Iran Ups its Anti-Israeli Ante

by Stephen Brown

With protests gathering steam in Bahrain, demonstrations reported in Libya, and clashes between pro- and anti-government movements in Yemen, Iran has exacerbated Middle Eastern tensions even further with its reported plan to send two warships through the Suez Canal. Israeli government officials and the Israeli Navy are closely monitoring two Iranian warships, which are anticipated to make a rare crossing of the Suez Canal. This would be the first time since 1979 the Iranian Navy has used the canal, and it is believed the ships’ destination is Syria. The Iranians, it was reported, are planning to send a “fleet” to the Mediterranean for a year.

With Mubarak having stepped down only days ago, the vessels’ appearance in the canal and in the Mediterranean is obviously meant to provoke and challenge Israel, which first alerted the world to the Iranian design. In this, the Iranians have succeeded. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the ships’ movements would be closely followed and “friendly states updated,” while Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the Iranian move “a provocation that proves Iranians’ overconfidence.” Lieberman also castigated the international community for allowing “the recurring Iranian provocations,” indicating Israel’s patience may be coming to an end.

“The international community must understand that Israel cannot forever ignore these provocations,” said Lieberman.

The ships themselves appear to oppose [sic] no real danger to Israel’s military. They are described as a British-built frigate dating from the 1960s and a supply ship. The arms embargo the United States imposed on the Iranian regime after the 1979 revolution has left the Iranian military, three decades later, outfitted with mostly aged equipment from the shah’s time. Attempts have been made to smuggle in spare parts, modern weaponry and technology, but this has met with limited success. Many of the smugglers have also simply wound up in Western prisons.

China enjoys friendly relations with Iran and has sold it some modern arms, principally because the Persian Gulf country is a major source of oil for its expanding economy. Russia was also going to sell its modern S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranians to upgrade their 1970s-era air defense system but backed off due to the anger the proposed sale aroused in Israel and among Western states. The new, home-built weapons systems the Iranians announce from time to time also never seem to make it into production after the initial photo-op and are probably meant solely for propaganda purposes. This may include the new warship the Iranians unveiled a year ago, the Jamaran.

But while the two Iranian ships currently making their way to the Mediterranean may be museum pieces, their possible cargo could be another, and more deadly, story. War materials for Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, have been discovered on other Syria-bound ships in the past. In 2009, US soldiers found containers of ammunition for Kalashnikov rifles on a German-owned cargo ship in the Gulf of Suez that was heading for Syria. The ship had been leased to Iran. The same year, Israeli forces boarded another freighter, allegedly outbound from Iran, and came upon an arsenal of weapons, bombs, artillery shells and rockets destined for Hezbollah. Much of the weaponry Hezbollah now possesses, including UAVs used over Israeli territory, originated in Iran.

Although in a coalition government with other parties, Hezbollah now essentially rules Lebanon. After its 34-day war with Israel in 2006, the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the Shiite militia to disarm. Instead, Hezbollah has made Lebanon a client state of Iran, which is rearming its proxy with even deadlier weapons, preparing it for the next round of war with the Jewish State.

Iran’s latest ploy to challenge Israel, however, may contain a more sinister element than that of supplying arms to Hezbollah. Since Hosni Mubarak stepped down last Friday, protesters have reappeared on the streets of Tehran in numbers not seen since the Green Movement in 2009. The unrest continued on Wednesday, as pro- and anti-government demonstrators clashed at the funeral for one of the protesters killed two days ago.

But there were two things about this latest round of disturbances that have unsettled the Iranian leadership. According to columnist Pepe Escobar, the first is that the demonstrators were demanding the resignation of Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The most popular chant, Escobar writes, was: “Mubarak, Ben Ali [of Tunisia]! Now it is Seyed Ali [Khameniei’s] turn!”

The second element references the fact that some demonstrators were from Tehran’s working class neighbourhoods, the traditional areas of support for Iran’s theocratic regime. With drastic rises in food prices and living costs, some workers appear to have had enough of the Iranian Revolution, since it now can’t meet even their basic needs. These price hikes, in which the opposition to the mullahs among the workers has it roots, is largely due to the government having abolished food and fuel subsidies, amounting to $100 billion a year. Escobar states Iran’s economic situation is so bad, “Iranian banks such as Meli, Saderat and Melat Sepah are very short on cash.”

As much as Ahmadinejad tries to portray the current unrest as the work of hostile foreign elements, the mullahs know they are ruling a deeply divided country and that their time may soon run out. The demographic situation in Iran is also in a perilous state, especially for a government that has pretensions to some day rule the Islamic world. The birthrate of Iranian women has fallen below replacement levels and Iran will not have the young men to go to war with in 20 years. This demographic implosion, one columnist believes, is what will eventually cause Iran to launch a war in the near future rather than just go quietly into the night.

The unknown quantity in all this is how badly the Stuxnet computer virus attack against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, believed to have been carried out by Israel and the United States, set the program back. The Iranian regime wanted nuclear arms as leverage against, and possibly to destroy, Israel, and to establish Iran as the regional power. Now, the Stuxnet attack, combined with the country’s current political and economic troubles, may not allow time for this plan to come to fruition, causing the mullah regime to seek another avenue to prosecute its jihad.

And that avenue appears to lie in provoking an attack by Israel. The one thing that would now unite Iranians and get them behind their leaders again would be an attack by Israel or the United States. The two warships are probably just the start of a campaign to provoke the Jewish State into making such a move, since Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the previous reason for possible US-Israeli military action against Iran, may now be nothing but a shambles. With an Israeli attack, not only would the Iranian people, who have for decades drunk deep draughts of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, forget their difficulties and support the jihad, but so would other Muslim peoples of a rapidly changing and unstable Middle East.

