There is no doubt that Obama’s lame duck years will be stressful for Israel and its friends. As Seth noted earlier today, the administration’s full court press for détente with Iran is setting the table for a strategic blunder on their nuclear quest that will severely harm the balance of power in the Middle East as well as lay the groundwork for challenges to American national security for decades to come.
*****************
No doubt the gang in the Obama administration have been congratulating themselves for planting some juicy insults aimed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jeffrey Goldberg’s latest column in The Atlantic. But now that the wiseacres in the West Wing and/or the State Department have done their dirty work the question remains what will be the consequences of the decision to widen as well as to embitter the breach between the two countries. While most of those writing on this subject, including Goldberg, have emphasized the real possibility that the U.S. will sandbag Israel at the United Nations and otherwise undermine the Jewish state’s diplomatic position in the last years of Obama’s term in office, that won’t be the only blowback from the administration’s “chickenshit” diplomacy. Rather than harm Netanyahu, this ploy, like previous attacks on the prime minister, will strengthen him while making mischief for the president’s party in both this year’s midterms and in 2016.
There is no doubt that Obama’s lame duck years will be stressful for Israel and its friends. As Seth noted earlier today, the administration’s full court press for détente with Iran is setting the table for a strategic blunder on their nuclear quest that will severely harm the balance of power in the Middle East as well as lay the groundwork for challenges to American national security for decades to come.
Nor should anyone discount the potential for severe damage to Israel’s diplomatic standing in the world should Obama decide to collude with the Palestinian Authority and to allow them to get a United Nations Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood, borders, and Jerusalem. The Palestinians’ drive to annul Jewish rights and to bypass the peace process could, with Obama’s support, further isolate Israel and strengthen the efforts of those forces working to promote BDS—boycott, divest, sanction—campaigns that amount to an economic war on the Jewish people.
This is a dire prospect for a small, besieged country that still relieves heavily on U.S. security cooperation and defense aid. But for all the huffing and puffing on the part of Obama’s minions, the administration’s real objectives in all this plotting are not likely to be achieved. That’s because nothing published in a Goldberg column or leaked anywhere else will weaken Netanyahu’s hold on office or prompt the Palestinians to make peace or Iran to be more reasonable in the nuclear talks. The only people who will be hurt by the attacks on Israel are Obama’s fellow Democrats.
As I pointed out yesterday, Obama’s barbs aimed at Israel haven’t enticed the Palestinians to negotiate seriously in the past and won’t do so in the future. If the Palestinian Authority really wanted a state they would have accepted the one offered them in 2000, 2001, or 2008 or actually negotiated with Netanyahu in the last year after he indicated readiness to sign off on a two-state solution.
The boasts about having maneuvered Netanyahu into a position where he may not have a viable military option against Iran (actually, Israel may never have had much of an option since it can be argued that only U.S. possesses the forces required to conclusively knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities) is also nothing for the U.S. to be happy about since it will only strengthen the Iranians’ conviction that they have nothing to fear from Israel or a U.S. president that they think is too weak to stand up to them.
But Obama should have also already learned that challenging Netanyahu and insulting the Jewish state in this manner has one definite side effect: strengthening the prime minister’s political position at home. The same thing happened after Obama’s attacks on the status of Jerusalem in his first term. The administration thought it could topple Netanyahu soon after his election in February 2009 and failed, but even after his election to another term in 2013 as well as the absence of any viable alternative to him, they are still clinging to the delusion that the Israeli people will reject his policies. But that isn’t likely to happen for one reason. The overwhelming majority of Israelis may not love the prime minister but they share his belief that there is no Palestinian peace partner and that turning the West Bank into a sovereign state that could be controlled by Hamas and other terrorists just like Gaza would be madness. They also oppose efforts to divide their capital or to prohibit Jews from the right to live in some parts of the city.
Netanyahu won’t back down. In the wake of the summer war with Hamas that further undermined an Israeli left that was already in ruins after 20 years of failed peace processing, Netanyahu was clearly heading to early elections that would further strengthen the Likud. Obama’s attacks will only make that strategy more attractive to the prime minister. But whether he is reelected in 2015, 2016, or 2017, few believe Netanyahu won’t be returned to office by the voters for his third consecutive and fourth overall term as Israel’s leader. Though a lot of damage can be done to Israel in the next two years, that means Netanyahu is almost certain to be able to outlast Obama in office and to enjoy what will almost certainly be better relations with his successor whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. Waiting out Obama isn’t a good strategy for Israel but it may be the only one it has available to it and will likely be rewarded with a honeymoon with the next president.
But Netanyahu isn’t the only person who will profit politically from this astonishingly crude assault on the Jewish state’s democratically elected leader.
Foreign policy is rarely a decisive factor in U.S. elections but at a time when Democrats are suffering the ill effects of Obama’s inept response to the threat from ISIS, it won’t do the president’s party any good for the administration to pick a fight with it’s sole democratic ally in the Middle East. Americans have a right to ask why an administration that was slow to react to ISIS and is intent on appeasing a murderous Islamist regime in Iran is so intent on fighting with Israel. That won’t help embattled Democrats seeking reelection in red states where evangelicals regard backing for Israel as a key issue.
Nor will it help Democrats as they head toward 2016. Though Hillary Clinton will likely run away from Obama on his attacks on Netanyahu as she has done on other foreign-policy issues, running for what will in effect be Obama’s third term will still burden her with the need to either actively oppose the president’s anti-Israel actions in the UN or détente with Iran or accept the negative political fallout of silence. Any Republican, with the exception of an isolationist like Rand Paul, will be able to exploit this issue to their advantage.
Those who worry about the damage to Israel from a lame-duck Obama administration that is seething with hatred for Netanyahu and thinks it has nothing to lose are not wrong. But Democrats will be hurt politically by a crisis that was created by Obama, not Netanyahu. They won’t be grateful to the president for having put them in this fix while Netanyahu will probably emerge from this trial strengthened at home and in a good position to repair relations with Obama’s successor.
Israel’s vile actions, completely out of Obama’s control, have greatly imperiled heroic Palestinian efforts to advance His peace process. Accordingly, Obama has asked neutral and moderate Iran to act as an impartial mediator.
Statement of President Obama
Good morning, My fellow citizens of the world. This morning I must talk with you about the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and, indeed, the entire world.
The racist apartheid Israeli regime remains obstinate in the face of justifiably severe criticism from the International Community. Israel recently murdered an innocent Palestinianchild for his peaceful protests against the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and other areas of what must, and will, become a free and democratic Palestine for, by and of the Palestinian people. I of course promptly sent condolences to the family of that innocent victim of Israel’s murderous regime, but even My act of compassion failed to soften Netanyahu’s heart of stone.
Similarly, Israeli goons responded to a traffic accident by murdering a Palestinian driver in Occupied Jerusalem. That, like other Israeli murders — including the thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians (many of them little children) murdered by Israel in Gaza — is Islamophobic genocide gone wild. With all of the sincerity I have, I commend the brave Palestinians who stand up to Israel’s murders, illegal construction and other actions contrary to international law in occupied areas and elsewhere, even at the cost of their own precious lives. They are true martyrs for peace, and our hearts are with the families of all such innocent victims of Israeli aggression.
Rather than halt Jewish construction projects in occupied territories, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently proclaimed his intention to build even more Jewish housing.
“I heard the claim that our building in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem makes peace more distant, but it is the criticism itself that makes peace more distant,” Netanyahu said of criticism that poured in following his announcement of plans to develop 660 more units in Ramot Shlomo in the northern part of the city and 400 in the southern neighborhood of Har Homa.
He is of course wrong, as usual. Were the building of illegal settlements neither happening nor planned at all, there would be no criticism of it. However, it is not only happening, it is accelerating. As the situation Neanderthal, of course I refer to Netanyahu, has created now stands, criticism is not just completely justified. It is absolutely necessary.
Despite the massive but sadly rejected conciliatory efforts, and fruitless attempts at compromise, frequently offered by the duly elected Palestinian Authority President Mohamed Abbas — a man of true Islamic peace, truth, justice and compassion — the situation continues to worsen because of Netanyahu’s senseless intransigence.
The situation is beyond My control — despite My countless great successes in domestic and foreign policy as the President of all of My people and universally acknowledged leader of the International Community. It has passed well beyond the point at which the impartial leaders of Turkey and Qatar can deal with it. Even pro-Israel Egypt, under its disgraced coup leader, dictator and Islamophobic “President” Sisi, has struck out.
Iranian President Rouhani, My esteemed friend and colleague in the pursuit of peace, is now the only world leader capable of dealing with Netanyahu’s senseless obstinacy. He did so in the past and will do so again in dealing with Israel, the cause of most if not all turmoil in the Middle East. A final solution is needed. President Rouhani knows what it is, how to arrange it and how to implement it.
He is a true moderate — in many respects perhaps more moderate than even I am. During his tenure, President Rouhani has taken heroic steps to improve Iran’s respect for the human rights which we should all hold dear but which Israel, under Netanyahu’s dictatorial hand, repeatedly ignores. This photo reveals Israel’s continued execution of innocent Arabs guilty only of adherence to the Religion of Peace:
Only recently, Israel executed this young Muslim woman, to the disgust and sorrow of human rights advocates everywhere, falsely blaming the travesty on Iran:
As soon as the P5+1 negotiators and Iran arrive at a mutually beneficial deal under which Iran can continue its peaceful pursuit of nuclear weapons energy, President Rouhani will be able to undertake the heavy burdens I have asked him to bear. I hope and prey pray that the P5+1 negotiations, long stalled by complaints from Israel and other right wing fear mongers who spout catastrophic nonsense, will succeed in the very near future, indeed soon after November 4th.
Thank you and Allah God Damn Bless America.
********************
By His peace process address and recitation of Iran’s proper place in the International Community as a peace maker, Obama has shown the path He will take as a true citizen of the World and its undisputed leader during the remainder of His term in office.
“We pledge cooperation in proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.” Long may will He rain upon us as our exalted Commander in Chief! The time between now and January 20, 2017 will certainly be, or at least seem to be, very long.
(Surely Imam Obama will soon issue a fatwa proclaiming that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not Islamic. Right? Meanwhile the P5+1 Iran Scam continues unabated. — DM)
Hassan Rouhani / AP
Iran executed a record-shattering 411 citizens in the first half of 2014 and a total of 852 people in the last 15 months, including at least eight juveniles, according to a new United Nations report that will be introduced to the organization’s General Assembly Tuesday.
In addition to a surge in state-sanctioned killings that a U.N. official referred to as “shocking,” Iran continues to torture imprisoned individuals using techniques such as amputation, electroshock, flogging, and burnings, according to the report, which details human rights in the Islamic Republic.
Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for human rights in Iran, described the situation in the country as “shocking” and pushed countries such as the United States to finally speak up about it.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was hailed by the Western media as a “moderate,” has not lived up to promises to reform the judicial system, Shaheed told reporters on Monday.
Rouhani “is unable to address the issues, unable to arrest this trend, to convert his promises which spoke to arresting this trend into action,” Shaheed, who is barred from entering Iran, was quoted as telling reporters on Monday.
Executions in particular have hit record levels in Iran, according to the report.
“Between July 2013 and June 2014, at least 852 individuals were reportedly executed, representing an alarming increase in the number of executions in relation to the already-high rates of previous years,” the report states. “The government also continues to execute juvenile offenders.”
Human rights organizations have put the number of those executed during Rouhani’s term at 967, while Iranian opposition groups have claimed it surpasses 1,000.
Iranian authorities over the weekend carried out the execution of a 26-year-old female rape victim who had killed her attacker in a violent struggle.
Multiple Iranian refugees who have fled the country reported being tortured during stints in Iranian prisons, according to the report.
Many were subjected to “psychological and physical torture” meant to elicit false confessions of crimes, according to the report.
Others who spoke to the U.N. “reported torture and ill-treatment and psychological abuse, such as prolonged solitary confinement, mock executions, and the threat of rape, along with physical abuse, including severe beatings, use of suspension and pressure positions, electroshock, and burnings,” according to the report.
Prisoners also faced “amputation and corporal punishment,” such as flogging, according to the report.
Democratic rights such as freedom of expression also were reported to have led to executions in Iran, a development the report dubs “deeply troubling.”
“Members of ethnic minority groups, in particular those espousing ethnocultural, linguistic or minority religious rights, appear to be disproportionately charged with moharebeh [‘enmity against God’] and mofsed fel-arz [‘corruption on Earth’], sometimes seemingly for exercising their rights to peaceful expression and association,” the report states.
Iran is gearing up to further crack down on democratic displays.
Draft laws in existence “appear to further undermine the rights to freedom of expression” and will facilitate “discrimination against women” by rolling back protection against forced marriage and education rights, according to the report.
Women in Iran continue to face great oppression and state-sanctioned violence.
