Archive for August 2015

Islamic State building capacity for mass casualty attacks

August 10, 2015

Islamic State building capacity for mass casualty attacks

ByPamela Geller on August 9, 2015

Global jihad 2015

via Islamic State building capacity for mass casualty attacks | Pamela Geller.

Video added by me .

What, Obama worry? The “Junior Varsity” team is not Islamic, says our supreme leader.

The U.S. intelligence community warns that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, calling it a “a significant departure from the terror group’s current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks.” Nonsense. It’s merely in addition to. It’s a jihad, a holy war, on all fronts — individual Muslims, Muslim armies, et al: “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

When are we going to actually deal with the enemy and its ideology?

“ISIS seen building capacity for mass casualty attacks,” By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent, CNN, August 8, 2015

Washington (CNN)Some in the U.S. intelligence community warn that ISIS may be working to build the capability to carry out mass casualty attacks, a significant departure from the terror group’s current focus on encouraging lone wolf attacks, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Friday.

To date, the intelligence view has been that ISIS is focused on less ambitious attacks, involving one or a small group of attackers armed with simple weapons. In contrast, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has been viewed as both more focused on — and more capable of — mass casualty attacks, such as plots on commercial aviation. Now the intelligence community is divided.

Meanwhile, the U.S. effort to train rebels in Syria to fight ISIS is having trouble.

Having trouble?? The 50 that the US recruited at the mind-blowing cost of 500 million dollars have “disappeared.”

The few rebels that the U.S. has put through training are already in disarray, with defense officials telling CNN that up to half are missing, having deserted soon after training or having been captured after last week’s attack by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front attack on a rebel site.

Al Nusra claims attack on U.S.-trained rebels in Syria

One defense official admitted to CNN that “they are no longer a coherent military unit,” and Pentagon officials acknowledged the approach of how to support the rebels has to change.

The potential change within ISIS itself is driven — in part — by a broadening competition between ISIS and AQAP for attention and recruits.

More nonsense. It’s a power struggle, no doubt, but both groups are the same. They are waging jihad to impose Islam on the world. Their playbook is the Qur’an. Their example is Muhammad.

There were struggles between the SA and SS in Nazi Germany. It hardly stopped the Nazis.

That same competition was evident this week when AQAP bomb-maker Ibrahim al-Asiri made an online appeal to supporters to carry out lone wolf attacks.

“I think they’re taking a lot of the new recruits that don’t have time to train, who have not been brought up in their systems, and they’re using them to create the type of mass casualty which produces the media attention, which is exactly what they want, that shows they’re still powerful,” said CNN Military analysts Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. Meanwhile, ISIS is continuing to draw large numbers of new foreign recruits. U.S. intelligence assesses that the formidable flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq has not abated.

isis tank

Currently, the total number of ISIS fighters is between 20,000 and 30,000, similar to the levels when the air campaign began, despite thousands of ISIS fighters believed to have been killed in coalition air strikes.

This number is far too low.

Turkey, the prime transit point into Syria, is still struggling to stem the flow. However, the U.S. believes its agreement to allow U.S. air strikes from a Turkish air base and to help establish a safe zone indicate Istanbul is stepping up.

The administration is also claiming gains on the ground.

UK: Anjem Choudary Charged With Supporting Islamic State

August 9, 2015

UK: Anjem Choudary Charged With Supporting Islamic State, The Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, August 9, 2015

(With which of Choudary’s precepts do the Mad Mullahs of Iran disagree? — DM)

  • A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.
  • “Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim… if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire… so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.” — Anjem Choudary.
  • “Under the Shari’ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc.” — Anjem Choudary.
  • “We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!” — Anjem Choudary.
  • Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims… as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
  • Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison…” he warned, “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”

Anjem Choudary, one of the most outspoken and provocative Islamists in Britain today, has been remanded in custody, charged with the terrorism offense of encouraging people to join the Islamic State.

The charge is related to Choudary sending messages to his nearly 33,000 followers on Twitter, allegedly encouraging them to join the Islamic State — the radical Sunni Islamist group that has taken control over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and has threatened to attack targets in Europe and North America.

The effort to prosecute Choudary — well known for his relentless efforts to implement Islamic Sharia law in the UK — indicates that the British government intends to follow through on its recent pledge to crack down on radical Islam in the country.

It remains to be seen, however, if Choudary’s detention will serve as a deterrent to other Islamists in Britain. A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.

Choudary was originally arrested in September 2014 during police raids in London, as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism. He was subsequently released on bail while police continued their investigation.

On August 5, Choudary, 48, and an associate, Mohammed Rahman, 32, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and were charged with repeatedly violating Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 between June 2014 and March 2015.

Addressing the court, Sue Hemming, the head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“It is alleged that Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman invited support for ISIS [also known as the Islamic State] in individual lectures which were subsequently published online. We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman.”

