Archive for June 7, 2017

Israel Steps Up Fight Against ISIS, as Terror Group Wages ‘War’ for Control of Egyptian Border

June 7, 2017

Israel Steps Up Fight Against ISIS, as Terror Group Wages ‘War’ for Control of Egyptian Border, Washington Free Beacon, , June 7, 2017

A picture taken on April 16, 2017 shows a general view of the Monastery of St. Catherine in Egypt’s south Sinai, where a policeman was killed and three others wounded on April 18, 2017 when gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint near the monastery, the interior ministry said, in an attack claimed by Islamic State jihadists. Security forces returned fire, wounding some of the attackers and “forcing them to flee”, it said. / AFP PHOTO / Pedro Costa Gomes (Photo credit should read PEDRO COSTA GOMES/AFP/Getty Images)

Israeli military officials are conducting scores of intelligence gathering operations along the border in conjunction with Egyptian officials, the source said.

“We have a very good working relationship with the Egyptian army, both in the intelligence and with actual” military officials, the IDF officer said. “We definitely work in tandem with the Egyptian military,” which has requested Israel’s help in gathering intelligence on ISIS and keeping tabs on its activity in Sinai.

Israel also has offered Egypt various military technologies to help combat the threat.

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

Israeli military forces are quietly conducting operations to counter the threat of Islamic State terrorists along the Sinai border area with Egypt, according to senior Israeli defense officials who described ISIS as the “most quickly advanced threat we’ve ever had.”

ISIS terrorists have been locked in what Israeli military officials described as an “ongoing war” along Sinai Peninsula, as they attempt to wrench control of the key territory along Israel’s southern border from Egyptian hands.

The daily battle, which has received little coverage in the Western media, has become a chief concern for Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) personnel operating along the Jewish state’s southern border, eclipsing even Hamas terrorists in the region.

Officials estimate that there are anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 “active members of ISIS” operating in the Sinai region, a sizable force in an area that is largely lawless and has been seen as a primary terrorism tension point for some time. ISIS orchestrates terror attacks nearly every day of the week along the border, Israeli military officials disclosed.

With the rise of ISIS—an extremely well-funded and inter-connected network of some of the globe’s most vicious Islamic terrorists—the threat along the Sinai has significantly increased, becoming a primary focus for the IDF, which has been conducting intelligence gathering and military operations in a bid to prevent ISIS terrorists from crossing the Israeli border.

“ISIS is the most quickly advancing threat we’ve ever had,” one IDF officer working in the region told the Washington Free Beacon. “The rate with which they advance in resources and both capabilities and civil military training far outweighs and outpaces” the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

“There is what can be considered an ongoing almost war in the Sinai Peninsula now,” said the officer, who was not authorized to speak on record when discussing Israeli operations to counter ISIS.

“Not a day goes by where there is not an attack against the Egyptian army or Egyptian civilians by the faction of ISIS that is in the Sinai Peninsula,” the official disclosed.

ISIS conducts anywhere from five to seven terror attacks per week in the region, including sniper attacks, road side mine attacks on Egyptian military convoys, and improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, the official said.

ISIS terrorists in Sinai also are in possession of advanced military technology, such as anti-tank missiles, mortars, and long-range rockets, according to Israeli assessments.

“We’re talking about 10 casualties a week” as a result of ISIS, according to the Israeli military official.

One senior Trump administration official praised Israel’s efforts to combat ISIS, telling the Free Beacon that the president is encouraged by the Jewish state’s renewed efforts to work with Egypt and other Arab nations that often have had chilly relations with Israel.

“Of course it benefits the United States when our close partners and allies like Israel increase their capacity to defeat ISIS—but Israel’s long experience combatting terrorism is also one of the things that is bringing Israel closer to our Arab friends in the region,” the administration official, speaking on background, told the Free Beacon. “That was one of the key messages from President Trump’s recent trip.”

Despite the amount of violence in the contested border region, the Western media has largely ignored the battle.

The threat of ISIS has fostered increased cooperation between Israeli and Egyptian military officials.

Israeli military officials are conducting scores of intelligence gathering operations along the border in conjunction with Egyptian officials, the source said.

“We have a very good working relationship with the Egyptian army, both in the intelligence and with actual” military officials, the IDF officer said. “We definitely work in tandem with the Egyptian military,” which has requested Israel’s help in gathering intelligence on ISIS and keeping tabs on its activity in Sinai.

Israel also has offered Egypt various military technologies to help combat the threat.

“There have been times we’re we’ve been called on to aid in various missions,” the officer said.

ISIS is a particularly nefarious terror force that wholly embraces violence, making it more dangerous than even Hamas and Hezbollah, which tend to be more calculated in how and when they sponsor terrorism.

“Both Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon have outgrown being regular terrorist organizations and are almost governments,” the military official explained. “ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula has not reached that level yet so they have a lot less to lose and lot more to gain by carrying out bolder and stronger terrorist attacks. They most definitely have more of an edge.”

ISIS’s ability to galvanize support over the internet on social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube has made it a particularly virulent threat.

ISIS operatives routinely conduct intelligence-gathering operations using Facebook and other social media sites. Terrorist operatives are known to pose as Israeli and attempt to strike up online relationships with military personnel and other officials.

ISIS also is locked in a battle with Egyptian smugglers who have long operated a drug trade along the Sinai border. The terror group is attempting to wrest control of the trade from the smugglers who deal in drugs.

The money helps to fund ISIS’s operations, but could also arm them with highly coveted smuggling routes that would enable the group to funnel arms and even terrorist forces into Israeli territory.

“This is one of the major issues and struggles going on right now,” according to the Israeli military official. “That’s the major fear of the Israeli military down south, this skirmish going on between ISIS and the Bedouin smugglers. When it comes to a head we’ll suddenly start seeing a lot less hashish and heroin, and a lot more guns and even road side bombs right on the border.”

UN Secretary-General Launches Slanderous Attack on Israel

June 7, 2017

UN Secretary-General Launches Slanderous Attack on Israel, PJ MediaP. David Hornik, June 7, 2017

(If Mr. Guterres gets kicked out as the UN Secretary General, which won’t happen, a job may well await him at the Washington Post. Please see also
Washington Post Peddles Palestinian Propaganda, Part Two. — DM)

06/01/2017 Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a meeting with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of 2017 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Evgeny Biyatov/Sputnik via AP

“This occupation,” Guterres writes:

… has imposed a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people. Among them are generation after generation of Palestinians who have been compelled to grow up and live in ever more crowded refugee camps, many in abject poverty, and with little or no prospect of a better life for their children.