At least 66 percent of Iranian women reported being a victim of domestic violence, with the current legislative framework in the country being “insufficient to combat such violence,” according to the report.
“Laws continue to explicitly allow for non-consensual sexual relations in marriage,” the report found. “There are insufficient safe houses for women in need of refuge.”
Any Iranian women seeking to leave an abusive relationship, for instance, must “first prove that there is a significant risk of bodily harm or a threat to her life,” the report explains.
Moreover, under Iranian civil code, women seeking to obtain a divorce as a result of domestic violence must first prove that the abuse was intolerable,” the report says.
Restrictions on the Internet in Iran also continue to grow.
“Severe content restrictions” continue to be imposed and many who skirt the laws can face harsh prosecution, according the report, which put the number of blocked websites at 5 million.
When confronted by the U.N. about this, Iran maintained that it, “(like many countries) blocks all immoral websites in the arts or social groups,” according to the report.
The head of Iran’s human rights council over the weekend dismissed the U.N. report.
“Our first problem is that they should explain why [the U.N. wants to send] a special rapporteur, what has happened in Iran that they have appointed a special rapporteur and why this rapporteur is needed for Iran and not for other countries,” Javad Larijani was quoted as saying on Sunday by Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.
Larijani accused the United Nations of fabricating information about the country’s human rights record.
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns.
Although the definition references “abnormal mental or behavioral patterns” [emphasis added], the behaviors here involved have become increasingly “normal.” Multicultural linguistics are part, but only part, of the problem.
Insane responses to Iran nukes, terrorism support and human rights
As the P5+1 negotiations continue under Obama’s guidance, Iran appears increasingly likely to get or keep nukes. Iran knows Obama.
The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
And with the deadline quickly approaching on talks between the U.S. and Iran over its contested nuclear program, Younesi’s denigrating views of Obama could be a sign that the regime in Tehran has no intent of conceding to America’s demands.
. . . .
“Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.
. . . .
“We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently by other world leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff, such as Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Do enough of us, and of perhaps greater importance enough of our “leaders,” know Him as well as Iran does?
The P5+1 negotiations were a scam from the beginning and the scam continues, enhanced by perceived needs to work with the (Shiite) Islamic Republic of Iran to degrade the Sunni (but “non-Islamic”) Islamic State and otherwise to “degrade” terrorism.
The Iranian government is well known for its funding of terrorism. The U. S. Government has long been well aware of it.
The United States State Department describes Iran as an “active state sponsor of terrorism.”[2]US Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice elaborated stating, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”[1]
So is the Obama Administration.
In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that “Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity” and that “Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.” The report states that Iran has continued to provide “lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians,” despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on “small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets.” The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. [Emphasis added.]
Iran is also remarkable for its failure to provide even minimal human rights. For example, it has been reported that Iran executed more than four hundred people during the first half of 2014. That’s more than two per day.
Despite Iran’s state anti-Semitism, the recent arrest of U.S. journalists, and the continued oppression of women, the Obama administration has been attempting a rapprochement with the Iranian regime. Fending off Iran hawks in Congress and the D.C. punditocracy, the administration has argued for a policy of constructive engagement, pursuing diplomacy over military action to halt Iran’s nuclear program. The execution of two gay men, while it may not be surprising, certainly doesn’t make that “engagement” any easier.
Iran’s cooperation also is seen as essential to managing the chaos in Iraq and the Islamic State. With U.S. airstrikes against the Sunni militants, on-off (now definitely off) support of Iraq’s Shiite (ex-) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the possible disintegration of Iraq, this cooperation—or at least not overt opposition—is surely of more strategic importance than the latest human rights abuse. [Emphasis added.]
Iran’s support for terrorism, abysmal violation of even the most basic human rights — and what these Iranian characteristics suggest that Iran is likely to do with its nukes — appear to be deemed of no importance by the P5+1 negotiators.
Domestic terrorism
Terrorism is often labeled “workplace violence,” a “traffic accident“ or just about anything but Islamic. This is from Jihad Watch:
A traffic incident in Jerusalem. Another traffic incident in Canada just a few days ago. Odd coincidence: both drivers were devout Muslims who killed Infidels “in the name of Allah” (as the Canadian bad driver put it). Meanwhile, also in Canada, a mentally ill man shoots up the Parliament building and murders a soldier. And in New York City, a man wielding a hatchet injures several police officers. Another odd coincidence: both the Canadian mentally ill man and the New York hatchet-wielder were also devout Muslims. The father of the former waged jihad in Libya, and the latter called for armed revolt in the U.S. But you must put all of these odd coincidences out of your mind right now. We know that none of this can have anything to do with Islam, and that greasy Islamophobes are the only ones who think otherwise.
“Memo from US Consulate refers to Jerusalem terror attack as ‘traffic incident,’” by Itamar Eichner, Ynet News, October 24, 2014 (thanks to Hamish):
Hours after a Palestinian terrorist drove his car into a crowd waiting at a light rail station in Jerusalem, the US consulate in the city issued a memo referring to the attack as a “traffic incident”.
A three-month-old baby was killed and seven other people were wounded when Abdel Rahman a-Shaludi drove his car across incoming traffic to strike the people waiting at the station. The baby girl, Chaya Zissel Braun, had American citizenship.
The memo was sent to employees of the American consulate, which is based in East Jerusalem. It asks staff to report “any emergency.”
AnneinPT (Israel) provides an actual Associated Press news headline about the “traffic accident.” “Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.”
Here’s how the AP, consistently with its customary reporting on things Israeli, might treat Palestinian rockets thwarted by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system: “Palestinian rockets damaged beyond repair by Israeli counter-measures.”
“Lone wolf” Islamic terrorists are exceedingly rare.
[N]umerous examples show that terrorist actors are almost always part of a network who were involved in recruiting and tasking terrorist activity. As Max Abrahms at Northeastern University has observed:
Since the advent of international terrorism in 1970, none of the 40 most lethal terrorist attacks has been committed by a person unaffiliated with some terrorist group, according to publicly available data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is funded by the Department of Homeland Security and stored at the University of Maryland. In fact, lone wolves have carried out just two of the 1,900 most deadly terrorist incidents over the last four decades.
So why “lone wolf”? Simply, it was a mechanism promulgated by the CVE [countering violent extremism] industry, with willing cooperation from law enforcement and intelligence officials, to exonerate themselves when a terrorist attack happened. At its core is terror agnosticism: “There is possibly no way to predict who will turn to terrorism, so therefore we can’t be held responsible when it happens. Oh, and give us more money so we can better improve how we won’t be able to predict terror attacks.” [Insert added.]
It’s Islamic terrorism all the way down:
Yet there has been great reluctance to associate terrorist attacks with the “religion of peace.” Here are examples of media and official reactions to the recent terrorist attacks in Canada: “CBC’s Derek Stoffel tweeted: ‘Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.’” However,
Stoffel should have known that in late September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict.
“The hard-Left Vox reacted to the revelation that Zehaf-Bibeau was a Muslim by dismissing the fact as irrelevant.”
Not to be outdone in multicultural empathy,
In the wake of the shootings in Ottawa, the police chiefs of Toronto and Ottawa wrote to local Muslim leaders, assuring them of their good will and urging Muslims to contact them in case of a “backlash.” These politically correct cops appear to have learned their lesson well: after every jihad attack, Muslims are the victims, and need special reassurances.
Eventually, the Canadian terrorist attacks were labeled “terrorism.” Even the White House called them “despicable terrorist attacks,” without mentioning the words “Islam” or “Islamist.”
In 2008 we the people elected Obama as “our” President. We did it again in 2012. He was viewed by many as the one for whom they had been waiting.
He was seen as the “God of all things.”
Fortunately, some seem to be recovering from their dementia.
However, all too many are still infected with insanity and continue to be contagious. Here’s a video of James O’Keefe talking with college students about vote fraud:
Vote fraud is apparently good when done for a “good” purpose.
When Obama spoke about Democrats running for reelection appearing to desert but really supporting him, he said
“So this isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn out.'” [Emphasis added.]
He may not have intended to encourage voter fraud, but “you do what you need to win” may well have been taken seriously by Obamabots. It has, as a minimum, an unpleasant odor.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
. . . .
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted. [Emphasis added.]
With early voting starting Thursday, North Carolina’s election board found 154 ineligible voters on its poll lists — and officials are examining thousands more questionable registrations.
The State Board of Elections said late Tuesday that more than 9,000 additional voters’ names are being checked for legal status. They do not expect to finish checking before early voting starts Thursday.
It’s necessary for Republicans to win outside the “margin of fraud,” and there have already been signs of voter fraud. In Arizona,
A Republican party official in the largest county in Arizona says surveillance tape shows a progressive Hispanic activist blatantly and openly engaging in vote fraud.
. . . .
Between 12:54 and 1:04, LaFaro said, he observed a man wearing a “Citizens for a Better Arizona” T-shirt loudly drop a box containing hundreds of early-voting ballots on a table.
Citizens for a Better Arizona is a progressive group.
The man then began “stuffing the ballot box,” LaFaro said. “I watched in amazement.”
In Chicago, Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan’s votes for Republican candidates, including for himself, were registered as having been cast for Democrats. He noticed the problem before pulling the ultimate lever and it was determined that the machine had been “improperly calibrated.” There is no indication in the linked article whether other machines were also “improperly calibrated” or whether any of them were examined to find out. Obviously, voters need to check for whom the machines say they have voted before pulling the lever. How many will bother to do so?
Since voter fraud may be insufficient, President Obama has diligently prevented voters from understanding what He intends to do about immigration soon after the election. Jonathan Turley, Esq., a “liberal” in the old fashioned sense rather than a leftist, wrote this about Obama’s refusal to disclose or even discuss His post-election plans for immigration “reform.”
[Y]esterday [October 23d] White House CBS reporter Major Garrett broke from the mainstream pack and pressed White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on a report that the Administration has order material for a “surge” of immigration IDs of up to 9 million in one year. Ernest called the questions “crazy” and encouraged everyone not to speculate . . . before the election obviously. [Emphasis added.]
[T]his Administration is openly withholding any information in its plans for unilateral presidential action despite the President’s pledge to take action after the election and before the New Year — only a matter of weeks. It is a cynical decision to prevent voters from being fully informed of the plans in a major policy area. Regardless of how one feels about immigration policies, it should be condemned by people across the political spectrum. [Emphasis added.]
More importantly, the media has to show some independence from the White House in this and other stories. Garrett is one of the few such reporters to press the point. His extraordinary exchange however was not covered by the mainstream press and, once again, the stonewalling on the issue was again dropped. I expect given the record of the White House corp, such questioning from Garrett does seem “crazy.” After all, disclosure of such plans might harm the White House in the upcoming election and only a “crazy” reporter would pursue such a story. [Emphasis added.]
Get your excuses for not voting prepared if you like the status quo:
If you don’t like the status quo, vote and remind your friends to do so as well.
Conclusions
From the P5+1 negotiations with Iran and the failure of our “leaders” even to pause on their path to Iranian nukes due to Iran’s abysmal human rights record, its support for terrorism and the dangers Iran already poses for what’s left of the free and democratic world — and will pose in even greater measure with nukes — to rampant antisemitism to Islamic attacks on and persecution of Christians qua Christians, to domestic Islamic terrorism to voting fraud, far too many are either insane or extraordinarily devious. Those who appear to be insane either do not recognize the nature of our enemies or do not care. Some are perhaps complicit.
As this insidious form of insanity spreads we seem to have no antidote more powerful than reason and common sense, both increasingly rare. Will our enemies have to provide a more effective antidote in the form of an attack on the United States so severe, clear and obvious that insanity can no longer be ignored even by our lunatics?
(These are the barbarians likely to be allowed to get or to keep nukes. Please see also “Goodbye, Dear Mum”: Iran Executes Rayhaneh Jabbari — UPDATED. Will Obama declare that the Islamic Republic of Iran in not Islamic or will he simply vote “absent? ” — DM)
Her case highlighted not just the archaic and abusive elements of Sharia “courts” but the absurd lack of basic procedural and substantive rights of defendants in Iran.
****************
We previously discussed the pending execution of Rayhaneh Jabbari, 26, for killing a former Iranian intelligence official who she said had raped her. Early reports that the execution had been carried out were premature and international efforts intensified to save Rayhaneh. I regret to report that the Associated Press is now reporting that today the Iranians hanged Rayhaneh in the latest outrage to come from that medieval legal system.
Jabbari claimed that a former Iranian Intelligence Ministry employee tried to rape her and that she stabbed in him the shoulder to escape. Despite the fact that a drink given to her was found to contain a date rape drug, the Iranian officials still wanted her hanged and they have now carried out their intent. Earlier this month, a guard showed mercy and gave her his phone to type a final message to her mother. Her reported message below is poignant and tragic as a final goodbye to her mother.
Jabbari wrote:
“I am currently handcuffed and there is a car waiting outside to take me for the execution of the sentence. Goodbye, dear Mum. All of my pains will finish early tomorrow morning. I’m sorry I cannot lessen your pain. Be patient. We believe in life after death. I’ll see you in the next world and I will never leave you again because being separated from you is the most difficult thing to do in the world.”
When her mother called the prison to ask what she could do, they told her to pick up the body of her daughter.
Jabbari was a decorator who said that she was contacted Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, who arranged a meeting. She said that Sarbandi drugged her and tried to rape her after the two met at a café and she agreed to go to his office to discuss a business deal. She said that Sarbandi took her to a remote building and offered her a fruit drink which was later found to contain the date-rape drug. Her family noted that the wounds from a small pocket knife to the shoulder would not have caused death.
After her arrest, her family said that she was tortured to confess.
The official IRNA news agency says Reyhaneh Jabbari was hanged at dawn Saturday for premeditated murder.
The execution was carried out after Sarbandi’s family refused to pardon Jabbari or accept blood money. Blood money is still used in countries enforcing the Sharia “legal” system based on Islamic principles.
Her case highlighted not just the archaic and abusive elements of Sharia “courts” but the absurd lack of basic procedural and substantive rights of defendants in Iran.
Adviser to Iranian president mocks Obama’s ‘humiliating’ presidency (UPDATED)
The candid comments by Rouhani’s right-hand-man could provide a window into the regime’s mindset as nuclear talks wind to a close.
The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
*****************
The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS).
And with the deadline quickly approaching on talks between the U.S. and Iran over its contested nuclear program, Younesi’s denigrating views of Obama could be a sign that the regime in Tehran has no intent of conceding to America’s demands.
“Obama is the weakest of U.S. presidents, he had humiliating defeats in the region. Under him the Islamic awakening happened,” Younesi said in a Farsi language interview with Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.
“Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.
The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently by other world leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff, such as Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Younesi, a former minister of intelligence in the country, also had some harsh comments about U.S. conservatives and the state of Israel.
“Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.”
Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.”
“We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said.
The candid comments by Rouhani’s right-hand-man could provide a window into the regime’s mindset as nuclear talks wind to a close.
The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), for instance, wrote a letter to the White House this week to tell Obama his desire to skirt Congress is unacceptable.
“Congress cannot and will not sit idly by if the Administration intends on taking unilateral action to provide sanctions relief to Iran for a nuclear deal we perceive to be weak and dangerous for our national security, the security of the region, and poses a threat to the U.S. and our ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote.
“If the Administration opts to act in a manner that directly contradicts Congress’ intent, then Congress must take all necessary measures to either reverse the executive, unilateral action, or to strengthen and enhance current sanctions law,” she told the president.
“President Obama does believe that by rewarding Iran and permitting it to do whatever it wants in the region, the mullahs in Tehran will be convinced to compromise,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
However, “the result has been disastrous: Iran controls 3 Arab capitals (Damascus, Beirut, and Baghdad) and its allies just captured the fourth one (Sana in Yemen) and Iran’s economy has significantly improved,” Ghasseminejad explained.
“Unfortunately, it does not seem that the mullahs reached the conclusion desired by the administration,” he said. “Iranians believe this administration is weak, it has lost its economic leverage over Iran and there is no credible military option on the table. Iran has been rewarded upfront, they now ask for more while are determined to keep their nuclear program intact.”
An Israeli soldier stands guard at a checkpoint near the Lebanese-Israeli border, Oct. 8, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Baz Ratner
This assessment is based on the possibility that Iran will indeed reach an agreement with the West by November or January — an agreement that’s good for Tehran, allowing it to preserve its nuclear capability as well as the potential for a fast break — within a matter of months — toward a bomb. Such an agreement, the senior minister told me, will set Iran free from all the shackles and brakes that have restrained it thus far. We think that it might consider siccing Hezbollah on Israel.
***********************
Stirring the pot of threats Israel is facing from Iran’s nuclear program began with a speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered Oct. 19 at a dedication ceremony of a new road named after the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. The next day, Minister for Intelligence Affairs Yuval Steinitz published his own statement, which came out a day after The New York Times published his op-ed. He was joined by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who evoked the cliche, “If you want to shoot, shoot; don’t talk.”
At the same time, the Israeli media (Yedioth Ahronoth) addressed this matter with questions raised by security officials who wondered “what awoke Netanyahu in terms of the Iranian issue.” The queries were raised on behalf of top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials who did not quite agree with the pessimistic forecasts provided by Netanyahu and his senior ministers to the effect that the world powers, chief among them the United States, were about to reach a “capitulation agreement” with Tehran on its nuclear program.
The New York Times later published an article answering this question: It reported that US President Barack Obama was contemplating reaching an agreement with Iran that would not consist of totally lifting the sanctions but only suspending them. Such a move, the newspaper said, lies within the president’s purviews, allowing him not to seek the approval of the Congress (as opposed to lifting the sanctions). Thus, the president will be able to bypass the intractable Congress, which may or may not endorse a “bad” deal with Iran. It is believed that this information reached Israeli intelligence officials before being published in the Times, which is what set off Netanyahu, Liberman and Steinitz.
Following a talk I held Oct. 20 with a senior minister from the diplomatic-security Cabinet, further details came to light. As we discussed the possibility of early elections in Israel, the minister made a surprising comment, noting that a war in the north was more likely to break out before new elections were held. Some of Israel’s top Cabinet ministers estimate that Hezbollah and Iran are fast approaching a fateful watershed, which might prompt them to drag Israel into another confrontation, far broader than the previous ones. This assessment is based on the possibility that Iran will indeed reach an agreement with the West by November or January — an agreement that’s good for Tehran, allowing it to preserve its nuclear capability as well as the potential for a fast break — within a matter of months — toward a bomb. Such an agreement, the senior minister told me, will set Iran free from all the shackles and brakes that have restrained it thus far. We think that it might consider siccing Hezbollah on Israel.
This information comes amid many previous reports regarding the marked change in Hezbollah policy in terms of its conduct along the confrontation line with Israel — to wit, the Israeli-Lebanese border as well as the Golan Heights sector, into which Hezbollah has been infiltrating little by little. Lately, the Lebanese Shiite organization has claimed responsibly for attempted terrorist attacks in the Golan Heights, for the first time in many years. Hezbollah no longer hides behind proxy “subcontractors.” It is no longer ambiguous nor does it try to go under the radar. On the contrary, it operates openly against Israel, publicly acknowledging its responsibility. It seems to have gained a great deal of confidence and is no longer apprehensive of an unexpected conflagration vis-a-vis the IDF.
