Iran and terror | WarSclerotic | Page 4

Posted tagged ‘Iran and terror’

Reassuring, not challenging, Iran

December 25, 2015

Reassuring, not challenging, Iran, Israel Hayom, Elliott Abrams, December 25, 2015

Since the signing of the nuclear deal with Islamic Republic of Iran, that government has ‎treated the Obama administration with contempt. U.S. officials might have hoped Iran’s ‎conduct would improve, but it has worsened. Iran sent more Revolutionary Guard troops to ‎fight in Syria, for example; it conducted two ballistic missile tests in violation of a Security ‎Council resolution; leaders continue to chant “Death to America”; and it has imprisoned ‎more Americans.‎

What is the Obama administration’s response? To beg their pardon.‎

I refer to a remarkable letter sent by Secretary of State John Kerry to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad ‎Zarif. Iran, in an additional gesture of contempt, has complained about new United States ‎visa requirements placed on persons who have traveled to Iran (or Iraq, Sudan, or Syria). ‎These requirements were recently added so that people who had visited those countries ‎could not come to the United States without getting a visa even if they were from countries ‎that are part of the “visa waiver” program. The obvious purpose: to avoid having terrorists ‎get to the United States through a program that allows them to avoid the visa application ‎process and the information it would supply.‎

Iran has complained that “Zionist lobbyists” put the new rules in place, a good reminder of ‎the nature of the regime.‎

How did the United States react? By denouncing the Iranian attacks on “Zionist lobbyists,” ‎which came from the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry? By noting that Iran is the world’s ‎worst state sponsor of terrorism? By recalling the fact that Iran just violated U.N. Security ‎Council resolutions, and continues to jail innocent American citizens?‎

Nope. By offering reassurance that we certainly do not mean to disadvantage Iran in any ‎possible way. Here is the text of Kerry’s letter:‎

“December 19, 2015‎

“His Excellency Mohammad Javad Zarif

“Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Tehran

“Dear Mr. Minister:‎

“Thanks for a constructive meeting yesterday. I wanted to get back to you in response to your ‎inquiry about amendments to our Visa Waiver Program. First, I want to confirm to you that ‎we remain fully committed to the sanctions lifting provided for under the JCPOA. We will ‎adhere to the full measure of our commitments, per the agreement. Our team is working ‎hard to be prepared and as soon as we reach implementation day we will lift appropriate ‎sanctions.‎

“I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress, which ‎the Administration has the authority to waive, will not in any way prevent us from meeting ‎our JCPOA commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with ‎legitimate business interests of Iran. To this end, we have a number of potential tools ‎available to us, including multiple entry 10-year business visas, programs for expediting ‎business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation. I am happy to ‎discuss this further and provide any additional clarification.‎

“Secretary of State John Kerry”

Let’s put aside the thanks to Zarif for a “constructive meeting.” We can be sure that Zarif ‎was advancing Iranian national interests, and for doing that, he deserves no thanks from us. ‎The tone of the letter would be fine were it addressed to the foreign minister of Canada. ‎Must we really assure the representative of this vile, repressive regime that regardless of its ‎behavior, we will bend over backward and use every tool possible (“we have a number of potential tools ‎available to us, including multiple entry 10-year business visas, programs for expediting ‎business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation”) to ‎defend and advance its “legitimate business interests?”‎

Here’s one of many possible alternative formulations: The ability and willingness of the ‎United States government to use the tools at its disposal will depend on the treatment Iran ‎accords American citizens whom it has unjustly detained and imprisoned. Kerry seems ‎more worried about offending Iran than freeing those Americans — whose imprisonment was ‎an issue set aside during the nuclear negotiations. Must we set it aside forever as we ‎protect Iran’s “legitimate business interests”‎?

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran and Israel, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Kerry, Obama and Iran
Tags: Foreign Policy, Iran and Israel, Iran and terror, Iran Scam, Kerry, Obama and Iran

Comments: Be the first to comment

Leftist Media Ignore Islamic Terrorists Groups

December 22, 2015

Leftist Media Ignore Islamic Terrorists Groups, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, December 22, 2015

It is intriguing that mainstream media has focused on violent terrorist acts of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), a radical Sunni Islamist group, while they are deliberately avoiding raising awareness about other Islamist terrorist groups that are as brutal as ISIS, if not worse.

The other groups that I am referring to are primarily the Iranian-backed radical Islamist militias.

Brutal terrorist groups such as Kataib al-Imam Ali (KIA) are not any less violent than ISIS when it comes to the aggressive and horrific tactics they use against civilians. In fact, they are known for showing videos of cut-off heads and bodies burned over open fires. This particular group, which is backed by Iran, originated from the Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Shebl al-Zaidi is the secretary-general of Kataib al-Imam Ali and he is known for his sectarian and vicious tactics.

Another militia group that is known locally for its violent attacks is Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq. It reportedly receives approximately $2 million a month from the Islamic Republic.

There exist more than 100 of these Islamist terrorist groups and they are increasing on a daily basis as they branch out.

One reason behind the liberal media outlets’ failure to shed light on non-ISIS terrorist groups is that they do not want to criticize Iran. These outlets are heavily influenced by the Obama administration’s leniency toward the Islamic Republic. If President Obama views Iran as a constructive state actor, then the media put aside standards of professional journalism and follow in the footsteps of the President.