Launching foreign military adventures to distract people’s attention from problems at home is nothing new. Both Hitler and the military junta in Argentina that attacked the Falkland Islands were facing similar disastrous economic situations as the mullahs before they launched their military adventures. Shortly after Munich, Hitler said Germany had only one year remaining before it faced bankruptcy, so he had to start war soon. After occupying the Falklands, the Argentinean generals were greeted by cheering crowds who only days earlier had been demonstrating against economic hardships. For the same reasons and out of the same criminal spirit, Iran is now sending its warships through the Suez Canal in the hope of incrementally reaching its goal of war with Israel, but without appearing to be the aggressor.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/17/iran-ups-its-anti-israeli-ante/

Stephen Brown

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

Eric Holder Partners with Fidel Castro—Again

by Humberto Fontova

Last week the U.S. Dept. of Justice, at U.S. taxpayer expense, transported a Lieut.Col. of Fidel Castro’s KGB-trained secret police named Roberto Hernandez-Caballero to a U.S. courtroom.

The U.S. State Dept. classifies Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” and Fidel Castro classifies the U.S. as “the Great Enemy of Mankind.” A former regime-colleague of Hernandez-Caballero sits in a U.S. federal prison after her conviction in “the most damaging spy scandal against the U.S. since the end of the Cold War.” Her name is Ana Montes, and she was convicted of the same crimes as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg–but on behalf of Fidel Castro.

Other regime-colleagues of Senor Hernandez-Caballero — Elsa Montero, Jose Abad and Roberto Santiesteban — were nabbed in the nick of time by J Edgar Hoover’s FBI and booted from the U.S. for plotting to detonate 500 kilos of TNT in Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdales and Manhattan’s Grand Central Terminal on Black Friday 1962. Macy’s typically gets 50,000 shoppers that day.

Another regime-colleagues of Hernandez-Caballero, one named Fernando Vecino-Alegret, helped torture American POWs to death in Hanoi. In 1967, Fidel Castro sent several of his regime’s most promising sadists to North Vietnamese prison camps to instruct the Vietnamese Reds in the finer points of their profession. Testimony during Congressional hearings titled “The Cuban Torture Program; Torture of American Prisoners by Cuban Agents,” held in November, 1999, provides some of the harrowing details.

The Communists titled their torture program “The Cuba Project,” and it took place during ‘67-’68 primarily at the Cu Loc POW camp (also known as “The Zoo”) on the southwestern edge of Hanoi. In brief, this “Cuba Project” was a Joseph Mengelese experiment run by Castroite Cubans to determine how much physical and psychological agony a human can endure before cracking.

The North Vietnamese—please note–never, ever asked the Castroites for advice on combat. They knew better. Unlike director Steven Soderbergh, they saw the image of Castro’s famed “guerilla” leader, Che Guevara, for what it really was and is: a Castroite hoax to camouflage the bumblings of an incurable military idiot–and more importantly, Castro’s own hand in the idiot’s demise.

No, the North Vietnamese sought Castroite tutelage only on the torture of the defenseless, well aware of the Castroites’ expertise in this matter.

For their experiment, the Castroites chose twenty American POWs. One died: Lieutenant Colonel Earl Cobeil, an Air Force F-105 pilot. His death came slowly, in agonizing stages, through torture. Upon learning his Castroite Cuban affiliation, the American POWs nicknamed Cobeil’s Cuban torturer “Fidel.”

“The difference between the Vietnamese and ‘Fidel’ was that once the Vietnamese got what they wanted, they let up, at least for a while,” testified fellow POW Captain Ray Vohden. “Not so with the Cubans. Earl Cobeil had resisted ‘Fidel’ to the maximum. I heard the thud of the belt falling on Cobeil’s body again and again, as Fidel screamed, ‘You son of a beech! I will show you! Kneel down!–KNEEL DOWN!’ The Cubans unmercifully beat a mentally defenseless, sick American naval pilot to death.’”

"Earl Cobeil was a complete physical disaster when we saw him,” testified another fellow POW, Col. Jack Bomar. “He had been tortured for days and days and days. His hands were almost severed from the manacles. He had bamboo in his shins. All kinds of welts up and down all over; his face was bloody. Then ‘Fidel’ began to beat him with a fan belt.”

According to the book Honor Bound, the tortures of U.S. POWs by Castro’s agents (Hernandez-Caballero’s colleagues) were “the worst sieges of torture any American withstood in Hanoi.”

Until quite recently the chief Castroite torturer in North Vietnam, Fernando Vecino- Alegret, served as Cuba’s “Minister of Education.” So he’ll probably smilingly host many of those visiting delegations of U.S. scholars and educators, courtesy of Obama’s recent promotion of “people-to-people” exchanges with Cuba.

Vecino-Alegret’s colleague Hernandez-Caballero, however, was not transported to a U.S. courtroom this week to defend himself against charges of being an official of a regime that murdered more political prisoners in its first three years in power than Hitler murdered in his first six, that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin, that has sponsored terrorism for half a century, that has come the closest to nuking the United States, and has gratuitously tortured American POWs.

Instead, Mr Hernandez-Caballero is here to testify against Luis Posada Carriles, and thus try to help the U.S. Justice Dept. convict a one-time military colleague of those tortured to death in North Vietnam. Fidel Castro considers Luis Posada Carriles his number one enemy in the world. Posada volunteered for the Bay of Pigs invasion, and later joined the U.S. army emerging as a 2nd Lieutenant. After retiring from the U.S. Army, he worked for the CIA putting out Soviet-started fires throughout Latin America. Among other projects, Posada helped the Reagan team squash Communism in Nicaragua by helping train the Nicaraguan Contras. A few years later in Guatemala, a Castro appointed death-squad ambushed Posada, riddled him with bullets and left him crippled.

The dictator missed him then, but, with Eric Holder’s help, Castro is still after Posada. Eric Holder’s Justice Department considers Posada a criminal for entering the U.S. illegally from Latin America. Since we seem to have so little of that nowadays, Obama’s justice department can afford to concentrate major muscle in going after Posada–with Castro’s help.

Eric Holder, let’s remember, also signed the order for the INS to mace, kick, stomp, and gun-butt their way into Lazaro Gonzalez’s house on the morning of April 22, 2000, wrench a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point, and bundle him off to Castro’s Stalinist fiefdom, leaving 102 people injured, some seriously.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/17/eric-holder-partners-with-fidel-castro%E2%80%94again/

Humberto Fontova

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

Turkey Arrests Opposition Journalists Amid Furor

by AK Group

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Francis Riccardone held a reception last night to meet prominent people in Ankara. Asked about Sledgehammer case, he said: "We are watching very carefully and closely. We expect the trial period to be transparent and in accordance with the law." He said he did not understand how Turkish journalists could be detained while at the same time public speeches about freedom of expression are made.

Regarding the recent raid on news web portal Oda TV, which is a staunch critic of the current government, Ricciardone said he did not know about the charges against the site or any details about the matter.

"Turkey wants a free press. Turkish people want a critical press, even if it is a dissident one. The opposition parties and the government say they support freedom of the press. We are following the process closely. Journalists are being detained on the one hand, while addresses about freedom of the speech are given on the other. We do not understand this. The Turkish people's opinion is important. But freedom of the press and freedom of speech are vital for Turkey, the United States and the people of this region," Ricciardone said.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1898/turkey-arrests-opposition-journalists

AK Group

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

Britain Inadvertently Encouraging Home-Grown Radical Islam

by Soeren Kern

A growing number of Muslim parents in Britain are sending their "problem children" to madrassas [Islamic religious schools] in Kashmir; and these students are "at high risk of radicalization," according to American diplomatic cables that were obtained and recently released by the secret-spilling website, Wikileaks. The disclosure, one of several, reveals that the challenge posed to Britain by home-grown radical Islam is far greater than previously admitted by the British government..

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister David Cameron says his country's long-standing policy of multiculturalism has failed, and is actually responsible for fostering Islamist extremism. Instead of discouraging the British Muslim community from behaving in ways that "run completely counter to our values," Cameron says that a two-pronged approach is needed to neutralize the threat of radical Islam in Europe: "I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we -- as governments and as societies -- have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone."

Reaction to Cameron's speech has been mixed. Analysts across Europe have welcomed his public repudiation of multiculturalism as a long-overdue reality check. But Muslim groups that have been at the forefront of efforts to resist the integration of Muslim immigrants into mainstream British society are angry about the new approach.

According to a leaked diplomatic cable titled "Pakistan: UK Sees Kashmir Solution as Key to Long-Term Security Cooperation" (dated July 18, 2008 and classified as "Secret"), Laura Hickey, the British Foreign Office's Team Leader for Pakistan, told American diplomats at the US Embassy in London about "the growing trend" of British Muslims sending their children to Islamic schools in Kashmir on the India-Pakistan border, where they are at risk of being recruited by al-Qaeda.

In what the British government internally calls the "Kashmir Escalation Effect," the document explains that "while it appears the government of Pakistan has ceased to run militant training camps in Kashmir, the camps continue to operate… Terrorist organizations, like al-Qaeda, have begun using these camps as recruitment centers. After additional training … recruitees are then poised to commit terrorist activities."

The document reveals that Britain is concerned that "UK passport-holders will be recruited to commit terrorist operations in the UK… With the continued presence of militant training camps in Kashmir and over half a million UK passport-holders with ties to the region, HMG [Her Majesty's Government] is concerned that UK nationals will be recruited to conduct terrorist activities in the UK."

Another cable titled "Codel Smith Discusses Iraq and Counterterrorism" (dated May 1, 2008 and classified as "Secret"), reveals that senior counterterrorism officials at the MI6 (Britain's Secret Intelligence Service) are worried about a new wave of suicide bombings perpetrated by British-born radicals. The warning was sounded in a private briefing from a senior MI6 official to a visiting delegation of American Congressmen amid growing fears over the radicalization of young British Muslims.

The document says Britain faces a "uniquely challenging" threat from a generation of "internal" home-grown jihadists who are not on the intelligence services' "radar" and will threaten Britain for many years to come. The document goes on to state: "Moreover, the internal threat is growing more dangerous because some extremists are conducting non-lethal training without ever leaving the country. Should these extremists then decide to become suicide operatives, HMG intelligence resources, eavesdropping and surveillance would be hard pressed to find them on any 'radar screen.'"

A cable titled "Doing More with Less: UK Africa Regional Counterterrorism Conference" (dated December 12, 2009 and classified as "Confidential"), reveals that British Muslims are travelling to Somalia for "jihadi tourism" to train for terrorist attacks in Britain. The document states: "The UK government sees a growing likelihood of domestic threats emerging within the UK and U.S., to include home grown jihadists and radicalized British Somalis and Somali-Americans, particularly those who have travelled to Somalia or Pakistan for indoctrination and training."

