Category Archives: Hamas Fatah Gaza West Bank

The Other Muslim Massacre Ignored in History

Posted on by

For a short summary background, click here.

‘In 1971, Muslims murdered 2.4 million Hindus and raped 200,000 Hindu women’

Will the Muslim violence against the Indian people, and the contamination of barbaric Islamic ideals blended into their culture, ever end? The Israeli’s and Hindus are the largest victims of perpetural Islamic invasions and violence lasting for more than 1,000 years. Muhammad Ali Jinna, a member of the Indian National Congress and later of the All-India Muslim League (a Khilafat movement that also germinated the Palestine conflict), demanded a two-state partition, creating the Lahore Resolution, which formed the separate creation of Pakistan.

This partition of people created a domin effect of other tensions and problems spreading from Khalistan to Bangladesh, to Kashmir, to Balochistan and to continued terrorism and tension existing even today. The British tried to discourage Muhammad Ali Jinna against rallying for the partition and warned against it many times, which ended in riots, mass exodus, clashes and deaths of millions. The article covers a poorly exposed incident of Muslim massacres of Hindus that we never hear about. It’s a pity the article forms a common Hindu anti-Western mindset, and fails to acknowledge any attention to the simple fact that Britain saved India from Muslim rule. India would bend to Mecca today had it not been for the clever rulers of South India who formed an alliance with Britain for exclusive trade agreements which developed into British rule and the expulsion of Muslim rule and Sharia law. You never hear Indian people admit to this fact. Instead they are focused purely on anti-Western rhetorics. It’s not Britain who destroyed India. It’s Islam that looted, massacred and destroyed Indian culture from within. Muslim terrorism, attacks, tensions continue in India to this day.

.

.

Understanding Islamic violence; how to defend our freedoms

Interview by People of Shambhala.

In the wake of renewed violence against Hindus in Pakistan, and with more than 100 Hindu families seeking asylum in India, Director of the Canadian Hindu Advocacy group spoke to People of Shambhala. Mr. Banerjee talks about the background to the conflict, and why Pakistan was created in 1947. Why the West should include Hinduism, not just the “Judeo-Christian” tradition. And he also discusses Islam and violence against Hindus and the West, and how we can defend our values and freedoms.

PoS: At the moment about 100 Hindu families are seeking asylum in India, from Pakistan, and are claiming discrimination and violence. There were four doctors murdered on the first day of Eid, and, I think, a Sikh was stabbed as well. Can you tell us a little about that situation?

RB: Sure. The situation is very natural. Most people don’t understand what Pakistan is. Pakistan is a country that was formed for the Muslims. India is a multi-ethnic country for everybody. So Pakistan was formed with the very idea that the only people that should be in Pakistan are Muslims. There is nothing strange about what’s going on in Pakistan today. It’s being going on for a long time.

At independence Pakistan’s population was about ten percent Hindu and Sikh. Now it’s less than one percent. So the question is where did that nine percent go? Well, they were either ethnically cleansed, driven away, or slaughtered in large numbers in the 1971 war between India and Pakistan. In East Pakistan an estimated 2.4 million Hindus were slaughtered in just one year, and hundreds of thousands of Hindu women were raped.

There is nothing surprising about any of this because Islam was introduced into the Asian subcontinent with the objective of occupying and exterminating the Hindus. According to the historian William Durant, and other historians, an estimated 80 million Hindus were killed, were slaughtered, and thousands and thousands of Hindu temples were smashed, and mosques were built on top of them. The Muslims of India tried very hard over the period of their 700 years [of occupation] to wipe out the Hindus. But there was resistance from some of the Hindu kingdoms. They never had full control over India so they were unable to achieve that goal. But that’s the eternal goal. According to Islam, Hinduism is the lowest form of life on the planet. Because Hindus, according to them, they’re polytheistic, they believe in multiple gods. They believe we worship idols, and idol worship is a sin in Islam.  

PoS: One thing that has struck me is just the extent of the attacks on Hindus, Buddhists, Yezidis, Zoroastrians, Kalash. Yet we don’t hear anything about this. You mentioned the war of 71; 2.4 million dead, 200,000 Hindu women raped, but we don’t hear anything about that in the West.

RB: No you don’t, because there’s a systematic effort by Muslims and petrodollars to cover it up. The reason you don’t hear about it is because they make tremendous effort to silence it.

PoS: In all fairness, some Middle Eastern newspapers that probably cater mostly to Muslims have covered some of it, but you don’t seem to find it in the West, which is even more incredible. Why do you think Western journalists won’t cover something like that? The West always portrays itself as caring about minorities and being the people that always stand up to stop genocide, and that are always campaigning against violence against minorities. But nothing.

RB: This may offend you a little bit.

PoS: It won’t [laughs].

RB: It probably will [laughs]. But, it’s because the West have been hypocrites.

PoS: Yeah.

RB: If you look at Britain, for example, when they went to India they did not stop genocide or massacres, they expedited them. They actually supported the Muslims against the Hindus, helped them to perpetrate massacres. In terms of the establishment of the state of Pakistan, if you read people like William Dalrymple, a British historian, it becomes quite clear that the British encouraged the creation of Pakistan in order to divide the [anti-colonial] independence movement. [*Dalrymple’s theories are inaccurate and merely theories. The Britain discouraged against the partition of India, but the decision was created by Indian-Muslim voters themselves spearheaded by Muhammad Ali Jinna]

PoS: Do you think there is still a kind of colonial residue in the atmosphere. Do you think there is some kind of patronizing attitude in the media? Is that why we don’t see atrocities reported?

I’ve heard this question before. That it’s a form of racism that they don’t condemn Muslims for their human rights violations is because they are non-Western and [therefore] they are expected to be barbaric. There might be some of that, but these days it’s rather more a culture of fear. I mean, if you publish a cartoon of Mohammed, even if you’re in the West, you get threatened, and you possibly get killed, and you have riots going on. So now it’s more of a culture of fear.

PoS: On that note, Subramanian Swamy, the Hindu professor at Harvard, was fired because he wrote an article on how to wipe out Islamic terror [in India]. I read it. I didn’t find it shocking… I suppose [at the most controversial point] he’s saying that non-Hindus would have to appreciate their Hindu roots or they wouldn’t be allowed to vote. What was your take on his article and on his being fired?

RB: The article was a hundred percent correct. He did not say – as has been claimed – that all non-Hindus should be forced to convert to Hinduism or anything like that. He didn’t even say that non-Hindus should be oppressed or treated badly within India. He just said they should have a respect for Hinduism, and that they should acknowledge the proper history, especially the history of the Muslims in India. There was no such thing as Islam in India before about 1,000 AD. Muslims invaded and forcibly converted millions of Hindus to Islam. That’s just a historical fact. And that they should acknowledge that historical fact.

PoS: Why is it when it comes to Islam, we don’t stick for minorities? We don’t stick up for women’s rights? We don’t stick up for gay rights? All the things that we would stand up for at any other time.

RB: It’s a combination of different things. Political correctness is part of it, but it’s not the whole explanation. It’s more a simple combination of fear and bribery. In many cases it’s just the money and influence pouring in from the Middle East demanding that no negative aspects of Islam be spoken about. It’s the carrot and the stick, the carrot being the money being the money flowing in from petrodollars, and the stick being [the fear of] rioting and beheading over a cartoon or any slight to Islam.

PoS: In 2008, there was the Mumbai attacks. A couple of things about that were striking. One thing was the way the Western media covered it. If memory serves me correctly – and I think it does – it was implied that the attacks in Mumbai were against essentially Western targets, such as the Taj Mahal Hotel. Do you think they were going after Western targets or do you think there was another incentive?

RB: Well, most of the people that were killed were Hindus. So, I wouldn’t call them Western targets… again it’s the stupidity of the West, reporting it in this way… It’s not necessarily the case that they [the terrorists] were trying to kill as many White people, or White tourists, as possible. They just wanted to attack the most visible, or the wealthiest, or the most high profile, targets. Those aren’t Western targets. The only target that they went out of their way to attack that was not related to Hinduism was the synagogue, the Jewish target.

PoS: You probably follow what is going on in Europe, where we hear a lot of calls for sharia. And some people are trying to defend liberal democracy, but they don’t always seem to know what they’re defending. You believe that Hindu values and the values of liberal democracy and modernity are the same. Can you tell me what those would be?

RB: The one mistake that Westerners all make – including conservatives – is that they define Western values and the values of liberal democracy strictly as Judeo-Christian. And I don’t think that’s the case. I believe Hindu values have to be included in that as well because India is the world’s largest democracy and it’s 80 percent Hindu, so how can it just be Judeo-Christian. Most people will tell you that it [democracy] comes from the British, which is obnoxious and insulting and racist. I would think that you should want to give credit to the people of that country rather than to an invasive force a hundred years ago.

The values of democracy are more in tune with Hinduism than with many, many, many other faith traditions, because if you look at Hinduism there was an openness – the ability of people within Hinduism to have different gods, multiple deities, and to worship as they please… The ability to allow this freedom, to worship as one pleased without being excommunicated or called a heretic, that’s one of the factors that makes Hinduism a more democratic religion than many others.

When people say that the West is a result of Judeo-Christian civilization, it’s also a combination of that and Socrates, Aristotle, and others, and they were in pre-Christian times, and they were not Jewish either. They were part of a faith that was somewhat similar to Hinduism in the sense that it had multiple gods. I think, on the one hand, it’s difficult because, it [the conception of democracy and the West] has to be more inclusive; it can’t be just Judeo-Christian. You’ve got to embrace some of those other traditions as well. On the other hand let’s not start saying Islam had something to do with it as well; [because] no it didn’t.

PoS: Are there historical links between the ancient Greeks and Hinduism?

RB: I’m not a historian, so I’m not a hundred percent certain, but some of the words and names… Sanskrit is the original Indo-European language… so there are some similarities between ancient Greek and Sanskrit.

PoS: Yes, that’s from Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European is the root of many European languages and Indian as well. And some of the ancient Greeks were influenced by Buddhism(1) as well, so there must be some links [to Hinduism].(2)

RB: Yeah, yeah, I understand there were. There must be some linkages.

PoS: That would be pretty interesting [to research into]. Sort of on that note, today we have a lot of Christian groups that embrace interfaith dialogue with Islam, and they have imams up on stage, and it’s all very lovey-dovey. Yet they react hysterically to New Age spirituality – which is a very pacifistic form of spirituality – but they are extraordinary hysterical about that and think it’s all Satan. It strikes me, whether you like it or not, New Ageism is a big part of Western culture and has been for some time. They’re obviously frightened by it, and think it’s going to destroy civilization. But, I don’t know if you know this, but Hindu nationalism and Buddhist nationalism [and anti-colonialism] were partly revived – or were encouraged to be revived – through a couple of Western proto-New Age people of the Theosophical Society.(3)

RB: Yes, I heard about that… the Theosophical Society in Calcutta.

PoS: Related to that, do you think we should be forming alliances between Hindus, and people who practice Yoga, and spiritual people, and then Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians?

RB: Yes, I think Hinduism, and Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, are a better fit for Western democracy and liberalism than Islam. I think maybe why some Christians feel kinship with Islam is that – for example, with the Inquisition – Christianity has behaved more like Islam than the peaceful, tolerant, Hindus and the Buddhists…[*this is a lack of historic accuracy. Christian history is filled with battles against Islamic invasions and barbarity]. I think you need a combination of tolerance and as strength. You shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.

PoS: No.

RB: Maybe if you could meld together the toughness of Christianity with some of the tolerance of Hinduism and Buddhism, and form an alliance, you may be able to get the elusive Holy Grail that everyone seems to be looking for, which is how to be strong enough to deter [political] Islam, while not sacrificing our values and principles of liberalism and human rights and democracy.

_________________

Notes:

(1) For those interested in the fusion of ancient Greek and Buddhist culture see:

The Buddhist Channel: Gandhara artist’s lasting contribution to Greco-Buddhist art;

Wikipedia: Greco-Buddhism;

UNESCO: images of Greco-Buddhist art;

(2) For those interested in the historical links between ancient Greece and India, see Fordham University: Greek Reports of India & Aryavarta;

Author Thomas McEvilley on Ancient Greek and Indian philosophy .

Hindu Wisdom: India and Greece;

Wikipedia: Indo-Greeks;

(3) For more information of the Theosophical Society and its relationship to Hindu and Buddhist anti-colonialism see:

Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain by Peter van der Veer [Google Books].

BlavatskyNeet: Blavatsky and Buddhism.

Hindu nationalism: origins, ideologies and modern myths by Chetan Bhatt [Google Books].

Immediate yet Temporary Solution to Global Refugee Crisis?

Posted on by

There is some agreement with Barack Obama, the civil wars, the unrest, the terror conditions in the Middle East is an Islamic problem to solve. When however, outside influences have manifested the state of order in the region, not only is the Obama administration culpable due to lack of leadership, but filling that void is Iran, Russia, the Gulf States and China.

This is not a new condition by any stretch and the cost to the United States has yet to be realized or accounted. In 2013, the United States had already provided $339 million and additional humanitarian aid to the Syria crisis. That is but one small portion to the costs which have mounted still in 2015.

The refugee crisis festering across the globe is worse than what is being reported and the moving parts are countless.

So there are some short term and creative solutions that would provide some relief such that other cures can be devised in the interim.

  1. Call on affected nations to step up assets to rescue and safe haven to the refugees by offering respective naval vessels to the Mediterranean Sea and to ports involved. Each country has decommissioned ships or ships that are expendable for immediate use, including cruise ships. The United States alone has decommissioned countless naval assets and sold many of them to other countries for use. Further, after generally 25 years, cruise ships are taken out of service where some would take minor upgrades to deploy for the cause.
  2. The United Nations along with involved countries call to duty personnel to work resources for humanitarian means. This would include medical, safety, transportation, educational and early vetting.
  3. Place intelligence operations on the entry-way path to interview, fingerprint and background personnel files that are matched with global intelligence services that would and could find the terrorists and jihadis among the crowds.
  4. Set rules aboard the ships for order, when violations occur, aggressive consequences are invoked. This may include prison, deportation or other detention sentences.
  5. Contain the problem and then manage it. Stop spreading the destruction, crisis and despair. The cost of this program would come under that of the Gulf States, Russia and Iran that have offered zero assistance and are in fact guilty of exacerbating the calamity. The global community has a role and for those that ignore, sanctions and isolation is the consequence.
  6. Countries where war and unrest is proven are the target of a worldwide military solution beyond that of today’s feeble strategy. NATO membership is accountable for a tactical strategy in locations such as Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and more.
  7. Determine Muslim countries that may be conditioned to take refugees on a medium term basis until stability is gained, one country at a time. Those countries may include Maldives, Malaysia or perhaps even Kyrgyzstan.

It is time to think out of the box for a semi-lasting yet immediate solution during which time Islamic State, al Nusra, Boko Harem, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are defeated.

This post is up for debate and further discussion, yet today, there must be robust collaboration, cures, humanitarian and military strategies on the table. Your comments are invited and welcomed.

How Obama Won Iran Deal and the Money Flows

Posted on by

Obama has officially won on the Iran deal. How?

In part from the Hill:

The White House —which has a reputation for keeping an arms-length relationship with Capitol Hill —mounted an all hands on deck effort in the three weeks after the deal was signed and before lawmakers left town for the August recess.

Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and other top officials became fixtures on Capitol Hill and sought to answer every lawmaker’s questions in person before they fanned out across the country.

Moniz was the ringer, offering a detailed yet affable performance that contrasted with Kerry’s more pedantic style, and earned him the affection of even the deal’s most bitter critics.

The president, too, got personally involved, and refused to relent once Congress left town.

Obama spoke to more than 100 lawmakers in individual or small-group settings, according to a White House official, including 30 calls during his two-week August vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials made the case directly to over 200 House members and senators after the deal was reached.

Supporters were up against heavy artillery. At home, lawmakers were bombarded with tens of millions of dollars’ worth of TV ads from opponents of the agreement such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

To counteract that firepower, organizations such as J Street spent millions of their own to run advertisements in key markets.

Obama also made an open plea for liberal groups to lend him a hand.

“As big of a bully pulpit as I have, it’s not enough,” Obama told thousands of activists in July. “I can’t carry it by myself.”

But what do the Republicans know that the Democrats also know but are ignoring because of the covert Iran money deals to the Democrats?

Iran spending billions on terrorists’ salaries: report

 Iran has been sending billions of dollars to fill the pockets of terrorist fighters across the Middle East, including in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, according to a private U.S. government report ordered by Sen. Mark Kirk.

Iran’s defense budget ranges anywhere between $14 billion to $30 billion a year and much of that money goes to fund terrorist groups and rebel fighters throughout the region, according to the Congressional Research Service report conducted at the request of Mr. Kirk, an Illinois Republican.
The report, first viewed by The Washington Free Beacon, discloses that funding for these terrorist groups could be much higher than originally estimated, as Iran often hides public records about its defense spending.

“Some regional experts claim that Iran’s defense budget excludes much of its spending on intelligence activities and support of foreign non-state actors,” the report states, stressing that actual military spending could far exceed the $30 billion that Iran discloses annually, The Free Beacon reported.

“Similarly, another study claims that actual funding for the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force’s Al Quds Force] is ‘much greater’ ” than the amount allocated in the state budget, as the group’s funds are supplemented by its own economic activities,” the report said.

The report gives “low-ball” estimates for each of the groups supported by Iranian funding. Researchers estimate Iran spends between $100 million and $200 million per year on Hezbollah, $3.5 billion to $15 billion per year in support of Syria’s Asad Regime, $12 million to $26 million per year on Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, $10 million to $20 million per year to support Houthi rebels in Yemen and tens of millions per year to support Hamas terrorists in Israel.

In Syria, for example, Iranian-backed fighters are paid between $500 to $1,000 a month to fight in support of Bashar Assad’s regime, according to the report.

Afghan fighters in Syria have disclosed that they “had recently returned from training in Iran and planned to fight in Syria,” the report notes. These militants “expected to receive salaries from Iran ranging from $500 to $1000 a month.”

The report comes as the Obama administration gained the final critical vote needed to suppress a resolution to disapprove a nuclear deal with Iran. Under the deal, the U.S. and other world powers will gradually lift economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic in exchange for dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

Similar reports from watchdog groups have revealed that releasing Iranian assets sanctions could allow Tehran to spend more money on its terrorist-link Quds force, as well as beef up its own military in general.

“The administration is celebrating support from a partisan minority of senators for a nuclear deal that threatens the security of the United States and our allies,” Mr. Kirk said, The Free Beacon reported. “This deeply flawed agreement will transfer over $100 billion to a regime that U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calls the ‘foremost state sponsor of terrorism,’ and pave Iran’s path to nuclear weapons.

“Like North Korea before it, Iran will cheat on this flawed deal in order to get nuclear weapons. Congress must hold accountable the Iranian regime and ensure that our children never wake up to a nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East.”

20150800-INFOGRAPHIC-Kirk-CRS Estimates of Iranian Financial Support to Terrorists Militants

The report is located here and everyone in Congress has access.

CSMonitor: One of the beneficiaries will be Iran’s primary tool for projecting power – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and especially its elite Qods Force, which handles operations abroad.

But are Iran’s wizened generals, who mostly cut their military teeth in the 1980s as teenage volunteers during the brutal Iran-Iraq War, already in danger of overreach?

For decades, American military planners aimed to be capable of simultaneously fighting – and winning – two full-blown wars in different regions. It was a challenge, even for a superpower. Today, on a much smaller scale and with a sliver of the military means, Iran is attempting the same thing in the Middle East: It is deeply engaged in Syria and Iraq; waving the flag in Yemen; and very influential in Lebanon.

Never before has the Revolutionary Guard, whose 120,000-strong force is much smaller than Iran’s regular 425,000-strong armed forces, been engaged so deeply and widely abroad – yet with increasingly mixed and entangling results.

There is no shortage of commitment: at least seven IRGC generals have died on the frontlines, primarily in Syria but also in Iraq, taken down by snipers’ bullets, bombs, and even an Israeli airstrike. The Guards are relatively top heavy with generals due to their origins as an ideological militia. Still, such high-ranking losses are highly uncommon in modern warfare.

In Syria, the IRGC and its Lebanese Shiite ally Hezbollah are bolstering the regime of President Bashar al-Assad against an array of rebels and jihadists. In Iraq, Iran has mobilized Shiite militias to take on the self-described Islamic State, but at a cost of stoking more sectarian strife. While in Yemen, Iran has played a much lesser role in aiding Houthi militiamen against Saudi-backed forces.

Each conflict has now devolved largely along sectarian lines that pit Shiite Iran against its regional Sunni rivals, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states allied with the US and Israel.

The IRGC “exceeded their reach long ago.… They are at the end of their tricks [in Syria], and Hezbollah lost a lot,” says Walter Posch, a specialist on Iranian military forces at the Austrian National Defense Academy in Vienna.

“It worked well when it was low cost, but now it is high cost.… There is no Saddam Hussein who insulted the Iranian nation as a whole” as a national motivating factor, as in the 1980s, says Mr. Posch. “This is a war of their own liking, for the purpose of power projection. But they’ve been too ignorant of the fear of the small Gulf countries; too ignorant about the fears of the Saudis.”

 

Ideological origins

The IRGC was formed after Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who wanted a more trusted and ideologically pure force than the regular Army. The grim years of the Iran-Iraq war consolidated its role – and its anything-is-possible reputation.

Embracing the religious Shiite aspects of resistance in the image of Imam Hossein, the 7th-century Shiite saint venerated as “lord of the martyrs,” the IRGC has since become an economic and political powerhouse. It runs a multi-billion dollar business empire that handles everything from oil and infrastructure projects to weapons production. In politics, active-duty guardsman play no formal role, but its generals are close to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and veterans have held cabinet and other government posts.

“I don’t see signs of overreach; I think they’ve got leadership in depth,” says Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran now at the Chatham House think tank in London. “They are tested in difficult situations. They’ve been involved, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, or Afghanistan, for a very long period.”

“It comes back to, ‘Who wins wars?’ People who win wars and are the most effective are the ones with the greatest conviction, and the Iranians have got it,” says Amb. Dalton.

That certainly applies to Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani, who has often been photographed along frontlines in Iraq and elsewhere. He claimed this week that Iran’s efforts prompted the “collapse of American power in the region,” according to details of a high-level briefing published in Iran’s conservative media.

 

‘Gobbling’ or choking?

Some argue that Iran’s regional expansion is unprecedented. Addressing Congress in March, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran was “gobbling up” Mideast capitals. Yet the tide now isn’t all going Iran’s way.

In Syria, for example, Iran has been fighting to defend Mr. Assad’s regime for more than 4-½ years, spending an estimated $6 billion to $15 billion a year in a war that has claimed more than 240,000 lives. But pro-Assad forces have lost ground in recent months to rebels backed by the US, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as well as to the self-described Islamic State.

President Hassan Rouhani has vowed to back the Syrian government “until the end of the road.” While Assad is running short of loyalist troops, the IRGC reportedly has tried to fill the gap by finding several thousand Afghans to fight, and die, in exchange for cash, Iranian residency or passports, and sometimes for commuted jail terms, according to Germany’s Spiegel and Agence France-Presse.

In May, a special event held in Tehran commemorated Afghan martyrs killed in Syria, and 65 corpses were returned in a single exchange, according to Iranian media reports. Many are buried in Iran. Officially, Iran denies enlisting Afghans to fight in Syria.

In Iraq, Soleimani was instrumental in reviving tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen to push back IS for more than a year – in concert with American airstrikes, and ironically with a similar mission as US military advisers now in Iraq. But those militias are accused of atrocities against Sunnis, and efforts to bolster the regular Iraqi military – decisive at first – have begun to stumble.

And in Yemen, Iran has been marginally involved on the side of Houthi rebels as they advanced across the country earlier this year. In July, the critical port city of Aden was recaptured by Saudi-backed forces and troops of the United Arab Emirates. Months of Saudi-led airstrikes are imperiling the population, in a campaign explicitly aimed at rolling back Iranian influence.

“There is support for Soleimani but also high expectations,” says Posch, of the IRGC’s Qods Force chief. “He has to deliver now. I don’t know how he deals with all these crises individually. He can’t go to all these battlefields in person.”

 

JPOA: Strategic Consequences For U.S. National Security

Posted on by

What you can know from the military experts that the Democrats that are standing with the White House on the Iran ‘YES’ vote are ignoring.

The full report is here.

Assessment of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:

By: Co-Chairs General James Conway, USMC (ret.) and General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.)

Strategy Council and Staff

Members

Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, USN (ret.)

Former Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Africa

General Lou Wagner, USA (ret.)

Former Commander of U.S. Army Materiel Command

Vice Admiral John Bird, USN (ret.)

Former Commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet

Lt. General David Deptula, USAF (ret.)

Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force Headquarters

Maj. General Lawrence Stutzriem, USAF (ret.)

Former Director, Plans, Policy, and Strategy, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command

 

We assess:

The JCPOA will not prevent a nuclear Iran. No later than 15 years, the deal’s major nuclear restrictions will lapse, Iran will stand on the brink of nuclear weapons capability, and once again the United States will likely have to devote significant resources and attention to keeping Tehran from attaining nuclear weapons.

  1. The JCPOA will give Iran the means to increase support for terrorist and insurgent proxies, aggravate sectarian conflict and trigger both nuclear and conventional proliferation cascades. It will provide the expansionist regime in Tehran with access to resources, technology and international arms markets required to bolster offensive military capabilities in the vital Persian Gulf region, acquire long-range ballistic missiles and develop other major weapons systems.
  1. Our long-standing allies feel betrayed – even angry – with the JCPOA, seeing it as a weakening of U.S. security guarantees and reversal of decades of U.S. regional security policy. The mere fact that such perceptions persist, regardless of their veracity, will undermine U.S. credibility, threatening to turn them into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  1. Simultaneously, sequestration is diminishing the ability of the United States to respond to Iranian aggression, mitigate security threats emanating from Iran and protect U.S. regional allies. Leaving it with fewer and older ships and planes as well as fewer and less well-trained troops, these cuts will severely damage the U.S. military’s ability to project power in the region, even as the Iranian threat grows.
  1. The United States is in a far better position to prevent a nuclear Iran today, even by military means if necessary, than when the JCPOA sunsets. The strategic environment will grow much more treacherous in the next 15 years. Comparatively, Iran will be economically stronger, regionally more powerful and militarily more capable, while the United States will have a smaller, less capable fighting force, diminished credibility and fewer allies.

Contrary to the false choice between support for the JCPOA and military confrontation, the agreement increases both the probability and danger of hostilities with Iran. Given the deleterious strategic consequences to the United States, implementation of the JCPOA will demand increased political and military engagement in the Middle East that carries significantly greater risks and costs relative to current planning assumptions.

Improved Iran Military Capabilities

The JCPOA will enable Iran to improve its unconventional military capabilities to challenge the strategic position of the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Iran will be able to revitalize its defense industrial base in the short term, even if it devotes only a fraction of the $100 billion or more that will be unfrozen as part of the agreement – more than the government’s entire budget for the current fiscal year – to military spending. It is also set to acquire advanced S-300 air defenses from Russia at the end of this year. Over the medium term, the removal of economic sanctions and the United Nations arms embargo will allow the regime to acquire other advanced technologies and weapons from abroad. And, once sanctions against its ballistic missile program sunset, Iran could more easily develop weapons capable of reaching targets in the Middle East and beyond – including Europe and the United States.

Iran has historically been at a serious disadvantage against the United States in conventional military power, most notably when the use of overwhelming U.S. force in the region compelled it to reverse course dramatically and agree to a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War in 1988 and to suspend its nuclear program in 2003. Indeed, Iran lacks large numbers of sophisticated conventional capabilities, including armored forces, air support and fighter aircraft and large surface ships. This likely will remain true for the foreseeable future.

Despite its deficit in conventional capabilities, Iran poses an asymmetric challenge to U.S. military assets and interests in the region. Iran learned from hard experience that it could not match the United States in a direct military confrontation. It also understands the United States relies heavily on unfettered access to close-in bases across the Middle East to keep the region’s vital and vulnerable sea lanes open, conduct combat operations and deter aggression against its allies. Therefore, it has spent more than a decade pursuing a strategy to disrupt or deter the United States from projecting superior forces into the region, or to prevent those forces from operating effectively if deployed. For example, Iran could seek to do so by sealing off the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz; degrading U.S. freedom of maneuver and military lines of communication; blocking the flow of oil through the Gulf; and targeting naval and commercial vessels, military bases, energy infrastructure and other vital sites inside and outside the Gulf.

Iran has acquired and developed various capabilities to execute this asymmetric strategy, including anti-access/area denial (A2/AD). It possesses the region’s largest arsenal of short (SRBM) and medium-range (MRBM) ballistic missiles, as well as a growing arsenal of cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), to target military and energy installations throughout the Gulf, including U.S. ships. It also has a sizable fleet of fast attack craft, submarines and large numbers of torpedoes and naval mines for choking off Hormuz and attacking the aforementioned targets. The S-300 air defense systems could stymie U.S. air operations around the Gulf, in addition to complicating any strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Russian or Chinese-sourced anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles could give Iran an even greater standoff capability, allowing it to target U.S. naval assets beyond the Persian Gulf. Iran is also devoting attention to cyber warfare against the battle networks of U.S. forces and the critical infrastructure of its adversaries in the region.7

Assessment of the JCPOA: Strategic Consequences for U.S. National Security

The JCPOA will provide Iran with access to the resources, technology and international arms markets it needs to execute its asymmetric and A2/AD strategy more effectively. We expect it will take full advantage of the opportunity. Iran could simply make or buy more of what it already has, particularly missiles, launchers, submarines and surface warfare ships. It could also upgrade crucial capabilities. Improved precision guidance systems would enable Iran’s ballistic and cruise missiles to target individual ships and installations around the Gulf much more accurately, as would new missile boats, submarines and mobile launchers. If combined with longer-range radars, it could expand this increased threat across wider swathes of the region. Better UAVs or multirole aircraft – not to mention additional advanced air defenses – could permit it to contest U.S. air supremacy over the region. It could also augment its stealth and electronic and cyber warfare capabilities with new technologies from abroad.

Iran might also invest in entirely new capabilities to disrupt and deter operations not only around its immediate vicinity, but also across the region more broadly. These could include long-range strike, satellite, airlift and sealift capabilities as well as the development of long-range ballistic missiles.

The full 14 page report is here.

 

 

 

Truth of the Iran Lobby

Posted on by

All Republicans in the Senate are ‘NO’ votes on the Iran deal and there is an estimated 12 Democrats so far that are staying with a NO vote, the rest of the Democrats have declared they will vote with the White House, when not one Senator has had any access to the side deals.

The White House has declared they don’t need any part of Congress to approve the deal, it is done. Further, the Iran deal is non-binding which is to say Iran does not need to comply with any part of the JPOA.

Meanwhile, you may be interested to know who the Iran Lobby is in Washington DC and the influence they have with legislators and the White House. Simply, money votes.

The text below is the perfect model for how all politics work in Washington DC. Chilling but true.

Meet the Iran Lobby

In the fight over sanctions and the nuclear deal, how did the supposedly all-powerful pro-Israel lobby lose to the slick operatives of the National Iranian American Council?

By Lee Smith
Trita Parsi, the Iranian-born émigré who moved to the United States in 2001 from Sweden, where his parents found refuge before the Islamic Revolution, should be the toast of Washington these days. As I argued in Tablet magazine several years ago, Parsi is an immigrant who in classic American fashion wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to reconcile his new home and his birthplace. And now he’s done it: The founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby, has won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action not only lifts sanctions on Iran, a goal Parsi has fought for since 1997, but also paves the way for a broader reconciliation between Washington and Tehran across the Middle East. In Washington, to have the policies you advocate implemented with the full backing of the president counts as a huge victory. Winning big like this means power as well as access to more money, which flows naturally to power and augments it—enhancing reputations and offering the ability to reward friends and punish enemies. And yet, Parsi (who declined comment for this story) has got to be frustrated that very few in the halls of American power—either in government or in the media—are celebrating the Iran lobby for its big win. It seems the only thing people can talk about is the big loser in this fight over Middle East policy—the pro-Israel lobby, led by AIPAC. It’s as if Parsi and NIAC had nothing to do with the Obama Administration’s decision to move closer to Iran while further distancing itself from Israel. “It’s a huge win for NIAC,” said one Iranian-American analyst who requested anonymity. “Every other part of Iranian-American advocacy—from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, to the washed-up old monarchists—is useless, and then in comes Trita and he’s slick, presentable, and knows how to build an impressive network.” So, why is the rise of the Iran Lobby both Washington’s biggest and also its least-heralded success story of the past six years? In part, Parsi and NIAC’s relative anonymity is the work of a White House that would rather pretend that there is no Iran Lobby, in accordance with the standard Beltway wisdom that a “lobby” is any group of people who advocate things that you are opposed to (lobbies that advocate things you are for are known as “supporters”). But the White House surely knows better, in part because so many friends and graduates of the Iran Lobby now staff key Iran-related government posts. The White House’s Iran desk officer, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, for example, is a former NIAC employee. NIAC’s advisory board includes two former U.S. diplomats, Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel, and John Limbert, who was held hostage by the revolutionary regime in 1979. Past speakers at NIAC leadership conferences include Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser Colin Kahl, and the White House’s Middle East Director Rob Malley. Other past speakers from the political realm include: Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to NATO; PJ Crowley, State Deptartment spokesperson under Hillary Clinton; Hans Blix, former director general of the IAEA. Other reputable names include figures like Aaron David Miller from the Wilson Center, Robert Pape from the University of Chicago, and Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institution. Indeed, the impressive roster of speakers at NIAC events is evidence of Parsi’s assiduous cultivation of friendly contacts, both here and in Iran. The biggest NIAC booster in academia is the author of The Israel Lobby himself, Harvard University’s Stephen Walt. The in-house portion of Parsi’s network also includes public intellectuals, like Iranian-American authors Hooman Majd and Reza Aslan, as well as figures from Iranian business concerns, like Atieh Bahar, who are reportedly close to the Iranian regime, especially former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. According to a deeply informed video series posted earlier this month by Iranian-American activist Hassan Dai, Parsi has partnered with Atieh Bahar since the very beginning of his career as an Iran lobbyist in order to promote a pro-trade agenda, which of course will inevitably help the regime. (In 2008, Parsi sued Dai, claiming he had “defamed them in a series of articles and blog posts claiming that they had secretly lobbied on behalf of the Iranian regime in the United States.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in 2012 the work of NIAC, which wasn’t registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, “not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.”) “Parsi believed that what stood between U.S.-Iran trade and dialogue,” said Dai, “was AIPAC.”   NIAC not only modeled itself after AIPAC, Dai said, it waged a crusade against it. “Back in 2004 Parsi gave a talk to European ambassadors saying that Israel and AIPAC stood between better relations between the United States and Iran. That turned into his dissertation at Johns Hopkins and later his [2007] book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the US.” As it happens, Parsi was able to tap into a pool of support for his ideas. According to NIAC’s financial statement, the majority of the organization’s money comes from community support, while a portion comes from foundations, like the Ploughshares Fund, which has spent lots of money to influence U.S. policy toward Iran—“millions of dollars,” according to Michael Rubin writing for Commentary, “to pro-administration groups to support whatever Iran deal came out of Vienna.” Most important, of course, Parsi found common cause with a White House that believed the same things he did: The United States and Iran should be closer, and all that was preventing rapprochement was Israel and AIPAC. “NIAC didn’t really need to write their talking points anymore,” said Dai. “Because they were coming from the White House.” To push through the Iran deal, the White House, including the president himself, waged a brutal campaign against the prime minister of Israel and the pro-Israel community, even, some have argued, accusing JCPOA opponent Sen. Chuck Schumer of dual loyalty. Parsi, some of whose anti-Israel sentiments have previously been documented, followed suit. Most recently, he suggested that the Associated Press had printed an Israeli forgery of an IAEA agreement with Iran that allowed the Islamic Republic to self-inspect its Parchin military base. When AP reporters and others on Twitter challenged Parsi’s absurd allegation slandering a trusted Western news source, the Iran lobby chief backed down—but not before he’d put his obsession with Israel and Jewish power on full display. NIAC, whose direct expenditure of a little over a million dollars is a tiny fraction of AIPAC’s Iran deal campaign budget, won because it was aligned with the White House. And instead of boasting and posturing about his power and top-level access, as AIPAC is wont to do, Parsi understood his role. Like J Street, NIAC was cast to play second banana to the President’s star turn and stay close to the White House and make the case to journalists and other intellectuals who weren’t already sold on the idea of rapprochement with Iran—and on the idea that Israel is a big problem for the United States.  (White House Twitter account) The paradox is that Parsi deserves lots of credit for his victory, but he can’t cash his checks too publicly—because the American public doesn’t like Iran. Which in turn points up a major difference between the pro-Israel lobby and the pro-Iran lobby—both of which, I want to add, contrary to critics on both the left and the right, make entirely legitimate use of the American democratic system to advocate for their respective points of view. Where NIAC differs from AIPAC is in its relation to American public opinion. AIPAC has never been about selling access to the Israeli economy: In fact, AIPAC piggy-backed on the huge well-spring of affection that the American public has for Israel in order to establish itself as a power in Washington. If Americans want to invest in an IT firm in Herzliya, or a gift shop in Tzfat, donating money to AIPAC is unlikely to be of much help: They’re free to take their chances and fight through the red tape. Nor is it clear that pursuing exciting economic opportunities in Israel has ever been a particular motivating force for pro-Israel activism. The pro-Israel lobby never sold anything except the opportunity for Americans—Jews, evangelical Christians, and mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—to feel even better about supporting something they already felt good about, for personal, ethnic, ideological, religious, sentimental, and other such reasons. The pro-Iran lobby on the other hand has no real base of popular support in America: Many Iranians in America are in fact deeply opposed to the regime in Tehran, and see NIAC as a regime tool. What NIAC has to offer instead, like the Saudi lobby before it, is access, which is a big reason why Parsi has been fighting sanctions for nearly two decades. For an Iran Lobby to have any heft, it needs to be able to deliver the goods to its supporters. With sanctions, the Iran Lobby has been largely crippled, because it has very little to offer: It was able to accumulate the power it has now only because the Administration clearly signaled its desire to do business with Iran, thereby offering NIAC supporters at least some mathematical expectation of a future payout. Now, if the JCPOA gets through Congress, that payout is likely to be tremendous, as the Iran Lobby will be able to help broker access to anything and everything in Iran—from industry, to schools, to opportunities for journalists and academics, etc.—which will in turn make NIAC and the Iran Lobby that much more powerful. One of the chief ironies of the ongoing debate over the Iran deal is that both defenders and detractors of a supposedly all-powerful “Israel Lobby” have been wasting their breath over an entity that has notably failed to affect U.S. policy on a single issue of major concern over the entire course of Obama’s 6-year Presidency—a record of unmitigated failure that would clearly condemn it to the black hole of Beltway irrelevance if not for the bizarre imaginative hold, and political utility, of the myth of a powerful conspiracy of Jews who secretly rule the planet. Or perhaps it’s not an irony at all. Some of the loudest detractors of the “Israel Lobby” are in fact paid staffers and partisans of the Iran Lobby—an entity that, unlike the Israel Lobby, has succeeded in radically altering U.S. foreign policy, with the help of the President and his advisors. Seen from a certain angle, the Iran Lobby has pulled off the neat trick of using the specter of the Israel Lobby to shift U.S. policy away from Israel and toward Iran—while actually succeeding at the same dark arts that it blames the Jews for employing. The Iran lobby used a combination of lobbying, donations, propaganda, and back-door personal connections to top policy-makers to radically alter American foreign policy, and align the United States with an oppressive authoritarian regime that is destabilizing the Middle East.