When asked by the judge to indicate how he would plead, Choudary said: “Cameron and the police are guilty.” The judge replied that he took that to mean that he would be pleading not guilty. Choudary will remain in police custody until August 28, when he is set to appear at the Old Bailey, the Criminal Court of England and Wales. If convicted, Choudary faces up to ten years in prison.

Until now, Choudary, a lawyer by training, has managed to avoid prison by treading the fine legal line between the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic supremacism and the right to free speech. He has never been convicted of any offense.

Choudary is the former leader of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: “The Emigrants”). Al-Muhajiroun, which celebrated the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, was banned in January 2010.

Since then, al-Muhajiroun has repeatedly reinvented itself under an array of successor aliases. These include, among others: Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, Islamic Dawa Association, London School of Sharia, Muslims Against Crusades and Need4Khalifah, all of which have also been banned.

A study published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

A report published by the British anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”

Al-Muhajiroun is said to have also played a major role in radicalizing Michael Adebolajo, who was found guilty of murdering (and attempting to decapitate) the British soldier Lee Rigby outside London’s Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.

Choudary said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim, and also praised Adebolajo as a “martyr.” He said:

“Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.

“That’s what I believe so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims. We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don’t, then obviously if they die like that they’re going to the hellfires.”

720Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary (right) praised one of the murderers of British solider Lee Rigby (left) as a “martyr” and said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim.

Police say that Choudary’s rhetoric has become more incendiary since June 2014, when the Islamic State proclaimed itself to be an Islamic Caliphate, a theocracy ruled according to Sharia law. Since then, police say, Choudary has repeatedly crossed the legal threshold for criminal prosecution for encouraging terrorism, such as justifying the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley, and the British aid worker, Alan Henning.

Choudary believes that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is “the caliph of all Muslims” and that Shariah law will eventually “be in command even in America and in Britain and in China and in Russia and everywhere else.”

The expansion of the Caliphate, the global implementation of Sharia law and Islamic supremacism are common themes in Choudary’s Twitter universe, where — through a daily barrage of anti-Western tweets — he repeatedly admonishes his nearly 33,000 followers to avoid assimilating into British culture.

In one tweet, Choudary wrote:

“Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari’ah & Muslims will have authority over China Russia USA etc. This is the promise of Allah.”

He also tweeted:

“Under the Shari’ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc.”

In another tweet, Choudary wrote:

“A Muslim always prefers: Shari’ah over Democracy, Submission over Freedom, Khilafah over Secularism, Jihad over oppression, Allah over [Prime Minister David] Cameron!”

Again, he tweeted:

“Cameron needs to accept that Islam is the fastest growing religion/way of life in Britain today & that one day Shari’ah will be implemented!”

On July 14, Choudary tweeted:

“The Khalifah [Caliphate] must ensure that no non-Muslim criticizes Islam or tries to convert Muslims to their own false belief, only Islam is propagated.”

On July 10, he tweeted:

“When the Shari’ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we’ll ban Alcohol, Gambling, Fornication, Pornography, Usury, Democracy, Freedom, The UN etc.”

On July 6, Choudary wrote:

“The only time Muslims, Christians & Jews lived together peacefully with their honor protected in Europe was under the Shari’ah in Spain.”

After the July 2015 shootings of American servicemen by a Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Choudary tweeted:

“There’s a conflict in the world between those who believe Sovereignty belongs to Allah & those who believe it belongs to Obama! #Chattanooga.”

And again:

“The cycle of violence that we find ourselves in can be resolved. Muslims, Christians & Jews can live peacefully under Shari’ah! #Chattanooga.”

Choudary, who was born in the UK, has also explained how he feels about his British citizenship:

“We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!”

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 (€35,000; $38,000) a year in welfare benefits.

In February 2013, Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims. According to Sharia law, the jizya is a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In a video, Choudary said:

“We [Muslims] take the jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money.”

Meanwhile, Choudary’s Twitter followers have threatened violence unless he is released. In one tweet, a supporter used the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary with a picture of Big Ben and the flag of the Islamic State. Another tweet said: “The black days is coming to Britain if it doesnt [sic] release the Muslims.” Yet another said: “O Allah! Whoever has harmed them, then harm him, n whoever has shown enmity to them, then show enmity to them.” And another: “The shariah of Allah is the only solution for UK. #democracy is rotten.”

According to data compiled by an online analytics company, the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary was shared nearly 600 times in first the 24 hours after Choudary’s detention, potentially reaching 700,000 people. The data shows that most of Choudary’s supporters are living in the West: 69% of Choudary’s supporters are tweeting from Britain, Canada and the United States, and another 10% tweeting from Australia.

Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison,” he warned. “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”

Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war

August 9, 2015

Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war

Several developments that have happened in Iran since the signing of the Vienna Accord should be regarded as warning lights that the rosy scenario Obama is flogging is not the one that is actually going to happen. Even worse, he knows he is selling the American public snake oil in order to hide his real agenda, which is more about Israel than Iran.

Aug 09, 2015, 05:00PM | Yoni Ariel

via Israel News – Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war – JerusalemOnline.

Photo Credit: AP

US President Barack Obama justified his Iran policy by saying that he believes that the deal will ultimately strengthen the moderate camp in Iran that genuinely seeks to reintegrate into the international community and invest the county’s resources in development, not eternal religious war.

Unfortunately, several events that have taken place over the past week tend to point in the opposite direction, which is that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is increasingly siding with the hard liners seeking to sideline the moderate forces headed by President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Mohammad Zarif. Contrary to the administration’s expectations, crackdowns and arrests of political activists have increased since the signing of the accord. What makes this latest crackdown particularly significant and worrisome is that some of those who have been detained either have dual citizenship, or have been in exile and returned home, having received assurances they would not be harmed. Most of them are in Teheran’s notorious Evin prison. However, at least one of them is being held at an even worse place, the Kharizak detention center, which is a concentration camp for political prisoners, notorious for torture.

These arrests are a signal that Iran is confident that the West will continue to appease it irrespective of what it does. This does not augur well for the future of the Vienna Accord.

The arrest of Washington Post journalist Jason Razaian (who holds both US and Iranian citizenship) was both a test and a warning sign. Arresting a US citizen who is an accredited journalist for one of the world’s leading newspapers is not something the cautious and canny Iranians would do lightly. It was a test of American resolve, which Obama by not insisting on his immediate and unconditional release as a precondition for continuing negotiations, flunked.

Since there is no reason to assume that the Iranians will suddenly begin respecting Obama’s resolve and backbone, there is every reason to assume they will start cheating as soon as they can. They have an incentive to start cheating as soon as possible, since they can assume that whoever succeeds Obama in the Oval Office, he or she will be less appeasing towards them.

The tailwind the Ayatollahs have gotten ever since the signing of the accord with every country running to Teheran to negotiate lucrative deals and sell it the up to date armaments it lacks has no doubt given Khamenei confidence that Iran can cheat with impunity, at least for the remainder of Obama’s term. Once again, the world has proven Lenin right when he said, “the Western world will fight among themselves who will profit from selling us the rope from which we shall eventually hang them.”

This means we need to understand what Iran’s cheating options are. Earlier this week, Avner Golov, a researcher at the INSS, TAU’s (Tel Aviv University) highly respected Center for Strategic Studies, published a position paper dealing with Iran’s options for continuing its efforts to become a nuclear power and how it is likely to pursue them. He takes it for granted that Iran will cheat or try to since there are no credible deterrents left on the table.

According to Golov, Iran faces a choice between the shortest and fastest route to the bomb or the safest one. He believes that Iran will opt for the latter, what he calls the “creeping or crawling bomb strategy.” Having learned from the experience of countries that tried to take the shortest and fastest route such as Iraq and North Korea that this is a relatively high-risk path, the Iranians will choose a longer more risk averse route. This road is paved with creeping incremental violations of the accord until they reach a point where they can break out in a relatively short timeframe, reducing the amount of time they are at a higher risk of being caught.

This strategy involves clandestine nuclear activities in parallel with the declared activities, designed to shorten the distance from the nuclear brink. The aim is to covertly line up as many duck as possible without being caught. The moment the decision to shoot is given, everything is ready to go and the final breakout to the bomb will be as short and quick as possible, minimizing the risk of being caught with their hands in the cookie jar before actually having eaten one, which in this case means before they have a bomb with which to threaten Israel, the region and the world.

The holes in the agreement, especially the ones than enable Iran to remove soil from Parchin and other sites before IAEA inspections, make this kind of cheating relatively low risk. Obama in effect has told the kid with a proven propensity for cheating he can take the exam whenever he wants, even if there is no proctor in the room.

The Iranians can also be fairly confident that the sanctions snapback clause will prove to be unenforceable, given the current rush to Teheran to cut deals. They can also be fairly confident that the international community will gradually divert intelligence assets to other areas, especially if and when a new crisis emerges, putting Iran on a back burner.

According to Golov, the bad news doesn’t end here. The agreement loses much of its teeth with age. This opens a third option to Iran. For the first decade, it may decide to play by the rules, and then go for break and take the shortest path to the bomb.

Another major inadequacy of the Vienna Accord is the fact it does not cover the issue of Iran’s ICBM program. This means Iran is free to continue developing its ICBM program. A bomb without the means to deliver it makes a country more of a target than a nuclear power. By being able to openly continue its missile development program, it can have a delivery vehicle ready and waiting for a warhead when the order to assemble it is given.

Israel’s options

Obama accused Israel of being the only country against the agreement. He conveniently neglected to mention that Israel is the only country the Iranian regime repeatedly threatens to wipe off the map.

This agreement is as much about Israel as it is about Iran. Obama crossed the red line dividing legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies from anti-Semitic incitement when he said that only Israel opposed the accord and that if it ended up being torpedoed in the Senate, war would follow.

The subtext of what he said is very clear. When he says only Israel wants to sabotage the accord and that the only alternative to the accord is war, he is really questioning American Jews’ loyalty to the US, implying that they put Israel’s interests first and want to drag America into an Israeli war.

Hitler crudely fanned anti-Semitism by openly accused the Jews of instigating war. Obama, a far more intelligent and sophisticated character is slyly insinuating it, hoping the mere threat of a potential anti-Semitic backlash will frighten enough of the Jewish community into not throwing its weight behind efforts to block the accord.

Even if this tactic does not cause an increase in anti-Semitism in the US, it will facilitate the transforming of Israel from a bi-partisan issue into merely another controversial political issue, with Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other. Whatever the outcome, Israel and American Jewry will find themselves in a lose-lose situation.

The most important thing is what Obama neglected to say, namely that Israel is not only the only country to oppose the agreement; it the only country which has repeatedly been threatened by Iran with destruction. This being the case, Israel should despite the risks involved continue its efforts to derail the agreement in the Senate. It has a reasonable chance of mustering the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster and have the Senate reject the agreement. The chances of getting enough Democrats to cross the floor and override a presidential veto are slim. However, such a situation would give the next president the moral authority required for taking the highly unusual step of openly repudiating an agreement signed by his or her predecessor.

Full disclosure

I feel in light of what I’ve written and the harsh things I’ve said about President Obama that my audience deserves full disclosure of my overall political opinions, as I believe they are germane in determining what conclusions the readers will reach regarding this article.

I am on record as being totally opposed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on almost every issue. I have never voted for the man and never intend to. I believe his hard line pro-annexationist policies are a disaster for Israel. I think he was reckless and irresponsible when he decided to unprecedentedly interfere in US politics during the 2012 elections and again when he addressed the Congress during the recent Israeli election campaign. His actions have materially helped Obama erode Israel’s standing as a bi-partisan issue above politics. Even worse, he backed the wrong horse, even though it did not take a genius to figure out long before November 2012 that Romney was an unelectable candidate.

Nevertheless, I believe he is right regarding Iran. It is probably the only issue he is right on. I do not agree with how he has handled the situation and the tactics he resorted to, which backfired and ended up making a bad situation even worse as far as Israel is concerned. I do agree with him that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.
This is the reason I believe Obama is wrong. It is precisely because Iran poses such a threat to Israel that this agreement all but guarantees Israel will be left with no choice but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran before it can exploit its many holes and inadequacies to become a nuclear power.

Until now, I’ve tended to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and have regarded his many mistakes as the results of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the region and not of a personal animus he has with Israel, its leader or Jews. His recent statement has changed that. The subtext of what he said leaves no room for doubt.

 

The day after the deal

August 9, 2015

The day after the deal, Israel Hayom, Prof. Eyal Zisser, August 9, 2015

(Please see also, Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria.– DM)

[Soleimani] wanted Russia and Iran to agree on the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their clients in the region (among them, Assad) and check their joint enemies (the Islamic State). After figuring that out, they probably moved on to the next topic: how to marginalize America in the region. As a means to both ends, Russia will continue to serve as Assad’s protector (despite his many crimes), all the while providing Iran with international backing. But above all it will send arms to Iran, to the Syrian regime, and if needed, to Hezbollah.

***********************

Over the weekend it transpired that Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, had visited Moscow two weeks ago and met with President Vladimir Putin. The Quds Force, in case you forgot, is in charge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ clandestine operations (including terrorism). The Quds Force is responsible for providing aid to Hezbollah and Hamas as well as to Syrian President Bashar Assad and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. In light of his direct involvement in terrorism, the international community imposed sanctions on Soleimani, including travel restrictions.

Only last week, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry vowed that the U.S. will make sure the sanctions on Soleimani would stay in effect and that the Obama administration would counter Iran’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East. But no one takes Kerry seriously anymore. While Kerry continues to engage Iran’s unimportant Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the real wheeling and dealing is actually in Moscow.

Soleimani did not go to Moscow because he had tickets to the Bolshoi. Rather, he arrived because he wanted to discuss “the day after the nuclear deal” with Putin. Namely, he wanted Russia and Iran to agree on the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their clients in the region (among them, Assad) and check their joint enemies (the Islamic State). After figuring that out, they probably moved on to the next topic: how to marginalize America in the region. As a means to both ends, Russia will continue to serve as Assad’s protector (despite his many crimes), all the while providing Iran with international backing. But above all it will send arms to Iran, to the Syrian regime, and if needed, to Hezbollah.

The Russians, unlike the Iranians, don’t consider Israel to be an enemy state. But as a famous Russian official once said: “When you chop wood, chips fly.” Israel has become the latest chip — the collateral damage. Soleimani’s visit is just the tip of iceberg. It shed light on the not-so-secret deals that are being negotiated in the wake of the “Vienna nuclear agreement.” Europe, as usual, is focused on profit and its corporate executives are already traveling in droves to Tehran to ink deals. There are also political deals Iran wants to secure, which are as important for Tehran. Their price, however, will be measured in blood rather than in euros or dollars.

No one in the Middle East, it seems, is keen on parsing each and every provision in the nuclear deal. Nor is there an attempt to see whether, in the grand scheme of things, it is will have been a worthwhile endeavor some 10 or 15 years from now, when its key elements expire. In this region, what counts is the way this agreement is perceived here and now — and what really matters to people is the way it is portrayed in the media. Under that criteria, Iran is the victor and America is the vanquished, because it caved to Iran. The deal, according to how the media has portrayed it, is a crushing political blow to Israel and the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia.

This knockout victory will likely produce a new Iranian-American partnership. At the very least, the two nations will mend fences. This will alienate many of Washington’s clients, who will have to look elsewhere for a more reliable ally. Egypt and the Saudis have already realized this and turned to Russia for aid and arms, figuring it would be more trustworthy than the “staff of this broken reed” (Isaiah 36:6).

Saudi Arabia is reportedly sending feelers to see if there is a deal to be had with Russia and Iran. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Saudi Arabia would withhold aid to the Syrian rebels if Iran ends its rogue presence in the state. Such a deal would secure Assad a victory over the insurgents, or a least ensure his regime survives.

The ongoing developments have caused panic, but not over the rising clout of Iran and Russia. The White House, it seems, is fretting over the possibility that Congress may vote against the Iran deal and further tarnish Obama’s image.

Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria

August 9, 2015

Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria, DEBKAfile, August 9, 2015

Lavrov_Kerry_and_al-Jubeir-_Doha_3.8.15Lavrov, Kerry, Al-Jubeir at Doha

[N]either Israel nor Jordan has been co-opted to this big power initiative, as though they are not concerned. However, both have a big stake in Saudi Arabia’s next decisions. If Riyadh is won over by US-Russian blandishments and goes back on its decision to boycott Assad, the Saudi-Israeli-Jordanian effort to support Syrian rebel control of southern Syria will fall apart. This will open up both countries to new perils on their  northern borders.

************************

Building on the nuclear accord signed in Vienna last month, the Obama administration has been in close communion with Moscow and Tehran on regional moves to save the Assad regime, as the key to their next regional policies, including a united front against the Islamic State.. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners are being assiduously wooed to join the new alignment being set up for this purpose. The live wire in getting them all together is Omani Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohamed Al-Attiyah, the secret broker who brought Iran and the United States to the negotiating table for a nuclear accord. This was first reported in the last DEBKA Weekly.

Wednesday, Aug. 7, Obama threw out his first hint on this development: “The window has opened a crack for us to get a political resolution in Syria, partly because both Russia and Iran, I think, recognize that the trend lines are not good for Assad,” he said. “Neither of those patrons are particularly sentimental; they don’t seem concerned about the humanitarian disaster that’s been wrought by Assad and this conflict over the last several years, but they are concerned about the potential collapse of the Syrian state. And that means, I think, the prospect of more serious discussions than we’ve had in the past.”

The US president then affirmed more strongly in a CNN interview Sunday, Aug. 9:  “Is there the possibility that having begun conversations around this narrow issue [the nuclear accord with Iran] that you start getting some broader discussions about Syria, for example, and the ability of all the parties involved to try to arrive at a political transition that keeps the country intact and does not further fuel the growth of ISIL and other terrorist organizations? I think that’s possible,” Obama said. “But I don’t think it happens immediately.”

The administration and its prospective partners are united by the will to destroy ISIS – in its Syrian stronghold, for starters – but are divided on much else, DEBKA file reports. And so the process is moving forward in careful steps.

Their initial focus is on Syria, the bloody battleground which in less than five years has left at least 300,000 dead and more than 10 million people homeless.

The plan the group started out with in the last ten days was a swap as simple as it was ruthless: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would slow their assistance to Syrian rebel groups, against whom President Bashar Assad’s army and allies would hold their fire; Iran, for its part, was to start withdrawing its support from the Yemeni Houthis insurgents.

The informal truce in Syria would be the stage for the Assad regime and rebel groups to start discussing a new government with room for opposition parties. The Islamists of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front would not be invited.

In Yemen, Tehran would cut back on the arms and intelligence which have enabled the Houthi insurgents to stand up to the combined forces of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt. The pro-Western Yemeni President Abd Rabo Mansour Hadi would be restored to his palace in Sanaa and invite the insurgent leader, Abdu Malik Al-Houthi, to discuss his partnership in a new government.

This deal was tantamount to a joint US-Russian guarantee of Bashar Assad survival in power in return for a Tehran-Riyadh compact for Hadi’s reinstatement in Sanaa.

These arrangements were debated back and forth in exchanges, some semi-secret, among the leading actors for most of July. The visit to Riyadh of the Syrian intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Ali Mamlouk was set up by Moscow as a major push forward.

The plan was for the entire enterprise to be brought out in the open and sealed in Doha, Qatar, Tuesday, Aug. 3 at a conference attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir and other top Gulf diplomats.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was not there. But he put a strong oar into the proceedings by calling in at Muscat, Oman the day before the conference and subsequently on Friday Aug. 7. Assad also kept his hand in by sending his foreign minister Walid Moallem to Tehran and Muscat last week.

But then, at Doha, just as the package was ready to unveil, the Saudi foreign minister pulled away and blew it up with two provisions: a) Riyadh would not countenance Bashar Assad being allowed to stay in office, and: b) Saudi Arabia would not do business with any representative of the Assad regime.

This put a large spoke in the main wheel of the initiative and also scuttled some of the secondary plans depending on it.

But by then, a lot was happening in the Yemeni and Syrian war arenas:

1. Saudi and UAE armored forces had landed in Aden and were closing in on the Yemeni capital, Sanaa. The Houthi rebels, trained and armed by Iran, were forced to retreat without negotiations on their future role in government.

2. Syrian rebel leaders, sensing the approaching betrayal, sent a secret delegation to Tehran to discuss terms for opening negotiations with Assad. They too were left at sea about the deals in play among Washington, Moscow, Tehran and Riyadh over their future.

Saturday, Aug.8, the Russians, egged on by the Americans, set about winning Riyadh into the fold, Foreign Minister Al-Jubeir was invited to pay a visit to Moscow Tuesday, Aug. 11, for talks about the Syrian conflict and the war on the Islamic State.

Refusing to accept that the new initiative had been grounded in Doha, Moscow presented the visit as continuing the ongoing dialogue on the issues raised at that encounter.

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources note that neither Israel nor Jordan has been co-opted to this big power initiative, as though they are not concerned. However, both have a big stake in Saudi Arabia’s next decisions. If Riyadh is won over by US-Russian blandishments and goes back on its decision to boycott Assad, the Saudi-Israeli-Jordanian effort to support Syrian rebel control of southern Syria will fall apart. This will open up both countries to new perils on their  northern borders.

Mr. President, Iran is the enemy, not Israel

August 9, 2015

Israel Hayom | Mr. President, Iran is the enemy, not Israel.

For U.S. President Barack Obama, the nuclear deal with Iran has become a personal issue, and that’s a shame • What can he say now that his fellow Democrats are opposing the deal, are they also like the “hard-liners” in Iran?

Boaz Bismuth

No Trust, No Verification, No Sanctions: Obama’s Humiliating Capitulation to the Mullahs

August 8, 2015

No Trust, No Verification, No Sanctions: Obama’s Humiliating Capitulation to the Mullahs, National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy, August 8, 2015

(I have been beating this drum for quite a while. So have others. The Obama administration’s position still makes no sense whatever, unless unfortunate motives are attributed to the Commander in Chief. — DM)

The sanctions regime President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry vowed to step up has already collapsed. The mullahs are already scooping up billions in unfrozen assets and new commerce, and they haven’t even gotten the big payday yet. Obama’s promises of “anytime, anywhere” inspections have melted away as Tehran denies access and the president accepts their comical offer to provide their own nuclear-site samples for examination. Senator John Barasso (R., Wyo.), a medical doctor, drew the apt analogy: It’s like letting a suspect NFL player what he says is his own urine sample and then pronouncing him PED-free.#

And now even the Potemkin verification system has become an embarrassing sham, with Iran first refusing to allow physical investigations, then declining perusal of documentation describing past nuclear work, and now rejecting interviews of relevant witnesses.

Recall that administration officials indignantly assured skeptics that there would be no agreement in the absence of Iran’s Iran’s coming clean on the “past military dimensions” of its nuclear work. As Kerry put it, “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done.”

The reason it had to be done is obvious. According to Obama, his Iran deal is built on verification, not trust — at least when the president is not trusting Ayatollah Khamenei’s phantom anti-nuke fatwa. Plainly, it would be impossible to verify whether Iran was advancing toward the weaponization of nuclear energy — whether it had shortened the “breakout time” the elongation of which, Obama claims, is the principal objective of his deal — unless one knew how far the mullahs had advanced in the first place

But now, in open mockery of an American president they know is so desperate to close this deal he will never call their bluff, the mullahs have told the International Atomic Energy Agency to pound sand — although not sand in Iran, where the IAEA is not permitted to snoop around. Tehran is steadfastly refusing to open its books, and the IAEA sheepishly admits that it cannot answer basic questions about Iran’s programs and progress.

So what does Team Obama do? Do they, as they promised, walk away from an unverifiable and thus utterly indefensible deal that lends aid and comfort to our enemies? Of course not. Now they’re out there telling Americans, “We don’t need this IAEA program to discover whether or not Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon — they were,” as Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Obamabot, told the Wall Street Journal.

Well good for you, Sherlock; Obama, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton may still be hanging on that fatwa, but you hit the bull’s-eye.

Here’s the thing, though, Senator Murphy: Yes, all of us know the Iranians, as you cheerily put it, “were” pursuing a nuclear weapon — especially all of us who oppose Obama’s Iran deal and who recognize that the jihadist regime has waged war against us since 1979, killing thousands of Americans. But you “let’s make a deal” guys told us your objective was to uncover how far along they “were” and to roll back their progress. (Actually, you used to tell us your objective was to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, period — as in “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan, period.”)

If you don’t have a baseline from which to begin verification, you can’t verify the time of day, much less the progress of nuclear research, development, procurement, and experimentation. Iran is saying we don’t get the baseline without which the Obama administration guaranteed there would be no agreement.

So in the grand deal our president describes as subjecting the mullahs to historically rigorous inspection, disclosure, and verification requirements, there is no inspection, no disclosure, and no verification.

And did I mention no sanctions?

On July 29, Kerry assured lawmakers that Iranian Quds Force commander “Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions.” Soleimani orchestrates the regime’s terrorist operations and, according to the Pentagon, is responsible for killing at least 500 American soldiers in Iraq.

Yet, only five days before Kerry gave that testimony, Soleimani traveled to Russia for meetings with Putin’s government — notwithstanding the vaunted sanctions that, Kerry would have us believe, confine him to Iran.

Russia, of course, is a member of the U.N. Security Council, from which Obama sought and obtained endorsement of his Iran deal before seeking congressional review. Not only has Russia rendered the current sanctions a joke; it has made Obama’s implausible promise of future “snapback” sanctions against Iran even more laughable. Russia, by the way, has also agreed to build yet another nuclear reactor for the mullahs in Busheir — which Obama’s deal obligates the United States to protect against sabotage. And Putin has also just agreed to supply the terrorist regime in Tehran with $800 million worth of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles that can be used against the U.S. Air Force and have enough range to strike planes in northern Israel.

What a deal, Mr. President!

Actually, we really don’t know quite what a deal it is because key provisions remain secret. After its bold verification promises, the Obama administration was too embarrassed to reveal exactly how pathetic the agreement’s inspections provisions are. So, as I outlined in a recent column, Obama and Kerry tucked them into a secret side deal between Iran and the IAEA. It then twaddled that the details — i.e., the heart of the deal from the American perspective — are, conveniently, between Iran and the IAEA. None of our business, you see.

This message was reiterated on Capitol Hill this week by the IAEA. Understand: The IAEA could not function (to the limited extend it does function) without the United States Congress’s underwriting of 25 percent of its budget — the American taxpayer contribution dwarfs that of every other country, including Iran’s, which is tiny. Yet, the IAEA chief told lawmakers that he could not reveal the agreement between his agency and Tehran because that is “confidential” information, disclosure of which would compromise the IAEA’s “independence.” The only things the IAEA would confirm are that (a) there are verification provisions and (b) Iran is not cooperating with them.

Feel better?

Well, to further improve your mood, let’s talk the Corker bill. Remember, that’s the legislation by which the GOP-controlled Congress reversed the constitutional presumption against international agreements and virtually assured that Obama’s Iran deal — no matter how appalling it may be, no matter how much aid and comfort if provides to the enemy — will become law.

Why on earth would Beltway Republicans agree to anything so catastrophic for the national security that the Constitution’s Treaty Clause is designed to protect? Because, they proclaimed, by making this devil’s bargain, they would ensure that Congress and the American people got full disclosure of the Iran deal that Obama would otherwise shroud in secrecy.

But as I asked at the time, what possessed them to think Obama would not shroud the agreement in secrecy just because there would now be a law forbidding that?

Supporters are telling themselves that the Corker bill’s benefits [include that] the president will have to produce the agreement. . . . But this is a mirage. . . . The president is notoriously lawless, and thus Republicans can have no confidence that the agreement he produces to Congress will, in fact, be the final deal he signs off on with Iran and, significantly, submits to the U.N. Security Council for an endorsing resolution.

And so it has come to pass: Republicans forfeited their constitutional power for an unenforceable promise of transparency from an infamously duplicitous backroom dealer. Now they have no power and no idea what they’ve enabled.

The president had it backwards Wednesday when, in his repulsively demagogic speech on the Iran deal, he said that Republicans are aligned with the Iranian chanting ‘Death to America.’” It is Obama who is aiding and abetting the hardliners. Republicans have merely aided and abetted Obama.

Advocacy Group to Withold Millions in Donations From Schumer, Iran Deal Opponents

August 8, 2015

Advocacy Group to Withold Millions in Donations From Schumer, Iran Deal Opponents World Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News.

( “Know your enemy.” – Sun Tzu { 500 BC }  –  JW )

Thousands sign petition by MoveOn committing to withhold $8.3m potential donations from Democrats if they succeed in torpedoing the deal.

Advocacy Group to Withold Millions in Donations From Schumer, Iran Deal Opponents World Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

Haaretz Aug 08, 2015 7:12 PM

An American progressive advocacy group has committed to withholding millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats if their vote against the nuclear deal with Iran scuttles President Obama’s diplomatic effort in September.

Nearly 18,000 people signed a petition on MoveOn’s website, entitled “No money for war hawks,” committing to withhold $8.3 million they would have otherwise contributed to the party less than 24 hours after Schumer announced he will oppose the deal in Congress, the group told the Huffington Post on Friday.

MoveOn, which describes itself on its website as a “community of more than 8 million Americans from all walks of life who use innovative technology to lead, participate in, and win campaigns for progressive change,” has launched a campaign together with other supporters of the Iran deal aimed at urging constituents to pressure their elected officials to vote for the deal.

“We thought Schumer and the Democratic Party had learned this lesson a decade ago after the war of choice in Iraq. We want to demonstrate to those who haven’t made their decision yet that there will be substantial political consequences for those who want to take us to war,” Nick Berning, MoveOn’s communications director, told the Huffington Post.

According to a statement released by MoveOn, the group hopes to withhold $10 million in contributions within 72 hours of the launch of the “donor strike,” The Hill reported.

Schumer, a senior Democrat, announced in a statement on Thursday that he opposes the Iran deal, saying that to him, “the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.”

At the same time, Rep. Eliot Engel, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also announced he will oppose the deal. “The answers I’ve received simply don’t convince me that this deal will keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s hands, and may in fact strengthen Iran’s position as a destabilizing and destructive influence across the Middle East,” he said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing lawmakers to oppose the nuclear agreement, which he considers a threat to Israel’s survival. Some pro-Israel groups have also been spending millions of dollars on an advertising campaign to push members of Congress to vote no.

The U.S. Congress has until September 17 to vote on a resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal, which would eliminate Obama’s ability to waive all sanctions on Iran imposed by the U.S. Congress, a key component of the agreement.

Obama has promised a veto if it is passed by the House and Senate.

Republicans would need dozens of Democrats to vote against Obama to override a veto so, while Thursday’s announcements are a blow to the president, opponents of the deal still face an uphill battle to enact a resolution.

Several Democrats in both the House and Senate have already come out in favor of the nuclear deal. Schumer’s colleague from New York, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, announced her support on Thursday.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.670204

Cartoon of the day

August 8, 2015

H/t The Heritage Foundation

 

Obama's watch

Iran confirms trip by Quds Force Commander to Moscow to discuss arms shipments

August 8, 2015

Iran confirms trip by Quds Force Commander to Moscow to discuss arms shipments, Fox News, , August 8, 2015

Iranian officials confirmed Friday that General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month and was conducting weapons deals, including discussion of the S-300 missile system, according to Reuters.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said Friday the U.S. is very concerned about the development.

“Qassem Soleimani is subject to a UN travel ban and this travel ban requires all states to prohibit Qassem Soleimani from traveling to their nation and the only exception to that is if the Iran sanctions committee grants an exemption,” she said at UN headquarters in New York.

The White House did not specifically blame the Russians for hosting the Iranian general.

“I can’t confirm these specific reports but it is an indication of our ongoing concerns with Iran and their behavior,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday at the daily press briefing.

Mike Rogers, former chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, weighed in late Friday afternoon.

 “We should not underestimate what this means to our national security,” he said. “A leading general in Iran just told the world that the United States of America is irrelevant and Russia welcomed him with open arms. Not only do Russia and Iran not fear us, they do not respect us. And that, is dangerous.”

According to two separate Western intelligence sources, Soleimani arrived in Moscow on Iran Air flight 5130 from Tehran on July 24, ten days after the nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers was announced that included a provision to lift the arms embargo on Iran.

Five days later, Secretary of State John Kerry testified about the Iran nuclear deal before the Senate Armed Services Committee, assuring Congress pressure would remain on Iran’s shadowy general.

“Under the United States’ initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions,” Kerry told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In Moscow, Soleimani met with President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s defense minister.

In June, Russia announced it would send S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran by next year, according to a top Kremlin official.

Soleimani was photographed in Iraq recently on the front lines with Iranian-backed Shia militias battling ISIS, also in defiance of the travel ban.

Soleimani is blamed for the deaths of 500 Americans in Iraq. He also is suspected of orchestrating the failed assassination attempt on the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States at a popular Georgetown restaurant in Washington.

Soleimani’s Moscow visit elicited a reference during the Republican debate Thursday night.

“He’s directly responsible for the murder of over 500 American servicemen in Iraq and part of this Iranian deal was lifting international sanctions on Gen. Soleimani — the day Gen. Soleimani flew back from Moscow to Iran was the day we believe Russia used cyber warfare against the joint chiefs,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Iran’s acknowledgement of Soleimani’s visit to Moscow indicates a possible split in Iran’s leadership: those loyal to the military are unconcerned about blazingly defying sanctions even before the nuclear deal is sealed.