The document continues: "Large numbers of UK passport holders live in Somaliland. For example, in the largest school in Hargeisa about 300 of the 1000 students hold UK passports. Also, a significant number of UK Somali youths are sent to Somaliland for 'straightening out' by their families. There is also believed to be a certain amount of so-called 'Jihadi tourism' to southern Somalia by UK citizens of Somali ethnicity. The threat from Somalia is compounded by the fact that within East Africa there is a lack of local government recognition of the terrorist threat."

A cable titled "Tensions Rise between Muslims and HMG" (dated August 14, 2006 and classified as "Confidential") says that Britain's program to counter Islamic extremism has failed to stop home-grown terrorists. The counter-terrorism strategy (known as CONTEST) was developed by the British government in 2003 and is aimed at reducing the terrorist threat in Britain by seeking to bring extremists into the mainstream.

The document relates that although the British government has invested "considerable time and resources" into reaching out to the Muslim community after the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005, those efforts have not been productive.

The cable continues that many Muslim leaders in Britain deny there is even a problem, and when there is, they vindicate home-grown extremism by blaming it on British foreign policy. By way of example, the document describes the reaction of the British Muslim community after 24 of its members were arrested in August 2006 in connection with a plot to blow up as many as 10 airliners leaving Britain for the United States. The document states: "The Muslim community's reaction to the arrests of 24 of its own sons -- a knee-jerk reaction blaming [the government] -- shows that its leaders too have far to go."

The cables suggest that Britain's failure can be partly attributed to its decision to appease, rather than undermine, Muslim groups guilty of anti-Western agitation. For example, a cable titled "Senior Advisor Pandith and S/P Advisor Cohen's Visit to the UK" (dated October 25, 2007 and classified as "Confidential") relates Britain's efforts to combat extremism in the British Muslim community. The cable discusses a project to prepare a paper on "what language works best in public outreach … for example, the advantage of using the word 'mainstream' to define common values, as opposed to 'the West,' which can have negative connotations."

In the face of British inefficacy, the United States in 2007 launched its own anti-extremist campaign to reverse the radicalization of young Islamists in Britain. A cable titled "Proposals for Ambassador's CT Fund" (dated April 18, 2008 and classified "Confidential") says that Dell Dailey, the head of the US State Department's counterterrorism office, offered the US Embassy in London $50,000 to spend on anti-extremism efforts in Britain.

The fresh proposals for how to prevent British youths from becoming Jihadists included hiring an American academic, at a cost of $43,000, to study reformed British extremists who have "stepped back" from radical Islam. Another idea was to spend $39,000 to fly the "Allah Made Me Funny" comedy troupe to Britain to participate in the Ramadan Festival UK.

The cable states: "The message their performance would send -- of American Muslims, proud to be both 'American' and 'Muslim' -- is a powerful message that would open British Muslim eyes to American cultural and religious diversity as well as encourage reflection on the part of British Muslim community in a positive, self-defining direction… Our expected outcome would be to reach thousand[s] of British Muslims, including the disproportionately high youth population, with these positive messages."

The British government is now having second thoughts about its approach to combating home-grown Islamic extremism. After spending millions of pounds funding projects to stop Muslims from becoming radicalized, the British Home Office has initiated a top-to-bottom review of the country's counter-terrorism strategy. The British government plans to publish a revised strategy later this year.

It remains to be seen, however, whether Britain will ultimately succeed in reducing the threat posed by home-grown Islamic radicals.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1894/britain-home-grown-radical-islam

Soeren Kern

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

Qaradawi's Ominous Return to Egypt

by IPT News

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Muslim Brotherhood theologian, promises to be in Egypt's Tahrir Square to deliver a sermon at Friday's prayer service.

Qaradawi, who has lived in Qatar since 1961, was a vocal critic of deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. A profile this week in Germany's Der Spiegel called him the Muslim Brotherhood's "father figure."

But his return is being touted as a reward for "Qaradawi's role in mobilizing support for the Egyptian revolution," a claim which is questionable at best.

It won't be the first time Qaradawi has been back to Egypt, but his visits have been fleeting. A sermon from him on the first Friday after Mubarak's ouster could be hugely symbolic as the Brotherhood tries to exert influence over the direction Egyptian society takes. And it will trigger memories of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which took a dramatic turn when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in France.

Egypt's revolution has been described as largely spontaneous, fueled by a building rage brought on by years of oppression, inspired by a Facebook page created by Google executive Wael Ghonim devoted to a man killed by security forces and ignited by the peaceful Tunisian revolt, which showed change was possible.

If anything, the Muslim Brotherhood deliberately took a low profile during the uprising, not wanting to play into Mubarak's narrative that his ouster would lead to chaos in Egypt. But a statement Monday from Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars said he "initiated the beginning of the Friday of wrath 28/01/2011 by shouting out loud, 'Go, Mubarak, safeguard the blood and protect the people of Egypt.'"

The Brotherhood confirmed Qaradawi's role in Friday's events, saying he "will address the celebrators on the importance of the role of all Egyptians in building a free and democratic Egypt."

The Der Spiegel profile notes Qaradawi's enigmatic nature. Hailed as a moderate for opposing al-Qaida and embracing modern technology, he has called on Allah to kill "the Jewish Zionists" and spoken "about the right of Palestinian women to blow themselves up." He has been barred from entering the U.S. since 1999, the profile said.

