Tuesday, June 23, 2015

George Galloway's Next Stop? - Samuel Westrop



by Samuel Westrop

  • Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 after an internal inquiry found that he had "incited Arabs to fight British troops," and "incited British troops to defy orders."
  • If Galloway were elected Mayor of London, there is also the possibility that Islamist operatives would be appointed to important political positions, further legitimizing extremist control over London's Muslims.
  • "I am indebted more than I can say, more than it would be wise for me to say, to the Islamic Forum of Europe. I believe they played the decisive role, undoubtedly decisive in this historic victory." — George Galloway, after his election to Parliament in 2005.
On May 7, the British Respect Party politician George Galloway lost his parliamentary seat of Bradford West. Despite winning a 2012 election with 55.9% of the vote, Galloway received only 21.2% in last month's elections, thereby losing decisively to his opponent, the Labour Party's Naseem Shah.

Galloway's defeat was met with some applause. People cheered for different reasons. For Bradford's electorate, it was Galloway's voting attendance in parliament: the third-lowest of all Britain's MPs. For the Jewish community, it was Galloway's reputation as Britain's most pro-Hamas, anti-Israel politician. For women's rights activists, it was Galloway's claim that the rape allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was all simply a case of "bad sexual etiquette." And for opponents of the Syrian and Iranian regimes, it was Galloway's paid employment by the Iranian state-owned television station, Press TV, as well as the pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah station, Al Mayadeen.

Galloway is well aware of his detractors, whom he condemns in colourful terms. After his defeat, he declared: "The venal and the vile, the racists and the Zionists will all be celebrating. The hyena can dance on the lion's grave, but it can never be a lion."

George Galloway in a September 2014 television appearance. (Image source: BBC video screenshot)

Galloway is also known for his support of totalitarian regimes. In 2013, after he asked David Cameron why the British government was supporting the "bloodthirsty" Syrian opposition, the Prime Minister responded: "Some things come and go, but one thing is certain. Wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world, he'll have the support of the honourable gentleman."

Although Galloway has lost his parliamentary seat, this is by no means the end of his political career. As his biographer notes: "He has dedicated himself to politics, but it's his job, his bread and butter, and he won't be wanting to retire any time soon."

Galloway's concession speech on May 7, in fact, concluded with the promise: "I'm going off now to plan my next campaign."

The next campaign, Galloway revealed a few weeks later, is the 2016 London mayoral race.

In an interview with the BBC, Galloway explained:
"It's been a very good start. 20,000 people have signed up for the campaign in three days. ... I've lived in London for 35 years ... I have every right to put my hat in the ring here. And all the signs are that it's, if I dare use this metaphor, putting the cat among the pigeons."
Unlike most MPs, since 1987, Galloway has served as MP for four separate constituencies, in Scotland, London and Bradford. He was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003, after an internal inquiry found that he had "incited Arabs to fight British troops," and "incited British troops to defy orders."

After being expelled, Galloway founded the Respect Party, which journalist Nick Cohen of The Observer described as an "alliance... between the Trotskyist far left and the Islamic far right."

For the 2005 election, Galloway set his political sights on Bethnal Green and Bow, an East London constituency with a high proportion of Muslim residents. Cashing in on his "anti-war" reputation, Galloway rallied Islamist organizations to his cause.

Britain's most prominent Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim Association of Britain, put its full weight behind the Respect Party. It recruited Islamist campaigners and "well-connected local mosque workers" to campaign for Galloway.

Islamist groups belonging to Jamaat-e-Islami, the violent South Asian Islamist movement, also pledged their support. Activists from the Islamic Forum of Europe, the East London Mosque and the Young Muslim Organisation allied with "mostly white socialists to successfully campaign for the election of the Respect Party candidate."

The black Jewish Labour candidate, Oona King, claimed that Respect Party campaigners had been warning residents not to vote for her because she is Jewish.

Galloway defeated the Labour candidate by a mere 823 votes. Nevertheless, by exploiting the sentiments of many in the Muslim community, and enlisting the support of some Islamist community organizers, it became clear that he could win elections in areas with large Muslim populations.

After the 2005 election, Galloway thanked the Islamic Forum of Europe for its support: "I am indebted more than I can say, more than it would be wise for me to say, to the Islamic Forum of Europe. I believe they played the decisive role, undoubtedly decisive in this historic victory."

When he turned his attention to the northern city of Bradford in 2012, Galloway once again enlisted the support of Islamist groups. Members of the Islamic Forum of Europe campaigned for him, as did members of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC).

In 2012, the National Union of Students banned MPAC from taking part in events on university campuses. The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism has condemned the group for promoting "the idea of a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, including the reproduction of articles originally published on neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial websites." MPAC has campaigned against other Labour MPs simply on the grounds that they were "Jewish."

Faced with a significant number of Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslim voters, Galloway worked to tap religious and cultural tensions.

Galloway's Respect Party won votes because it "simultaneously circumvented and harnessed" the biraderi system, a hierarchical arrangement of clan politics under which much of Britain's Pakistani communities is organized. Galloway's close aide, Ron McKay, told one journalist: "It would take me much longer than I've got to explain biraderi politics in Bradford, clan-based politics, and people actually do deliver 20, 30, 50 votes. Through their extended families, what tends to happen is, the kind of head of the household, or the kind of head of the clan, makes a decision how they'll vote. ... They deliver bundles of votes."

The piety of Galloway's opponent was also questioned. Anonymous election leaflets distributed in Bradford contained the text: "Let me point out to all the Muslim brothers and sisters what I stand for. I, George Galloway, do not drink alcohol and never have. Ask yourself if the other [Labour] candidate in this election can say that truthfully. I, George Galloway, have fought for the Muslims at home and abroad, all my life, and paid a price for it. I, George Galloway, hold Pakistan's highest civil awards."

Further, Galloway told a campaign rally: "I'm a better Pakistani than he [the Labour candidate] will ever be. God knows who's a Muslim and who is not. And a man that's never out of the pub shouldn't be going around telling people you should vote for him because he's a Muslim. A Muslim is ready to go to the US Senate, as I did, and to their face call them murderers, liars, thieves and criminals."

Similar tactics were used in the 2015 elections. At an election hustings, Galloway accused the Labour candidate, Naseem Shah, of lying about her claim to have suffered a forced marriage. Galloway produced a nikah, an Islamic marriage certificate, to back up his claims. In response, Shah claimed that Galloway had sent someone to Pakistan to impersonate her dead father, just in order to obtain the nikah.

A Jewish reporter, Ben Judah, visited Bradford in May to interview Respect Party officials, only to be physically attacked by Respect supporters, who shouted, "Get out, you fucking Jew."

Now Galloway has turned his attention to London again.

Could he win?

The London mayoralty, a position established in 2000, certainly attracts characters. Since then, London has had two mayors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

Livingstone is widely considered to sit on the fringe of the Labour Party. Like Galloway, he has worked closely with a number of Islamist groups. Livingstone was roundly condemned for his decision, while Mayor, to invite to London the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi has expressed support for suicide bombings and Hitler's persecution of the Jews, and has sanctioned domestic abuse of "disobedient" wives.

Boris Johnson shares none of Galloway or Livingstone's fondness for theocrats or extremist groups. Although he has frequently been described by media as an "eccentric," the London electorate has thus far rewarded unusual candidates. This time around, the other mainstream contenders all seem a bit forgettable. As Galloway himself notes, "With a bland field from the mainstream parties, someone a bit more interesting might just take it by storm."

Although the odds are against him, Galloway seems to think he can win. In an interview published online in 2013, he stated: "It's a shrunken field. Boris Johnson won't be running. Ken Livingstone won't be running. I would never have run against Ken Livingstone as he's a very old friend of mine. ... I can win, yeah."

As with Galloway's previous election campaigns, the mayoral race is likely to see a similar mobilization of Islamist groups, which Galloway will use to canvass Muslim votes. He will be able to rely on a large network of mosques run by operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as Islamist campaign groups, community organizations and youth groups.

Nevertheless, Galloway cannot depend on London's Muslims alone. There are plenty of Sunni Muslim residents who distrust Galloway's work with the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Some will also look to the apparent disenchantment of the Bradford Muslims who voted Galloway out of office. South Asian Muslims might also oppose Galloway because they reject the politics of Jamaat-e-Islami, a socially conservative Pakistani movement of his Islamist ally. Together with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jamaat-e-Islami only manages a modest 3.4% of British mosques.

To win, Galloway needs the support of those voters who would usually vote for the Labour Party. The increasing discontent in London with the ruling Conservative government, as well as a noticeably disorganized Labour Party, will all strongly benefit Galloway's mayoral campaign. "I have an appeal to traditional Labour people," he argues, "of whom there are many millions in London."

A Mayor Galloway could be greatly damaging for London's moderate Muslims and its Jewish community. There is the possibility that huge amounts of taxpayers' money would likely find its way into the pockets of anti-Semitic and extremist organizations aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

In a recent interview with the BBC about his mayoral bid, Galloway declared: "It would certainly be my aim to encourage the huge swell of pro-Palestinian support in London."

Under a Galloway mayoralty, there is also the possibility that Islamist operatives would be appointed to important political positions, further legitimizing extremist control over London's Muslims.

George Galloway claims to stand for "peace, justice and equality." His track record, however, suggests that tolerance and integration will not be the likely outcome of a Galloway mayoralty.


Samuel Westrop -  Follow Samuel Westrop on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6004/george-galloway

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

Say bye-bye to Hillary's Russian reset - Silvio Canto, Jr.



by Silvio Canto, Jr.


President Obama's foreign policy changed a bit, according to Secretary Carter:
The U.S. will contribute weapons, aircraft and forces, including commandos, for NATO's rapid reaction force, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday, to help Europe defend against security threats, including Russia from the east and violent extremists from the south.
Under the plan, the U.S. will contribute intelligence and surveillance capabilities, special operations forces, logistics, transport aircraft, and a range of weapons support that could include bombers, fighters and ship-based missiles. It would not provide a large ground force.
Carter announced the new details about the U.S. contribution after meeting with defense ministers from Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. Those countries had agreed to provide the initial troops for the so-called very high readiness task force, which was announced last year at the NATO summit in Wales. The U.S. had pledged to support the task force, but NATO has been waiting to hear specifically what America was willing to provide.
Glad that Secretary Carter has seen the light.  We are finally projecting a little U.S. power and reminding our allies that we will be there.   

The "reset" was one of the silliest moments of the early days of the Obama administration.  It happened when then secretary Clinton met with the Russian foreign secretary.   

The "reset" had more problems than translation.  It was a bad idea, as the Washington Post wrote in 2014:  
It's been over five years since the United States and Russia vowed to "reset" their relationship. In that time, the two countries have had to grapple with disagreements over Syria, Iran and Libya, as well as Russia's welcome to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden and the U.S. condemnation of a Russian-supported referendum in Crimea.
On Monday, the United States imposed sanctions on some of the highest ranking officials in the Russian government. Let's just say it: The reset is dead.
How do you say "dead in the water" in Russian?  

Let's hope that one of those reporters obsessed with the Confederate Flag will ask Hillary Clinton about the reset five years later.  Without question, Russia is one of the biggest failures of the Obama foreign policy.  And Hillary Clinton owns it, reset button and all.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.


Silvio Canto, Jr.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/say_byebye_to_hillarys_russian_reset.html

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

Nebraska Muslims and Omaha’s Tri-Faith Initiative - Dr. Steven Kirby



by Dr. Steven Kirby

The goal of the Tri-Faith “is to build bridges of respect, trust and acceptance” between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But Islamic doctrine prohibits Muslims from respecting, trusting, or accepting Jews and Christians, so how can Muslims support it?


tfFor those not familiar with it, there is currently underway an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence: the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska. The Tri-Faith Initiative wants to have a synagogue, a mosque, and a church located on a common piece of land, each with its own separate building. The religious partners are Temple Israel, the American Muslim Institute, and Countryside Community Church.

The goal of the Tri-Faith “is to build bridges of respect, trust and acceptance” between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But Islamic doctrine prohibits Muslims from respecting, trusting, or accepting Jews and Christians, so how can Muslims support it?

With this question in mind, I tried to find out how much support there is for the Tri-Faith Initiative and its goal among the Muslims in Nebraska.

Nebraska Muslims

I located e-mail addresses for the following nine Muslim organizations/mosques in Nebraska:
Al Hadi Islamic Center (Omaha)
Grand Island Masjid
Islamic Center of Omaha
Islamic Center of Siouxland
Islamic Foundation of Lincoln
Masjid Al-Huda (Omaha)
Masjid al-Wadood (Norfolk)
Millard Islamic Center (Omaha)
Nebraska Islamic Foundation (Lincoln)
I sent the following e-mail to each of them, twice:
The Omaha Tri-Faith Initiative is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence.  The goal of the Tri-Faith Initiative is to have a synagogue, a mosque, and a church located on a common piece of land, each with its own separate building.  The religious partners are Temple Israel, the American Muslim Institute, and Countryside Community Church.
The goal of the Tri-Faith “is to build bridges of respect, trust and acceptance” between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.  But Islamic doctrine prohibits Muslims from respecting, trusting, or accepting Jews and Christians; for example:
According to the Koran: Muslims are prohibited from being friends with Jews and Christians (5:51); Muslims are commanded to fight Jews and Christians until the Jews and Christians pay the jizyah with willing submission and feeling themselves subdued (9:29); Jews are among the worst enemies of Islam (5:82); Allah curses the Jews and the Christians (9:30); and Jews and Christians are among the worst of creatures and “will abide in the fire of Hell” (98:6).
Muhammad said such things as:
[1] Jews and Christians are each worth only half of a Muslim (Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2644);
[2] Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it (Sahih Muslim, No. 2167);
[3] The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2926);
[4] Jews and Christians will take the place of Muslims in Hell (Sahih Muslim, No. 2767R1).
Consequently, I am interested in your response to the following questions:
[1] Does your mosque/organization officially and publicly support the Tri-Faith Initiative and its goal?  If so, what have you done to show that support, including any financial contributions and the amounts?
[2] If your mosque/organization officially and publicly supports the Tri-Faith Initiative and its goal, how do you address the above verses of the Koran and teachings of Muhammad?
[3] If your mosque/organization does not officially and publicly support the Tri-Faith Initiative and its goal, is it because Islamic doctrine prohibits such a venture on the part of Muslims?
[4] Do you know of any Muslim organizations or individual Muslims who have provided financial support to the Tri-Faith Initiative, including for purchase of land, construction of the synagogue, or construction of the proposed mosque and/or church?  If you know of any such organizations or individuals, what was the total amount of their respective contributions?
None of the nine have responded to my questions.

American Muslim Institute

Consequently, I decided to contact the Muslim partner in the Tri-Faith Initiative, the American Muslim Institute (AMI). I sent the following e-mail twice to Leigh Sittenauer, AMI Executive Director:
I am interested in finding out the extent of the support from Nebraska Muslims for 1) the Tri-Faith Initiative; 2) its goal of building “bridges of respect, trust and acceptance” between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and 3) the construction of the new mosque.  Could you please advise me of the Muslim organizations and/or mosques that publicly support these items, and the number of members in each of the organizations and/or mosques that show that support?  How are they showing their support?
Also, since there are already mosques in the Omaha area, how specifically will your mosque differ, doctrinally or otherwise, from the existing mosques?  If there is no difference, why should Muslims start attending your mosque after it is built?  Do you already have members who are meeting for Friday prayer at some place other than the existing mosques?  If so, how many current members do you have for your new mosque, who is the imam, and where are they meeting?
Ms. Sittenauer has not responded.

I recently attended a presentation on Islam by Dr. Syed Mohiuddin, President of AMI. An attendee asked a multi-part question that included a request for the names of Muslim organizations that supported the Tri-Faith Initiative. Dr. Mohiuddin answered other parts of the question, but did not respond to the request for the names of any supporting Muslim organizations.

Conclusion

The unanimous silence when asked about what Muslim organizations/mosques in Nebraska are supporting the Tri-Faith Initiative is telling. The answer appears to be simple: there are no Muslim organizations/mosques in Nebraska supporting the Tri-Faith Initiative. There appears to be only a few, individual Muslims involved in the Tri-Faith venture. Why?

The answer lies in the fact that verses in the Koran and teachings of Muhammad prohibit Muslim participation in ventures like the Tri-Faith Initiative. In his recent presentation on Islam, Dr. Mohiuddin advised a group of non-Muslims that a good translation of the Koran was The Meaning of the Glorious Koran by Marmaduke Pickthall, a Muslim convert. So consider the following three verses from Pickthall’s translation:
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.         (5:51)
Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolators. (5:82)
Lo! those [sic] who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] and the idolaters, will abide in fire [sic] of hell. They are the worst of created beings.  (98:6)
These three Koran verses in particular, and the many other verses with similar messages, appear to be ignored by Dr. Mohiuddin and the few Muslims actively promoting the Tri-Faith Initiative. In contrast, it appears that the greater Muslim community in Nebraska is paying attention to these three verses and the many others that prohibit Muslims from participating in a venture like the Tri-Faith Initiative.

Consequently, the Tri-Faith Initiative appears to be standing mainly on two crutches: Jews and Christians. Bi-Faith Initiative anyone?


Dr. Steven Kirby

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dr-stephen-kirby/nebraska-muslims-and-omahas-tri-faith-initiative/

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

Hillary and History - Thomas Sowell



by Thomas Sowell

Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.


Clinton RiceThere are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2016.

This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.

What is Hillary’s history? In the most important job she has ever held — Secretary of State — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.

U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans.

Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country’s extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy.

In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies.

The famous “reset” in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks. This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises.

Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves. President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other Secretaries of State, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it.

In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama’s when they were both in the Senate.

Both of them opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it.

The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch as Secretary of State.

What the administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.

There are no offsetting foreign policy triumphs under Secretary of State Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks.

The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign policy disasters on her watch as Secretary of State, raises painful questions about this country.

A President of the United States — any president — has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization. If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could.

With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic.


Thomas Sowell

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/thomas-sowell/hillary-and-history/

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

Kurds find ISIS tunnel near Turkish border - AP



by AP

A tunnel linking Turkey to IS-held territory might offer some insight into the many ways in which Muslim radicals from around the world have slipped across the Turkish border to reach the fanatical group, whose territory straddles Syria and Iraq.


ISIS fighting Turkey Syria border.jpg
June 16, 2015 - FILE photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria, in Akcakale, southeastern Turkey. A flag of the Kurdish People's Protection Units, or YPG, flies over the town of Tal Abyad, Syria. Kurdish forces discovered a long tunnel dug by ISIS fighters near the Turkish border with Syria, a spokesman said Monday.

Kurdish forces have discovered a 440-yard long tunnel dug by Islamic State group militants near the Turkish border with Syria, a spokesman for the militia said Monday.

Kurdish People's Protection Units, or YPG, discovered the half-completed tunnel after they captured the border town of Tal Abyad last week, spokesman Redur Khalil said. He said it wasn't clear whether it was eventually meant to lead into Turkey as the tunnel splits into two different directions at one point.

A tunnel linking Turkey to IS-held territory might offer some insight into the many ways in which Muslim radicals from around the world have slipped across the Turkish border to reach the fanatical group, whose territory straddles Syria and Iraq.

The YPG captured Tal Abyad last week from IS, cutting off a vital supply line to the group's self-proclaimed capital, Raqqa.

The Kurdish advance prompted thousands of Syrians to flee the fighting and go across the border into Turkey, but hundreds began moving back into Syria after Turkey reopened a nearby border crossing Monday.

Local authorities in Sanliurfa Province confirmed Monday that the official border was now reopened and that Syrians were beginning to return. The Turkish news agency DHA put the number of returnees at 500.


AP

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/22/kurds-find-isis-tunnel-near-turkish-border/

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

Monday, June 22, 2015

The Palestinians' Real Strategy - Khaled Abu Toameh



by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • Marzouk's remarks refute claims by some in the Arab and Western media that Hamas is moving toward pragmatism and moderation, and that it is now willing, for the first time, to recognize Israel's right to exist. Many in the West often fail to understand Hamas's true position because they do not follow what Hamas says in Arabic -- to its own people. In Arabic, Hamas makes no secret of its call for the destruction of Israel.
  • The current strategy of the Palestinian Authority (PA) is to negotiate with the international community, and not with Israel, about achieving peace in the Middle East. The ultimate goal of the PA is to force Israel to its knees. For the PA, rallying the international community and Europe is about punishing and weakening Israel, not making peace with it.
  • Their strategy is no longer about a two-state solution so much as it is about inflicting pain and suffering on Israel. It is more about seeking revenge on Israel than living in a state next to it.
  • Hamas's terrorism also helps the PA's anti-Israel campaign in the international community. Each terrorist attack provides the PA with an opportunity to point out the "urgent" need to force Israel to submit to Palestinian demands as a way of "containing the radicals."
All signs indicate that the Palestinians are planning to step up their efforts to force Israel to comply with their demands. But as the Palestinians are not united, they are working on two fronts to achieve their goal.

One party, headed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), believes that, with the help of the international community, Israel will be forced to fully withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem, and accept the "right of return" for millions of refugees and their descendants to their former homes inside Israel.

The second party, represented by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and several other terror groups, continues to reject any form of compromise, and insists that the only solution lies in the elimination of Israel. Unlike the first party, this one believes that direct or indirect negotiations with the "Zionist enemy" are a waste of time and that terrorism is the only means for the Palestinians to achieve their goal.

The two Palestinian parties, the PA and Hamas, have been at war with each other since 2007, when Hamas seized full control over the Gaza Strip and forced the Palestinian Authority to flee to the West Bank.

But while the two rival parties are fighting each other, they are also working separately to overpower Israel.

On June 19, a Hamas-affiliated group claimed responsibility for the shooting attack that killed Danny Gonen, a 25-year-old man who was visiting the West Bank.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups rushed to "welcome" the killing of the young Israeli man who, by the way, was not a "settler," but a resident of the Israeli city of Lod, near Ben Gurion Airport.

In separate statements, these terror groups explained that the attack came in the context of Palestinian efforts to "preserve the resistance" against Israel in the West Bank. They said that such attacks were "legitimate means" to achieve Palestinian rights and aspirations.

These groups made it unavoidably clear that their real objective is not to "liberate" the West Bank, but to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. As one of them said, "We will continue to support any resistance action on the land of Palestine until it is liberated, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river, and cleansed from all Zionist usurpers."

Hours after the West Bank attack, a senior Hamas leader, Musa Abu Marzouk, repeated that his movement was seeking to replace Israel with an Islamist state: "Hamas wants a state not only in the Gaza Strip, but in all of Palestine; we won't give up our weapons and will continue to fight in order to liberate our land."

Marzouk's remarks refute claims by some Arab and Western media that Hamas has been moving toward pragmatism and moderation, and that it is now willing, for the first time, to recognize Israel's right to exist. Many in the West often fail to understand Hamas's true position because they do not follow what Hamas says in Arabic -- to its own people. In Arabic, Hamas makes no secret of its call for the destruction of Israel. To Hamas's credit, this message is often repeated in English and other languages.

While Hamas and its allies work toward destroying Israel through terrorism, the Palestinian Authority seems more determined than ever to step up its worldwide campaign to delegitimize and isolate Israel with the help of various international parties, such as the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Some senior Palestinian officials like to describe this campaign as a "diplomatic war" against Israel. They argue that this war has thus far proven to be much more "effective" than rockets and suicide bombings. "When we launch rockets at Israel, we don't get any sympathy," explained one official. "But everyone in the international community is now supporting our diplomatic efforts. That's why we believe that what Hamas is doing right now is harmful to Palestinian interests."

Shortly before the Israeli man was fatally shot in the West Bank, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, revealed his plan to rally the world against Israel so that it would be forced to submit to the Palestinian Authority's demands, above all a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

Erekat's plan calls for working very closely with EU countries and members of the UN Security Council, to increase pressure on Israel to comply with the Palestinian demands. It also calls for recruiting international support for recognition of a Palestinian state and paving the way for it to join various international organizations and conventions.

In his plan, Erekat warns against endorsing any UN Security Council resolution that would include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, or offer concessions on the "right of return" for refugees. He also repeats the Palestinian Authority's rejection of the idea of land swaps between the future Palestinian state and Israel. In addition, Erekat emphasizes his opposition to the idea of creating a demilitarized Palestinian state or giving up any part of Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority's current strategy is to negotiate with the international community, and not with Israel, about achieving peace in the Middle East. The PA knows that it is not going to get from Israel all that it is asking for. That is why the Palestinian leaders have chosen to negotiate with France, Britain, Sweden and the US. The Palestinians are hoping that these countries will give them what Israel cannot and is not prepared to offer at the negotiating table.

Even if Israel wanted to give one hundred percent of what it gained in 1967, the reality on he ground does not allow it. Since 1967, both Jews and Arabs have created irreversible "facts in the ground," such as the construction of tens of thousands of houses for both Arabs and Jews. A full withdrawal would mean that tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs would lose their homes both in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

The ultimate goal of the Palestinian Authority is, with the help of the international community, to force Israel to its knees. For the PA, rallying the international community and Europe is about punishing and weakening Israel, not making peace with it. The PA wants to see Israel degraded, isolated and turned into a rogue state. It wants to see Israelis brought before the International Criminal Court and expelled from as many international organizations as possible.

From talking to senior Palestinian Authority officials, one is left with the impression that their true goal is to see Israel in a state of surrender and defeat. Their strategy is no longer about a two-state solution so much as it is about inflicting pain and suffering on Israel. It is more about seeking revenge on Israel than living in a state next to it.

In many ways, the PA's "diplomatic war" on Israel also helps Hamas. By constantly accusing Israel of "war crimes" and "atrocities," the PA is helping Hamas justify its terror attacks against Israelis. The PA's anti-Israel campaign also helps in creating sympathy and understanding for Hamas's terror attacks.

Meanwhile, Hamas's terrorism also helps the Palestinian Authority's anti-Israel campaign in the international community. Each terrorist attack provides the PA with an opportunity to point out the "urgent" need to force Israel to submit to Palestinian demands as a way of "containing the radicals."

This is how Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, although remaining sworn enemies, complement each other's role against Israel.

And many in the international community seem to be helping these two Palestinian camps in their effort to undermine and destroy Israel.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (r) meets with the Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal in Qatar, July 20, 2014. (Image source: Handout from the PA President's Office/Thaer Ghanem)


Khaled Abu Toameh  -  Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6021/palestinians-strategy

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

The Gaza War 2014; The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted - Hirsch Goodman and Dore Gold, editors



by Hirsch Goodman and Dore Gold


Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced on November 6, 2014, that Israel had gone to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.” A team of senior U.S. officers was sent to learn from Israel’s tactics.

Executive Summary

    The Gaza War 2014: The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted is a researched and documented narrative that relates the truth as it happened. Israel was the target of thousands of rockets and mortar attacks against its civilian population, with some Israeli areas targeted that had three times the population density of Gaza. Israel clearly acted out of self-defense.

    Though the images of the moment may have reflected massive damage in Gaza, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced on November 6, 2014, that Israel had gone to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.” A team of senior U.S. officers was sent to learn from Israel’s tactics. An analysis of UN satellite photos taken during the war shows that 72 percent of all damaged areas in Gaza were “within two miles of the Israeli border.”

    While this was a war Israel did not want, it was a war that inadvertently preempted a terrorist massacre inside Israel’s heartland, principally through a network of sophisticated tunnels built deep under the border, and intended to stream hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated terrorists, many on suicide missions, in the quiet of night, to destinations where they could kill as many innocent people as possible and leave Israel mauled as never before. This was potentially Hamas’ terrorist version of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli forces in Sinai and the Golan Heights.

    Israel suffered 74 dead in the war. Had the Iron Dome system not intercepted 735 rockets fired from Gaza, the Israeli casualty count would have been incalculably higher. Had Hamas accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of July 15, as did Israel, Palestinian wartime fatalities would have numbered less than 200, as opposed to more than 2,100 who died by the time Hamas agreed to a final ceasefire on August 27. Thus, Hamas was fully responsible for more than 1,800 Palestinian deaths.

    Moreover, while UN and Palestinian sources claimed that 72 to 84 percent of Palestinians in Gaza killed during the war were civilians, there are strong reasons to argue that the percentage of civilian casualties was less than 50 percent, a low one-to-one combatant-to-civilian ratio that is unprecedented in modern-day warfare. In addition, we don’t know how many Palestinians in Gaza died as human shields or of natural causes during the 50 days of war, or how many were casualties of the 875 Palestinian rockets known to have landed inside Gaza.

    Yet many in the international community uncritically accepted the narrative about the war advanced by Hamas and its allies. A discerning look at the facts of what happened, however, would lead to the conclusion that it is Hamas, not Israel, which should be in the dock for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Preface

What follows is a researched and documented narrative of the 2014 Gaza war. While written from an Israeli perspective, this is not a document intended to negate criticism of Israel’s actions during the war or improve Israel’s image in the eyes of the world.
It has but one goal: to relate the truth as it happened; a truth obfuscated by the fog of war and lost in the immediacy of reportage from the battlefield; a truth perverted by those who had interest in doing so, and abused again by the one-sided mandate issued by the UN Human Rights Council on July 23, 2014, which calls for an investigation into events surrounding the war in the “Occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem and particularly the occupied Gaza Strip” – blind to the fact that Israel was the target of thousands of rockets and mortar attacks, all against civilian populations, and with some targeted Israeli areas having three times the population density of Gaza.
There is a school of thought that claims Israel wanted this war. The opposite is true. But, though this was a war Israel did not want, it was a war for which it had planned meticulously, thereby denying Hamas its main weapon: victimhood. Though the images of the moment may have reflected massive damage in Gaza, the truth is that America’s highest-ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced in November 2014 that he had sent a Pentagon study group to Israel to learn about the “extraordinary lengths” Israel had undertaken to “limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.”
And it was a war that inadvertently preempted a terrorist massacre against Israel’s heartland, principally through a network of sophisticated tunnels built deep under the border, and intended to stream hundreds of dedicated terrorists, many on suicide missions, in the quiet of night, to destinations where they could kill as many innocent people as possible, and leave Israel mauled as never before.
These are the essential truths of the 2014 Gaza war, truths backed by research, evidence, and accounts of events as they happened. The chapters of this study can leave no doubt as to which party should be in the dock for war crimes and crimes against humanity. More importantly, however, it rings a bell of warning that if Hamas is allowed to escape its crimes, the seeds of the next conflict will be planted.
Hirsh Goodman    Dore Gold
Jerusalem 2015

- See more at: http://jcpa.org/the-gaza-war-2014-preface/#sthash.UZtGqmmc.dpuf

Preface

What follows is a researched and documented narrative of the 2014 Gaza war. While written from an Israeli perspective, this is not a document intended to negate criticism of Israel’s actions during the war or improve Israel’s image in the eyes of the world.

It has but one goal: to relate the truth as it happened; a truth obfuscated by the fog of war and lost in the immediacy of reportage from the battlefield; a truth perverted by those who had interest in doing so, and abused again by the one-sided mandate issued by the UN Human Rights Council on July 23, 2014, which calls for an investigation into events surrounding the war in the “Occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem and particularly the occupied Gaza Strip” – blind to the fact that Israel was the target of thousands of rockets and mortar attacks, all against civilian populations, and with some targeted Israeli areas having three times the population density of Gaza.

There is a school of thought that claims Israel wanted this war. The opposite is true. But, though this was a war Israel did not want, it was a war for which it had planned meticulously, thereby denying Hamas its main weapon: victimhood. Though the images of the moment may have reflected massive damage in Gaza, the truth is that America’s highest-ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced in November 2014 that he had sent a Pentagon study group to Israel to learn about the “extraordinary lengths” Israel had undertaken to “limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.”

And it was a war that inadvertently preempted a terrorist massacre against Israel’s heartland, principally through a network of sophisticated tunnels built deep under the border, and intended to stream hundreds of dedicated terrorists, many on suicide missions, in the quiet of night, to destinations where they could kill as many innocent people as possible, and leave Israel mauled as never before.

These are the essential truths of the 2014 Gaza war, truths backed by research, evidence, and accounts of events as they happened. The chapters of this study can leave no doubt as to which party should be in the dock for war crimes and crimes against humanity. More importantly, however, it rings a bell of warning that if Hamas is allowed to escape its crimes, the seeds of the next conflict will be planted.


Hirsch Goodman and Dore Gold

Source: http://jcpa.org/the-gaza-war-2014/

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

The Clintons, US Intelligence, and the Great Uranium Follies - anonymous



by anonymous

Unfortunately, the story of Clinton holdovers in the intelligence and foreign services waging a campaign of opposition to a sitting president doesn’t end with Iraq’s WMDs.  The beltway sensed blood, and the influence peddling and deception would only get worse when Iranian nuclear ambitions entered the picture. 

Hillary Clinton handing over a sizable portion of US uranium production potential to Russia is not an isolated event, but rather is the logical convergence of decades-old Clinton era dealings with Russia and rogue states, for enrichment of the power elite. AT contributor Michael Curtis is correct when he says that the Uranium One deal has serious implications for our national security.  In fact, the revelation of Hillary’s independent intel network, coupled with Clinton era national security policy changes in the form of counter-proliferation (CP) regimes, have been far more strategically harmful than many Americans realize.  

Post-Cold War counter-proliferation

Counter-proliferation (CP) regimes were established with the best of intentions and satisfied requirements of their day.  After winning the Cold War and the subsequent dissolution of the USSR, the West was faced with a country where mob rule dominated the military.  A foreign buyer could buy modernized T-55 tanks for $500.00 a pop with an extra tank thrown in for free if you purchased an entire tank company.  Against this backdrop, the Former Soviet Union and the West were staring into the abyss, with nuclear weapons and materiel being sold to any number of bad actors, while unemployed Soviet scientists were seeking work with hostile dictatorships.  The West embarked on a much-needed program to secure Soviet warheads, track loose materiel, and under US State Department auspices, track and gainfully employ weapons scientists.

Despite achieving the near term goals of the program, a strange shift in US policy occurred during the Clinton administration.  It seemed as if we could no longer pass judgment on dictators and the nations they led, despite clear indications of their hostile intent – think “death to America” chants.  Yet, we needed some sort of enemy to latch onto to provide the rationale to maintain a minimum level of military force and to gainfully employ our intelligence agencies.  The answer: we started fighting things and weapons instead of the leaders and countries that threatened us.  This was akin to a mother seeing her kid and his playmates misbehaving, and rather than discipline the kids, she would take away the toys and hope they would learn a lesson (of course, after much weeping and wailing, the toys would be returned).  In another sense, this policy was a form of waging war by gun control writ large; gun control being a favorite domestic citizen control tactic of the Clinton administration.

The post-911 era only heightened the fears of terrorist groups acquiring what was now called weapons of mass destruction (WMD); a term that was quickly politicized to mean any number of conventional weapons as well as chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads simply to gain funding to jump on the CP bandwagon.  (In one case, the official government definition of WMD could be construed to cover hand grenades.)  In typical beltway fashion, Congress threw tons of money and people at the military and intelligence agencies to track down materiel and the people who would sell and buy the technology and weapons.  A great idea in theory, and of course, it was a huge boon to the intelligence agencies and the defense contractors which supported them.

Everything was falling into place for the Clinton holdovers and the beltway elites of the American left.  They had the ear of a post 911 fearful Congress and the valid concerns of the American people.  It seemed the taxpayer funded revenue stream and the nanny approach to countering WMD would never end.  After all, bad actors will always be with us, as are banned weapons and materiel.  The thing to remember is that the focus of CP programs and money was Russia.  It seems that the huge amounts of dollars were spent with never quite solving the problems of materiel and weapon accountability.  To this day, the US taxpayer foots the bill for questionable CP programs in Russia run by the Department of Energy, even while the country is under sanctions for its actions in Ukraine.

So, when GW Bush assumed office, the missing “W’s” from the computer keyboards would be the least of his worries.  He also inherited a leftist, hostile beltway bureaucracy that included some intelligence assets which would later come back to oppose the President’s decisions, even in a time of war, and CP protocols that were selectively applied to certain favored nations.  But initially, there was a big problem for the CP gravy train.  In 2003, President George Bush decided to act against a dictator who had never been held fully accountable for his WMD, and inadvertently (?) reveal Clinton administration connections to Saddam’s nuclear material.

Iraq’s WMDs

There were two separate, yet related, capabilities of Saddam’s WMDs.  One was accountability of chemical/biological weapons and the other was the residual nuclear material and equipment.  The chemical weapons must be addressed first since they clearly reveal a disloyal opposition in the very agencies which are supposed to inform our decision makers and reduce uncertainty for our warfighters.

It was an established fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons against his own people, and prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), he had also failed to account for his chemical weapons and biological seed stock despite repeated inspections by UNSCOM.  The accurate accounting of Iraq’s weapons, something that UNSCOM and the CP community were established to do, could not with any degree of certainty, prove or disprove the weapons’ presence even after several years of intelligence gathering and analysis.

In the end, the Bush administration decision to initiate OIF rendered moot the do-loop of conflicting intelligence assessments, soft UN inspection programs, and beltway hand wringing by use of some combat divisions and fighter wings.  What could be a more proactive counter-proliferation measure than that?  Yet, if you thought the intelligence community would have been on board with actually putting eyes on the ground to confirm or deny Saddam’s WMD capabilities, you would be wrong.

By withholding finds of chemical weapons to the public, the CIA reinforced the left’s “Bush lied, people died” meme.  Finally, after 11 years, the New York Times revealed that chemical weapons were there in Iraq.  This was not due to the Times or the CIA feeling guilty about a decade-long record of deceit.  It was because US soldiers had encountered chemical rounds, with some suffering wounds resulting in long-term disabilities.  Once news broke of their medical claims it would have been another hit against the MSM and the intel community.  In other words, the issue was belatedly forced on the NYT and the CIA.

While the media and the military covered up chemical weapons finds in Iraq, the CIA embarked on a program to purchase nerve agent rockets unaccounted for by Saddam and UN inspectors. The Times reported:
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success.
Note the use of the term “non-proliferation” versus “counter-proliferation.”  The CIA did in fact accomplish a non-proliferation mission, and were correct in saying so, because the one responsible for the actual counter-proliferation operation was George W. Bush.  The CIA may have had bragging rights in accounting for Saddam’s weapons, but the secretive nature of the finds was really about opposing a CinC in a time of war and protecting beltway turf.

But unlike Saddam’s chemical weapons, which were covered in a cloak of secrecy, his nuclear materials ultimately revealed a direct connection to two former Clinton administration officials.

Prior to OIF, and contrary to US media reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) never gave Saddam a “clean bill of health” concerning his supposedly dormant nuclear program.  The UN’s doubts were well justified, as there were not only 550 tons of yellowcake at the Tuwaitha nuclear research center, but tons of other radiological material, which if discovered in an unsecured state in Russia, would have generated another $100 million or so from Congress to immediately rectify the situation.

At this point, two people who were very familiar with the uranium business and connected to the Clinton administration enter the picture: Joe Wilson and Mary McCarthy.

If someone views uranium as a commodity to bought and sold rather than a proliferation concern, the CIA’s Valerie Plame could not have picked a better man to send to Niger than husband Joe Wilson.  His mission was to discredit President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought quantities of uranium from Africa (emphasis added).  Wilson was President Clinton’s Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic from 1992 to 1995.  Gabon was a producer of uranium, as were several other African countries, so he must have been deeply knowledgeable about uranium production and trade in all of Africa and about global customers for yellowcake.  Wilson’s position in Gabon raises questions about his official trip to Niger in hopes of countering Bush ‘43 and a British intelligence report about African uranium acquisition.  The British report, by the way, has yet to be proven false.

In a sense, Clinton holdovers were getting a twofer.  Wilson could fabricate a non-finding of Bush’s statement about Saddam wanting to acquire uranium from Africa, and he could also protect uranium trade interests from outside scrutiny.  After all, it is a highly profitable commodity traded under UN supervision and restrictions, a set of circumstances known to produce extraordinary opportunities for both profit and corruption, as in the UN’s Oil-for-Food program.  For example, current market price for one pound of uranium is about $38.00; therefore, Saddam’s 550 tons of yellowcake would today sell for nearly $42 million.

The other player from the Clinton era is former CIA officer Mary McCarthy, who was fired in 2006 for leaking a story about a secret network of CIA-run prisons in Europe.  Ms. McCarthy was appointed to the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs in 1998.  One aspect of her background that had gotten little attention at the time, was that her first job at the CIA was an Africa specialist, and before that she was employed by Beri, SA.  Possibly by coincidence, Beri provides business intelligence services including a Mineral Extraction and Risk Assessment for countries that are expected to show growth in oil, gas, and mineral extraction capacity.  If one had advance access to economic intelligence and had fostered close business ties over the years with uranium producers, huge financial gains would be possible.  Given the Clintons’ dealings with Uranium One, the Wilson-McCarthy-Africa connection may indicate the start of high level US intelligence and Foreign Service personnel taking advantage of the chaos of war and lax security of nuclear materiel for personal gain.

Ultimately, Iraq’s 550 tons of yellowcake was shipped out in 2008.  After five years of publicly scoffing at the yellowcake find and its use in making the fissile material, the MSM reported that the shipping operation was conducted in secret, and that,
It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
So, once again some agency gets a CP feather in its cap thanks to George Bush despite five years of the “Bush lied” mantra. The Iraqi uranium was sold to Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corporation for “tens of millions of dollars.”  In case you’re wondering, there appears to be no direct connection between Comeco and the Uranium One consortium related to the Clinton Foundation scandal.  However, Mr. Guerman Kornilov, Ph.D., a Non-executive Director at Uranium One held several senior management positions at Cameco in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, including the Director of Trading.  What influence he had on the Iraq uranium shipment or any connections to the Clintons are unknowns.

Unfortunately, the story of Clinton holdovers in the intelligence and foreign services waging a campaign of opposition to a sitting president doesn’t end with Iraq’s WMDs.  The beltway sensed blood, and the influence peddling and deception would only get worse when Iranian nuclear ambitions entered the picture.  And naturally, the obvious beneficiary would be Russia.

The Iranian Gambit

Without public acknowledgement of the CIA’s WMD finds in Iraq, the left and US intelligence agencies were emboldened and decided to go beyond informing decision makers, but also to prevent a gun shy Bush administration from taking action against Iran.  It was also puzzling and frustrating that the President’s advisors – chief among them Karl Rove – chose at first to emphasize the WMD rationale for going to war; and in a great disservice to the president and the American people, eventually adopted a “move on” attitude about WMD even while our soldiers were being wounded by direct encounters with chemical warheads.  The contrast between the 2005 and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimates is a good example of the beltway influence racket involving Iran’s nuclear program.

In 2005, a series of key negotiations were ongoing between Iran and what was then called the European-3 (France, Britain, and Germany), and with Russia.  The primary area of concern was that the E-3 and Russian agreement with Iran called for the spent fuel rods to be shipped out of Iran for reprocessing.  This is because any reactor burning uranium results in the spent fuel containing plutonium.  From there, it is a matter of chemical processing, not nuclear, to extract the plutonium.

From the EU's perspective, the deal put forth was probably the best that could be expected for the West.  The E-3 would recover and account for the spent fuel, while Russia would get billions of rubles for refurbishing the civil nuclear power plant at Bushehr.  There was also a significant economic benefit for certain members of the EU.  Nuclear fuel reprocessing for commercial reactor fuel ended in the US in the late 70s.  However, outside of Russia, there were only a limited number of reprocessing facilities.  These plants happened to be in Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK.

The Russians also offered to return the spent fuel to their facilities for reprocessing.  (This is not a new proposal by Putin, as part of Obama’s current deal with Iran as the media would have us believe.)  Not only that, in 2005 the Russians stated that the spent fuel rods would be kept in a cooling pond for ten years, far more than the industry standard of 150 days.  Ten years is plenty of time for the mullahs to deceive an IAEA inspection team, which has historically been unable or unwilling to conduct proper inspections and report violations with other budding nuclear powers.  The reason for this is simple: the IAEA cannot conduct inspections without the consent of the country in question.

So, Iran's rejection of the offer not only meant the loss of billions of Euros for potential reprocessing contracts for the E-3, it also left Russia as the only country in a position to provide the full range of nuclear fuel cycle services.  Of course, this was just fine with Iran.  In this way the fuel could remain in “the family” and Putin would not be out billions of rubles in contracts.  However, no fuel elements were shipped to Iran after the talks collapsed.

Then, two years later, a controversial assessment about Iran’s nuclear program was published.  The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 concluded that the mullahs had halted their nuclear program in 2003.  Amazingly, even the IAEA stated that it was “not that generous with Iran” in its own assessment of the situation.  For a full critique of the NIE see here.

Why was the IAEA suspicious?  It wasn’t only because of the supposed halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but also because Iran’s civil program was removed from the calculus to assess Iran’s technological capabilities for producing enough fissile material for a bomb.  The New York Times even omits this fact in its timeline covering Iran’s nuclear development.  This is all the more confounding since the CP community regards civil power reactors as the “gateway drug” for developing nuclear weapon technologies.  This glaring omission not only failed to address previous deceptions on the part of Russia and Rosatom (the State Corporation for Atomic Energy), it essentially gave a green light to Russia to ramp up its support to the Iranians and the Bushehr reactor.

The report came out in November of 2007, and over the next two months Russia delivered nearly 97 tons of uranium fuel elements manufactured at the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant for the Russian built VVER-1000 reactor at Bushehr.  The uranium had low enrichment levels ranging from 1.6 percent to 3.62 percent.  In my view, the 2007 NIE enabled another instance of Russian resource nationalism concerning highly controlled uranium fuel elements while rendering CP protocols meaningless.  This is especially frustrating given this concerned a country which had received huge amounts of US funding and services to prevent material from moving to terrorist supporting states.

The financial gains of course were significant to the suppliers.  TVEL manages the Novosibirsk plant under the direction of Rosatom, just as Rosatom oversees the mining operations of Uranium One, the company currently involved in the Clinton foundation scandal.  Of note, in October of 2014, the Senior Vice President at TVEL, Vasily Konstantinov, assumed the duties as President of Uranium One).  I am not stating or implying any direct connection with former Clinton administration staff as in the case of Iraq’s uranium.  This is to show that only a limited number of firms have the wherewithal to provide services and products for the entire nuclear fuel cycle.  Therefore, what benefits Rosatom and TVEL, will enrich all of its investors.

Ultimately, what was the practical effect of rushing the fuel elements to Iran?  Here is power plant’s track record:
  • December 2007 –January 2008 – Fuel shipped to Iran
  • September 2009 - , the first reactor was 96% complete; final testing would begin in the near future
  • August 2010 - Iran began loading the plant with fuel.
  • November 2010 - Iran declared that "All fuel assemblies have been loaded into the core of the reactor" and they were hoping that the facility "will hook up with the national grid in one or two months"
  • February 2011, Rosatom announced that one of the reactor’s four main cooling pumps had suffered damage; repairs required the removal of the fuel core; i.e., the reactor had to be defueled (emphasis added)
  • September 2011 - official inauguration; plant was at 40% capacity
  • February 2012 - reached 75 percent of its power generation capacity
  • August 2012 – reached 100 percent of its power generation capacity
  • September 2013 - the Bushehr plant began producing power on the power grid
So, it took two and a half years to finally load the fuel, and over five and one-half years went by after fuel was shipped before Bushehr was hooked up to the grid to provide a whopping two percent of Iran’s electrical needs.  (At two percent why do the mullahs insist this will enable them to export more oil?)  Maintenance problems have actually plagued the reactor from the get go, so why rush the uranium shipment?  It could have been because of contractual requirements, but taking advantage of the soft intel assessment of the 2007 NIE cannot be discounted.

In dealing with Iran, we have witnessed a level of technical and economic cooperation heretofore unseen between an extremist Islamic regime and, supposedly, a nominal ally in the War on Terror.  Russia was and is now the only willing nuclear supplier and technical advisor available to support the mullahs' plans to become a nuclear power.  Some of these Russian suppliers also have had dealings with the Clintons through their foundation and have acquired a significant chunk of global uranium mining and nuclear fuel production.

Counter-proliferation, once useful for dealing with Russian materials and technologies in the post-Cold War chaos, has been co-opted to aid select dictators and to enrich the power elite.  It has also been simultaneously reduced to meaningless rhetoric any global limitations on WMD without a military capability to back it up.  For example, Obama’s series of “redlines” established to stop Assad’s alleged use of chlorine gas has proved any tough talk to be a cruel joke.  There are no true redlines unless one has the will and the military means to make it effective, just as G.W. Bush did in Iraq in 2003.

In addition, there have been many indicators since the Iraq War started that the intelligence community and the beltway’s internal war against the Bush administration was much more than ideological.  For some it was not about the struggle for democracy and freedom to protect our national interest, it was about empire building for personal aggrandizement.  While there are many talented and patriotic people in the Intelligence Community, institutionally, the agencies have failed to cope with the supreme irony.  That is, the descendants of the defeated USSR have manipulated well-meaning US programs and with the assistance of the Clinton gang, have placed US and Western security in jeopardy.

Obama’s policies have not only mirrored Clinton soft power nonsense, but have carried it to a worldwide disastrous conclusion.  The administration has managed to convince Congress to continue down the path of ever increasing intel funding without a commensurate build up of conventional combat power to action the intelligence they produce, or to maintain a viable nuclear force to deter current or future hostile nuclear powers.

This is the real challenge for the next, hopefully, conservative President.  Getting our own house in order will take a Herculean effort, but without it, we’re doomed to continue our slide into corruption, irrelevance, and ultimately submission to our enemies.


Anonymous is a former member of the intelligence community who has had assignments in Europe and the Middle East.  He previously wrote about intelligence agency influence peddling in the Fast and Furious scandal. He currently lives overseas.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_clintons_us_intelligence_and_the_great_uranium_follies.html

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