Further, he writes:

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remove a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and open the doors to cooperation, security, prosperity and human rights for all.

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

At this time 50 years ago, Israel was fighting the Six Day War and conquering territories. Since then it has returned the Sinai to Egypt, withdrawn from Gaza, retained control of the Golan Heights, and created a self-governing Palestinian entity in part of the West Bank while retaining overall security control there.

This 50-year anniversary has seen a flood of statements lauding or lamenting the Six Day War and its outcomes for Israel. Statements of the former kind emphasize that the war gave Israel defensible borders, a close alliance with the United States (by showing that Israel was a regional power), and, eventually, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Among the best in this vein were op-eds by Michael Oren and Bret Stephens.

Statements of the latter kind bemoan Israel’s “occupation” of the Palestinians and describe it as a disaster that has to end — fast. And UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres offers some of the most egregious remarks in this vein.

“This occupation,” Guterres writes:

… has imposed a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people. Among them are generation after generation of Palestinians who have been compelled to grow up and live in ever more crowded refugee camps, many in abject poverty, and with little or no prospect of a better life for their children.

Further, he writes:

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remove a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and open the doors to cooperation, security, prosperity and human rights for all.

Let’s start with Guterres’ first claim about the alleged misery of Palestinian life since Israel took over the territory.

A few days before Guterres posted his statement, popular Israeli columnist Ben-Dror Yemini published a piece called “The truth about the occupation.” Yemini is not a right-winger; he wants Israel to eventually withdraw from most of the West Bank and separate from the Palestinians. But he also wants the discourse to be based on truth and not propaganda.

Yemini looks at some key elements of Palestinian life and compares the situations before and after the “Israeli occupation” (I use the scare quotes because Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and — except for anti-terror operations — Area A of the West Bank):

Education: Before the Six Day War in 1967, there was not a single university in the West Bank (under Jordanian rule) and Gaza (under Egyptian rule). “Today, there are more than 50 higher education institutions in the territories.”

Infant mortality: According to a Palestinian study and World Bank figures, the rate has gone from 152-162 per 1,000 live births in 1967 to: 132 in 1974, 53-56 in 1985, less than 30 in 1993, 25 in 2002, and 18 at present.

Yemini notes:

“The sharp drop, from 1976 to 1993, took place under direct Israeli rule. The drop continued under the Palestinian Authority, but at a more moderate pace.”

” … [The] infant mortality rate among the Palestinians is much lower than the global average of 31.7, and is significantly lower than the average in the Arab world — 28.”

Life expectancy: “[F]rom 48.6 in 1967 to about 73 (or 75, according to different sources) today.”

Writes Yemini:

“I can touch on more and more areas in which an objective examination will reveal an amazing improvement in the past 50 years. For example, in the area of water. In 1967, only four of 708 Palestinian towns and villages were connected to running water. Today, 643 communities are connected to running water (97% of the population).”

From the UN secretary-general’s description — “a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people … with little or no prospect of a better life for their children” — one would think Israel is mercilessly grinding the Palestinians down. The truth is very different.

Guterres’ description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — “a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East” whose resolution would “open the door” to some sort of utopia — is even more shockingly at variance with the truth.

Before the “Arab Spring” erupted in 2011, such claims about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the cause of Middle East strife were par for the course.

Since then, the region has seen six years of apparently endless warfare — among Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, and Kurds, among Islamists and non-Islamists, and among armies, militias, and terror organizations of every conceivable stripe — from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Egypt to Libya, accompanied by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

To say that all these disparate groups are bombing, shooting, besieging, and even gassing each other because of the Israelis and the Palestinians is to make a mockery of reality.

None of Yemini’s work implies that most Palestinians favor the current situation on the West Bank. They’ve been taught from the cradle that Jews are demons, that Tel Aviv and Haifa are “settlements,” and that the only just fate for the Israeli endeavor is to be annihilated.

Yet Westerners, including the UN secretary-general, are not required to adopt the viewpoint of a brainwashed Middle Eastern people.

The Palestinians not only hate Jews but — in classic Middle Eastern style — are riven by violent internal animosities between the Islamists of Hamas and the nationalists of Fatah, and between different Fatah factions.

Awareness of facts, as opposed to anti-Israeli canards, suggests that Israeli security control of the West Bank is — for now — better than the alternatives, and is in fact preventing another Middle Eastern hellhole from erupting.

The Identity Crisis Fueling European Muslim Radicalization

June 7, 2017

The Identity Crisis Fueling European Muslim Radicalization, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abigail R. Esman, June 7, 2017

When tanks entered the streets of Istanbul and Ankara last summer in an attempt to overthrow the Turkish government, people swarmed the streets to fight them off. At the urging of their president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, they pushed back against the coup, some waving Turkish flags, others waving guns. “What else would you do?” A friend in Istanbul asked me some months later. “When your government and your country are attacked, you fight back. It’s to be expected.”

Less expected, however, were the crowds of Turkish-Europeans who also took to the streets in cities like Rotterdam, where dozens demonstrated on the city’s Erasmus Bridge, waving Turkish flags and, in some cases, crying out “Allahu Akbar.” For many non-Turkish Europeans, the action felt almost threatening: Were these people Turkish or European? Could they reasonably be both? Or did they represent a fifth column, aiming to overtake Europe from within?

In Holland, members of Leefbaar Rotterdam (Livable Rotterdam), the populist political party founded by the late Pim Fortuyn, determined to address the issue head-on. They held a public panel discussion last week to debate the question of who these demonstrators were: traitors? Dual citizens with torn allegiances? Could they be true to both their Turkish heritage and to the Dutch culture in which they were born and raised?

Left unspoken were the more pressing questions, the ones the non-Turks really meant: do Dutch Turks identify more with the Islamist policies and values of Erdogan and his regime, or with the secular Enlightenment, the democratic culture of the West? What, after all, to think of the fact that the vast majority of European Turks voted for Erdogan in the November 2015 elections, and again voted against democracy in Turkey’s April 16 referendum, which gave him virtually limitless powers until 2029?

While this particular debate took place in Rotterdam, once the home of the Renaissance humanist Erasmus, these questions have hovered over all of Europe since the 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid and, even more, the 2005 attacks in London – and not only about the Turks, but about Muslim immigrants in general.

With Europe facing a near-continual onslaught of Islamist terrorist attacks often perpetrated by homegrown extremists, those questions feel more urgent than ever.

But both the issue and its urgency are far more complex than a matter of allegiance. For many second- and third-generation immigrant youth, especially those from Turkey and Morocco, it is also a matter of identity. As dark-skinned immigrants with names like Fatima and Mohammed, they are often discriminated against in their home countries. The values of their families and their religious leaders do not always mesh with the values of their communities and governments. But when they visit their cousins and grandparents in Anatolia and rural Morocco, they find they don’t fit in there, either.

Many counterterrorism experts maintain that this situation makes Muslim European youth especially vulnerable to radicalization and recruitment by terror groups. As Belgian-Palestinian jihad expert Montasser AIDe’emeh has noted of Belgian Moroccan extremists such as the Paris and Brussels attackers, “The Islamic State is giving them what the Belgian government can’t give them – identity, structure. They don’t feel Moroccan or Belgian. They don’t feel part of either society.” And speaking to PBS’s Judy Woodruff, Peter Neumann, director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, observed that “the cause [of radicalization] is ultimately a conflict of identity. It is about second- or third-generation descendants of Muslim immigrants no longer feeling at home in their parents’ or grandparents’ culture, at the same time not being accepted into European societies.”

If this is true, then what to make of the Turkish-European dual citizens choosing, as most have, to support Erdogan’s Islamist policies while living in the liberal West? Are they integrated, assimilated, into the cultures in which they live, as most insisted during the Rotterdam debate? Or are they rather true to the norms of a Turkey that is becoming increasingly religious, turning increasingly eastward, and to a president who is gradually unraveling the secular Western vision of the republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk?

At the same time, does waving the Turkish flag when the country is attacked mean they are not actually Dutch? Should Dutch Jews not fly the flag of Israel, or Dutch-Americans have left their stars and stripes at home after 9/11?

“It’s more than just flags,” Ebru Umar, a Dutch-Turkish journalist who moderated last week’s event, explained in an e-mail. “The flags symbolize who they are…. They claim to be soldiers of Erdogan.” Hence, she said, “the people [demonstrating] on the [Erasmus] bridge were and are seen as not integrated. Ask them and they’ll answer they are integrated. And [yet] they tell you of course they adore Erdogan.” Indeed, she noted, they even stated it at the debate: “‘You can’t ask a child whom they love more: mum or dad.'”

It is a false equivalency, however. This is not about loving one parent more than another, but about accepting one of two opposing sets of values: those of secular democracies, or those of Islamist theocracies. There is no combining the two. There is no compromise.

Which is what makes these questions so very critical right now – not just for the Dutch, but for all Europeans, as they confront a complex, existential dilemma. Should they continue to alienate the growing population of young Muslims, and should those same young Muslims continue to resist assimilation, they will together be laying out the welcome mat for recruiters for jihad. But should Europe instead accept the Islamist leanings of those same Muslim youth, it will soon discover there was a fifth column after all – a movement to Islamize the West. And it will have succeeded.

Washington Post Peddles Palestinian Propaganda, Part Two

June 7, 2017

Washington Post Peddles Palestinian Propaganda, Part Two, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, June 7, 2017

He then moans that “some [centrists] even admire the settlers — for their can-do spirit and their ability to withstand attacks by Palestinian militants.” Admiring pioneers who withstand attacks by Israel’s sworn enemies? We can’t have that. What kind of Jews are we dealing with here, anyway?

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

Last week, the Washington Post dedicated an entire section of the paper to airing Palestinian grievances and talking points. The section was called “Occupied: Year 50.”

This week, the Post was back with more, turning the first five pages of its Sunday “Outlook” over to Dan Ephron so he could whine about Israeli settlements. I don’t recall anyone ever getting five pages in “Outlook” to write, or in this case rant, about anything.

Ephron’s piece is akin to last week’s rant by William Booth and Sufian Taha. Those two went on and on about the difficulties Palestinians face when traveling from the West Bank to Jerusalem, but never mentioned the reason why checkpoints exist — to protect Israel from the chronic acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians.

This week, Ephron goes on and on about how West Bank settlements have been “normalized” in the thinking of Israelis during the past 50 years, with scarcely a mention of the main reason why. In his telling, the expansion and “normalization” of settlements stems from the ability of settlers to influence public opinion and “bend[] the will of Israeli institutions.” But they could never have done so if the Palestinians had displayed a serious desire to trade land for peace. (Ephron doesn’t mention Palestinian intransigence until the last page and the 51st paragraph of his tome, and then does so only in passing).

Abba Eban, the Israeli diplomat who hoped — as many of us did — to see a trade of land for peace, perfectly captured the reason why the trade never occurred. After years of trying to make this deal, he said that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Ephron professes surprise that, after 50 years, the opportunity may well irrevocably have been missed. As he traveled around the West Bank, Ephron was shocked that life in the settlements seems normal. Why, the town of Ariel has a thriving university, a soccer team that competes with clubs from “inside Israel,” a shopping mall, and (soon) a state-of-the-art hospital. And in Kiryat Arba, Israel’s national theater company staged a play.

It’s as if Ephron expected Israelis to demand that their settlers to leave no footprint — to live in tents and herd sheep for 50 years — while waiting for the Palestinians to give up their designs on conquering Israel.

In real life, time waits for no one — and certainly not for a people bent on destroying their neighbors.

Ephron also expresses amazement that most Israelis have no reverence for, or even clear concept of, the Green Line — the border Israelis abided by until the Arabs tried to conquer them in 1967. But why should they? The border was ridiculous — at its narrowest point from the Mediterranean coast to the demarcation line, Israel is only about nine miles wide — and it has not corresponded to reality on the ground for 50 years.

Here’s what would genuinely be shocking: for anyone to regard conditions that prevailed 50 years ago to be normal today.

Think of the territorial transformation of the United States between, say, 1800 and 1850. Expecting Israelis to remain confined within the Green Line is like expecting early Americans to remain in the 13 states, but with these differences: (1) none of the 13 original states was nine miles wide and (2) by the time of the American Founding, American Indians, to my knowledge, weren’t bent on driving the former colonists into the sea.

Many passages in Ephron’s article suggest that he is either clueless or, more likely, the captive of anti-Israel ideology. He complains that the settlements “with their swimming pools and other amenities are off limits” to Palestinians.

What is it about the self-preservation instinct that Ephron does not understand? And why, if he expects the settlements to be integrated, does he write at length about the need to forcibly relocate settlers — a minimum of 150,000 of them, he says — under any “peace” plan. In his view, large portions of the West Bank must be judenrein (free of Jews), but until then, Jews should swim with people who insist that they be relocated, and who might want to kill them.

Ephron seems concerned that many Israeli “centrists” have bought into the settlers’ “talking point” that the settlements bolster Israel’s security. However, he offers no evidence or argument that this view is incorrect.

He then moans that “some [centrists] even admire the settlers — for their can-do spirit and their ability to withstand attacks by Palestinian militants.” Admiring pioneers who withstand attacks by Israel’s sworn enemies? We can’t have that. What kind of Jews are we dealing with here, anyway?

I’ll conclude my rant on a personal note. I know a young Israeli woman who is not a centrist, but rather a leftist. She fell in love with a young man from a settler family. His family farms outside of the Green Line.

The young woman is among the Israelis who take the Green Line seriously. She has always been anti-settler. Her potential husband’s desire to live and work on the farm was a serious problem for her.

In the end, though, love prevailed. She currently resides on the West Bank. She is what Ephron would call a settler.

What was this woman supposed to do? Was she supposed to reject the love of her life and his family on the theory that they are obstacles to peace? Was she supposed to put off marriage and wait for the Palestinians to give up their aggressive designs and enter into a peace agreement that has been a chimera for 50 years?

The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Fortunately, the young woman, like so many other Israelis, did not miss hers.

Pro-Sharia feminist’s views defy reality

June 7, 2017

Pro-Sharia feminist’s views defy reality, Rebel Media via YouTube, June 3, 2017

(Warning: “Islamophobic” content. — DM)

 

Why Venezuela Matters

June 7, 2017

Why Venezuela Matters, American ThinkerDavid Prentice, June 7, 2017

(Socialism or Communism? In the end, is there a difference? Please see also, Cassandra’s narco-curse. — DM)

Venezuela is one of the most unreported tragedies of our time.  We can guess why: the left-leaning media are not interested in telling us what happened in Venezuela because it disproves so many of their narratives.

In a nutshell:  Venezuela was once the most prosperous country in South America.  It is now one of the poorer nations in the world.  Food is hard to find, toilet paper is scarce, and civilization as the citizenry once knew it is gone.  Venezuela’s story has been one of going from first to worst, a fact the left does not want anyone to know.  The socialist paradise the left inexplicably wants for the U.S. lies in tatters at the top of South America.

Venezuela matters because socialism is one of the two great political blights foisted on the world in the past century.  There are multiple examples of the horrors of this system, be it Soviet socialism, the socialist killing fields of Cambodia, the rotting Euro-states, or the current and unfinished calamity of Venezuela.  Socialism is a system that always promises great things for humanity but in the end is dehumanizing, destructive, and false.  Dressed as an angel of light, offering equality, fairness, and goodness, socialism always seems to change clothes into the angel of death.  Destruction of the human spirit becomes its normative end.

Its siren song is hard to resist.  It always sounds so good.  Hearing about it during the college years captures your attention and consideration.  The professors espousing it seem knowledgeable, credentialed, and persuasive.  Not many teach against it.

My first conversation with someone who explained the horrors of socialism was with my grandfather.  Coming home from college, I was asked to walk him around the neighborhood.  He was in his eighties.  During that walk, he tried his best to pass on how he had fought socialism his entire life.  He was a public school teacher from Tacoma, Washington, who made it one of his projects in life to teach about the ills of socialism.

Needless to say, it was surprising, having heard my professors.  I, being young and impressionable, thought he seemed misguided and weak.

Since then, history has vindicated my grandfather’s vision.  The mask had yet to come entirely off the Soviet failure, the Killing Fields had not happened, the horrors of Mao’s China lay unexposed, Vietnam had not fallen, Solzhenitsyn had not been published, and Venezuela was wealthy.  Yet socialism was already something this man knew was disastrous.

With all these clear historical monuments to the abject failure of the socialist system, Bernie Sanders remains the most popular figure on the left.  Anyone running with a (D) behind his name will have to be “with him” (the unintended political slogan).  It’s sad.  An entire generation have not yet had their grandfathers walk with them to share the collectivist nightmare.  Instead, we have too many grandfathers like Bernie: delusional, incompetent, and ignorant of history.

Once upon a day, this widespread and full acceptance of socialism was not possible in this country.  The Democratic Party was not fully pro-socialist; they were once the party of JFK and Scoop Jackson, along with many other fervent anti-socialists.  They had not swallowed the Kool-Aid.  Unfortunately, too many of our ill-informed citizens now accept it, considering it just another system of governance.

It’s not.

Venezuela has become the clearest current object lesson against socialist destruction.  It’s a vital lesson for economic discussion in our own public square, one of the most important lessons our current snowflake generation could learn.  Everyone knows a few decent, hardworking, and talented Millennials.  Most know some of the snowflakes, too.  Trust me: they need help.  They need to see what is happening in Venezuela.  They need to see just how badly they don’t want Venezuela to happen here.  That lesson needs a bullhorn.

These kids love their smartphones.  They love good beer, good wine, cultural and sporting events.  Most even love nice cars and nice places to live.  They prefer civilization.  In spite of their current alliance with environmentalism and “climate change,” they love the material advantages we all enjoy that socialism did not bring them.  They use (and love) so many technological advances that you would think that convincing them to avoid socialism would be easy.

But it’s not.  Because now there is an entire home-grown army of angels of light preaching the gospel of socialism daily, and too few like my grandfather.

– Our public education has indoctrinated an entire generation to favor socialism.

– Our universities teach it uncritically as if it has brought us paradise on Earth, rather than reduced countries to poverty.

– Our leftist media rarely speak or sneer against it; they save that for the capitalistic freedom that gives them their lifestyles.

– Hollywood has shown a nonstop narrative of villains as either businessmen (capitalists) or U.S. military officers (who love capitalism) for twenty-five years.  Few heroes are entrepreneurs to Hollywood.

– An entire political party has renounced free enterprise for socialism.

– Rich fools such as Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google principals, media moguls, and the Hollywood elite naïvely push it.  That’s most of our information base.

– We had eight years of a president who sounded like Hugo Chávez, nothing like JFK, and a leftist media that didn’t care to know the difference.

Venezuela is the perfect truth for countering these “angels of light” and unmasking them for what they are: delusional shills for darkness and tyranny.  This darkness, unlike the half-year-old moronic Russia-Trump collusion story, actually is a fact and has evidence – evidence ignored and unreported.

Chávez came to power by promising to redistribute, and then redistributing Venezuela’s wealth to the poor.  Giving money to the poor is always the bait for socialism; it allows power to be won and kept, as it did for Chávez.  It allowed our cultural saviors to say how much Chávez helped the poor.  In the end, it destroyed the people who voted for him.  Too late, they finally burned the Chávez childhood home.

Barack Obama sang this same song to win his nomination and did untold damage by following socialist tendencies.  His “stimulus” was nothing more than a handout to Democrat constituencies to consolidate power.  Yes, that sounds familiar.  Venezuela redux.  He was headed there.

Chávez nationalized thousands of businesses under the guise of helping the downtrodden, ultimately destroying the ability of the Venezuelans to escape poverty.  Chávez gave them fish for a day and then prevented them from fishing for themselves, convincing them he was the only one who would help them.  He demonized business, then took it away, making the chaos that reigns now.  It sounds unusually close to the Democrat platform today.  As Trump noted, the Democrats care about the poor only for their votes to keep power, but Democrats give the poor no tools to dig themselves out.

Chávez ended up obscenely wealthy, as did his daughter – billionaires for ruining a country and the lives of countless millions.  Similarly, the Clintons had their illicit and obscene pay-to-play foundation scheme; Obama is going to get millions for being a Chávez echo, huge speaking fees, along with free everything from suck-up celebrities.  A visionless (and obtusely rich) Democratic Party does not know that Venezuela matters, or why.

While Venezuela descends into darkness, the leftist media focus on how Islamophobic we are.

Pounding the left for their awful, dark, and literally wrong vision of socialism needs to be done – all while exhorting a new generation to embrace the creative vision of free enterprise and of entrepreneurship, giving them what they are used to in their lifestyle and more.

An entire generation needs to rediscover what my grandfather knew.  If we miss this opportunity to show why Venezuela matters, we might get there sooner than we think.

 

Cassandra’s narco-curse

June 7, 2017

Cassandra’s narco-curse, Venezuela News and ViewsDaniel Duquenal, June 6, 2017

(An update on the current level of repression in Venezuela. — DM)

Now they steal while they repress. That is, they gas you while they are protected with their masks, and when you are coughing out your lungs they perform on you one or many of the following activities: frisk you, beat you up, smash you to the ground, break your camera or personal object of choice, steal your cell phone, steal your wallet and wristwatch, and who knows what else their nazified mind can come up with.

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

It is hard not to be despondent in Venezuela these days. Even if the paradox is that the despondency of some translate into renewed energy. I suppose that when everything has been stolen from you, that is, your future, you may react strongly, if anything to see how many you can bring down with you.

I, for one, have been very despondent for two weeks, Well, particularly despondent I should correct. A very bad cold that drags on made things worse by making me feel guilty from not going out to any protest march for the past two weeks. Maybe I could have made an effort, but I also need to be as healthy as I can because my health affects the well being of others, like the SO.  So I read twitter and watch in horror and awe the videos of what Venezuela has turned into.

For the last two weeks, as expected, the regime has been cranking up its terror machine. They attack with excess tear gas, excess violence, more and more live bullets, even before the protest marches get the time to coalesce. But that has not been enough to stop people from taking to the streets so they notched it up. Thus they started riding their bikes into shopping centers and shot people taking refuge in there. I know it, a brother of mine was the victim of one of such attacks when two bikes with two nazional guards each burst into the CCCT mall. While he was recovering from a long march with something to drink and eat before reaching for his car back home, the bikes pushed through the glass doors and on to the court floor, driving around panicked people, shooting their pellets at random.

But it has not been enough yet, so up a notch. Now they steal while they repress. That is, they gas you while they are protected with their masks, and when you are coughing out your lungs they perform on you one or many of the following activities: frisk you, beat you up, smash you to the ground, break your camera or personal object of choice, steal your cell phone, steal your wallet and wristwatch, and who knows what else their nazified mind can come up with.

There is no need for me to describe in further details: foreign newspapers are full of such stories and pics. Get any serious time line on tweet, like mine, and be blown away by some of the videos that you will see.

And yet there are still assholes that are not getting it, that speak of dialogue, or complain that I use words such as nazi as if nothing. Will they feel better if I were to use only Fascist? Stalinist? Franquista? Castrista?  Aren’t this all the final representation of the root idea? That is, totalitarianism.

I can defend myself by noticing that the root nazi does not appear in any of my chosen label words. You can find f c and t words, but no n word. I know better. But in the end it does not make any difference. People should not judge today’s event with criteria of the past, just as sins of the past cannot be evaluated with morality of the present.  And yet this is what you find in reporting on Venezuela in the press and many web pages, a desperate attempt at describing the post Chavez regime with cliches from the past when what we have, in truth, is the first true modern narco state, in need of its own words for its accounting.

And for those who think that a video of police unburdening defenseless women from their wallet, watches and phones is not such a terrible deal since they were left alive and unraped, I beg to differ. The Nazis in the Russian forests did awful things just at the Communists did at the Siberian Gulags. The difference between then and now is that the streets were not crowded with people holding an Iphone in hand, ready to film the evidence. As a matter of fact the Nazi were stupid enough to document some of their horrors, something that Stalin smartly made sure it never happened.

In today’s era of Facebook terror works best instilling the idea of what could happen to you if you leave home, rather than doing the actual violence. The horrors of the videos caught in Caracas streets are in fact lesser than the psychological terror that they pretend to create in the comfort of your own home. Without much success perhaps, for the time being, but not detracting from the fact that their totalitarian intent is there for all to see.

Even in my most pessimistic scenarios I did not envision a Venezuelan police beating to the ground someone without any weapon in hand, and then lower himself over his victim and search his pockets. Somehow for all my Cassandra qualities I was expecting more classical repression, more death counts.  But no, a narco state does not operate this way. Its terror is sui generis. And now Cassandra is afraid to meditate on what comes next.

FGM vs Political Correctness — Which Will Prevail?

June 7, 2017

FGM vs Political Correctness — Which Will Prevail? Clarion ProjectPaula Kweskin, June 7, 2017

This picture taken on February 10, 2013 shows a young Indonesian girl crying as doctors perform her circumcision in Bandung. Indonesia, home to the world’s biggest Muslim population, argues that this form of circumcision is largely symbolic, not harmful and should not be seen as mutilation. The United Nations thinks otherwise. In December it passed a resolution banning female genital mutilation (FGM), which extends to the circumcision practiced in Indonesia, home to the world’s biggest Muslim population. ADEK BERRY/AFP/Getty Images)

In February, federal investigators uncovered a Michigan-based network of doctors and others who practice female genital mutilation (FGM) on girls as young as six at medical clinics in the state. FGM is the cutting of a girl’s genitalia with the aim to “purify” her and repress her sexuality. All defendants in the case are members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a religious Muslim group. One of the girls who underwent the procedure was reportedly told that she was going on a “special girls’ trip” to “get the germs out.”

While the victim in this case may find justice in the courtroom, their lives and bodies have been irrevocably changed. Survivors of FGM whom I spoke to for my documentary film Honor Diaries tell of the physical and emotional pain that remains long after the abuse. Sexual intercourse and childbirth become horribly painful and traumatic experiences. Women may have chronic urinary tract infections and are often plagued with depression and other invisible scars.

The World Health Organization estimates at least 200 million women today live with the consequences of FGM. In the United States, 507,000 women are at risk or have undergone the procedure. In the U.S., there is a federal statute against the practice and it is criminalized in several states.  However, these laws have not prevented families from mutilating their girls or traveling overseas to undergo the process. All that might change.

The arrest and prosecution of the Michigan perpetrators is a groundbreaking moment for women’s rights activists in the United States and globally. I applaud the federal investigators and prosecutors who took a stand against gender-based violence. It is the first national prosecution of an FGM case and many important questions will be raised during the course of the investigation and trial.

Already, defendants attempted (and failed) to receive bond by using their religious freedom as a defense. Defendants asserted the practice should not be classified as FGM, but rather as a religious practice. U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth Stafford denied bond stating that religion would not be used “as a shield” in the case. However, it is likely that as the case continues, religious freedom will be argued again.

I am concerned for the maelstrom which may ensue when the case goes to trial. At that moment, will women’s rights be asserted or will they be diluted in favor of political correctness? In the past, I’ve witnessed the disintegration of women’s rights in favor of political correctness: my film Honor Diaries was censored (in Michigan, actually) when certain groups deemed it “Islamophobic” for bringing up FGM, forced marriage and honor killings.  Instead of focusing on the inherent misogyny of these practices, my film was vilified for having difficult conversations about cultural and religious practices.

The first federal FGM case will raise challenging questions. There is a simple metric we can use to evaluate competing claims: culture is no excuse for abuse. No religion or culture should be the impetus for hurting, mutilating or abusing anyone, and our children should be protected. For too long, FGM has been practiced under the radar in the United States. The arrest and prosecution of these individuals is a step in the right direction, but the true test will come at trial: will we allow our political correctness to coax us into complacency? Or will we use this moment to assert our loftiest convictions: that all people are equal and should be treated as such, regardless of their religion and culture? My hope for all women and girls is that we will stand for equality.

Pamela Geller: Idaho Muslim Migrants who raped 5-year-old plead guilty, get no jail time

June 7, 2017

Pamela Geller: Idaho Muslim Migrants who raped 5-year-old plead guilty, get no jail time, Jihad Watch

The travesty of justice in Idaho is now complete. In the summer of 2016, a 5-year-old girl was orally and anally raped and urinated upon by three Muslim migrant boys in Twin Falls, Idaho. Since then, instead of getting justice, the victim’s family has been abused by law enforcement and governing authorities as if they were the criminals – because what happened to their little girl contradicts the politically correct narrative about Muslim migrants. On Tuesday, the perpetrators were sentenced, and the final injustice was done to this poor girl.

The injustice began in the proceedings at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls when Judge Thomas Borreson of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District ordered the little victim’s parents to say nothing to anyone – ever – about what was said in the courtroom Tuesday, or to disclose the sentence that he gave to the savage attackers. He did allow them to say that they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they disclosed why they were unhappy with it.

But even though the victim’s parents were not allowed to talk to me, there were twelve to fifteen people in the courtroom who saw and heard the whole sorry business. I was nevertheless informed of what happened by an anonymous source inside the courtroom – and the more I heard, the more I understood why this judge wanted to keep all the proceedings secret.

Janice Kroeger, the Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, who was supposed to be trying these boys for their crimes, defended the boys and repeatedly attacked Lacy, the victim’s mother. A therapist for the boys was present, as well as a parole officer and a detective. Everything that was said was designed to portray the perpetrators as victims. Throughout the proceedings, they were repeatedly called victims, and the youngest one was called “the biggest victim of them all.”

The court heard all about how the attackers are doing well in school, and about how smart they are. They were praised for the supposed ordeal they had to go through. It was claimed that all three are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from having to go through courtroom proceedings.

After this lovefest, which lasted for five hours in the courtroom, all three boys were sentenced, one after the other. All three were given probation. They were not found guilty of rape, but of sexually lewd conduct.

In the midst of this judicial mugging, every time Lacy’s lawyer tried to speak up, he was silenced. The little victim, Jayla, was never even mentioned once by Kroeger or the judge – or by the police or anyone else. Only Lacy mentioned her, when she made her statement. Lacy detailed how the poor girl is still suffering the effects of this attack: she is wetting the bed and having bad dreams, and more.

Yet when Lacy completed her statement, Kroeger lashed out not at the perpetrators or their parents, but at Lacy. She viciously tongue-lashed Lacy for a full fifteen minutes, until finally Judge Borreson had to stop her.

Understandably, the parents of the victim were and are devastated. Back in April, when the attackers initially pleaded guilty, Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said: “I am pleased that we were able to resolve this case in a way that was approved and agreed to by the victim’s family. This continues to be a serious and sad case, but it was resolved properly.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The resolution of the case was not accepted by the victim’s family, and it was not resolved properly.

From the beginning to the end, for Idaho officials this case was about one thing, and one thing: not justice for this poor little girl who was brutalized and abused, but about making sure that Americans don’t start to realize what is happening and oppose the Muslim migrant influx. Idaho officials were willing to sacrifice this girl’s wellbeing for that goal – to their everlasting shame.

If there were any justice, Judge Borreson would be impeached and removed now. Meanwhile, please help the victim and her family meet their considerable expenses: contribute here.

Obama Admin Did Not Publicly Disclose Iran Cyber-Attack During ‘Side-Deal’ Nuclear Negotiations

June 7, 2017

Obama Admin Did Not Publicly Disclose Iran Cyber-Attack During ‘Side-Deal’ Nuclear Negotiations, Washington Free Beacon, June 7, 2017

US Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on April 22, 2016 in New York. / AFP / Bryan R. Smith (Photo credit should read BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)

President Trump, during his trip to the Middle East in late May, talked tough against Iran and its illicit ballistic missile program but has so far left the nuclear deal in place. A Trump State Department review of the deal is nearing completion, the Free Beacon recently reported, and some senior Trump administration officials are pushing for the public release of the so-called “secret side deals.”

Infiltrating State Department emails and internal communications about where the United States stood on a number of sensitive issues could have given the Iranians an important negotiating advantage, according to David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

“The [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] had a lot of loose language at the time and the question was whether the U.S. was going to accept it,” he told the Free Beacon, referring to the weeks immediately following the Congressional Review Period, which ended Sept. 17, and Iran’s own review process, which ended Oct. 15.

“It would be to Iran’s great benefit to know where the U.S. would be” on a number of these issues dealing with the possible military dimensions of the Iran nuclear program, he said. “If they could tell the U.S. was going to punt, they could jerk around the [International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA] a bit.”

“That’s essentially what happened with the IAEA,” he added.

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

State Department officials determined that Iran hacked their emails and social media accounts during a particularly sensitive week for the nuclear deal in the fall of 2015, according to multiple sources familiar with the details of the cyber attack.

The attack took place within days of the deal overcoming opposition in Congress in late September that year. That same week, Iranian officials and negotiators for the United States and other world powers were beginning the process of hashing out a series of agreements allowing Tehran to meet previously determined implementation deadlines.

Critics regard these agreements as “secret side deals” and “loopholes” initially disclosed only to Congress.

Sources familiar with the details of the attack said it sent shockwaves through the State Department and the private-contractor community working on Iran-related issues.

It is unclear whether top officials at the State Department negotiating the Iran deal knew about the hack or if their personal or professional email accounts were compromised. Sources familiar with the attack believed top officials at State were deeply concerned about the hack and that those senior leaders did not have any of their email or social media accounts compromised in this particular incident.

Wendy Sherman, who served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for several years during the Obama administration and was the lead U.S. negotiator of the nuclear deal with Iran, could not be reached for comment.

A spokeswoman for Albright Stonebridge LLC, where Sherman now serves as a senior counselor, said Tuesday that Sherman is “unavailable at this time and cannot be reached for comment.”

Asked about the September 2015 cyber-attack, a State Department spokesman said, “For security reasons we cannot confirm whether any hacking incident took place.”

At least four State Department officials in the Bureau of Near East Affairs and a senior State Department adviser on digital media and cyber-security were involved in trying to contain the hack, according to an email dated September 24, 2015 and multiple interviews with sources familiar with the attack.

The Obama administration kept quiet about the cyber-attack and never publicly acknowledged concerns the attack created at State, related agencies, and within the private contractor community that supports their work.

Critics of the nuclear deal said the Obama administration did not publicly disclose the cyber-attack’s impact out of fear it could undermine support right after the pact had overcome political opposition and cleared a critical Congressional hurdle.

The hacking of email addresses belonging to State Department officials and outside contractors began three days after the congressional review period for the deal ended Sept. 17, according to sources familiar with the details of the attack and the internal State Department email. That same day, Democrats in Congress blocked a GOP-led resolution to disapprove of the nuclear deal, according to sources familiar with the details of the attack and the internal State Department email. The resolution of disapproval needed 60 votes to pass but garnered just 56.

President Trump, during his trip to the Middle East in late May, talked tough against Iran and its illicit ballistic missile program but has so far left the nuclear deal in place. A Trump State Department review of the deal is nearing completion, the Free Beacon recently reported, and some senior Trump administration officials are pushing for the public release of the so-called “secret side deals.”

State Department alerts outside contractors of cyber-attack

State Department officials in the Office of Iranian Affairs on Sept. 24, 2015 sent an email to dozens of outside contractors. The email alerted the contractors that a cyber-attack had occurred and urged them not to open any email from a group of five State Department officials that did not come directly from their official state.gov accounts.

“We have received evidence that social media and email accounts are being compromised or subject to phishing messages,” the email, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, states. “Please be advised that you should not open any link, download or open an attachment from any e-mail message that uses our names but is not directly from one of our official state.gov accounts.”

“We appreciate learning of any attempts to use our names or affiliations in this way,” stated the email. Shervin Hadjilou, the public diplomacy officer in the Office of Iranian Affairs, sent the email and cc’d four other State Department officials who deal with Iran issues, including one cyber-security expert.

Two sources familiar with the details of the hack said the State Department and outside contractors determined that Iranian officials were the perpetrators. The hack, which began Sept. 21, had compromised at least two State Department officials’ government email accounts before they regained control of them, as well as private email addresses and Facebook and other social media accounts, the source said.

“They had access to everything in those email accounts,” the source said. “Everyone in the [State Department Iranian Affairs] community was very upset—it was a major problem.”

The hack also stood out because cyber-warfare between Iran and the United States, which had been the weapon of choice between the countries for years, had cooled considerably in 2015 during the nuclear negotiations in what cyber-security experts have described as a limited détente.

Since Iran discovered the Stuxnet virus—a cyber-worm the United States and Israel planted to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities—in 2011, the countries have been engaged in escalating cyber warfare as Tehran’s cyber capabilities become increasingly sophisticated and destructive.

Since 2011 Iran has attacked U.S. banks and Israel’s electric grid. In 2012, Iranian hackers brought down Saudi-owned oil company Saudi Aramco, erasing information on nearly 30,000 of the company’s work stations and replacing it with a burning American flag.

Cyber-security experts have long believed that Russia helped Iran quickly build up its cyberweaponry in response to Stuxnet. A team of computer-security experts at TrapX, a Silicon Valley security firm that helps protect top military contractors from hackers, said in April they officially confirmed that Iranians were using a cyber “tool set” developed by Russians.

Tom Kellerman, a TrapX investor who also served on a commission advising the Obama administration on cyber-security, said Iranian cyberwarfare has dramatically improved over the last two or three years in large part due to Russian technical assistance.

“Much like you see the alliance between Syria, Iran, and Russia, the alliance doesn’t just relate to the distribution of kinetic weapons,” he said, but extends into cyberwarfare.

Uproar among private contracting community over cyber-attack

In the late September 2015 hack, at least two State Department officials and a handful of outside contractors lost control of access to their email and social media accounts, which were automatically forwarding emails to work and personal contacts. This spread the hack to a wider network of victims.

The private-contracting community involved in State Department Iran programs—approximately 40 private firms, some of which are based in Washington and others located throughout the United States—were outraged by the infiltration.

“They were saying ‘We’re mad—we’re angry,'” the source recalled. “We all got compromised.”

Eric Novotny, who served as a senior adviser for digital media and cyber security at the State Department at the time, was involved in trying to shut down the hack and help affected officials and private contractors regain control of their accounts. Novotny was one of the four government officials copied on Hadjilou’s Sept. 24 email.

Critics: Obama administration’s silence on hacking was needed to secure nuke deal

Critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the Iran nuclear deal argue that the State Department stayed silent about the hack because acknowledging it could have publicly undermined the pact right after it became official.

“Within hours of the Iran deal being greenlighted, Iran was already conducting cyberattacks against the very State Department that ensured passage of the [nuclear deal],” said Michael Pregent, a senior Middle East analyst at the Hudson Institute. “Acknowledging a cyberattack after the [nuclear deal] was greenlighted would be something that would immediately signal that it is a bad deal—that these are nefarious actors.”

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Iran’s hacking of State Department personnel at such a critical period is “just one of many of Iran’s malign activities that continued and the State Department essentially ignored while the Obama administration was working out the fine points of the nuclear deal.”

“The Obama administration didn’t acknowledge it publicly out of fear that public outrage could threaten the nuclear deal,” he said.

In early November 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Iran’s hardline Revolutionary Guard military had hacked email and social-media accounts of Obama administration officials.

Yet that report wrongly tied the beginning of the uptick in Iranian cyberattacks to the arrest October 29, 2015 of Siamak Namazi, a businessman and Iranian-American scholar who has pushed for democratic reforms. Namazi and his elderly father remain imprisoned in Iran and face a 10-year sentence on espionage charges.

The Journal report also did not indicate that the attacks had occurred more than a month earlier, within three days of the end of the congressional review period, nor did it indicate any specific individual targeted nor how officials and contractors reacted to it.

The Sept. 24 email obtained by the Free Beacon shows the Iranian hacking of State Department officials occurred much earlier—the weekend after Republicans in Congress failed to push through a resolution disapproving the Iran nuclear pact, effectively sealing the foreign policy win for Obama.

The late September time period was particularly important for negotiating critical details of the nuclear deal’s implementation, what critics, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, have labeled “secret side deals” allowing Iran to evade some restrictions in the nuclear agreement in order to meet its deadline for sanctions relief.

Among other non-public details of the pact, the side agreements involved the controversial exchange of American prisoners held in Iran for $1.7 billion in cash payments.

Infiltrating State Department emails and internal communications about where the United States stood on a number of sensitive issues could have given the Iranians an important negotiating advantage, according to David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

“The [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] had a lot of loose language at the time and the question was whether the U.S. was going to accept it,” he told the Free Beacon, referring to the weeks immediately following the Congressional Review Period, which ended Sept. 17, and Iran’s own review process, which ended Oct. 15.

“It would be to Iran’s great benefit to know where the U.S. would be” on a number of these issues dealing with the possible military dimensions of the Iran nuclear program, he said. “If they could tell the U.S. was going to punt, they could jerk around the [International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA] a bit.”

“That’s essentially what happened with the IAEA,” he added.

The IAEA is charged with verifying and monitoring Iran’s commitments under the nuclear agreement.

According to Albright, the IAEA ultimately accepted far less access to nuclear sites than it originally wanted. The United States and other world powers also accepted other concessions involving “loopholes” allowing Iran to exceed uranium enrichment and heavy water limits for a certain time period in order for Iran to meet implementation deadlines, he said.

“The IAEA didn’t know much at all and had to write a report [in December 2015] that it was content in knowing so little,” he said.

Others who credit Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard with the cyber-attack say it may not have focused entirely on gaining leverage in the negotiations but simply demonstrating a resistance to the deal among hardline factions in the country.

“Iran has two personalities, and I think you were seeing the other personality shine through,” Kellerman said of the hack during a critical phase of the nuclear deal.

Hack used common spear-phishing technique

Sources said the September 2015 hacking incidents compromised email accounts by sending spear-phishing messages, or efforts to gain unauthorized access to confidential data by impersonating close contacts.

The phishing emails targeted both State Department and private contractors’ personal email and social media accounts, including Facebook, shutting down the users’ access and sending out emails to some of the hacked individuals contacts and forwarding other information to unfamiliar emails with Persian-sounding names, two sources told the Free Beacon.

Samuel Bucholtz, co-founder of Casaba, a cyber-security firm that conducts test-hacking for Fortune 500 companies, said the hackers were likely trying to gain access to contacts and emails. The hackers also may have tried to install malware that would provide greater access to information held on computers or the entire computer network of the organizations, he said.

“If it’s a phishing account that installs malware on your machine, then they have access to all the information on your machine,” he said. “Then they start using that foothold to start exploring access throughout the entire organization.”