One of the crucial tenets of Journalism in Western democracies is that it should not be influenced, intimidated or guided by ruling politicians. Being independent and raising public awareness by presenting different ideas and facts is what makes a media outlet an informative outlet and a platform for advancing democracy.

If a Western media outlet is following what the White House likes or despises, then what is the difference between these outlets and Iran’s state media outlets, which are the mouthpieces of the ruling clerics?

In addition, media outlets and journalists seem to prefer simplicity to complexity. It is much easier for those journalists to talk about the Islamic State and their horrific acts rather than engaging in rigorous research on other stealth terrorist and radical militia groups. Unfortunately, a lot of reporters are not knowledgeable in this field and they prefer to do the easier task. It is easier for them to write about ISIS in the length of space and time they are given than to research all other Islamist terrorist groups.

The ultimate goal of these groups is to enter the political establishment of the state and inform decision-making from the top. Hezbollah succeeded at this in Lebanon and other Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militia groups did the same on Iraq.

Furthermore, leftist media outlets appear to view these radical Islamist groups as “legitimate” groups because they are funded by a nation-state (in this case, Iran). Many of these groups report directly to General Soleimani or Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As a result, if a similar violent act is committed by one of these Iranian-backed groups, the mainstream media outlets are less likely to criticize them harshly.

Finally, in order to survive as news organizations, these outlets are more driven by the need to make a profit, than the need to raise awareness, As a result, they focus on increasing their ratings and attracting high numbers of readers and advertisers, rather than providing credible information to the public.

In spite of the fact that there are many Islamist terrorist groups around the world committing atrocities against civilians, only ISIS has received the attention of the liberal media. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between these outlets and ISIS. On the one hand, ISIS receives the publicity it needs from liberal media outlets. On the other hand, these networks increase their ratings, viewers, readers, advertisement revenues, and therefore their profit. It is incumbent on media outlets to bring to the world the stories of non-ISIS Islamist terrorist groups as well, and put a spotlight on the sufferings of the multitudes of forgotten people, who are affected by these terrorist groups.

Categories: Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Western media
Tags: Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Western media

Comments: Be the first to comment

The French connection

November 17, 2015

The French connection, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, November 17, 2015

When Islamist leaders condemned Friday night’s Paris attacks, which left more than 132 people dead and hundreds of others critically wounded, you just had to laugh through your tears.

Terror masters in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Palestinian Authority actually had the gall to talk as if they themselves are not responsible for the ongoing murder of innocent people.

But hypocrisy, mendacity and lying as a matter of course are not the only reasons for their public expressions of solidarity with France during this frightful hour. In fact, what really bothers them is the fear that a rival group may be beating them at their own game. And hell hath no fury like a scorned, power-hungry radical Muslim with hegemonic aims and weapons with which to achieve them.

Such monsters, some in suits and ties to throw you off, are able to get away with playing the West for fools — particularly when the so-called leader of the free world keeps kowtowing to them, while espousing denial as a policy. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath in Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama made a statement that put a smug smile on the faces of jihadists everywhere.

In the first place, he called the carnage “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This is an amazing assertion, since I don’t even share Obama’s values, let alone those of a great portion of “humanity” inside and out of Washington, D.C. You know, like the multimillions of anti-Semites, Christian-killers, women-subjugators and child-abusers who are trying to win the war over the world’s character and soul.

Secondly, the president said he didn’t “want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this.”

Right, responded radical Muslims in the privacy of their bunkers and bomb factories, for all Obama knew, the shootings and explosions in a theater, restaurants and at a soccer stadium could have been carried out by disgruntled Buddhists.

By the time he arrived in Antalya to attend the G-20 economic summit less than 48 hours later, even the U.S. president could no longer plead ignorance. So he had to address the issue of Islamic State tentacles spreading every which way, in spite of his having announced a few days earlier that its threat had been “contained.”

Even members of the left-leaning media were challenging his claim that the way he’s been fighting the al-Qaida spin-off is still the right one. And this, while sidling up to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose recent landslide re-election was a dark day for people with those ostensibly “universal” values Obama had mentioned.

The good news here is also the bad.

Effectively combating Islamic State is actually irrelevant in the wider context, as counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka has been trying to explain for years.

That Friday night’s multiple attacks in Paris were carried out by terrorists affiliated with ISIS is “wholly irrelevant,” Gorka — national security editor at Breitbart and military affairs fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — told me this weekend. “All members of the global jihadist movement, be they Sunni or Shia, Arab, Persian or converts, are driven by the same desire: the need to kill the kuffar [infidels] for the glory of Allah. All attacks, be they 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai, Amman, Paris or the recent stabbings in Israel, are tied together by the connective tissue of jihadist ideology.”

He stressed, “It is time for us to realize — and demand of our leaders that they act accordingly — that we face an existential threat, which, over the long term, could be as dangerous as Hitler’s Third Reich. This is a war between good and evil. And only one side will prevail in the end.”

I still harbor hope that the former will emerge victorious. But this cannot happen unless certain conditions are met. These include: getting the nuclear-deal-obsessive Democrats out of the White House; making Europe understand that it should be labeling undesirable Islamists, not Israeli products; and raising children in the West to grasp that the blessed ability to live in a free society means being prepared to die defending it against its detractors and destroyers.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran, Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State, Obama's affinity for Iran, Palestinian Authority, Paris Muslim attack, Syria, Turkey
Tags: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iran and terror, Iranian proxies, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic State, Obama's affinity for Iran, Palestinian Authority, Paris Muslim attack, Syria, Turkey

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives