Iran 2010: Threat & Opportunity

(Washington, Jan. 17) When judgment is rendered on the success or failure of U.S. foreign policy in 2010 the verdict will depend more than anything on the outcome of our confrontation with Iran. The threat to U.S. global interests from Iran is immense, but so too is the opportunity for a historic and transformational advancement of those interests. Converging circumstances in both Washington and Teheran strongly suggest that a decisive turning point is at hand.

The sudden leap of Yemen onto the front pages of U.S. newspapers has underlined how far reaching are the dangers Iran poses for the United States and its allies. Both the Bush and Obama administrations chose to narrow the focus on Iran to that country’s nuclear ambitions correctly seeing that issue as the most critical and most likely to rally international support.

The fact that Iran by supplying sophisticated weaponry to its proxies in both Iraq and Afghanistan is killing American soldiers has been downplayed by both administrations. The fact that murderous violence aimed at Israel and the United States in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, and Yemen has been powerfully fueled by Teheran’s money and fanatical ideology has similarly been acknowledged but in a very low key.

Both Bush and Obama repeatedly denounced the wickedness of al-Qaeda but failed to connect the dots regarding the obvious implications of the religious zealotry and violent strategies that are common to Bin-Laden and the Iranian mullahs e.g. pathological hatred of Israel, predilection for blowing people up, and determination to take the battle to the heartland of the Great Satan America.

Bush’s Iran strategy was to isolate and not talk to them. Obama reversed field and opted for engagement. Both approaches utterly failed to modify Iranian objectives; Teheran’s response to both isolation and engagement has been a mix of arrogance, insult, and continued bad behavior culminating most recently in Ahmadinejad’s bombastic demand that Israel and America give up their own nuclear weapons as a precondition for any Iranian response.

Obama’s oft declared end of year deadline for positive Iranian response has come and gone. He now must be prepared to implement those “serious consequences” he has long spoken of. This will not be easy, particularly in light of China’s recent declared intention of using its veto to block sanctions in the United Nations Security Council.

Given the U.N’s almost limitless capacity for procrastination Obama’s best hope for support lies with the European Union, but despite encouraging rhetoric from Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, action from that multi-lateral body is far from certain.

In the end Obama must consider an approach he has long decried: unilateral United States action.

So, amidst these growing threats, where is the grand opportunity?

It principally lies in the very realistic chance of achieving “regime change” in Iran by boldly siding with the growing opposition in that country. Once they merely sought honest elections. Now clearly their goal is the overthrow of the dictatorship. The Iranian people- now chanting in street demonstrations “Obama, are you with us or them?” – are the most educated and sophisticated populace between Israel and India and as they showed in 1979 they have the capacity to bring down an intolerable regime.

In his Nobel Address President Obama eloquently stated some realities that much of the world sometimes forgets. He said that evil exists, and that peaceful means would not have stopped Hitler and will not stop al- Qaeda. He reminded his audience that American power had for half a century been the principal guarantor of their freedom, and while collective security is always preferred, sometimes one nation i.e. the United Stated must act alone.

Many saw President Obama’s speech as a justification of his Afghan escalation, but he was also laying down a marker for Iran and clearly signaling that he was ready for a major course correction is his own approach to world affairs.

Absent a pathologically hostile regime in Iran, U.S. foreign policy challenges from Pakistan to Israel dramatically shift in our favor, the entire Middle East is transformed, and U.S. global influence, and the cause of freedom reaches a pinnacle unmatched since the Second World War.

Heady stuff. Not easy, not certain, but once again History offers America an opportunity to be the great catalyst for human progress. Bill Moloney was Colorado Education Commissioner, 1997-2007. His columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.

Christmas bomber: BHO still doesn't get it

When the President vows to “get to the bottom of all this and bring these violent extremists to justice”, he is telegraphing the following: 1. He is NOT connecting the violence to Islamic Jihad, which IS the main ideological threat to the United States. Islamic Jihadists generate markers that fit the facts on the ground. With these markers, we can proceed to watch the Mosques where Jihadist groups are formed, we can read their literature and understand their doctrine, we can listen to the Imams and anticipate their actions. But “violent extremists” generate nothing! How do you define one? You can’t! The media continues their apologist approach, describing the million and first “disturbed young man”, and of course Islam has nothing to do with it. They also strive for “balance” and are sure to mention “right wing extremists” in the same breath, even though there has been a weekly Islamic Jihad incident since July of this year, and nothing from “right wing extremists” since Oklahoma City.

2. The President, by avoiding the mention of Islam, is also letting us know he buys into the false narrative about Islam perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS, and all the rest. This false narrative would have us believe that Islam is the “religion of peace”, that all Muslims are moderate, and only a “fringe” are violent, owing to our policies. The reality is, Jihad is built into the faith. Jihad is the solemn duty of ALL believers. Jihad can be waged four ways: with the mouth, the pen, the money and the sword. Note that our misdirected “War on Terror” only deals with Jihad by the sword, leaving the other three modes unattended!

3. Also, to “bring violent extremists to justice” reveals a view that the war with Islamic Jihad is a police problem. A question: how to you deter suicide attacks with the threat of fines and imprisonment? The legal straitjacket we have put ourselves in is this: everything is legal until a crime has been committed. What happens when this “crime” is the detonation of nuclear weapons in a half dozen cities? Also, we see Jamaa’t al-Fukra training thousands of soldiers for Jihad in the United States. A steady stream of young men are going to the Middle East to the battlefields of jihad and are gaining combat experience. They are returning to the United States as seasoned combat veterans and trained killers. They are becoming the training cadre and the backbone of a Muslim Jihad Army being built before our eyes right here in the United States! And we are turning a legalistic blind eye lest we “offend the Muslims”?

“Zero Hour” arrives, (and this is their term, not mine), and these thousands of combatants rise up in armed insurrection, what will the government do then? Threaten to file suit? Threaten to pull their 503c status?

When will we wise up?

I was first inspired to start blogging back in the summer of  2005 in the wake of the July 7 terror attack in London.  I had lived in London during the late 1980s, and I was concerned then that Britain's penchant towards "multiculturalism" was creating an environment that was all too accommodating of radical Islam.  Indeed, the mosques and Imams in Finsbury -- not far from where I lived  -- were the source of the radical students who set off the bombs on the London transport system. Britain has sown the seeds of its radicalism by allowing the hate mongers to preach their venom without fear of retribution, and indeed with many legal protections. In the interest of being "open" the Brits have actually enabled an enemy to thrive inside its borders. It seems that at least some in the UK have gotten the message. From the Telegraph UK comes this piece entitled Detroit Terror Attack: A murderous ideology tolerated for too long. Its primary thesis is that the murderous ideology of radical Islam is tolerated in a way that other radical beliefs are not -- and that we do so at our own peril.  The most pertinent passage is as follows:

Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.

So, somehow preaching the murder of innocents is tolerated when it is done by Muslims, but not when it is being done by Nazis. Why? Because of the fear of being labled a racist. It is why so many things go unsaid in our culture today: it is too dangerous for people to speak the truth. It is more important to be sensitive and tolerant than it is to be right. We have dumbed ourselves down to the lowest possible common denominator.

Hear no evil.  See no evil.  Speak no evil.

The radical Imams who preach this hatred to young, middle class students in British university understand this all too well. They are gaming us -- and preying on our desire to be politically perfect in our sensibilities. It is a weakness from within that they are exploiting mercilessly.

By the way, lest you think this only happens in Europe: This is exactly what happened at Fort Hood, when Major Hasan was tolerated by his peers and promoted by his superiors even though he was openly preaching hatred. He wasn't stopped because even in the military we've been chilled by political correctness and a desire to be open.

When will we wake up and start to understand that our tolerance is being used against us?  When will we conclude that profiling and proactive security measures is needed to keep air travel safe?

When will we wise up?

It's a fact: We're at war

We are at war with Islam. How do we know? The Islamists tell us: from their pulpits, in their literature, on their websites and in their holy books. More precisely, they are waging Jihad against us as unbelievers (the “Kuffar). It is nothing we have done, and there is nothing we can do peaceably to stop it. This will come as a blow to the “Blame America First” adherents, who sincerely believe that if only America would “straighten out”, all the problems in the world would go away. Jihad is a process of forcing the “Kuffar” to submit to the Shari’ah and to pay a terribly expensive Jizya tax or to die(Qur’an Suras 2:16, 4:89, 9:5, 9:36). It is a process built into the Faith and has been underway for 1400 years, long before there was a United States or its foreign policy, and long before there was an Israel.

The longer we in the West stay in denial of this fact, the more rapidly our society, with its freedoms and prosperity, will disappear! Our attempts to assure the Muslims we mean them no harm and that we are not at war with them is irrelevant. Our wishful thinking that somehow not all Muslims subscribe to Jihad is just that! Wishful thinking! Our mythical construct of “moderate Muslims” that are benign denies the fact that Jihad is an obligation of all believers, by “Scholarly Consensus”! This means a believer is required to believe and to obey on pain of apostasy! (Reliance of the Traveller,o9.1).

An old anti-war sticker asked a rhetorical question “What if somebody gave a war and nobody came?” The answer is clear: you are enslaved very quickly.

We need to understand that Jihad can be waged four ways: with the mouth, with the pen, with money as well as with the sword. Our government’s concentration on Al Qaeda as the only threat is incorrect! The Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s myriad of front organizations, such as ISNA, CAIR, MAS and MPAC, are working right here to subvert our democracy with the other modes of Jihad.

Slowly but surely they are working to force us to submit to the Shari’ah! Their demands, in the guise of “Muslim rights”, are in reality designed to uproot our culture and prepare our society for eventual Islamization. Foot washing stations and prayer rooms in public schools and Universities are a prime example. Such facilities are non-existent even in Muslim countries! Their only purpose is to force the school systems to submit to the Shari’ah Law.

The so called “war on terror” has floundered for 8 years because the strategy is incoherent! Terror is a tactic, not an ideology! We need to construct our strategy for survival against the ideology of Islamic Jihad and nothing else. When we do that, what must be done becomes crystal clear!

Strategic Operations and the Jihadi Enemy

By John Guandolo As we look at recent events, it becomes clear that the evidence points to the fact that these were not just acts of jihad linked by Islamic doctrine. They were also operations which drew on most or all of the key elements that we see in overseas operations, and which have we previously seen prior to or during operations here in the States. Here is what we might call their five-part planning matrix, along with a look at how it maps out for two homeland incidents this year as well as the strike in India last year.

Al Qaeda / Jihadi Op Planning:

1) A good target is a target until mission completion (World Trade Center 1993 = WTC 2001)

2) A good penetration location once is a good penetration location again (White House: Alamoudi)

3) The key operational guy always leaves before the Op (Ramzi Yousef: WTC 1)

4) Target preference is communicated via some medium (AQ discussing targeting US economic center)

5) Religious/Legal Approval for Op must be given (Blind Sheikh in US)

Hasan: FT HOOD

1) Military personnel are always a target (Sgt Akbar, et al)

2) Hasan was on DHS Taskforce (http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF) see page 29 - odd.

3) The prior Muslim Chaplain at Ft Bragg left and put Hasan in charge as the lay Muslim Chaplain. Why did the Chaplain leave and when?

4) Target Preference Texas = http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2009/10/10/yemens-al-qaeda-sets-targets-as-gulf-oil/

5) Email approval from Awlaki (see attached UNCLAS DHS reports)

Lashkar-e-Toiba: MUMBAI

1) NA

2) Recce Team of David Headley and Tahawwur Hassan Rana (Lashkar-e-Toiba) arrested in US by FBI last month

3) Both lived and traveled extensively to locations attacked in Mumbai and left prior to attacks.

4) Individuals in Pakistan and UK provided leadership for operation - and Headley met with several LET guys in India and went to Pakistan afterwards. Team apparently (evidence still being collected) went and reconned all locations. Headley was at Nariman House (Jewish) where he posed as a Jew.

5) Approval from Pakistan for operational team.

Boyd et al: North Carolina

1) Targets were numerous overseas, no specific targets in US

2) Unknown

3) Op didn't happen so unknown - also, this was a traveling jihadi roadshow...different from a singular attack

4) Bad guys traveled extensively and likely chose wide variety of targets (statements indicate they were to fight in Algeria, and conduct attacks elsewhere as well)

5) Unsure if approval was given in US or Pakistan. Group had direct ties to Gulbuddin Heckmatyar which means Pakistani ISI was giving guidance as well.

The author was a top counter-terrorism expert for the FBI before leaving the Bureau in 2008. He now works in the Washington area as a consultant and trainer, and is a fellow of the Centennial Institute in Denver.