused, which he said the Biden administration has not agreed to turn over to help with the project. 

A pair of migrant families from Brazil pass through a gap in the border wall to reach the United States after crossing from Mexico in Yuma, Ariz., Thursday, June 10, 2021, to seek asylum. The families are part of an influx of asylum-seekers entering the U.S. in the Yuma area from South America and other continents. (AP Photo/Eugene Garcia)

A pair of migrant families from Brazil pass through a gap in the border wall to reach the United States after crossing from Mexico in Yuma, Ariz., Thursday, June 10, 2021, to seek asylum. The families are part of an influx of asylum-seekers entering the U.S. in the Yuma area from South America and other continents. (AP Photo/Eugene Garcia)

Abbott described the wall as just one part of a "multi-pronged" strategy, which will include efforts by the National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety to apprehend individuals who illegally cross the border. Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush praised the speed with which building started and progressed, pledging to continue that pace. 

To demonstrate the building capability, Abbott ordered a section of the wall raised after the press conference - a process that took only around 10 minutes as a crane slowly erected the wall segment, then workers secured it at the base. 

REP. DUNCAN TO INTRODUCE BILL TO CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FROM CITIES THAT ALLOW NONCITIZENS TO VOTE

"Once it is completed, it will have multiple detection devices," Abbott said, adding that the additional detection will allow swift apprehension. 

"People we apprehend will be charged with trespassing to the state of Texas, and those charges will lead to them going to jail," he explained. Texas has researched a "pre-defense" for any criminal proceedings to ensure that "all procedures will be followed." 

Abbott also directed Americans to a website where they can donate to the border wall funding, which he said has already totaled more than $54 million.

 

Peter Aitken is a New York born-and-raised reporter with a focus on national and global news.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-gov-abbott-border-wall-sovereignty-state

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ilhan Omar’s ‘Islamophobia’ Bill Passes - Robert Spencer

 

by Robert Spencer

What will happen to opposition to Jihad and Sharia?

 


On a party-line 219 to 212 vote, the House on Tuesday passed the Combating International Islamophobia Act, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu). The bill calls upon the president to appoint a “special envoy” to fight “Islamophobia”; this envoy will head up a State Department that will monitor the phenomenon. Omar’s bill, however, is wrongly focused in all kinds of ways, not least of which is the fact that it will combat efforts to “promote racial hatred” against Muslims, even though Islam is not a race and there are Muslims among people of all races. Meanwhile, the raucous House debate raised other problems with the bill as well, including the likelihood that it will inhibit counterterror efforts.

“The office,” says the Washington Post, “would record instances of Islamophobia, including violence against and harassment of Muslims and vandalism of their mosques, schools and cemeteries worldwide, in reports created by the State Department.” That’s fine, although it’s striking that there is no similar call for the State Department to create reports about violence against and harassment of Christians and vandalism of their churches, schools, and cemeteries worldwide, or violence against Hindus or any other religious group. Why the special treatment for Muslims? It can’t be because Muslims are uniquely the victims of persecution around the world; Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) noted this, saying: “This word appears nowhere in the federal statutes,” and that the bill “prioritizes the religious persecution of Muslims over the persecution of other religions.”

Of even greater concern, however, is that the new “Islamophobia” office would target “propaganda efforts by state and nonstate media ‘to promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people.’” As noted above, Islam is not a race, so “racial hatred” against Muslim people is not even possible. But if the way that the word “Islamophobia” has been used up to now is any indication, what is considered to be propaganda or incitement will be based entirely on subjective criteria, and include even reporting about jihad activity and honest analysis of its motivating ideology.

McCaul noted this as well: “It is so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech for partisan purposes. Even the term ‘phobia’ [connotes] irrational fear, not discrimination.”

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) also warned that the bill would be used “to silence dissent and critiques of terrorism.” He added: “By intentionally leaving the definition of ‘Islamophobia’ blank in this bill, the gentlelady and my friends on the other side of the aisle are creating an office in our State Department that will likely spew antisemitic hatred and attack Western ideas throughout the world under the farce of protecting Islam.” Indeed.

Perry is under fire for “baselessly” and “falsely” claiming that “Omar is an associate of terrorists” – or at least that’s how the Washington Post reported it. This, however, is what Perry actually said: “We all agree that nobody should be persecuted based on their faith. We all agree on that. But American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay terrorist organizations, organizations that the maker of this bill is affiliated with like the one that’s an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in the United State of America’s history.”

No one in the establishment media seems to have picked up on it, but Perry here was clearly referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is indeed an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.

What’s more, the United Arab Emirates named CAIR a terror organization in 2014. Ilhan Omar has been a featured speaker at CAIR events. So Perry was correct, but is predictably being smeared as falsely accusing Omar.

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) got to the heart of the matter: “This bill brought to the floor today is for one purpose only: to appease the hurt feelings of members who themselves have well-documented backgrounds of anti-American and antisemitic remarks.” Right. No one is talking anymore about Omar’s well-documented anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism. She has successfully played the victim card and shifted the focus of the public debate. We will be seeing a great deal more of this strategy in the near future, and why not? It obviously works.

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here. For media inquiries, contact communications@pjmedia.com.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/12/ilhan-omars-islamophobia-bill-passes-over-robert-spencer/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Soviet-style conditions in which January 6 arrestees molder - Andrea Widburg

 

by Andrea Widburg

Between a crazed anti-Trump warden and medieval prison conditions, George Parry writes that we have our own gulag in America.

Every totalitarian regime has foul prisons in which they confine people who dared to oppose the regime.  Sadly, in the Age of Biden, it turns out that America is not at all different.  George Parry has written about the conditions at the D.C. jail in which those arrested for the January 6 riots are confined, and what he writes should horrify every person who believes in the Constitution and Due Process of Law.

To fully appreciate what's happening in D.C., here's a quick reminder about the rights Americans have before, during, and after being arrested:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[snip]

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Many of the January 6 defendants were arrested after dawn raids on their homes, with the FBI stripping them bare (both homes and people).  They've been held for eleven months in appalling conditions (more on that in a moment), without bail and without trial.  Because they are in D.C., when they are finally brought before a judge after months in Gulag-like conditions, they have the choice of either a biased judge or a biased jury.  Because most are poor, they seldom have competent counsel and, I have read, often have court-appointed attorneys who despise them. 


Image: Prison bars.  Piqsel.

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louis Gohmert managed to force their way into the D.C. jail in the January 6 detainees are being held, and they produced a hair-raising document entitled "Unusually Cruel — An Eyewitness Report From Inside the DC Jail."  But there's more going on than just terrible conditions (bad as they are).

As George Parry spells out in detail, the woman in charge of the jail, Kathleen Landerkin, is a fanatic who hates Trump and Whites.  Going back years, her tweets drip with bile for the people who would dare support Trump, while repeating the party line about 2020's "peaceful" riots:

"Replying to @realDonaldTrump Give it a f------ break. White men are more dangerous than immigrants."

[snip]

"Replying to @realDonald Trump You'll be in jail soon."

[snip]

In regard to the jailed January 6 Capitol Hill protesters, she approvingly retweeted, "Every prison needs a MAGA wing." And, in response to the tweet "DC Jail is run by DC Govt agency. Id bet good money no fox news is being shown," she tweeted "Nope. No Fox News."

Not long after that last tweet, Landerkin had placed in her care scores of January 6 detainees.

On November 4, Greene and Gohmert, along with their staff, were finally able to bully their way into the jail.  What they discovered would have made Stalin proud: Critical Race Theory being taught to Black prisoners in clean rooms, while the January 6 detainees are in cells that have walls dotted with feces, blood, and dirt; filthy showers; no access to their families and attorneys; no access to razors as punishment for being unvaccinated; outdoor time only twice a week; inedible food; no religious services; no medical care; and more.

Our Republican politicians have been shamefully, disgustingly, embarrassingly quiet about this.  They are cowards and quislings.  They like cute tweets and poll-tested statements for Fox News but will do nothing for these men.  Indeed, Sen. McConnell just threw his weight behind the January 6 committee's Soviet-style show trial.  If we have the political class we deserve, America is a dead country walking.

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/the_sovietstyle_conditions_in_which_january_6_arrestees_molder.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China and a Failed WTO Accession - Pete Hoekstra

 

by Pete Hoekstra

Rather than following the rules, China abused its new access to go into more countries an engage in market manipulation, predatory pricing and lending, and surreptitiously to seed its national security apparatus abroad.

  • Twenty years later we can only begin to describe how wrong the assessments were about China and how damaging this single decision has been to the global economic order.

  • [China] was using predatory practices to drive out European competitors to Huawei so that the CCP would soon dominate this key market. Rather than following the rules, China abused its new access to go into more countries an engage in market manipulation, predatory pricing and lending, and surreptitiously to seed its national security apparatus abroad.

  • Most American companies have not had the backbone to defend themselves against China's unfair policies and to stand up for their workers in the U.S. and human rights and freedom in China. More often than not, the only consideration these companies have is the bottom line.

  • It is time to reevaluate and confront China for the policies of the last 20 years.... Twenty years is enough of sacrificing American jobs, technology, and national security on the altar of full access to the Chinese market that the U.S. and the West will never get.

  • In all honesty, what is really dangerous is ignoring the long list of abuses and evil behavior by China and the Chinese Communist Party for another 20 years. Now is the time for the West finally to wake up before it is too late.

In 2000 the U.S. Congress passed legislation establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, enabling China ultimately to enter the World Trade Organization in 2001. President Bill Clinton wanted to cement his legacy with what would be viewed as a landmark agreement. Twenty years later we can only begin to describe how wrong the assessments were about China and how damaging this single decision has been to the global economic order. Pictured: Clinton and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji at the White House on April 8, 1999. (Photo by Pool/JE)

In 2000 the U.S. Congress passed legislation establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. The foundation for this successful China vote was established in 1998 when Congress adjusted terminology to rebrand "most favored nation" as "normal trade relations." These and other shenanigans by Congress enabled China ultimately to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001. This fundamentally changed the economic role that China plays globally, propelling it to the second-largest economy in the world today.

The pressures and negotiations leading up to the House of Representatives voting on PNTR were significant. President Bill Clinton wanted to cement his legacy with what would be viewed as a landmark agreement. Many of us in Congress were skeptical of the arguments that were being made about granting China PNTR, and realized it was much more than that.

In 1998, the official language had been changed from most favored to normal trade relations. Therefore, to the average constituent, China would only be receiving normal treatment, nothing special. But this was anything but normal, and China would be receiving a huge economic boost from this new treatment on trade.

Prior to receiving PNTR, trade relations had been debated and voted on annually. Congress clearly understood that trade with China was important to the U.S. economy, our workers, and our businesses, but the ability to vote annually provided Congress the opportunity to flex its muscle and try to hold China accountable for a number of issues of concern. Those issues included human rights, unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property, and limits on access to China's markets. It was hoped that annually highlighting these issues, and potentially even denying normal trade relations, would provide a big enough incentive to get China to change its behavior.

The business community had their arguments as to why PNTR should be passed and China's ultimate accession to the WTO would be a positive development. PNTR would remove the uncertainty that China was experiencing but also companies doing business with or considering doing business with China faced every year. These uncertainties made it more difficult to plan and increased the risk of doing business with and in China. Companies from all over my congressional district would come to me personally to explain how PNTR would help their businesses, and more importantly, how it would benefit their employees. Many with little or no experience with China also offered a full throttled endorsement that it would lead to a democratization of China -- China would become more like us.

Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to provide China with PNTR and President Bill Clinton with a huge legislative accomplishment. Presumptive Republican nominee for President George W. Bush stated, "Passage of this legislation will mean a stronger American economy, as well as more opportunity for liberty and freedom in China."

Twenty years later we can only begin to describe how wrong the assessments were about China and how damaging this single decision has been to the global economic order. China and the Chinese Communist Party have regressed in all areas of human rights and democratization. The U.S. and others have labeled China as practicing genocide against China's Uyghur minority populations and reports of organ harvesting in China continue. Its regressive actions against the freedom movement in Hong Kong and threats against Taiwan are only the top line examples that show China has not become more like us.

As the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, I frequently had to address the issues of unfair trade practices and the theft of intellectual property by China. It was using predatory practices to drive out European competitors to Huawei so that the CCP would soon dominate this key market. Rather than following the rules, China abused its new access to go into more countries and engage in market manipulation, predatory pricing and lending, and surreptitiously to seed its national security apparatus abroad.

Most American companies have not had the backbone to defend themselves against China's unfair policies and to stand up for their workers in the U.S. and human rights and freedom in China. More often than not, the only consideration these companies have is the bottom line.

Considering China's abysmal behavior with the international community in confronting the threat from COVID, and its behavior on trade for the last 20 years, it is time to face brutal reality: China will remain a no-faith, bad actor on the international scene. We must seriously reevaluate and confront China for its policies and actions. Twenty years is enough of sacrificing American jobs, technology and national security on the altar of full access to the Chinese market that the U.S. and the West will never get. Two years of avoiding responsibility and transparency on COVID that has cost 800,000 American lives is enough.

China understands strength, and in our political system, strength on foreign policy emanates from the President. President Joe Biden should:

  1. Build an international coalition, including our European and Asian allies to confront China;
  2. Demand transparency by China on COVID and reform of Chinese economic and human rights practices;
  3. Expand the targeting of specific Chinese companies and industries that pose national security or economic threats, e.g. Huawei, ZTE, and Hikvision, whose products should be prohibited from key parts of our economies;
  4. Impose tariffs on an ever-expanding list of Chinese products and services; and
  5. Encourage the U.S. Congress to repeal PNTR for China.

These are tough actions. Some might even describe them as dangerous. In all honesty, what is really dangerous is ignoring the long list of abuses and evil behavior by China and the Chinese Communist Party for another 20 years. Now is the time for the West finally to wake up before it is too late.

 

Pete Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18037/china-failed-wto

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter