Wednesday, October 18, 2017

FBI sat on evidence of Russian bribery plot as US uranium reserves signed over to Russia - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

The FBI under Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice under Eric Holder and his US Attorney Rosenstein allowed a strategic natural resource to slip into the control of a rival hostile power, and declined to act on corruption investigations into the Clintons.

A blockbuster story in The Hill yesterday is being given the silent treatment by the mainstream media. That won’t last for long.

Lowell Ponte gets to the essence of what the story by John Solomon and Alison Spann reveals about the sham effort to pin Russian collusion on Donald Trump.
"Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," sources told Solomon and Spann.
But acting FBI investigators at the time – including then-U.S. attorney Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, the man Rosenstein would later choose to investigate possible Russian collusion that helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election – apparently did not share this information about Russia with key members of Congress.
The FBI under Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice under Eric Holder and his US Attorney Rosenstein allowed a strategic natural resource to slip into the control of a rival hostile power, and declined to act on corruption investigations into the Clintons. All while keeping Congress and the public in the dark about the unfolding crime involving the highest levels of politics.

This s actual collusion with Russia, and now the guy who let the FBI stand by as the collusion operated, as the deal was signed, the speaking fees received, and vast amounts of cash were channeled to the slush fund legally known as The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Clarice Feldman points out that today Senator Grassley’s Judiciary Committee is conducting DoJ oversight hearings, with A.G. Sessions testifying before the committee and the cameras. Clarice thinks it should be a blockbuster.

Keep in mind that Sessions has been at the mercy of the incumbent staff, and is only now getting his own people confirmed at senior levels. Marcy Wheeler of the New Republic is very worried about Brian Benczkowski, just confirmed as the new head of the DoJ’s criminal division.

My own view is that a housecleaning at the FBI and DoJ is needed. Let’s look for the parties responsible for covering up this scandal, which should be the biggest political scandal in American history.

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Why is the Center for Jewish History celebrating anti-Zionism? - Ronn Torossian

by Ronn Torossian

There is anti-Zionism in Jewish history, so recalling it is legitimate. But why is there no debate, why is no one invited to voice opposing views, at this kind of event?

It is a new week, and there is an anti-Zionist event being held at the New York based Center for Jewish History (CJH).  Last week, two events which were to be held at the Center of Jewish History by the BDS supporting Jewish Voices of Peace were cancelled. 

This week to be held at the CJH by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research is an event celebrating “the 120th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish Labor Bund, the socialist movement.” As the ads read, there will be “Talks and slideshows by scholars and lifelong Bundists .” Of course, the

Bund is part of Jewish history and should be remembered, but are you familiar with this self-proclaimed socialist movement?

Let’s examine what the Jewish Labor Bund stands for:

“Jews cannot be remade into a one-state nation.”

“The State of Israel does not represent the entire Jewish People. It does not solve the Jewish problem.”

“The key to the safety and the future of the Jews in Israel is peace with the Arabs. To achieve it, concessions on both sides are needed. Israel should recognize the moral right of the Arab refugees to repatriation and compensation.”

As Wikipedia notes, “The Bund was against the UN vote on the partition of Palestine and reaffirmed its support for a One-state solution, i.e. a single binational state that would guarantee equal national rights for Jews and Arabs and would be under the control of superpowers and the UN. The 1948 New York Second World Conference of the International Jewish Labor Bund condemned the proclamation of the Jewish state, because the decision exposed the Jews in Palestine to a danger. The conference was in favour of a two nations state built on the base of national equality and democratic federalism.”  

The Bund was (is) ideologically hostile towards all forms of Zionism.  David Ben-Gurion on the left, as well as all others on the political spectrum were firmly opposed to the Bund for their violent opposition to Zionism.  Yet, today in 2017 at the Center for Jewish History the Bund movement is being not just discussed, but celebrated.  Not a discussion about the Bund, not a debate with an alternate viewpoint. A celebration of Anti-Zionist socialism against the backdrop of all the controversy surrounding this organization.

The campaign demanding the firing of David N. Myers as CEO of the Center For Jewish History has been covered by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and countless other media outlets including establishment Jewish newspapers such as the New York Jewish Week and Los Angeles Jewish Journal. 

Allowing Mr. Myers, who mourns the “nakba” (the term meaning catastrophe, used by the Arabs for Israel's Independence Day) to remain in his role, seems to mean that events celebrating forms of anti-Zionist activity become the norm at the Center for Jewish History.  Events as these are the direct result of having a CEO who supports a boycott of the Jewish state.  If, for no other reason than the fact that in the course of two weeks, multiple events have been planned which are Anti-Zionist,  Is there no reaction to an organizational leader hosting events which are violently Anti-Israel?

Mr. Myers remains an active board member of the New Israel Fund, an organization which Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett has called upon to be boycotted (as does Birthright Israel). Bennett said that he would “boycott whoever persecutes Israeli soldiers,” and “not apologize for it.” Bennett went on: “Members of the New Israel Fund, listen carefully: Whoever harms, slanders and persecutes Israeli soldiers are not my brothers. The NIF works methodically and consistently to attack our Israeli soldiers, accuse them of war crimes, of torturing Palestinians and intentionally attacking women and children. They turn to the UN and to the committees that are most hostile to Israel and try their best to convince them that Israel is a war criminal.”  

How can the leader of the Center for Jewish History sit on a board that persecutes Israeli Soldiers? 

We call upon the board of the Center for Jewish History, including Bruce Slovin, Ira H. Jolles, Martin Karlinsky, Bernard Blum, David Dangoor, Michael Jesselson, Ed Stelzer as well as the American Sephardic Federation, Yeshiva University Museum, American Jewish Historical Society, Leo Baeck Institute and YIVO Institute for Jewish Research to stand up and replace David N. Myers as head of the Center for Jewish History.

George Birnbaum is a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Hank Sheinkopf, CEO of Sheinkopf Communications, is a political strategist who has worked on campaigns in four continents. His clients have included former president Bill Clinton.

Ronn Torossian is CEO of a top 20 US PR agency, and author of For Immediate Release.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Democrats & Dictators - Lloyd Billingsley

by Lloyd Billingsley

How Hillary reacted when face-to-face with the world's real tyrants.

Hillary Clinton’s What Happened tour is playing well in the sanctuary state of California, a safe house for the Democrats’ losing presidential candidate in 2016. Last week, on a dog-whistle stop in Davis, Hillary addressed a packed house of 1,800 fans, some decked out in pussy hats.

“Historically, people really like me when I’m serving in a supporting role,” Clinton said.

“When I left being secretary of state, I had an approval rating of 69 percent.” But when she sought to lead the nation, “then it gets a lot harder.”

As Clinton explained, Russian interference “is a clear and present danger to us and to Western democracy,” and “right out of Putin’s playbook.”

Clearly, Hillary still hopes that the ongoing Russian investigation will somehow invalidate the 2016 election and get her into the White House. In recent pronouncements, Hillary sounds like she is the president.

Donald Trump’s threat to pull the United States out of the Iran deal is “dangerous,” she says, and “makes us look foolish and small and plays right into Iranian hands.” Such action by Trump is “bad not just on the merits for this particular situation, but it sends a message across the globe that America's word is not good.”

Further, “this particular president is, I think, upending the kind of trust and credibility of the United States’ position and negotiation that is imperative to maintain.” Clinton also took Trump to task on North Korea.

“We will now have an arms race — a nuclear arms race in East Asia,” and she had a different plan. “Diplomacy, preventing war, creating some deterrents is slow, hard-going, difficult work,” she told reporters.  “And you can't have impulsive people or ideological people who basically say, 'Well, we’re done with you.’”

Historically, losing candidates have not been a magnet for the media. After Reagan’s victory in 1980, even the old-line establishment media had heard enough from Jimmy Carter.  Likewise, after the 1984 election, nobody was eager to hear the views of Democrat losers Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.

In 1987, when President Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” reporters did not rush to see if the losing Democrats wanted Gorbachev to leave the Berlin Wall standing. After the 2016 election it was a different story.

It was as though, after Super Bowl, reporters rushed to the losers’ locker room and stayed there. The old-line establishment media turned its guns on Trump and became a squad of sycophants for Clinton. That is no surprise, given the bias of the establishment media, which is also ignorant.

As Ben Rhodes said, peddling the Iran deal was easy because so many reporters are young and “literally know nothing.” That comes through in their coverage of Hillary’s presidential posturing.

The problem in North Korea, she said, is an “arms race.” Actually, the problem is Kim Jong-un, a genocidal hereditary Stalinist already shooting off missiles toward the United States and her allies. And nobody was curious whether Bill Clinton had contributed to this situation with his “good deal for the United States” with North Korea in 1994.

For Hillary Clinton, pulling out of the Iran deal is “dangerous,” not the deal itself, and the “trust and credibility of the United States” was the issue for the former First Lady and secretary of state. Nobody in the old-line media was eager to challenge her on the dangers of trusting the radical Islamic dictatorship that, as President Trump pointed out in his October 13 speech, took over the U.S. embassy in 1979 and held more than 60 Americans hostages for 444 days.

The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, as the president noted, “twice bombed our embassy in Lebanon — once in 1983 and again in 1984. Another Iranian-supported bombing killed 241 Americans — service members they were, in their barracks in Beirut in 1983.”

Losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton fielded no hard questions on those attacks, so as Ben Rhodes said, maybe the reporters didn’t know anything about that history.  They also missed another reality.

When it comes to Communist dictators and Islamic theocrats, Hillary Clinton has her pussy hat firmly in place. The problem is not the dangerous tyrants themselves but the “arms race,” and America is also to blame.

Her view is basically, “your country, right or wrong,” and this should not be a surprise. After all, Hillary’s mentors include Stalinist lawyer Robert Treuhaft and communist guru Saul Alinksy.

For a woman of true distinction, media types might consider former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. As the New York Times said, no woman had ever been so close to the center of presidential power without actually residing in the White House.

Kirkpatrick’s mentors included Hannah Arendt, author of Origins of Totalitarianism, and Albert Camus, who believed that Communism equals murder. She denounced dictators and called out the San Francisco Democrats who “always blame America first.”

So does Hillary Clinton, who long ago pulled her pussy hat down over her eyes. That’s why she lost the 2016 election. Russian interference had nothing to do with it.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation, and Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

ISIS Loses its “Caliphate” Capital - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

ISIS territory in Syria continues to shrink under U.S.-led coalition pressure.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias backed by U.S.-led air strikes, has driven ISIS out of its self-declared “caliphate” capital, the Syrian city of Raqqa. With its back against the wall and its jihadists surrendering or fleeing in droves, ISIS’s control of territory in Syria has been reduced to a strip of the Euphrates valley and surrounding desert. The United States Central Command held back from declaring complete victory, but said that “more than 90 percent of Raqqa is in S.D.F. control.” Land mines and improvised explosive devices remain, which need to be cleared before civilians can safely return. Nevertheless, developments were considered positive enough that Brett McGurk, President Trump’s special envoy for the global coalition against ISIS, reportedly left Washington for a visit to Raqqa.

ISIS had taken over Raqqa at the beginning of 2014. Not until June of this year did the U.S.-backed campaign to take Raqqa back get under way. Just two months ago, there were still about 2,000 ISIS fighters remaining in Raqqa, determined to fight to the death for their capital. By last weekend, a few hundred ISIS militants, mostly foreign born, were left behind to continue fighting, holed up in a stadium and a hospital which were captured on Tuesday.

The loss of its capital is a huge symbolic blow to ISIS, which has been suffering a string of major defeats since President Trump took office. Just as nothing succeeds like success in attracting new recruits to ISIS’s cause, its loss of its base of operations from which it had planned and directed attacks around the world spells failure. As Jenan Moussa, a reporter Arabic Al Aan TV, tweeted: “Game over for ISIS in #Raqqa. They lost capital of their caliphate. Same guys, not long time ago, bragged about conquering Rome.”

Some human rights and anti-war activists have complained that the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa has come at too heavy a price in civilian lives and devastation, which they blame on air strikes by the U.S.-led military coalition. A report issued by Amnesty International last August stated that the coalition forces’ “reliance to a large extent on weapons which have a wide impact radius and which cannot be accurately pinpointed at specific targets to neutralize IS [ISIS} targets in civilian neighborhoods, has exacted a significant toll on civilians.” Some activists blamed the Trump administration’s change in tactics, delegating more decision-making on where and when to conduct air strikes to lower level field commanders.

The number of civilian deaths attributable to coalition air strikes has been estimated to be approximately 1000. That said, much of the problem facing the anti-ISIS coalition is the same that Israel confronted in fighting Hamas militants in Gaza. ISIS concentrated many of its fighters in densely populated areas of Raqqa, using civilians as human shields and hiding among women and children who had nowhere else to go. ISIS used civilian residents’ homes, hospitals, religious sites and civilian neighborhoods as locations from which to conduct their military operations. As Amnesty International itself acknowledged, ISIS “laid mines and booby traps to render exit routes impassable, set up checkpoints around the city to prevent passage, and shot at those trying to sneak out.”

Despite these obstacles, coalition forces endeavored to safely evacuate civilians from Raqqa and out of harm’s way when possible. The coalition allowed a deal to go forward several days ago, under local tribal elders and Raqqa Civil Council auspices, to evacuate civilians by bus from Raqqa along with some non-foreign members of ISIS.

The U.S.-led coalition is trying to defeat a monstrous group that revels in killing or enslaving anyone it considers to be an “infidel.” Despite using precision weaponry to minimize civilian casualties, coalition forces cannot guarantee that their air strikes aimed at obliterating ISIS will not result in some unintended civilian deaths and injuries. The Obama administration’s overly restrictive rules of engagement may have prevented some civilian casualties from air strikes, but at the cost of more human suffering caused by ISIS’s perpetuation of its harsh rule and murder spree. These rules required near certainty that civilians will not be harmed in air strikes, far beyond what international law requires as a legitimate standard of warfare.

Dave Deptula, dean of the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Power Studies and the first general charged with overseeing drones, warned in an article, co-authored with Joseph Raskas, against “the fallacies and misperceptions that cause Western democracies to limit legal military operations to halt the evil that is the source of the crimes against the civilians their self-imposed restrictions aim to protect.” Referring to the restrictive rules of engagement imposed by the Obama administration that they believed unduly restricted the use of air power, they observed that such policies “limit civilian casualties that may result from attacking the terrorists, but allow the certainty of civilians being slaughtered at the hands of those same terrorists if they are not eliminated.”

The Trump administration deserves credit for restoring common sense balance to the war against ISIS, which has lost its capital and other key strongholds in Syria and Iraq as a result. Many more innocent lives will be saved than lost in the military campaign to destroy this manifestation of evil. At the same time, however, it remains imperative to defeat the Islamic supremacist ideology that fueled its rise in the first place.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Europe's New Official History Erases Christianity, Promotes Islam - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

The establishment appear unaware of the extent to which the continent and its people still depend on the moral guidance of its humanitarian values, especially when radical Islam has launched a civilizational challenge to the West.

  • "The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing." — The Paris Statement, signed by ten respected European scholars.
  • German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière's proposal to introduce Muslim public holidays shows that when it comes to Islam, Europe's official "post-Christian" secularism is simply missing in action.
A few days ago, some of Europe's most important intellectuals -- including British philosopher Roger Scruton, former Polish Education Minister Ryszard Legutko, German scholar Robert Spaemann and Professor Rémi Brague from the Sorbonne in France -- issued "The Paris Statement". In their ambitious statement, they rejected the "false Christendom of universal human rights" and the "utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world". Instead, they called for a Europe based on "Christian roots", drawing inspiration from the "Classical tradition" and rejecting multiculturalism:
"The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear — as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook".
In 2007, reflecting on the cultural crisis of the continent, Pope Benedict said that Europe is now "doubting its very identity". In 2017, Europe took a further step: creating a post-Christian pro-Islam identity. Europe's official buildings and exhibitions have indeed been erasing Christianity and welcoming Islam.

One kind of official museum recently opened by the European Parliament, the "House of the European History", costing 56 million euros. The idea was to create a historical narrative of the postwar period around the pro-EU message of unification. The building is a beautiful example of Art Deco in Brussels. As the Dutch scholar Arnold Huijgen wrote, however, the house is culturally "empty":
"The French Revolution seems to be the birthplace of Europe; there is little room for anything that may have preceded it. The Napoleonic Code and the philosophy of Karl Marx receive a prominent place, while slavery and colonialism are highlighted as the darker sides of European culture (...) But the most remarkable thing about the House is far as its account is concerned, it is as if religion does not exist. In fact, it never existed and never impacted the history of the continent (...) No longer is European secularism fighting the Christian religion; it simply ignores every religious aspect in life altogether".
The Brussels bureaucracy even deleted the Catholic roots of its official flag, the twelve stars symbolizing the ideal of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe. It was drawn by the French Catholic designer Arséne Heitz, who apparently took his inspiration from the Christian iconography of Virgin Mary. But the European Union's official explanation of the flag makes no mention of these Christian roots.

The European Monetary and Economic Department of the European Commission then ordered Slovakia to redesign its commemorative coins by eliminating the Christian Saints Cyril and Methonius. There is no mention of Christianity in the 75,000 words of the aborted draft of the European Constitution.

The European Commission ordered Slovakia to redesign its commemorative coins by eliminating the Christian Saints Cyril and Methonius. (Image sources: Coin - European Commission; Bratislava, Slovakia - Frettie/Wikimedia Commons)
German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, of Angela Merkel's ruling Christian Democratic Party, recently suggested introducing Muslim public holidays. "In places where there are many Muslims, why can't we think about introducing a Muslim public holiday?", he said.

"The submission is moving ahead," replied Erika Steinbach, the influential former chair of the Federation of Expellees -- Germans expelled from various Eastern European countries during and after World War II.

Beatrix von Storch, a leading politician from Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), just tweeted: "NO! NO! NO!".

De Maizière's proposal shows that when it comes to Islam, Europe's official "post-Christian" secularism is simply missing in action.

A few weeks ago, a European Union-funded exhibition, "Islam, It's also our history!", was hosted in Brussels. The exhibition tracks the impact of Islam in Europe. An official statement claims:
"The historical evidence displayed by the exhibition – the reality of an old-age Muslim presence in Europe and the complex interplay of two civilisations that fought against each other but also interpenetrated each other – underpins an educational and political endeavour: helping European Muslims and non Muslims alike to better grasp their common cultural roots and cultivate their shared citizenship".
Isabelle Benoit, a historian who helped design the exhibition, told AP: "We want to make clear to Europeans that Islam is part of European civilisation and that it isn't a recent import but has roots going back 13 centuries".

The official European establishment has turned its back on Christianity. The establishment appear unaware of the extent to which the continent and its people still depend on the moral guidance of its humanitarian values, especially at a time when radical Islam has launched a civilization challenge to the West. "It is simply a problem of a packing that tends to fill a 'void'", just wrote Ernesto Galli della Loggia in the Italian daily newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.
"It is impossible to ignore that behind the packing are two great theological and political traditions -- that of the Russian Orthodoxy and Islam -- while behind the 'void' there is only the fading of the Christian consciousness of the European West".
That is why it is hard to understand the "logic" behind the official European animosity toward Christianity and its attraction to a basically totalitarian Islam. Europe could easily be secular without being militantly anti-Christian. It is easier to understand why thousands of Poles just took part in a mass protest along Poland's borders to voice their opposition to "secularization and Islam's influence", which is exactly the same as the official crazy EU credo.

During the Second World War, the Allies avoided bombing Brussels, because it was to be the site of European rebirth. If the European elite continue with this cultural repudiation of their Judeo-Christian-Humanistic culture, the city could be its grave.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Kerry On Edge As Legacy Crumbles - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

His fatally flawed deal with Iran is about to unravel.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry wasted no time condemning President Trump’s decision not to recertify, and to possibly withdraw from, the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran that Kerry negotiated on behalf of his boss Barack Obama. President Trump insisted on significant improvements to the Joint Plan of Comprehensive Action (JCPOA), as the deal is formally known. The JCPOA’s fundamental flaws that President Trump wants fixed include Iran’s ability to block unfettered international inspections, the wiggle room that Iran is exploiting to continue developing and testing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and the sunset clause on nuclear enrichment that would provide Iran a clear path to becoming a nuclear armed state after the current restrictions are lifted. Obama and Kerry had promised that these issues would be dealt with satisfactorily before agreeing to the final terms of the JCPOA. Instead they caved to Iranian pressure in order to get the deal done.

Now that President Trump is trying to clean up the mess Obama and Kerry left him, Kerry has the gall to label President Trump’s decision a "reckless abandonment of facts in favor of ego and ideology" and to accuse the Trump administration of “lying to the American people.” It was the Obama administration that recklessly abandoned the facts in pressing ahead with the deal. The Obama administration lied to the American people, abandoning its own promises to ensure that the deal contained ironclad protections. Moreover, all that President Trump has done so far is to return the JCPOA to Congress for review. Had Obama followed the Constitution and submitted the JCPOA to the Senate as a treaty in the first place, the JCPOA in its present form almost certainly would not have been approved. Congress should now have the opportunity to revisit the JCPOA to determine whether the protections that the Obama administration promised are working as advertised. Congress should also consider whether time limits on Iran’s commitments continue to make sense in light of what we are now experiencing with Iran’s nuclear technology collaborator, North Korea. It bought time to turn into a full-fledged nuclear power under our noses. 

Kerry had promised that the Iranian regime would be prohibited from testing ballistic missiles. This turned out to be a lie. After the JCPOA was finalized, with no such prohibition included, Iran continued to test such missiles. The Obama administration’s response was that the missiles had become a separate issue, to be dealt with under a new United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA.  The new resolution replaced clear prohibitions imposed on Iran’s ballistic missile program with a weak declaration in an annex that simply “calls upon” Iran not to undertake any activity such as development and test launches related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons for eight years. 

Iran has tested several ballistic missiles during the last two years, including two Qadr H missiles with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out” emblazoned on the sides. The commander of Iran’s Army, Major General Ataollah Salehi, had told reporters just a month before the launch of those missiles that Iran was "neither paying any attention to the resolutions against Iran, nor implementing them. This is not a breach of the JCPOA.”

Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin, spurning requests from Obama administration officials to impose sanctions against Iran under the Security Council resolution, asserted that the Iranian missile test did not violate the resolution. “A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” the Russian ambassador said. In short, the JCPOA did not cover the missile tests and the replacement UN Security Council resolution that did mention the missiles is toothless.

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told CNN, during an interview aired on April 6, 2015,  that under the deal’s terms then still being negotiated, “you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has." Rhodes claimed that “if we see a site that we need to inspect on a military facility, we can get access to that site and inspect it. So if it's a suspicious site that we believe is related to its nuclear efforts, we can get access and inspect that site through the IAEA.” This was another lie. After the JCPOA was finalized in July 2015, Rhodes shamelessly denied that anytime, anywhere inspections were ever considered as part of the negotiations. “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere,” Rhodes said on July 14, 2015.

The JCPOA’s supporters, including Kerry, have made much of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has on several occasions verified Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA, keeping its stock of low-enriched uranium below the limit set forth in the JCPOA and not pursuing further construction of the Arak reactor. Iran was found to have slightly exceeded the limit on its stock of heavy water, but has remedied the problem to the IAEA’s satisfaction. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano reiterated in a statement he issued on October 9th that Iran has remained in compliance with its JCPOA commitments.

The problem, as any clear-eyed observer of the process recognizes, is that the IAEA relies on Iran for self-inspection of certain sites that the regime does not want the IAEA to inspect freely on its own. IAEA inspectors have avoided examining military sites it knows exists and has no reliable way of tracking undeclared sites. The IAEA’s explanation for not visiting any of Iran’s known military sites is that it had “no reason to ask” for access. Evidently, the IAEA is supposed to block out the fact that Iran had conducted tests relevant to nuclear bomb detonations at a military site before the JCPOA’s finalization in 2015. The IAEA should just pretend that such tests could not possibly happen again.

“Nobody is allowed to visit Iran's military sites,” said Iran’s Head of Strategic Research Center at the Expediency Council and adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati. Intimidation works. The IAEA knows not to ask.

As to the JCPOA’s sunset provisions, the Obama administration lied about that too. Kerry claimed on September 2, 2015 that the JCPOA “never sunsets. There’s no sunset in this agreement.”

This month Kerry has resorted to parsing words. He claims the phrase 'sunset provisions' is a “misnomer,” before then defending the JCPOA’s time limits. "We were comfortable because the cap on Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile remains in place until 2030,” Kerry wrote in an article published in the Washington Post late last month. In other words, let’s just kick the can down the road and hope for a more reasonable Iranian regime in 13 years that would agree to extend the time limits. In the meantime, Kerry advises us not to worry. Kerry declared, “15 or 25 years from now, we still have the same military options we have today.”

John Kerry has obviously learned nothing from the North Korean fiasco, which resulted from years of phony agreements with the rogue regime and so-called “strategic patience.” The United States clearly does not have the same military options today to deal with a nuclear armed North Korea as it did 23 years ago when former President Bill Clinton decided not to use military force to stamp out North Korea’s nuclear program at its inception. Instead, Clinton started us down the primrose path of naïve diplomacy with a duplicitous regime that now is on the verge of being able to strike the U.S. mainland with nuclear warheads delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is precisely because North Korea’s actions over the last 23 years have proven that making concessions to a rogue regime in order to obtain denuclearization commitments is so dangerous that President Trump does not want to make the same mistake with Iran.

America’s European allies are also upset with President Trump for refusing to recertify the deal and threatening to pull out if certain conditions are not met. British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a joint statement last Friday praising the JCPOA and its implementation. They said that the nuclear deal with Iran was “the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is not diverted for military purposes. Therefore, we encourage the US Administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPOA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement.”
Perhaps these European leaders should remember their own history. Appeasement through phony deals with a rogue dictatorship does not work, as proven by the infamous Munich Pact signed by British and French Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler seventy-nine years ago.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Austrian presumptive leader: Coalition partners must reject anti-Semitism - Eldad Beck

by Eldad Beck

A day after Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, 31, led his party to victory, he tells Israel Hayom: Far-right party will have to abide by zero-tolerance policy on anti-Semitism before joining coalition

Presumptive chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Sunday  
Photo: AFP  
Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, just 31, became his country's presumptive chancellor on Sunday after the Austrian People's Party won the most seats in parliament.

Kurz will join other young, photogenic leaders, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron, on the world stage.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to congratulate Kurz on Monday. Netanyahu said in a statement that he spoke with Kurz by telephone and commended Austria for "preserving the memory of the Holocaust and its war against anti-Semitism" in recent years. According to the statement, Kurz responded positively when Netanyahu invited him to Israel.

Less than 24 hours after Kurz's sweeping win, as he began preparing for his new job as the youngest world leader, he granted Israel Hayom an exclusive interview, making a point of showing he has a warm place in his heart for the Jewish state.

Kruz made it clear that denouncing anti-Semitism would be a "clear precondition" for his future coalition partners, including his most likely partner, the far-right Freedom Party of Austria.

"There must be no doubt about this at all," he said. "A Europe without Jews is not Europe anymore."

Kurz also said he supports the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, which was negotiated in his country's capital, Vienna. He stressed that "we cannot be naive" about the Islamic republic's conduct.

Q. Congratulations on your victory and thank you for finding the time to answer our questions on such a busy day. How does it feel to become the youngest chancellor in Austria's history?

"I'm glad and overwhelmed by the good electoral results for our political movement, the new People's Party. We have achieved historic success. The voters have conferred a very large responsibility on us and I would be honored to serve the Austrian citizens as the head of the next government."

Q. Does being so young make it easier for you to take responsibility for Austria's history during World War II?

"My visits to Yad Vashem [Israel's Holocaust memorial], as well as my many meetings with Holocaust survivors, were deeply moving for me. I have always been very clear that we – and that very much includes the new Austrian generation – shall never forget the Holocaust and the atrocities committed during World War II. Austria has to face up to its own history, and that includes the dark sides of it. Let me be very clear: A Europe without Jews is not Europe anymore. I am therefore very glad that we have a vibrant – small, but very vibrant - Jewish community in Austria. Also, Austria enjoys excellent relations with the State of Israel – this is a fact that is very important for me."

Q. During the campaign, your close contacts with the Austrian Jewish community and Israel were used by certain sides to try to harm your chances of winning. Was that anti-Semitic?

"I cannot speak for other parties. But the election results clearly show that Austrians do not reward any kind of smear campaigns or dirty campaigning tricks. Let me also be clear that we must continue to pursue a policy of zero tolerance for any form of anti-Semitism in Austria as well as in Europe."

Q. The campaign was shadowed by the "Silberstein scandal," in which Israeli adviser Tal Silberstein was accused of misconduct by promoting allegedly racist propaganda. Will this affair influence future contacts between Austria and Israel?

"No, it will not. It is of the utmost importance for me that Austria and Israel continue to intensify our already close bilateral relations. I am glad that during my time as foreign minister our bilateral relations have further improved and grown ever stronger. Let me just give you one figure here: Our bilateral trade grew by 32.5% during the first half of 2017 – that tells you something about the growing strength of our relationship. Also, we have put a focus and an intensified exchange between our young generations. (A new Working Holiday Program that I have signed with PM Netanyahu allows for young Israelis and Austrians for the first time to work in each other's country – and this opportunity is taken up with great enthusiasm.) If I become the next chancellor of Austria, I will strive to further intensify our close bilateral relations."

Q. The chances are that you will form a coalition with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), led by Heinz-Christian Strache. Do you see a difference between the FPO of Jorg Heider (the former leader who was accused of being anti-Semitic) and that of Strache? In other words, is it not the extreme right, anti-Semitic and Nazi-nostalgic party it used to be?

"The fight against anti-Semitism and a policy of zero tolerance against any anti-Semitic tendencies is very important for me. This is a clear precondition for any coalition that I would lead. There must be no doubt about this at all. None. The FPO has in the past shown efforts to fight anti-Semitism, in its own ranks as well, and I expect them to continue to do so."

Q. Israel is still avoiding any official contacts with the FPO, despite party leader Strache's attempts to convince the Israeli public that he has changed his party's nature and positions. Would you recommend that the Israeli government open a dialogue with the FPO, especially if this party joins your government?

"It is not up to me to give recommendations to Israel on this matter. This is truly a decision for the Israeli government to take."

Q. How do you plan to enhance the relations between Austria and Israel?

"Our ties are strong, and that is true for tourism, trade, cultural exchange, youth exchange and many other areas. But there is always room for improvement. Israel is the startup nation and we can learn much from the Israeli can-do spirit. Austria, too, has a lot to offer: Just look at the sciences, our strong expertise when it comes to environmental protection etc. In other words, much has been achieved over the past years, but there is still a lot to do. I am happy to 'roll up my sleeves' and get things moving!"

Q. Will you consider moving the Austrian Embassy to Jerusalem as Mr. Strache has suggested?

"I don't think that this is the time to discuss such a sensitive question. But of course you know the international position on this issue."

Q. The agreement with Iran, which was negotiated in Vienna two years ago, is being challenged by the U.S. President Donald Trump. Do you think the EU should reconsider its positions on this agreement in light of Iran's ongoing long-range missile program and growing influence in the Middle East?

"I support the Iran nuclear agreement reached in Vienna two years ago. This agreement is certainly better than no agreement. After all, it is of the greatest importance to avoid a nuclear arms race in an already very volatile region, and according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has so far fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. However, there is no doubt that we cannot be naive and we have to carefully take into consideration the security concerns of Israel and closely observe Iran's role in the region."

Eldad Beck


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

China's War Timing Firming Up - David Archibald

by David Archibald

China’s intent is plain, the next question is the timing.

Part of Obama’s baleful legacy is that during the Scarborough Shoal Incident of April to June 2012, the Filipino president travelled to Washington to ask Obama for U.S. support. Obama didn’t offer support, no operational support followed and China read that as the signal to seize territory from a U.S. ally. As is the usual pattern, the consequence of not dealing forcefully against a minor aggression will lead to a much bigger war down the track.

The Chinese leader that organised the seizure of Scarborough Shoal, Xi Jinping, became a national hero and that gave him the political momentum to see off rivals to become president of the People’s Republic of China the following year. As retired U.S. Navy captain James Fanell noted, while in the West the Scarborough seizure was treated as a minor fisheries dispute, Chinese scholars recognized the significance of Xi’s template for mooting U.S. alliances by undercutting confidence in defense agreements, calling it the ‘Scarborough Model’.

Emboldened by Obama’s acquiescence, China is preparing for a “short, sharp war” to seize the Senkaku Islands from Japan. They are building specialised equipment to that end. Again from Captain Fanell:
Size matters in confrontations at sea, especially between coast guard vessels. As China has sought more of its neighbors’ maritime sovereignty, it has built ever-larger coast guard ships. These are intended to enable its civil maritime forces to carry out China’s campaign more aggressively (having the biggest ship on scene), and to conduct them at increasing distances from China’s coastline. As such, China has demonstrated its commitment to have the largest coast guard vessels in the Asia Pacific region. In 2014, China commissioned the largest coast guard cutter in the world, at 12,000 tons, the Zhongguo Haijing 2901. This cutter first went to sea for the first time in May 2015 and is subordinated to the East China Sea area of responsibility. A second ship of the class, CCG 3901, was completed and made ready for operations in January 2016. The Communist Party’s People’s Daily made the purpose of these ships crystal-clear, stating they were designed to have “the power to smash into a vessel weighing more than 20,000 tons and will not cause any damage to itself when confronting a vessel weighing under 9,000 tons. It can also destroy a 5,000-ton ship and sink it to the sea floor.”
Note carefully the combat assault mission of these Chinese Coast Guard ships.

Sinking ships by ramming is a throwback to how triremes did battle in the Mediterranean. It also tells us how China plans to start its war. The super-sized Chinese coast guard ships will ram and sink Japanese coast guard vessels. When the Japanese Navy responds by sinking the Chinese coast guard ships, the Chinese PLA Navy will come over the horizon with amphibious assault ships. China will claim to be the aggrieved party and offer to end hostilities, leaving it in possession of what it seized.

The Chinese have been doing some dry runs for the conflict to come. Around midday on August 5th, 2016, some 200 to 300 Chinese fishing boats swarmed into the contiguous zone around the Senkaku Islands of Kuban and Uotsuri, followed by 15 Chinese coast guard vessels by August 9th. Come the actual battle, there will be hundreds of Chinese vessels to be sunk, much like plinking tanks in the deserts of the Middle East.

China’s intent is plain, the next question is the timing. The Communist Party of China has directed the People’s Liberation Army to transform itself into a force that will be ready to take Taiwan by 2020. A Senkaku campaign will be a lot easier than subduing Taiwan, and possession of the Senkakus in turn will make the Taiwan campaign easier to mount by partial envelopment of that island. The PLA Navy is still expanding and China might not start its war until its navy is somewhat larger than it is now. Of particular interest is a new class of amphibious assault ships, the Type 075. Approximately the size of the U.S. Navy’s Wasp-class ships, the Type 075 is projected to carry up to 30 helicopters and have the ability to launch six helicopters simultaneously. The first Type 075 class may be launched in 2019 and in service in 2020. Another four might be built by 2025.

There are a few other considerations which have the potential to bring forward China’s war plans. China’s economic growth is mostly debt-funded construction of unproductive assets, so China’s debt to GDP ratio continues to climb. Everyone knows this is unsustainable, that it will end in tears but nobody knows when. A stalling economy and tens of millions of personal bankruptcies as China’s real estate bubble pops would encourage the regime to distract the public with a foreign military adventure. Then there is the question of China’s energy supply. China’s strategic petroleum reserve is estimated to be about 700 million barrels and still building at one million barrels per day. The Chinese reserve will probably keep building until the day the war starts and U.S. and Japanese submarines begin sinking Chinese tankers.

But the big story in energy, internationally, is the projected peaking of Chinese coal production in 2020 before it starts falling away due to resource exhaustion. Chinese coal production of over four billion tons per annum is about four times the U.S. production level. Coal is the source of two thirds of power generation in China, about the same for chemical feedstocks and is the source of all the nitrogenous fertiliser they use. The energy content of Chinese coal production is equivalent to 58 million barrels of oil per day. The production cost of coal, and thus the cost of doing everything in China, will start rising once production has peaked. It is unlikely that China’s nuclear power sector will expand fast enough to compensate. Thus China’s competitiveness relative to countries that have plenty of coal remaining will fall. This will factor into President Xi’s timing of his war.

Now is the time to ask Lenin’s question “What is to be done?” The important thing is to shun anything made in China because that just funds their aggression. Choose the Samsung offering over the iPhone for no other reason. And be nice to any Japanese or Vietnamese you meet. We need them to have courage.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Bowe Bergdahl Pleads Guilty to Desertion and Misbehavior - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

The final saga to a disgraceful prisoner exchange.

Three years ago, Susan Rice, Obama’s obsequious national security advisor and the one who infamously blamed the Libyan consulate outrage on a YouTube video, noted on ABC News that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” and further stated that Bergdahl “wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.” Three years later, Rice was forced to choke on her words. Her absurd comments represented the zenith of mendacity, and for an administration primarily known for deceitfulness, spin and echo chambers, that’s saying something.

On Monday, Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The latter charge could mean life behind bars for the deserter while the former carries a five-year term. Bergdahl deserted his post in June 2009 sparking frantic search and rescue efforts to retrieve him. He was later captured by the Taliban. Some within the military, citing a surge of more accurate targeting of U.S. soldiers following his capture, believe that he provided the enemy with information on U.S. Army troop movements.

Bergdahl’s pre-sentencing trial date begins on October 23. Three service members who were wounded by hostile fire while searching for him will likely testify. Two of those wounded sustained permanent life-altering injuries.  Navy SEAL Jimmy Hatch now walks with permanent limp thanks to a Taliban bullet to the leg. Hatch’s comrade, Army National Guard Sgt. 1st Class Mark Allen, wasn’t so “lucky.” He took a bullet to the head while searching for the deserter and is now permanently confined to a wheelchair and unable to talk.

Rice’s skewed characterization of Bergdahl’s military service record wasn’t simply drivel spewed by someone speaking out of abject ignorance. Rather, her comments were a sad reflection of her ex-boss’s convoluted mindset where things such as morality, decency and integrity played second fiddle to ideologically-driven, political expediency. Obama had always wished to close the Guantanamo facility and the Bergdahl exchange was an expedient way for him to dump five hard-core terrorist detainees.

But the exchange, which carried a hefty price tag of nearly $1 million, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, left the administration facing two potential powder kegs with severe legal, political and security implications. Obama and his sycophants, including Rice and Ben Rhodes, therefore embarked on a campaign of deceit aimed at garnering sympathy for Bergdahl.

The release of the detainees without giving Congress adequate notice violated the law and posed a legal hurdle for the administration. Under the National Defense Authorization Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama, the administration was required to provide notice to four Senate and four House committees at least 30 days prior to the release of Taliban detainees from Guantánamo. But notice was only given by phone on the actual day of the exchange, which occurred on May 31, 2014. Consequently, the chief counsel for the Government Accountability Office determined that the Pentagon had illegally spent the money used to facilitate the prisoner exchange.

As he had done countless times before (and after), Obama dismissed this legal transgression saying that he had consulted with the Justice Department beforehand and was assured that the manner in which the prisoner exchange occurred was perfectly legal. In other words, Obama consulted his echo chamber, which provided him with the necessary political cover. A similar scenario was to unfold two years later when the Obama administration paid the Iranian regime protection money and provided it with $1.7 billion as ransom in exchange for the release of four American hostages unlawfully imprisoned by the Islamic Republic. 

The Bergdahl scandal caused a second and perhaps more serious problem for the administration. The Five terrorists released for Bergdahl, the so-called Taliban Five, were among Guantanamo’s most notorious terrorists. They were religious zealots and hard core murderers and there was a better than 50 percent chance that they would resume their death trade.

Obama’s sycophantic supporters tried to fool the public into believing that the recidivist rate among released Guantanamo detainees was low. The figure of 5 percent was casually tossed about but that figure was nothing but a skewed fabrication and the percentage was alarmingly higher. In fact, in March 2015, reports surfaced that at least three members of the Taliban Five were attempting to communicate or otherwise reconnect with known terrorist networks.

One need not be an intelligence expert to understand that radical Muslim terrorists, steeped in loathing of the West will revert to their old ways at the very first opportunity. Moreover, the Taliban Five were not only imbibed with hatred, they possessed skills of the terror trade, bomb-making and otherwise, that made them manifestly more dangerous and indispensable to Taliban and Al-Qaida terror networks.

All this did not matter to Obama and his acolytes. What was of paramount importance was that Guantanamo had five less detainees and that the administration secured the release of an American soldier who ostensibly served his country with “honor and distinction.” The Bowe Bergdahl fiasco adds to a laundry list of lies that the Obama administration peddled to the American people through their well-oiled echo chambers. Sadly, they will never have to account for their maleficence but we can take solace in the fact that under the Trump administration, Bergdahl will get his comeuppance. 

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.