What this means is that the era of Israel’s deterrence in the north is over. Achieved after the Second Lebanon War in 2006, this deterrence lasted more than eight years. Its remnants remain noticeable on the ground, but according to all indications Hezbollah has lost its brakes and its restraint and has started looking for a confrontation instead of running away from one. Until lately, most Israeli intelligence elements estimated that Hezbollah was unready to open a second front against Israel, given that it is up to its neck in the war in Syria and now in the fighting in north Lebanon. While this assessment has yet to be officially scrapped, the voices coming from top political officials in Jerusalem nevertheless point to a plausible possibility of another war with Hezbollah in the coming months.
The organization’s militants openly carry out patrols along the border. Its presence in friction-prone areas has been beefed up considerably. It is now engaged in planning and executing micro-guerrilla warfare against the IDF also on the Golan sector, while setting new rules of deterrence: Any Israeli activity that crosses Hezbollah’s “red line” will be met by an appropriate response.
As for the question whether the heavy fighting in Lebanon has not burned out Hezbollah capabilities, the senior minister told me: “On the contrary; it has gained confidence and operational experience. Now it can fight like any other state military, employing forces on a division scale or even broader, relying on intel, airborne vehicles, etc.” And there’s something else: The Israeli performance during Operation Protective Edge apparently did not impress Hezbollah. Even the threats made in recent weeks by senior Israeli officials such as chief of staff Benny Gantz and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, namely that “Israel will knock Lebanon back 70 or 80 years” in the event of a confrontation with the IDF, make no special impression on Hezbollah.
Are we on the way to an all-out confrontation in the north? There’s no need to scurry for shelter just yet. Such a confrontation would result in casualties and devastation at proportions we have never witnessed to date. This time around, Israel, too, will sustain heavy casualties and great devastation in view of the fact that Hezbollah’s rocket capabilities are much more improved than those of Hamas. The Iron Dome missile defense system will not provide an effective and complete response to curb the rocket offensive on Tel Aviv and its environs. The last thing the blazing Middle East needs right now is an Armageddon between Israel and Hezbollah, which might also draw Syria, and possibly Iran, either overtly or covertly.
We must also bear in mind that there is another possibility, whereby Jerusalem is trying to create a warmongering spin to heat up the atmosphere, to wield pressure on the world powers to toughen their positions vis-a-vis Iran. Or maybe Jerusalem just wants to scare Israelis who are starting to move toward a socioeconomic agenda, thus making it harder for Netanyahu to get re-elected.
The truth could be composed of a colorful mosaic consisting of all the existing possibilities. In every truth there is a grain of spin, and vice versa. And yet, the possibility of a very hot winter in the north exists more than it has.
“Regrettably, while VOA-PNN has given voice to the pro-Tehran crowd inside the Beltway, it has censored the views of those who seek a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic in Iran,” Sadeghpour said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.
*****************
Congress is calling for an investigation into Voice of America’s (VOA) Persian language news service as a result of what they say is the station’s systemic pro-Iran bias and cozy ties to the anti-American ruling regime, according to a letter sent recently to Secretary of State John Kerry.
Lawmakers and Iranian dissidents have long accused VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) of producing sympathetic coverage of the Iranian regime and blacklisting prominent Iranian opposition voices from appearing on the air.
The call from Congress for an investigation into these alleged practices comes just a month after the Washington Free Beacon revealed that PNN had banned from the network a prominent Iranian opposition member and placed him on a so-called “black list” after he attacked Iran’s ruling regime for sponsoring terrorism.
Nine House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are now demanding that the State Department launch a formal investigation into potential mismanagement at PNN, according to a letter sent to Kerry on Wednesday and obtained by the Free Beacon.
“We request that you [Kerry] look into this matter and investigate any possible mismanagement and slanted coverage of news by VOA-PNN, including the oversight of management, staffing, and content,” the lawmakers wrote.
Those members concerned about PNN’s coverage include Reps. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.), Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), Steve Stockman (R., Texas), Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), Howard Coble (R., N.C.), and several others.
The lawmakers say that their Iranian-American constituents have been complaining about PNN’s failure to cover Iran’s human rights abuses and other matters that are potentially embarrassing to the ruling regime.
“We have received complaints from our Iranian-American constituents that VOA-PNN programs have neglected to adequately cover the abysmal situation of human rights violations in Iran, particularly the alarming and dramatic rise in executions,” they write in the letter.
“During [Iranian] President Hassan Rouhani’s first term in office, nearly 900 hangings have been ordered with very few of these executions receiving VOA-PNN coverage,” they say. “In our efforts to protect and give voice to vulnerable populations, we must ensure that VOA-PNN upholds its mission to provide truthful news and does not suppress the voices of those Iranians seeking human rights protections and Democratic change in their country.”
In addition to a significant rise in executions, including one scheduled for a female rape victim who spoke out against her attacker, Iran has continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism in the Middle East.
PNN critics, including former staffers and guests, have discussed systematic corruption at the network that includes a policy of censoring those who criticize the regime and those who may reveal information damaging to the network’s senior officials, some of whom have had ties to the Iranian regime.
“We are concerned that this network, which is meant to promote freedom and democracy through objective news and information, may have harmed instead of helped the plight of Iranians seeking to claim their human rights,” the lawmakers state in their letter.
Iranian-American community leaders welcomed Congress’ call to investigate PNN.
Majid Sadeghpour, political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities-US (OIAC), said that U.S. taxpayers expect better of VOA.
“Regrettably, while VOA-PNN has given voice to the pro-Tehran crowd inside the Beltway, it has censored the views of those who seek a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic in Iran,” Sadeghpour said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.
Regime opponents who have been invited onto PNN say that their comments have been censored, and in some cases they have been thrown off the air.
Nikahang Kowsar, an Iranian cartoonist, journalist, and regime critic, told the Free Beacon that he was booted off PNN’s airwaves in March in the midst of an interview for discussing corruption in Iran’s oil industry that could be traced back to high-level officials.
Kowsar was being interviewed on VOA Persian’s Last Page program when the host was apparently ordered to cease the interview.
“I was waiting for the second round of questions” when a PNN host claimed that “he was told and ordered not to ask any more questions to me,” recalled Kowsar. “Then a gentleman from the studio came and disconnected my microphone.”
Kowsar said he was shocked by the experience. He later petitioned the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees VOA and PNN, about the incident.
“When I was in Iran I went to prison for drawing a cartoon, I was cut off from national TV … I was censored in Iran, so somebody who has been censored inside the Islamic republic is not news. But being in the VOA studios in the U.S., the land of the free, and then learning that I have to be censored is … news.”
“If VOA is the channel that wants to talk about American values and freedom of speech and is run by people who have the Islamic republic mindset, that’s not nice,” Kowsar said. “In a way you see that the Islamic republic has exported its values to the heart of Washington and I can’t tolerate that.”
In September—a few months after Kowsar was booted off air—Majid Mohammadi, an Iranian-American academic and critic of Tehran’s hardline regime, was purportedly placed on the station’s “black list” for comparing the Islamic Republic to the terror group Islamic State (IS, ISIS, or ISIL).
“After the program, I was called and one of the staff members of PNN (Mr. Homan Bakhtiar) told me that Mr. Mohammad Manzarpour, the editor, has put me in the black list and PNN will no longer contact me for providing my expertise on Middle East issues in VOA Persian programs,” Mohammadi later wrote in a letter to the BBG.
PNN editor Manzarpour has been singled out for particular criticism by several of the station’s critics and even former employees who have worked with him.
Manzarpour, they allege, has had ties to the Iranian regime and uses his platform at PNN to censor information he finds objectionable.
Manzarpour, his critics note, has previously worked for Iran’s Atieh Bahar Consulting company, which helps foreign companies invest in Iran’s oil sector and “acts as intermediary between them and the government,” according to the Iranian American Forum.
Manzarpour’s previous ties to Atieh Bahar could influence his editorial decisions at PNN, Kowsar said.
“There is something wrong over there, a virus,” Kowsar explained. “You feel there is a sort of conflict of interest over there. Why should somebody coming from Atieh Bahar be in charge of the editorial staff over there?”
“When he cuts me off from a program relating somehow to the oil [industry] … you feel something sketchy over there,” he said.
Setareh Derakhshesh, the director of the VOA-PNN, admitted to the Free Beacon last month that the network has had issues and that she is working to rectify the appearance of a pro-Iran bias.
“We are very well aware [of the issues] that VOA Persian had,” she said at the time. “We have actually rebranded” in recent years and are “aware of the bad press and infighting and the one sidedness.”
However, VOA Persian has “turned a corner and made changes,” she said. “We still have a long way to go but we know we are improving.”
While the world watches IS, Iran quietly advances‘
Moderate’ Tehran is gaining control over larger chunks of territory — Lebanon, parts of Syria and Iraq, and now Yemen, where a vital Israeli sea route is now threatened
Armed Yemeni Shiite Houthi anti-government rebels sit in the back of a pick-up truck as they drive near the state television compound in the capital of Sana’a, September 21, 2014. (photo credit: AFP/Mohammed Huwais)
hile the entire world follows breathlessly the battles between Kurdish forces and the Islamic State in Kobani, the Syrian city on the border between Turkey and Syria, Iran is slowly completing an impressive takeover of Yemen.
On Tuesday, Houthi separatists took control of the strategic Yemeni port city of Hodeida, west of the capital, Sana’a. They captured the airport to the south of the city on the same day. This came after the September 21 Houthi takeover of Sana’a itself.
The Houthi, Zaidi Shi’a (one of the Shi’a sects), have enjoyed the close support in recent years of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and its al-Quds Brigades, responsible for foreign theaters.
This should arouse worry in Israel. Yemen, due to its strategic location, commands what for Israel is a strategic waterway — the exit from the Rea Sea to the Indian Ocean, also known as Bab al-Mandab. The presence of Revolutionary Guards forces on such a critical shipping lane for the Israeli economy, facilitating access not only to the Indian Ocean but also to targets like Iran itself, could present significant problems for Israeli ships passing through. At the beginning of the 1970s, Palestinian terror groups attacked Israeli ships that passed through Bab al-Mandab. It is possible that the Iranians will try to use the same tactics with the Houthis.
But beyond the Israeli angle, developments in Yemen in recent weeks, and indeed since the beginning of the Arab Spring there, are a classic example of the shifting sands in the Middle East.
In November 2011, Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh quit after 33 years. He was one of the longest-serving leaders in the Middle East, similar to Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. They were the same age, and the lynch that killed Qaddafi in 2011 was, it seems, one of the factors that led to Saleh stepping down on his own accord. In his place, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi was appointed president.
Yemeni politician Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak during a visit to the Shiite rebel stronghold of Saada, September 19, 2014. photo credit: AFP/Mohammed Huwais)
But for the Houthi, this personal change was not enough. They wanted a bigger slice of the government pie, and, likely with Iranian encouragement, they sought to take over the country, as they are still attempting to do now. In recent months, the Houthi have recorded significant military achievements, the most important being the capture of Sana’a. They managed to take over government offices and other strategic facilities, and then agreed to stop fighting — but only if a new government made up of technocrats was appointed.
President Hadi, with UN mediation, agreed. But when he tried to appoint one of his associates, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak, as prime minister, he was met with a strident refusal on the part of the Houthi.
Meanwhile, the Sunni extremists operating throughout Yemen, especially al-Qaeda, did not look favorably upon this assertion of power by the Zaidi Shi’ites, who make up about 30% of the country’s population. Last Thursday, during a Houthi demonstration against the appointment of bin Mubarak, a suicide bomber detonated himself in the crowd marching in Sana’a, killing 47. This development caused President Hadi to withdraw from his plan to appoint bin Mubarak, and only on Monday did all the parties agree to the appointment of the former Yemeni ambassador to the UN, Khaled Baha, as the new prime minister.
But then came the next day’s events — the occupation of Hodeida — which knocked everything back to square one. And if that wasn’t enough, on the same day, southern separatists demonstrated in cities in the south, notably Aden, demanding independence and the recreation of the People’s Republic of South Yemen.
It is uncertain where Yemen is heading. What is clear, however, is that in the shadow of attacks and massacres from the Islamic State, the Shi’ite axis headed by Iran is not resting for a moment. During the Houthi demonstrations, passwords appeared that sounded like they were taken directly from the Iranian Islamic Revolution’s phrasebook: “Death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews.”
Armed Yemeni Shiite Houthi anti-government rebels shout slogans as they man a checkpoint erected after the group seized northern districts of the capital of Sana’a on September 21, 2014. (photo credit: AFP/Mohammed Huwais)
Many of the participants probably don’t even know where Israel is. But Iran’s influence goes well beyond slogans, and the Saudis are anxiously keeping an eye on the developments to the south. Riyadh knows that the Iranians have transferred weapons to the Houthi, and it is trying to help foil the smuggling from Iran to northern Yemen. Revolutionary Guards forces were caught by the Yemeni army during the fighting, and the Saudis are worried that the new Iranian expedition will try to produce unrest in their Shi’ite areas.
So while the American (and Israeli) media focuses almost obsessively on the maps of IS’s takeover, “moderate” Iran is succeeding with a little less noise to gain control over even larger chunks of territory: Lebanon, parts of Syria and Iraq, and now Yemen.
Next month, six months of talks over the Iranian nuclear program will end, likely without a major breakthrough. But even without nuclear weapons, it looks like the Iranians are doing just fine.
The Islamic State’s changing tactics
And now to the Sunni threat. IS, despite aerial attacks by the Americans and their coalition partners, is not stopping. True, its rate of progress is not as rapid as in the good old days of Mosul, but it is still capturing parts of Kobani.
How is it possible that even the mighty air power of several armies, led by the US, cannot defeat IS?
The answer, it seems, lies in the tactical level.
A Syrian Kurd gestures as thick smoke rises following an airstrike by the US-led coalition in Kobani, Syria, as fighting continued between Syrian Kurds and Islamic State forces, on Monday, October 13, 2014. (photo credit: AP/Lefteris Pitarakis)
IS commanders understood that their convoys of Toyota 4x4s are easy prey for American drones and planes, and so they changed their method of transportation. They are able to reach their destinations, but not in such an open manner, using motorcycles and private cars. They also left their black garb in Iraq, along with their identifying flags.
Second, they are using various methods to foil the aircrafts’ ability to target them, including burning hundreds of tires in order to create thick smoke above battle areas.
Third, and this might be the most problematic for the Americans, the moment IS forces enter urban environments, US pilots — especially those flying fighter jets (as opposed to attack helicopters) — are having trouble distinguishing between friend and foe without direction from the ground. But there is no intention to fix this. US President Barack Obama’s decision not to put boots on the ground, as understandable as it is politically, makes it difficult for the coalition forces.
In order to create targets, intelligence is needed. And without the presence of intelligence personnel and special forces on the ground, there is not sufficient information, it turns out, to stop the advance of IS.
Police use tear gas and water cannon in Ankara on October 8, 2014, to disperse demonstrators protesting against the attacks launched by Islamic State insurgents targeting the Syrian town of Kobani by the Kurds, and the lack of action by their government. (photo credit: AFP/Adem Altan)
Finally, a word about the allies America chose for herself in the Middle East — Qatar and Turkey — is necessary. They both finance Hamas, and Doha, at least, has helped IS members in the past on one level or another. It’s hard to believe, but the current administration in Washington chose these two countries as partners within the framework of its policy of rapprochement with Arab and Muslim countries generally.
This week, National Security Adviser Susan Rice praised Ankara’s decision to allow coalition aircraft to use Turkish airports to attack IS targets. Ankara immediately denied the claim. Furthermore, on Monday, Turkish aircraft attacked the Kurdish underground in southeast Turkey. The only place from which it is possible to transfer supplies to the beleaguered Kurds in Kobani is the Turkish border. But the leaders in Ankara reject this possibility out of hand.
It seems that saving their brothers in Gaza is more urgent.
It’s a two-step charade. First, since the UN has no definition of terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism happily denounce “terrorism” at the very same time as they promote it. Second, the terrorist funders and weapons suppliers redirect the world’s attention to the supposed “root causes” of terrorism.
On Oct. 7, at the legal committee meeting at UN headquarters, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon listed “root causes that may lead to radicalism such as . . . poverty, social exclusion and marginalization” along with “Islamophobia.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani played the same card in an address to the General Assembly in September when he whined about “Iranophobia.
******************
While we are looking for terrorists sneaking across borders, lurking in mosques and holed up in caves, pro-terrorist ideology is spreading across America and around the globe — disseminated in plain sight from the United Nations, in the heart of New York City.
Over the past week, the UN’s top legal committee — a General Assembly body where all 193 states are represented — met to discuss terrorism. The webcasts are broadcast globally in multiple languages. The documents are translated and disseminated on a mammoth website free of charge.
It’s a two-step charade. First, since the UN has no definition of terrorism, state sponsors of terrorism happily denounce “terrorism” at the very same time as they promote it. Second, the terrorist funders and weapons suppliers redirect the world’s attention to the supposed “root causes” of terrorism.
Conveniently, the catalog of root causes of terrorism dreamed up in these circles never includes religiously driven bigotry doled out by anti-Semites and misogynist, homophobic sociopaths — whose need to torture, rape and kill requires no deep explanation.
A quick moral inversion, and the terrorist becomes the victim.
The UN was full of such dangerous canards last week.
On Oct. 7, at the legal committee meeting at UN headquarters, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon listed “root causes that may lead to radicalism such as . . . poverty, social exclusion and marginalization” along with “Islamophobia.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani played the same card in an address to the General Assembly in September when he whined about “Iranophobia.”
Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. And to the organization’s great shame, Iran is also the president of the so-called “Non-Aligned Movement” — a group of nations routinely aligned against the West. As such, Iran speaks for 120 UN member states — a majority of the 193 UN countries.
Here’s the Iranian speech to the UN legal beagles that was webcast Oct. 7: “Terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination and national liberation.”
Here’s state sponsor of terrorism North Korea on the same day: “Domination and interference, poverty and social inequality, and racial or religious discrimination constitute the root cause of terrorism. International efforts to put an end to terrorism should be preceded by removing the root cause of terrorism.”
All 56 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have signed on to the Islamic Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which gives a green light to killing Israelis, Americans and anybody else deemed fair game. The treaty says: “Peoples’ struggle, including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination . . . shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”
Speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Oct. 7, Egypt reiterated this pro-terror exemption clause. Over the course of Oct. 7 and 8, the UN trumpeted support for the Iranian and Organization of Islamic Cooperation call to arms from half of all the speakers.
Compounding the efficacy of this outrage, unfortunately, is the Obama administration. With great fanfare, on Sept. 24,, President Obama chaired a Security Council meeting that unanimously adopted a resolution on foreign terrorist fighters.
But the only reason everybody could agree that “terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security” was because terrorism was left undefined.
Moreover, the Security Council didn’t just denounce terrorism. It demanded we “address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” Next it insisted we “counter the violent, extremist narrative that can incite terrorist acts.” And then it ordered us to “address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism.”
In other words, Obama sold us an infinite regression. Because at the UN, the buck never stops with radical Islamists or the governments that support them.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments