Last February, Intercepted Phone Call Warned Europe of Refugee Crisis

Posted on September 11, 2015September 11, 2015 by Denise Simon

It is taught to empathize with those desperate fighters of Islamic State, they have no hope, no jobs, no values.

Europe stood still and did nothing to prepare for the fight in the Middle East, they ignored the warnings, ignored the beheadings, ignored the intelligence, ignored the kidnappings, the rapes, the seized territory, simply Europe went politically correct and froze in fear.

Islamic State warned Europe and Europe fell to the psychological warfare, the chaos and the prophecy.

ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a ‘psychological weapon’ in chilling echo of Gaddafi’s prophecy that the Mediterranean ‘will become a sea of chaos’

Italian press today published claims that ISIS has threatened to release the huge wave of migrants to cause chaos in Europe if they are attacked
And letters from jihadists show plans to hide terrorists among refugees
In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi ominously predicted war would come to Libya
He was deposed in a violent coup and killed in October of the same year
Islamic State executed 21 Egyptian Christians on Libyan beach this week
Crisis in Libya has led to surge in number of migrants heading for Europe

ISIS has threatened to flood Europe with half a million migrants from Libya in a ‘psychological’ attack against the West, it was claimed today.

Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that ISIS is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a ‘psychological weapon’ against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya.

Many would be at risk of drowning with rescue services unable to cope. But authorities fear that if numbers on this scale arrived, European cities could witness riots.

Separately, the militants hope to cement their control of Libya then cross the Mediterranean disguised as refugees, according to letters seen by Quilliam the anti-terror group, reported by the Telegraph.

ISIS had not yet made frightening inroads into Libya when he made this chilling prophecy during his last interview in March 2011.

But the Arab Spring uprising that year sparked a civil war in Libya and opposition forces – backed by NATO – deposed Gaddafi in violent coup just five months after his ominous prediction.

In October 2011, forces loyal to the country’s transitional government found the ousted leader hiding in a culvert in Sirte and killed him.

Four years later, Islamic State kidnapped 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Sirte – Gaddafi’s birthplace – before releasing gruesome footage of their beheading on the shores of the Mediterranean, just 220 miles south of Italy. In it the terrorists warned that they ‘will conquer Rome’.

In response, Italian security chiefs have approved plans to put 4,800 soldiers on the country’s streets to help prevent terrorist attacks.

The statement from the Interior Ministry said they would guard ‘sensitive sites’ until at least June and reports claim 500 will be deployed in Rome – where soldiers are already guarding diplomatic residences, synagogues and Jewish schools.

The troops are also expected to be deployed at tourist venues such as archaeological sites and monuments.

A treaty between Gaddafi and the Italian premier provided for joint boat patrols which curtailed the departure of migrant boats from Libya.

But, as the Libyan despot predicted back in 2011, if the Gaddafis were brought down, Islamists would exploit the power vacuum.

Still holding court in a Bedoin tent while holed up in the fortified citadel of Bab Al Azizya, Gaddafi warned: ‘If, instead of a stable government that guarantees security, these militias linked to Bin Laden take control, the Africans will move en mass towards Europe.’

He added: ‘The Mediterranean will become a sea of chaos.’

That very sea ran red with blood when Islamic State brutally executed 21 Egyptian Christians on its shores.

The accompanying video, released on Sunday, showed the men dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackled – kneeling in the sand before the militants slit their throats and watched them bleed to death.

Egypt retaliated furiously by launching coordinated airstrikes on ISIS targets in Libya.

The European powers were putting their own security at risk by helping the rebels, Gaddafi pointed out.

He told Il Giornale, the Italian newspaper owned by his former friend Silvio Berlusconi he was saddened by the attitude of his friend. They no longer spoke.

‘I am shocked at the attitude of my European friends. They have endangered and damaged a series of great security treaties in their own interest.’

Without his harsh, but effective, regime, the entire North African Mahgreb ‘would become another Gaza,’ he claimed.

The telephone transcripts, seen by Il Messaggero newspaper claimed to provide evidence ‘that IS will use the migrants as a “psychological weapon” against countries that say they want to intervene in Libya, in particular, against Italy.’

‘As soon as our country mentioned armed intervention on Libya the jihadists suggested they let drift, bound for Italy, hundreds of boats full of migrants. The figure discussed is five hundred thousand, most of the 700,000 that are on the coast waiting to board,’ the newspaper reported.

Following the dire threat Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi immediately backtracked from his government’s previous rhetoric saying that ‘it was not the time for military intervention’.

Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said this morning that Italy does not want to embark on ‘adventures, never mind Crusades’ in Libya.

But former President Giorgio Napolitano said that the ‘biggest error’ in the post-Gaddafi’s period was the European Unions ‘lack of involvement’ in the country.

Meanwhile following direct threats on Rome, the commander of Vatican City’s 110-man Swiss Guard said his forces are ready to defend Pope Francis if ISIS attempt a strike .

Colonel Christoph Graf said ‘Following the terrorists’ threats, we’re asking the guards to be more attentive and observe peoples’ movements closely. If something happens we’re ready, as are the men of the Gendarmerie.’

If you dare, click here for the photo essay.

General Dempsey Clues to Europe Refugee Crisis

Posted on September 11, 2015September 11, 2015 by Denise Simon

A criminal network is behind the refugee insurgency and NATO is working to contain, control and stop the crisis.

Implications:

Austrian Federal Railways says train service has been suspended between the main border crossing point to Hungary and Vienna. That appears to have prompted thousands of asylum-seekers to begin trekking on foot toward the Austrian capital.

The railways press department says the move was prompted due to lack of capacity to deal with the thousands of people at the Nickelsdorf crossing wanting to board trains daily to the Austrian capital. Once in Vienna, most have traveled on to Germany and other Western EU nations.

Railway officials are meeting Friday to try to resolve the issue. Meanwhile, thousands of migrants and refugees are trying to cover the 60 kilometers (40 miles) to Vienna on foot.

Austrian police official Hans Peter Doskozil says 7,500 people crossed into Austria at Nickelsdorf on Thursday. More here.

From the Department of Defense:

Dempsey: Refugee Crisis ‘Very Complex’

BERLIN, September 10, 2015 — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his German counterpart met here today, with the refugee crisis in Europe a focus of the discussions.

After today’s talks with Gen. Volker Wieker, the chief of staff of the German armed forces, U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey noted that the “very complex” issue also will be a subject of NATO meetings later this week in Istanbul.

The chairman said he and Wieker discussed whether NATO should have a role in addressing the cause of the crisis.

Dempsey, who spoke to reporters after his meeting today, said the refugee crisis stems from instability in the Middle East, Afghanistan and North Africa, and economic conditions in the Balkans.

A Deluge of Refugees

Earlier this week, Germany said it expects to take in 800,000 refugees this year from Africa, Afghanistan, Syria and the Balkans.

The trickle of refugees suddenly became a deluge, Dempsey said, noting that many of the refugees were young men. The sudden flow, he added, possibly indicates a network of criminal activity is behind the influx.

“Somebody, somewhere in a very deliberate fashion has established a network for profit to enable these young men to escape their current conditions and into Europe,” the chairman said.

The young men looking for a better life and economic opportunities could be vulnerable to “those who would potentially seek to radicalize them,” he said. “We all have to be alert to that possibility,” Dempsey added.

NATO Meetings in Turkey

There are multiple, complex threats facing the alliance, he said. One goal of the day of NATO talks Saturday is to have a conversation about what each nation will do both unilaterally and as a member of the alliance in response to issues such as Russia, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the refugee crisis, the chairman said.

While Turkey might not feel threatened by Russia, it is important that each member of the alliance accept and concede there are multiple threats facing NATO, Dempsey said.

“We’ve had many conversations with them about the threat from violent extremist organizations and radical ideologies and their vulnerability on their southern flank, which happens to be NATO’s southeastern flank,” he noted.

Turkey, as the only Muslim country in NATO, can provide valuable input to the alliance on issues evolving in the Middle East and North Africa, Dempsey said.

Chairman Honored

During his visit to the German Ministry of Defense, Dempsey laid a wreath in honor of fallen German soldiers and received the Knight Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In presenting the decoration, Wieker hailed Dempsey as a close ally and friend who “enjoys the highest recognition around the world” as the top U.S. military officer.

“The Federal Republic of Germany is grateful for your outstanding contribution to the American-German friendship and your dedication to all bilateral and transatlantic partnership,” he told Dempsey.

The chairman said it was “quite a remarkable honor and privilege” to receive the decoration.

“I accept it on behalf of the many, many, many soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have served here in your wonderful country,” he said, noting he began his career as a young Army officer stationed in Germany.

“I found it fitting and appropriate that I would end my career where I began it,” Dempsey said, who retires at the end of this month after more than four decades of service.

*** Could it be the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is behind this criminal network moving the refugees? Personally, this is my best guess at this time, but could it also be a nefarious component States?

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The Islamic State group is extending its reach in Saudi Arabia, expanding the scope of its attacks and drawing in new recruits with its radical ideology. Its determination to bring down the U.S.-allied royal family has raised concerns it could threaten the annual Muslim hajj pilgrimage later this month.

So far, the extremist group’s presence in the kingdom appears to be in a low-level stage, but it has claimed four significant bombings since May, one of them in neighboring Kuwait. And it has rapidly ramped up its rhetoric, aiming to undermine the Al Saud royal family’s legitimacy, which is rooted in part in its claim to implement Islamic Shariah law and to be the protectors of Islam’s most sacred sites in Mecca and Medina that are at the center of hajj.

“Daesh and its followers have made it very clear that Saudi Arabia is their ultimate target,” Saudi analyst Fahad Nazer said, referring to the Islamic State group by its Arabic acronym. “Because of Mecca and Medina … That’s their ultimate prize.”

An attack last month in which IS claimed responsibility appeared to mark a significant spread in the group’s reach. Militants claiming loyalty to the group had already carried out three major bombings — two in eastern Saudi Arabia in May and one in Kuwait City in June, all targeting Shiite mosques and killing 53 people.

But on Aug. 6, a suicide bomber attacked in western Saudi Arabia, hitting a mosque inside a police compound in Abha, 350 miles south of Mecca, killing 15 people in the deadliest attack on the kingdom’s security forces in years. Eleven of the dead belonged to an elite counterterrorism unit whose tasks include protecting the hajj pilgrimage.

The alleged affiliate that claimed responsibility for the August attack called itself the “Hijaz Province” of the Islamic State, its first claim of a branch in the Hijaz, the traditional name for the western stretch of the Arabian Peninsula where the holy cities are located. The previous attacks were claimed by the group’s “Najd Province,” the traditional name for the central heartland of the peninsula and the homeland of the Al Saud family.

Lori Boghardt, Gulf security analyst at the Washington Institute, said it would not be surprising if IS militants tried to take advantage of the hajj to stage an attack, particularly since the group has encouraged lone wolf operations. This year, the hajj begins Sept. 21 and is expected to draw some 3 million Muslims from around the world.

“The kingdom is a holy grail of sorts as a target from the perspective of ISIS because of its significance to Muslims,” she said, referring to the group by its longer acronym.

A direct attack on pilgrims carrying out the hajj rites — potentially causing large casualties or damaging holy sites — may be a risky move for IS, bringing a backlash from shocked Muslims worldwide. Still, the group “has made it very clear they have no red lines,” said Nazer, a senior analyst at the Virginia-based consultancy and security firm JTG Inc.

But there are other potential targets, including security forces in or around Mecca. The group could attempt to hit pilgrims from Shiite-majority nations like Iran, who would stand out since pilgrims generally move in groups by country. IS and other Sunni radicals consider Shiites heretics.

Justin Mahshouf, a 30 year-old American Shiite planning to perform the hajj this year, said friends and family are telling him to be careful. “There seems to be a really bad vibe right now in the Shiite community.”

Little is known about the structure of the Islamic State group in Saudi Arabia. It is not known if the militants in the kingdom have direct operational ties with the group’s leadership based in its self-declared “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria — or if they simply operate independently in the group’s name.

In all four attacks claimed by the branches in the kingdom, the bombers were young Saudis, suggesting the group’s ranks are largely homegrown as opposed to foreign militants. The bomber in the August attack was identified as Yousef Suleiman, a 21-year-old Saudi with no record of ever having travelled abroad, pointing to the group’s ability to radicalize even youth who have not gone to join fighting in Syria.

“If you are looking at IS as a state, the territory it controls is not going to vastly expand, but the ideology it espouses is expanding,” said Hani Sabra, head of Middle East practice at Eurasia Group.

Since Syria’s civil war escalated over the past four years, Saudi Arabia’s ultraconservative clerics urged young men to go fight alongside Sunni rebels in Iraq and Syria. Concerned about possible radicalization, the late King Abdullah last year banned fighting abroad or encouraging it. But by then, some 2,500 Saudis had already gone to Syria. The Interior Ministry says around 650 have since returned and that they left disillusioned with the fighting.

This year, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries joined the U.S.-led campaign of airstrikes against IS in Syria.

In an Aug. 24 audiotape, an IS supporter denounced the royal family as “tyrants” ruling Islam’s heartland without implementing what IS calls its true teachings.

“Pledge allegiance to the Islamic State,” the audio urged Saudis. “Stand up against the tyrants and liberate the peninsula of Muhammad … from their filth.”

A prominent radical Saudi cleric, Nasr al-Fahd, who has been imprisoned since 2003 for connections to militancy, recently declared support for IS in a message smuggled from his prison. In the letter carried by IS supporters online, he advised others to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group, which he said had “destroyed the idols” and is implementing Shariah, not “man-made laws.”

Saudi Arabia is already run by one of the most ultraconservative interpretations of Shariah, known as Wahhabism. Some of its clerics view Shiites as heretics, are virulently opposed to monuments or tombs they see as encouraging idolatry, believe in a strict segregation of the sexes and support the use of religious police to enforce Shariah rules — all teachings not far from the Islamic State group’s ideology.

But Wahhabi clerics make a crucial distinction, preaching that the recognized ruler — in this case, the Al Sauds — must be obeyed. They condemn protests or violence that could lead to instability. The kingdom’s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, denounced IS and al-Qaida as Islam’s number one enemy.

When asked by The Associated Press by email about possible threats of attacks on the hajj, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki replied that “that security forces will act swiftly and decisively with any violations of laws and instructions related to hajj.”

He said the holy sites are protected by a force specifically dedicated to the task and a large number of additional security forces will be deployed during hajj to ensure pilgrims’ “security and safety” and manage the traffic of the large crowds. He also pointed to the elaborate security system of surveillance cameras and helicopters that the kingdom implements each year. He could not give exact figures or specify whether the deployment would be larger this year.

The kingdom has also arrested hundreds of suspected militants this year. Overseeing that effort is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is also interior minister and led the battle that eventually crushed al-Qaida’s branch in the kingdom in 2006.

Sabra of Eurasia Group said despite a strengthening presence, IS does not currently represent a direct threat to Saudi political stability. He pointed to the crown prince’s experience in counterterrorism. “Mohammed bin Nayef has proven that this is a job that he takes very seriously.”

Don’t Look Now, Cuban Refugees on top of Syrian/Mexican

Posted on September 10, 2015September 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

Every action has a reaction, actually a consequence. While America is generous and benevolent, it comes at a cost. That cost most often is impossible to measure.

Politicians and even presidential candidates have spoken positively in recent days about taking in refugees from the Middle East, but America already has an existing crisis and is there a quota or limitation? Hungary says no.

No country in the Gulf States is taking or has taken any refugees, and Kuwait for sure says no due to different backgrounds and culture.

The matter of Mexican, Central and Latin American refugees is well known, but more Cubans?

Cubans Flood Texas Ports After Thaw in Relations

Call it another immigration surge of the United States’ own making. But unlike last summer’s crisis of children and families arriving from Central America, lawmakers aren’t quick to call on this current group of refugees to go home.

From October 2014 to June 2015, about 18,520 Cubans have sought entry to the United States through Texas’ Laredo field office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes ports from Del Rio to Brownsville. That’s compared to the 18,240 unaccompanied minors that were caught or surrendered to U.S. Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley from October 2014 through July of this year, according to CBP statistics.

If current trend holds, the number of Cubans seeking entry through Laredo will be about 24,700 this fiscal year. That’s about 60 percent more than 2014’s 15,600 and nearly twice as many as 2013’s 12,445.

The influx of Cubans to Texas is a result of the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with the communist Castro regime, said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

“That is a jaw dropping statistic that I haven’t seen before,” Rosenblum said of the spike. “In general there is a suspicion among many Cubans that the special status that Cubans receive is in jeopardy.”

The special status is a policy allowing Cubans who make it to a U. S. port of entry to enter and seek legal permanent residency status, known as a green card, after one year. Unlike the Central Americans smuggled illegally through Mexico, the Cubans can travel freely through the country as they migrate northward.

“We’re seeing a surge that started with the announcement of normalized relations last year and there is a longer-term trend of people coming to Mexico rather than risking the sea voyage because [Mexico] is a more reliable way to go,” Rosenblum added.

Though the number of Central American minors is down from last summer’s massive wave when more than 46,000 came to Texas through the Rio Grande Valley, the political firestorm that surge created still rages.

Before taking office as Texas governor, Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit while attorney general to halt President Obama’s immigration policy that would have shielded millions of undocumented Texans from deportation. That policy is still on hold and Abbott cited last summer’s crisis as one reason he filed the lawsuit, claiming Texas witnessed firsthand the ill effects of Obama’s policies that included 2012’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Texas Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have also cited Obama’s immigration policies as a magnet that lures more undocumented immigrants toward Texas and blasted the president during last summer’s surge. Cornyn filed legislation last summer that, if passed, would have allowed for the immediate deportations of Central Americans and Cruz has promised to scale back Obama’s immigration policies if elected president.

Neither Abbott nor Cornyn responded to a request for comment. Cruz, whose own father fled Cuba and settled in Texas, also declined to comment.

The current policy toward Cubans is an amended version of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which applied to most immigrants from the island nation who sought entry to the United States. Under a revision agreed upon during the Clinton Administration, called the Wet Foot/Dry Foot policy, Cubans who reach the United States can apply for entry while Cubans found at sea are sent back home or to a third country. Rick Pauza, a spokesman for CBP in Laredo, said the current negotiations between the United States and Cuba have not affected long-standing policy regarding Cubans seeking entry to the country.

“Normally, if a Cuban national arriving at a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) port of entry or between ports expresses fear of return to Cuba or their country of last residence, he or she is inspected and may qualify for parole into the U.S.,” he said in an email. “CBP Officers and Agents will first verify the individuals’ citizenship, identity, and whether they have prior criminal or U.S. immigration history. After one year in the U.S., the Cuban national may be eligible under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 to apply for lawful permanent residence.”

Immigrant rights’ groups have been critical of what they say is a double standard in U.S. immigration policy. They argue that instead of being detained or deported, a Central American or Mexican escaping persecution should be paroled in to the country like a Cuban is.

Rosenblum said that’s a valid argument.

“It’s hard to make the case that Cuba has uniquely difficult conditions that would justify the total unique status that Cubans arriving in the United States receive,” he said. “There are Cubans who are persecuted and who don’t have political freedoms but the situation there is certainly comparable to Central America or Mexico or a dozen other countries you can name around the world.”

In 2013, the estimated 18,000 Cubans who arrived at U.S. land ports were paroled into the country and subsequently awarded green cards, Rosenblum said.

Though Cuba and the United States have started a dialogue, Rosenblum said he didn’t see immediate change on the forefront.

“I think for sweeping change you would want to see legislation and that’s unlikely because this is a hard issue for Congress to take up, particularly as we enter an election season,” he said. But the administration could roll back current provisions that allow DHS to issue Cubans green cards. That notion could even garner some GOP support he added as some Republicans have already expressed concerns that some of the Cubans arriving in the United States could be considered criminals in their country. Rosenblum said that according MPI data, about 90 Cubans have been deported every year since 2009. Most of them had criminal records, he said.

Exactly How Many Chemical Weapons Red-lines?

Posted on September 10, 2015September 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

It must be said and remembered that Barack Obama and John Kerry demanded action on Syria due to the red-line being crossed. No one had the will, so chemical weapons have been used often and in Iraq as well.

When it was said by the American people, that Syria was not our war and we had no international obligation or interest, think again. Barack Obama today approved 10,000 Syrian refugees into our homeland, with the option of up to 30,000. Now, it is our problem.

US official: ‘IS making and using chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria’

BBC: There is a growing belief within the US government that the Islamic State militant group is making and using crude chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria, a US official has told the BBC.

The US has identified at least four occasions on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border where IS has used mustard agents, the official said.

The official said the chemical was being used in powder form.

The US believes the group has a cell dedicated to building these weapons.

“They’re using mustard,” the individual said of IS. “We know they are.”

The mustard agent was probably being used in powder form and packed into traditional explosives like mortar rounds, the official said.

When these weapons explode the mustard-laced dust blisters those who are exposed to it.

Alternative theories

The official said the intelligence community believes there are three possible explanations for how IS acquired the deadly chemical agent.

The most plausible in the eyes of intelligence community, according to the official, is that they are manufacturing it.

“We assess that they have an active chemical weapons little research cell that they’re working on to try and get better at it,” the official said.

The alternative theories are that IS militants found chemical weapons caches in Iraq or in Syria.

It is unlikely that militants found the chemical agent in Iraq, the official said, because the US military would have likely discovered it during the military campaign it waged in the country for about a decade.

The official said that militants were unlikely to have seized the chemical agent from the Syrian regime before the regime was forced to hand over its stockpile under the threat of US air strikes in 2013.

The most likely theory, the official said, was that it was being made using knowledge that is widely available, and pointed out that the mustard agent is not a complex chemical to produce.

The US government’s position continues to be that it is investigating claims of chemical weapons use in Iraq and Syria, but the official speaking to the BBC said that many intelligence agencies now believe there is now enough evidence to back up these claims.

The official requested anonymity because that person was not authorised to speak about it publicly.

***

Exclusive photos appear to show grisly effect of ISIS’ mustard gas attacks on Kurds

FNC: Kurdish forces battling ISIS in Iraq are suffering severe health effects and pleading with the international community for help after being attacked with chemical weapons including mustard gas, according to a western military expert embedded with them who provided gruesome photos backing the charges.

Exclusive images obtained by FoxNews.com show Kurdish fighters afflicted with the telltale burns and blisters sustained after fierce fighting as recently as last week in the mountainous Barzani Province. Fighters described being targeted by mortars that exploded to unleash clouds of toxic chemicals. Several are now being treated as recently as last week for severe burns and blisters, debilitating breathing problems and even blindness.

“The Kurdish forces have been attacked multiple times with chemical weapons – the last time was a week ago,” said Tony Schiena, of MOSAIC, a private military and intelligence outfit based in the U.S. and London that trains foreign militaries in tactical operations and intelligence gathering. “They are horrified, not only by the Islamic State’s use of mustard gas, but also chlorine, as well as another unidentified chemical agent they were told by foreign advisors could be sarin.”

“ … the way these symptoms changed over time, and the patients’ testimony about the circumstances of the poisoning all point to exposure to a chemical agent.”

– Pablo Marco, Doctors Without Borders

Sarin, a designated weapon of mass destruction, is a colorless and odorless nerve agent, while mustard gas is a chemical warfare agent widely used by the Germans in World War I.

Schiena, a former South African special operator hired to train Kurdish Peshmerga Special Forces in Iraq in counter terrorism and defensive tactics, told FoxNews.com he traveled with the head of Peshmerga military intelligence over the last several days through the mountains of the Barzani Province to the front lines. There, he met with base commanding generals, medics and victims of chemical weapons attacks who, in some cases, are still struggling a month after exposure.

Schiena said the fighters described a yellow gas that smelled like rotten onions and garlic, descriptions consistent with mustard gas. He said the Kurds desperately need masks and protective suits to continue their fight against the black-clad jihadist army. ISIS is armed with sophisticated weapons seized from Iraqi forces, plundered stockpiles from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein and an increasing number of improvised weapons, including chemicals, Schiena said.

For example, the Islamic State uses propane canisters filled with bolts and nails, valves added to either side, with a tail and wings welded on, to create a rocket that explodes on impact. The rocket disperses flaming hot bolts and nails as well as chemical weapons and can set off vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices such as a Hummer laden with explosives, or ordnances attached to suicide bombers.

One Kurdish soldier said that of 52 mortars ISIS launched at his team during one attack, three released yellow smoke that caused their skin to immediately water, discharge liquids, blister and create large wounds. Soldiers exposed to the gas vomited and experienced extreme abdominal pain and severe burning and itching eyes. Other mortars discharged a silver glittery substance that stuck to their skin like glue. The Kurdish soldiers said the Iraqi military also said ISIS used these chemical weapons on their forces.

“Imagine being the only organized force fighting this great evil on the front lines, getting hit by chemical weapons and you have nothing, not even a mask to protect yourself,” Schiena said.

Schiena appealed to Prince Ali of Jordan, who he said arranged for delivery of 1,000 gas masks, but said many more are needed. He questioned why the U.S. and other countries aren’t providing more support to the Kurdish fighters.

Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, said one key question is where the chemical weapons originated from.

“Are they from the old stockpiles that Saddam Hussein supposedly didn’t have, or did they come from the Syrian regime’s stockpile that they claim to have disarmed?” Mauro asked.

Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service BND has documented the Islamic State’s use of mustard gas, according to a Sept. 7 article in the German daily newspaper Bild, which said agents took blood samples from Kurds injured in clashes with ISIS in Northern Iraq.

While the U.S. Defense Department won’t confirm the Islamic State is using mustard gas, Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Elissa Smith said officials have reviewed the most recent reports detailing the alleged use of chemical weapons by ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

“While we will not comment on intelligence or operational matters, let us be clear: Any use by any party, be it state or non-state actor, of a chemical as a weapon of any kind is an abhorrent act,” Smith said. “Given the alleged behavior of ISIL and other such groups in the region, any such flagrant disregard for international standards and norms is reprehensible.”

She said the U.S. military continues to work with coalition partners to ultimately “destroy” ISIS.

“More than 60 partners are contributing to this coalition along the key lines of effort including military support, countering ISIL’s finances, countering foreign fighters flows, exposing ISIL’s true nature, and providing humanitarian support,” Smith said.

The coalition also has been working with the government of Iraq to provide support through training and equipping. In addition, the U.S. is spending an average of $9.9 million a day, or $3.7 billion since Aug. 8, 2014, for 373 days of operations.

“We have seen that with effective training, equipping, and command and control, and backed by Coalition airpower, that the Iraqi forces absolutely have the will to fight,” Smith said. “We have seen this repeatedly from the Iraqi Security Forces, including the Kurdish Peshmerga — in Tikrit, in Baghdadi, in Haditha, at Sinjar Mountain, at Rabiya, and at Mosul Dam.”

Civilians also have been targets of the chemical weapons, according to the international medical organization Doctors Without Borders.

A family in the Azaz District in Northern Syria was attacked in their own home on Aug. 21 with a mortar that discharged a yellow gas.

The three-year-old girl and a five-day-old baby girl along with their parents arrived at a Doctors Without Borders hospital one hour after the attack, suffering from respiratory difficulties, inflamed skin, red eyes, and conjunctivitis. Within three hours they developed blisters and their respiratory difficulties worsened, the group reported.

“[Doctors Without Borders] has no laboratory evidence to confirm the cause of these symptoms,” said Pablo Marco, Doctors Without Borders’ program manager for Syria, in a statement. “However, the patients’ clinical symptoms, the way these symptoms changed over time, and the patients’ testimony about the circumstances of the poisoning all point to exposure to a chemical agent.”

Post Iran Deal, the Implications for Israel and Middle East

Posted on September 7, 2015September 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

Netanyahu says will not allow Israel to be ‘submerged’ by refugees

Jerusalem (AFP) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said he would not allow Israel to be “submerged” by refugees after calls for the Jewish state to take in those fleeing Syria’s war.

Speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu also announced the start of construction of a fence along Israel’s border with Jordan, according to his office.

“We will not allow Israel to be submerged by a wave of illegal migrants and terrorist activists,” Netanyahu said.

“Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of Syrian and African refugees… but Israel is a small country — very small — without demographic or geographic depth. That is why we must control our borders.”

Opposition leader Isaac Herzog on Saturday said Israel should take in Syrian refugees, recalling the plight of Jews who sought refuge from past conflicts.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas also called for Israel to allow Palestinians from refugee camps in Syria to travel to the Palestinian territories, whose external borders are controlled by the Jewish state.

There is already hostility in Israel toward asylum-seekers from Africa and a concerted government effort to repatriate them.

Rights groups say thousands of African asylum seekers have been coerced into “voluntary” departures.

Official figures show 45,000 illegal immigrants are in Israel, almost all from Eritrea and Sudan. Most of those not in detention live in poor areas of southern Tel Aviv, where there have been several protests against them.

– ‘To the Golan heights’ –

The start of construction of the 30-kilometre (19-mile) fence announced by Netanyahu involves extension of a security barrier to part of its eastern border with Jordan in a bid to keep out militants and illegal migrants.

Netanyahu said when it was approved in June that the new fence was a continuation of a 240-kilometre barrier built along the Egyptian border which “blocked the entry of illegal migrants into Israel and the various terrorist movements”.

In its first stage, the new fence is being built along Israel’s eastern border between Eilat and where a new airport will be built in the Timna Valley.

“We will continue the fence up to the Golan Heights,” Netanyahu said.

That would take it into the Israeli-occupied West Bank along the Jordan Valley, an area which is already under Israeli military control but is claimed by the Palestinians as part of their state.

Israel has insisted on maintaining troops in the area in any final peace agreement, a stance completely rejected by the Palestinians who say it would be a violation of their sovereignty and merely perpetuate the occupation.

Israel also has a fence that runs along the Syrian frontier through the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Those fences are in addition to a barrier that runs through the West Bank, which Israel began building during the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, which lasted from 2000-2005.

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometres (460 square miles) of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and annexed it 14 years later, in a move never recognised by the international community.

***

When it comes to the implications in the Middle East due to unrest, terrorism and war, the threat matrix festers. Israel knows this well as describes by experts below with regard to a post Iran deal at the hands and consequence of Barack Obama and those other P5+1 members.

The Middle East After the Iran Nuclear Deal

Negotiations between Iran and major powers were narrow in scope, focused on limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions. Nevertheless, the deal they yielded has broader implications for a region strewn with local conflicts that have been exacerbated by the interventions of regional powers. Five experts weigh in on how Middle Eastern states and nonstate actors are calibrating their policies, and what the new regional landscape might portend for conflicts from the Levant to Yemen.

Lebanese supporters of Hezboollah celebrate in May 2014. (Photo: Ali Hashisho/Reuters)

Farideh Farhi

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) does not announce Iran’s arrival as a regional hegemon, something few among Tehran’s decision-making elite believe Iran has either the ideological or military capacity to achieve. Iranian leaders also know that there is little appetite for such an aggressive posture among a population weary of war with neighbors and hostile relations with world powers. Yet the agreement’s Iranian proponents argue that despite limitations placed on the country’s nuclear program, the deal enhances Iran’s security and consolidates its regional clout.

Major powers learned they must resolve their differences with Iran via diplomatic channels.

Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif, for example, argues before Iranian audiences that in foreign capitals worldwide in recent years, “Iranophobia” had taken root. He blames the broad-based international sanctions that had been imposed on Iran on a widely held belief that Iran is an aggressive or irrational actor that poses a danger to regional and international security.

But since Iran negotiated on rather than gave up its nuclear program, it demonstrated to major powers that it would not be bullied with military threats and economic sanctions, Zarif and like-minded advocates of the deal argue. The two-year-long nuclear negotiations undermined Iranophobia in many foreign capitals as major powers learned they can—and, indeed, must—resolve their differences with Iran via diplomatic channels rather than by coercion.

There is consensus among the Iranian foreign policy and security establishment that its warnings regarding the destabilization of Syria have proven prescient. They also share the belief that Iran’s domestic politics are the most stable in the region and its foreign policy the most consistent: Iran, they say, pursues systemic stability against antisystemic forces of global terror. The spread of Islamic extremism in the form of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, combined with the election of a government in Iran that ran on a platform of Islamic moderation, has helped advance Iran’s argument that regional issues can only be resolved if it has a seat at the table.

Yet despite a consensus that Iran’s position in the region has been enhanced, the JCPOA is not without its critics in Iran. It allows an inspection regime that violates Iran’s sovereignty and places too much trust in the United States, some argue. Others have slammed the negotiators for concealing the extent of Iran’s concessions and challenged the very notion of compromise with the United States, which, they believe, has not abandoned its ambition of regime change in Tehran, only its coercive tactics. A few even foresee the eventual comeback of coercion, noting that after Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program, the West intervened militarily.

But the JCPOA’s Iranian proponents scoff at the comparison of the Islamic Republic to one-man dictatorships and insist that the resolution of the nuclear standoff strengthens Iran’s position, gradually opening the way for diplomatic progress on logjams like Syria. Only time—and the adjustments of other significant players in the region—will prove whether this optimistic and benign assessment of Iran’s ascent in the region is correct.

Sarah Birke

The negotiations deliberately focused solely on Iran’s nuclear program. Now that a deal has been concluded, many are wondering what it might mean for the Middle East, where Iran is involved in many of the region’s conflicts.

A richer Iran is likely to double down on its support for the Assad regime.

Chief among them is Syria. The war there has already killed 250,000 people and displaced nine million. Along with Russia, Iran is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s main backer; the United States, Europe, and Gulf states support his opponents. A Syrian peace deal wouldn’t be viable without Iran’s participation. Hence the flurry of diplomatic activity in the past weeks, as countries have tested the waters after the Iran deal.

Iran is pragmatic. Iranian officials have in the past indicated they aren’t wedded to Assad.

Yet while the nuclear deal might, in theory, lead to more open discussions among the many powers with a stake in Syria, in practice Iran shows no sign of ending its support for the regime. Assad himself certainly views it that way: he called the agreement a “victory” for Iran—and, by unspoken extension, for himself.

Even under sanctions and with domestic troubles, Iran has dedicated billions of dollars to the regime’s survival, funding and training pro-regime militias, including the paramilitary National Defense Force and Shia fighters. As sanctions are lifted and Iran has more money, it is likely to spend more to keep the regime afloat.

Although Iran and its adversaries agree that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is a problem, they are divided over what to do about it. Iran sees the group’s expansion as reinforcing its view that the Syrian regime must stay, backing Assad’s claim to be the only party capable of defeating “terrorism” in Syria. Opponents argue that Assad is a cause of Islamic State—by letting extremists out of prison and killing Muslims—and until he goes, it won’t abate.

Any agreement would require assuring Iran that its interests in Syria will remain intact. Iran says it wants stability and the end of Islamic State, but its main interests lie elsewhere: It likes to assert its power, especially vis-a-vis the United States and its allies. And more important to Iran is that it has a route to send weapons to Lebanon, where Hezbollah acts as a strategic deterrent to Israel, a far greater military power than Iran. The United States, Europe, and Gulf powers are not going to agree to that.

Yet Iran’s hegemony in Syria is not assured. Its influence there is more tenuous than it is in Iraq, where Iran backs the government and some militias. Without the large Shia constituency it has in Iraq, Iran’s influence on Syria relies far more on money and pragmatic alliances than natural affinity. A richer Iran is more likely to double down on its support for the regime than promote a reasonable negotiated settlement.

Matthew Levitt

Iran is Hezbollah’s primary benefactor, giving the Lebanese political party and militant group some $200 million a year in addition to weapons, training, intelligence, and logistical assistance. Over the past eighteen months, however, Iran has cut back its financial support to Hezbollah—a collateral benefit of the unprecedented international sanctions regime targeting Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the fall in oil prices.

A newly enriched Hezbollah would be more aggressive at home and abroad.

The cutback has mostly curtailed Hezbollah’s political, social, and military activities inside Lebanon. Its social-service institutions have cut costs, employees have received paychecks late or been laid off, and funding for civilian organizations, such as the group’s satellite television station, al-Manar, has been reduced. By contrast, Hezbollah’s Syria command, which has been a priority for Tehran given its commitment to defending Bashar al-Assad’s regime, has shown no sign of financial hardship.

If nuclear-related sanctions are lifted in whole or in part, an influx of Iranian money will enable Hezbollah to push back against Lebanese political and social movements that are uncomfortable with its intervention in Syria. Lebanon’s political crises, from its inability to select a president to its failure to collect garbage, is a result of this deep sectarian division. An influx of radicalized Sunnis from Syria could bring further instability to Lebanon.

Increased Iranian spending will also benefit Hezbollah’s regional and international operations. The group is no longer limited to jockeying for political power in Lebanon and fighting Israel. With more money, it could step up its aid to Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen in cooperation with Iran, sending small numbers of skilled trainers to bolster local forces and, in some cases, fight alongside them. In Iraq, Hezbollah is training and fighting with Shia militias. Though they are fighting on behalf of the government, their tactics exacerbate sectarian tensions. Its footprint in Yemen is small, but it could expand with additional resources. Hezbollah is already trying to find long-term support for these operations. In Iraq, for example, it is investing in commercial front organizations.

Finally, increased funding could help Hezbollah reconstitute its capabilities beyond the Middle East. The group has expanded its terrorist operations in countries as disparate as Cyprus, Peru, and Thailand.

Hezbollah is busier than ever, especially in Syria, where it is engaged in expensive militant operations and support activities. Meanwhile, the group has expanded its regional activities further afield, straining its coffers even as it has had to cut back its activities in Lebanon. A newly enriched Hezbollah would be more aggressive at home and abroad, challenging less-militant parties across the Lebanese political spectrum and boosting its destabilizing activities outside of Lebanon.

Hussein Ibish

Despite the heterogeneity of interests and perspectives among the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they share a broad consensus on the nuclear deal agreed to by major powers and Iran. This common position was expressed in the joint statement issued by GCC foreign ministers and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry after their August 3 summit in Qatar.

Riyadh has undertaken a major initiative to unite Sunni states in an anti-Iran alliance.

The statement endorses the nuclear agreement, partly because Gulf states hope that the accord could eventually ease regional tensions. Their endorsement is also a recognition that the deal will go forward no matter what they say, and that they see no benefit in joining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the lone international naysayers. Instead, the Gulf states are seeking to maximize the benefits they will accrue by consenting to the arrangement, to which they are not a party even though it will affect their security (whether for good or ill remains to be seen).

The GCC response also insists that Iran cease employing subversive means to extend its influence in the Arab world. The nuclear deal comes as tensions between Iran and major Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have reached a historic high.

A newly hawkish Saudi Arabia has demonstrated it is willing to use military force to try to roll back Iran’s influence in the Gulf. The Saudi-led Arab intervention in Yemen has brought GCC forces into direct conflict with the Iran-backed Houthi militia. Riyadh has also undertaken a major initiative to unite Sunni states in an anti-Iran alliance. To this end, Saudi Arabia has reached out to its former antagonists, such as the regional Muslim Brotherhood movement, including Hamas; forged an alliance with Sudan; and strengthened its relations with Turkey.

The Gulf states are hoping that a successful nuclear agreement will strengthen Iranian moderates and eventually make Iran a more responsible regional actor. But they are not counting on that, nor are they relying as much on U.S. leadership as they have in the past.

Gulf countries are moving to strengthen military cooperation with the United States. They are buying new weapons and have received promises of security coordination but are pressing for even stronger commitments. But they are also seeking closer ties to other powers, such as China, France, and Russia, and are developing an independent approach to secure their vital interests.

These interests include preventing Iran from further destabilizing the Arab world by promoting sectarian conflicts and backing armed Shiite groups, including those within Gulf Arab states, as well as ensuring that Iran does not expand its influence in the region at the expense of Arab interests.

If these new tensions come to define the Gulf relationship with Iran and no significant diplomatic steps are taken to create other means of resolving regional crises, the nuclear deal might actually contribute to a more unstable and violent Middle East.

Chuck Freilich

The nuclear agreement is a done deal. Israel must now decide how best to position itself for this new reality in which Iran’s nuclear aspirations have hopefully been postponed, though not eliminated; its regional and international stature has been strengthened by the resolution of the nuclear issue; and its financial ability to carry out its regional ambitions has been increased.

Israel may not be able to continue its policy of noninvolvement in Syria for long.

Many Israeli security experts believe that Israel’s first priority should be to restore strategic cooperation and intimacy with the United States. An important dimension of that would be for Israel to acquiesce to the agreement and use its intelligence capabilities to help ensure that the nuclear inspections regime is implemented.

Assuming the agreement holds, Israel’s biggest strategic concerns will be Iran’s regional ambitions, the rise of the Islamic State and other radical Islamists on its Syrian border and in nearby Iraq, and threats to the stability of Egypt and Jordan. The civil war in Syria has already resulted in attacks on Israel and holds the greatest potential for escalation.

Emboldened by its recent diplomatic success, Iran is likely to pursue its regional objectives with greater intensity and fewer constraints.

Israel may not be able to continue its policy of noninvolvement in Syria for long. The domination of a Syrian rump state by Iran and its Lebanese client, Hezbollah, which has a significant presence along the Golan Heights, would extend the already explosive confrontation with them from Lebanon to Syria and would present an unacceptable danger for Israel; indeed, it has already begun to do so. Hezbollah appears too stretched in Syria to want a confrontation with Israel soon, but this may change.

A takeover of Syria by the self-proclaimed Islamic State or Syrian rebel groups would also prove dangerous. Heinous as it is, Bashar al-Assad’s regime still has many assets to lose in a confrontation with Israel and can thus be deterred. It will take time for non-state actors to develop similar assets.

The borders with Gaza and Egypt remain combustible. After three major conflicts in recent years, Gazans do not appear to want renewed hostilities. Renewed rocket fire is nevertheless likely and will increase Israeli public pressure for Israeli forces “to finish the work” left undone in 2014. Escalation will be especially likely if Iran strengthens its cooperation with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The growing strength of Islamist extremists in the Sinai makes further border incidents with Egypt more likely as well.

Given their fundamental hostility toward Israel, the current confluence of interests with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states is unlikely to yield significant practical cooperation, media speculation notwithstanding. Turkey will not upgrade relations as long as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in power and seeks closer ties with Iran.

The prospects of an agreement with the Palestinians, already bleak, will diminish in a situation of Iranian regional ascendency. Any attempt to restart talks is destined to fail. It would squander U.S. diplomatic capital, which will be needed when more propitious circumstances arise.