In the past two years, he also has:

• Called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."

• Called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.

• Affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."

• Called the Holocaust a divine punishment of Jews "for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

• Prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."

This week, a Brotherhood official was among eight people named to a panel charged with recommending changes to Egypt's suspended constitution. As the IPT has noted, the Brotherhood's bylaws continue to call for it "to establish Allah's law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion." That includes "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."

Der Spiegel reports that Qaradawi envisions a "United Muslim Nations" as a contemporary form of the caliphate. In its statement on the Revolution, the International Union of Muslim Scholars advocated something much broader. It called for "all components of the Egyptian people, Muslims and Copts, alike to stand as one to reach a consultative democratic government which represents the Egyptian people and its values and principles."

Images of a triumphant Qaradawi in leading prayer at the spot that triggered Egypt's revolution might trigger memories of Ayatollah Khomeini's return to Iran months after the Shah fled. Though analysts at the time did not anticipate him seizing power, the Islamic Republic was born just two months later.

Analysts today say differences in Egypt's uprising and in the Brotherhood's following make a repeat unlikely.

In an interview on National Public Radio, Stanford University director of Iranian studies Abbas Milani said the Brotherhood has no charismatic leader of Khomeini's stature. But he remained skeptical of the organization's claims that it is not interested in making Egypt's revolution into an Islamic one.

"Do you believe them?" asked Steve Inskeep. "No, I don't, to be honest with you," Milani said. "I think Muslim Brotherhood has an established record of wanting to create a government based on Sharia."

Original URL: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egypt

IPT News

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

Bibi Tells Nasrallah: Stay in Your Bunker

by Maayana Miskin

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took a jab at Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah on Wednesday evening after the latter threatened to take over northern Israel in case of war. “Anyone who's hiding in a bunker should stay in a bunker,” he said.

“Nasrallah said he would capture the Galilee. I have news for you – you won't.”

“Nobody should doubt Israel's or our ability to defend ourselves,” he continued. “We have a powerful army. We want peace with all our neighbors, yet the IDF is prepared to powerfully defend Israel against all our enemies.”

The prime minister made his remarks while addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which is meeting in Jerusalem.

Nasrallah had issued threats against Israel earlier in the day, at a ceremony honoring fallen Hizbullah terrorists. “I can tell the fighters of the resistance that one day they might be asked to liberate the Galilee,” he said.

He mocked Israelis as “afraid” and new IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz as “completely weak.”

Nasrallah also warned that despite the time that has passed since the death of senior Hizbullah member Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbullah will avenge his death. "I say to the Zionist commanders and generals: wherever you go in the world, everywhere, anytime, you should always keep watch. The blood of Imad Mughniyeh was not spilled in vain."

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142379

Maayana Miskin

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

Bringing Down Iran

by Matt Gurney

February 11th was the 32nd anniversary of the Iranian revolution, marking the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Islamist theocratic regime that survives to this day. While the world was understandably focused on the unraveling of the Egyptian regime of former president Hosni Mubarak, in Iran and around the world, demonstrations were held to both support and oppose Tehran’s mullahs. On Monday, after a relatively quiet weekend in Iran, protesters and security forces clashed violently, with security forces reportedly using tear gas and paintball guns to disperse anti-government crowds. There have been some reports that protesters were killed; the veracity of those claims, and the body count (if any), is not yet known. So far, this seems a far more muted response by the regime than the lethal tactics and brutal torture it employed against protesters in 2009. But one has to keep in mind that there is so much we do not know about the extent to which the vicious Mullahs barbarize their own people.

Iran’s crackdown this time around drew swift condemnation from Western powers. The European Union condemned the reports of violence by security forces. The Canadian foreign minister attacked Tehran’s “hypocrisy.” Surprisingly, President Barack Obama joined his allies in speaking out in favor of the Iranian protesters. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, the president also called out the Iranian regime for its hypocrisy in celebrating the fall of the (anti-Iranian) Mubarak regime in Egypt while simultaneously using force against its own restless population. “I find it ironic that you’ve got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully in Iran,” said Obama.

Obama also expressed his hopes that the Iranian people will be allowed to continue to peacefully protest for more rights and a representative form of government, and condemned the reports of violence in the streets of Tehran. His words have been chosen carefully, to avoid giving the mullahs any excuse to portray the protesters and reformers as puppets of Washington, but it is clear that the United States supports the people of Iran in their struggle against their oppressive government. The Iranian regime was not long in responding, attacking the West for offering support to the anti-theocracy.

Anything that raises the ire of the mullahs in Tehran is to be applauded, and it is especially noteworthy given recent history. Two years ago, the president drew criticism from all sides for his refusal to utter a word of support for the reformers battling the regime’s thugs in the streets of Tehran. The silence was baffling. Though the president did eventually comment on the violent suppression of the protests, he did so far behind other major countries, and in his own words, America “joined” the chorus of international criticism, rather than leading it. Given the long-standing animosity towards America expressed by the Iranian regime, and America’s traditional commitment to democracy and human rights, for a U.S. president to stay silent while brave civilians took on the might of a brutal autocracy was inexcusable.

Hopefully, the Obama administration has learned a lesson in this case, and has correctly applied it here. Indeed, not only has the president shown that he has learned from his mistake from two years ago, but his administration is also acting as a coordinated diplomatic team, offering a coherent message on Iran no matter which member of the administration is speaking. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spent the last several days reading from the same play book as the president, stating her support of the Iranian protesters and their goals, and also condemned Tehran for its lack of political freedom, demanding that it enact reforms. As before, Iran swiftly responded, dismissing Clinton’s comments as confused.

“Confused” would indeed have been a fair way to describe America’s diplomatic response to the recent collapse of the Egyptian regime, which saw the administration seemingly advocating every position simultaneously, with the latest view depending on who was speaking into a microphone. Secretary Clinton declared the regime in Cairo stable mere days before the military was forced to seize control of the country, and Vice President Joe Biden suffered another of his legendary gaffes when he declared that Hosni Mubarak was not a dictator two weeks before calling on Egypt to give its people democracy. On Iran, at least, the administration has found its footing and taken not only a consistent stand, but the right one.

The administration is also putting its money where its rhetoric is. On Tuesday, Secretary Clinton gave a speech lauding Internet freedom and warning autocratic regimes around the world that attempts to limit free access to the Internet will not only fail, but will backfire by provoking and emboldening restless populations. While the remarks had been scheduled for several weeks, the timing is fortuitous, as the secretary’s words are given great weight by the role of online communications and social media in bringing down the Tunisian and Egyptian governments and helping Iranian dissidents communicate. Egypt attempted at times to disrupt the protests by shutting down the Internet, and Iran has long sought to block online tools that could threaten the regime.

Accordingly, Secretary Clinton pledged $25-million for developing technologies to let activists and dissidents evade government-imposed restrictions on online communication, enabling both the co-ordination of protests and communication with the Western world. While a small dollar figure, the Internet is an asymmetrical weapon aimed at the heart of autocratic regimes — billions can be spent on restricting Internet freedom, and it will all be wasted if one blogger can bypass the roadblocks and communicate to the outside world what is happening behind these electronic iron curtains. Governments that seek to oppress their people by limiting their access to the Internet are fighting a losing battle, and a small investment by America, spent wisely, could very well yield big results.

As a tense new day dawns in Iran and protests spread across the Arab world, the United States has recovered from its early missteps and taken a measured, and appropriate, stand on the side of the people of Iran. With new digital tools to back up its diplomatic stance, the United States is finally giving the Iranian regime and their nuclear-obsessed madmen something real to worry about. Let’s hope the administration doesn’t waver and continues along this course.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/16/bringing-down-iran/

Matt Gurney is an editor at the National Post, a Canadian national newspaper, and writes and speaks on military and geopolitical issues. He can be reached at matt@mattgurney.ca. Follow him on Twitter: @mattgurney.

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

The Next 9/11

by Matthew Vadum

The next 9/11-style terrorist attack may originate from the unlikeliest of places: socialist Venezuela. This is because that country’s Marxist president, Hugo Chavez, who has been busy creating his own version of the Warsaw Pact, is dropping hints that his nation’s territory might be used as the launch pad for an Islamist assault on the continental United States.

Some have difficulty taking the famously flamboyant Chavez seriously. He is, after all, the erratic fellow who blamed the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti on the U.S. He poses for photos with a parrot on his shoulder. He rants — and sometimes sings – on Sundays on his TV show about whatever pops into his head, whether it’s about his bouts with diarrhea or his unhappiness with his cabinet ministers.

But despite his eccentricities, it’s important to remember that Chavez openly works with the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and FARC — a Marxist-Leninist narco-terrorist group in neighboring Colombia. Hamas and Hezbollah have offices in Caracas, and Chavez funds FARC. A congressional report indicates Iran’s fanatical Revolutionary Guard is active in Venezuela. A State Department report notes Venezuela’s close working relationship with terrorism-sponsoring Cuba.

Let’s follow the bread crumbs:

Chavez has made no secret of his abiding hatred of America and its freedoms. He calls capitalism “savagery” and President Barack Obama “a poor ignoramus.” Obama got off easy. Chavez referred to President George W. Bush as “the Devil.”

It’s no coincidence that Islamofascist fanatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leader of Iran (the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism), and Chavez are good friends. Last year, Chavez and Ahmadinejad announced that their two countries had formed a “strategic alliance” to end U.S. “imperialism.” The two nations will seek to “establish a new world order based on humanity and justice,” the Iranian president said. Until recently, Venezuela had been helping Iran get through temporary problems with its oil refining capacity by shipping 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day to the Islamic Republic. The program, in operation since 2009, ended in February 2011 when Iran reportedly achieved self-sufficiency in gasoline production.

Chavez defends Iran’s allegedly peaceful nuclear energy program, and has plans to develop a nuclear program of his own. He denies that he intends to develop a nuclear weapons program. “Who in Venezuela could take on a project of that type? Who? We aren’t going to take it on.”

Not many were surprised when Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), the government-owned oil company that also operates CITGO in the U.S., unveiled a plan in October to invest $780 million in Iran’s South Pars field, the largest natural gas field in the world. PDVSA’s involvement with Iran is important because the company is regarded as a “black box” that funds Chavez’s overseas political ambitions. Oil export revenues fuel Chavez’s petro-diplomacy.

Meanwhile, Chavez’s friends in Iran have been reaching out to other left-of-center nations in the Americas. Iran recently donated a $2.5 million hospital in El Alto, Bolivia near La Paz. Iran has pledged $1.1 billion in development aid to Bolivia, which responded by seeking closer military ties to the emerging Middle Eastern power.

Chavez and Bolivia’s Marxist president, Evo Morales, see eye to eye. In fact, Chavez has called the partnership between Venezuela, Bolivia, and Iran, the “Axis of Annoyance” for its ability to vex the United States.

And Morales does not take a back seat to Chavez in denouncing their common foe. “Capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity,” Morales said, as he called for its destruction. “I would like to say that the origin of this crisis is the unbridled consumption and accumulation of capital in a few hands, the looting of natural resources, the commercialization of Mother Earth, and above all, I believe its origin lies in an economic model—capitalism,” he told the United Nations.

Other Chavez-friendly Latin American countries may join the socialist-Islamist entente. Iran has been courting Ecuador, whose government is headed by leftist president Rafael Correa. Last year, Ecuadorian Vice President Lenin Moreno signed an agreement with Iran to build three hydroelectric projects in Ecuador. Iran also has significant, though less extensive, ties to the left-leaning regimes in Brazil and Chile, but their association is likely to grow stronger.

Even without Iran’s help, Chavez has been attempting to export chaos to America for years. While the U.S. government was taking a beating in the media for its post-Katrina relief efforts, Chavez attempted to embarrass the Bush administration by providing aid to the Katrina-hit Gulf Coast.

Chavez had already been running a “public diplomacy” campaign in the U.S. to help bolster American support for his regime. The propaganda effort involved funneling discounted home heating oil to the nonprofit group Citizens Energy Corp., which is run by former Congressman Joe Kennedy II (D-MA). The nonprofit then distributed the oil to poor people, and useful idiot Kennedy was able to pose as a humanitarian. Kennedy went on TV a few years ago to berate the Bush administration, which he said “cut fuel assistance.” Kennedy praised his benefactor Chavez, claiming that Venezuelan socialism had helped to ease suffering in America. In a commercial, he said that “CITGO, owned by the Venezuelan people,” had helped poor Americans while their own government stood idly by.

While he was still a leftist, recovering community organizer Brandon Darby took a trip to Venezuela that quashed his remaining radical impulses. Darby traveled to Caracas in 2006 as part of a delegation from his own nonprofit, Common Ground, which was created to help rebuild New Orleans after it took a devastating hit from Hurricane Katrina. Darby wanted to have the Chavez government provide funding to keep the organization afloat. “I had this idea of having ‘Chavez trailers’ for displaced residents to live in. This would embarrass FEMA into supplying trailers,” he said. Darby said he didn’t realize when he came up with the concept that using money from abroad to influence the U.S. government might be illegal, but Chavez government officials he met with insisted it would violate U.S. law. “They told me I would get in trouble, and they wanted to work out a way to make the project happen,” he said.

During the month Darby was in Venezuela, government officials introduced him to executives working for PDVSA. They pressured Darby to journey to neighboring Colombia to meet with a group aligned with the narco-terrorists of FARC and to visit another revolutionary group in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

According to Darby, Chavez wanted to create a terrorist network in rural Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Senior officials in the Chavez government and in PDVSA told him they wanted him to create a revolutionary army of guerrillas in the swamps of Louisiana. Aghast, Darby refused, returned to America, and soon abandoned radicalism.

Instead of using the Red Cross in his post-Katrina relief efforts, Chavez called on radical left-wing charities, including the Vanguard Public Foundation and the Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund. Apparently an informal charity, Peoples Hurricane Relief Fund maintains a MySpace page filled with rabidly anti-American propaganda. “Katrina put a spotlight on the horrors of racism, sexism, national oppression, poverty and environmental destruction in the U.S.,” the page lectures. It also demands that “the American Government [be put] on trial for its Katrina related crimes against humanity.”

As part of his outreach campaign in the U.S., Chavez has given $1.5 million to Casa de Maryland, a Washington, D.C.-area charity that advocates for illegal aliens. The grant is being paid by CITGO.

As we have seen, Chavez has already engaged in soft tactics aimed at undermining the United States. With a little help from his Islamist terrorist friends in Iran, he may one day soon decide to take his mischief to the next level.

is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy. His book on ACORN and its infiltration of the Obama administration will be published in mid-2011.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/16/the-next-911/

Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy. His book on ACORN and its infiltration of the Obama administration will be published in mid-2011.

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

How to Create a Real Democracy in Egypt

by Raymond Ibrahim

Say the word "democracy" in the West, and images of a free, pluralistic, and secular society come to mind. Commenting on the turmoil in Egypt, President Obama, "The United States will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve"—as if the two were inseparable.

The fact is, "democracy" does not always lead to "universal rights" and or other advantages associated with this form of governance. There is nothing inherently liberal, humanitarian, or secular about democracies, as we have seen from the democratic election of Hitler in Germany; the Palestinians' election of a terrorist government, Hamas, in Gaza in 2006; the election of the ayatollahs in Iran after the Shah was toppled in 1979; the near-election of the Islamists in Algeria in 1991, or even the democratic acceptance of slavery and the disenfranchisement of women in both ancient Athens and the first years of America. "People-power"—literally, demos-kratia— was what America's founder saw as also capable of becoming mob rule, and the reason they insisted on an electoral college.

Now that the people have gotten what they want in Egypt —the overthrow of Mubarak— will "people-power" automatically lead to a more liberal, secular, and pluralistic society?

Although many Egyptians – both Christians and Muslims -- would welcome a freer society, the majority of Egyptians were protesting not to see Islamic Sharia Law implemented -- despite Al-Jazeera's and the Iranian media's propaganda -- but for food and jobs.

That said, the Muslim Brotherhood's outspoken goal is to implement strict Sharia Law wherever it can; and if it is helped to power, Egypt will become considerably more fascistic and possibly even less free than it was under a dictatorship. This does not necessarily mean that Egyptians are Islamists; just that their choices were limited deliberately. As Mubarak suppressed and jailed anyone who promoted a real democracy, to show the West that the choice was between him and Islamists, he allowed the Islamists to function – even though they were officially outlawed -- to be able to show them to visitors from the West to justify his position. He thereby brought into being the choice he talked about: whoever did not like his regime had nowhere to go except the Islamists.

As in Western democracies, people can vote based on their immediate needs, emotions, misinformation, or even just propaganda—and, happily or unhappily, get more than they bargained for. In Gaza, for example, free social services – such as dental clinics and day-care centers -- that Arafat's government should have been providing but did not -- were what Hamas used to lure people to its side and incline them towards its theological agenda. This strategy of endearing the Palestinians to it by providing for their needs, Hamas learned directly from its parent organization: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Western democracies have built-in safeguards such as a constitution, rule of law, and a judiciary. But what sort of society does one create if all of these – the constitution, the law and the judiciary -- are built on Islamist principles of Islamic Sharia ["The Way"] Law, agreed to by the majority? One creates a society in which women are legally subjugated and with unequal rights; adulterers are legally stoned to death; and homosexuals and apostates legally hanged. The Brotherhood's slogan states that "the Koran is our Constitution;" as we have seen, Iran has a "constitutional government"—but entirely based on Sharia Law

It would benefit Egypt as well as the region if America stopped praising democracy—a means—and started supporting freedom and universal rights—the desired end.

"Elections" are not the same thing as a "democracy;" the words are not synonymous. To avoid having a repressive government freely elected, it is first necessary, as outlined in The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky, to first introduce and firmly establish institutions of democracy – such as a free press; free speech; freedom for religion and freedom from religion; equal justice under law, including of property rights; laws based on individuals' rights; an independent judiciary; separation of mosque and state, and so forth. Elections can then be held at the end -- after these building blocks for a free civil society – and real choices for the people -- are able to function without religious or political interference. Rather than support any one mode of governance now, the U.S. could work with whoever will put in place and continue to build these institutions of a free society associated with democracy.

Such an approach would even have the added bonus of fending off the charge — emanating everywhere from academia to the Arab street — that America is hypocritical for befriending and supporting dictators even as it constantly praises democracy.

As with all forms of governance, democracy is only a means to an end; whether that end is good (freedom) or bad (tyranny) should be the ultimate measure of its worth.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1895/egypt-real-democracy

Raymond Ibrahim

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

Embassies Closed Due to Terror Warnings

by Gavriel Queenann

Four Israeli embassies have been closed temporarily, with other embassies being put on alert, following intelligence reports indicating potential attacks on Jewish and Israeli sites around the world. The current threat appears to stem from the desire to avenge the death of terrorist leader Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated in a mysterious car bombing in Damascus, Syria, in 2008. At the time, foreign officials blamed Israel for the assassination, but Israel denied responsibility.

On Friday, Israel's Counter Terrorism Bureau issued a travel warning for all Israelis - due to the approaching anniversary of Mughniyeh's assassination - against traveling to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, the Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania, Turkey, and Venezuela. Foreign Ministry reports were intentionally vague to protect sources and obscure Israeli security deployments. The additional precaution of closing the four embassies was taken Monday evening.

Such decisions are typically based on concete intelligence data.

Mughniyeh was born to a Shiite-Muslim family in southern Lebanon in 1963. In 1979 he joined Fatah's Force 17, formed for the purpose of assassinating Israeli leaders following heavy losses by the PLO leadership during Israel's Operation Spring Youth in 1973. Ultimately, Force 17 served as bodyguards for Yassir Arafat, his top lieutenants, and PLO representatives abroad. Following Arafat's deportation from Lebanon in 1982, Mughniyeh left Fatah to act as the bodyguard for Sheikh Muhammad Fadlallah, the Lebanese Shia community's spiritual leader, who died last July.

Shortly after leaving Fatah Mughniyeh became involved with the Hizbullah terrorist organization, becoming a celebrated figure. He is known to have participated in the bombing of US targets in Beirut in 1983. A car bomb at the US Embassy in April that year killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, and a truck bomb at the Marine compound in October killed 241 American soldiers. In 1985, Mughniyeh was behind the hijacking of TWA 845, during which US Navy sailor Robert Sethem was murdered.

Mughniyeh was also suspected of being behind the torture-murder of William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut in 1984; the kidnapping-murder of Lieutenant Colonel William Richard Higgins of the US Marine Corps, who was on peacekeeping duty in Lebanon in 1988; and through the Islamic Jihad terror group, the seizing of western hostages in Beirut during the 1980s. Of the aforementioned TWA 845 hijacking, then US President Ronald Reagan said “We will not rest until justice is done.”

Following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Mughniyeh became heavily involved in Hizbullah's anti-Israel operations in southern Lebanon, and during the Second Lebanon War in 2006 reportedly personally fired Katyusha rockets into Israel. Such rocket attacks targeted Israeli civilian population centers, causing many to flee their homes. It is claimed Israel's alleged decision to target Mughniyeh for assassination was taken as early as 2000, but did not become urgent until the cease-fire following the second Lebanon war in 2006.

Mughniyeh's demise came while he was walking to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, where he planned to attend the 29^th anniversary celebrations of Iran's Islamic revolution. Eyewitnesses said the street shook when he passed a rented car that exploded, obliterating his body. Pieces of Mughniyeh were later found across the street. Following the assassination, Hizbullah stated it would avenge the 'martyr' Mughniyeh at a time and place of its own choosing.

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142362

Gavriel Queenann

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