Category Archives: Libya Benghazi Muslim Brotherhood murder

Obama Gives Legitimacy to Iran After This?

Posted on by

The background on Iran and then today as the White House and State Department force Iran to be accepted on the world stage. It all defies logic and it creates a real question about overlooking an act of war by Iran then negotiating with Iran.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES IRAN BEHIND 9/11 ATTACKS

December 23, 2011

 

A federal district court in Manhattan yesterday entered a historic ruling that reveals new facts about Iran’s support of al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.

 

Judge Daniels had announced his ruling in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., in open court on Thursday, December 15, 2011, following a three-hour courtroom presentation by the families’ attorneys. Judge Daniels entered a written Order of Judgment yesterday backed by 53 pages of detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

 

Fiona Havlish, whose husband Donald perished in the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11 said, “This is a historic day. For ten years we’ve wanted the truth to be known about who was responsible for our losses. Now we have that answer.”

 

Ellen Saracini, the wife of United Airlines 175 pilot Victor Saracini, which the hijackers crashed into the WTC South Tower, said after the hearing last Thursday, “We just came from Judge Daniels’ court where he ruled in favor of holding accountable those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11… I just smiled up to Victor and I said we’re still thinking about you … we’re there for you … we’ll always be there for you. But today’s very special.”

 

In Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Judge Daniels held that the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Iran’s agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”), and Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11.

 

“The families have waited a very long time for this day and they have been through a lot. So I was greatly relieved that the families received an answer to the question that they asked me ten years ago: they asked who was the responsible party? How did this happen? Today a federal court judge has said that a principal responsible party is the Islamic Republic of Iran,” said Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly, the lead attorney for the Havlish plaintiffs.

 

The evidence was developed over a seven-year international investigation by the Havlish attorneys who pursued the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers, following the Commission’s own eleventh-hour discovery of significant National Security Agency (“NSA”) intercepts: “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.” 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, p. 241. The Havlish evidence included sworn testimony and affidavits from the following:

 

  • Ten expert witnesses including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, two former CIA case officers, two investigative journalists, and an Iran analyst who has testified in 25 cases involving Iranian terrorism.

 

  • Three Iranian defectors who were operatives of MOIS and the IRGC. Witness X, whose dramatic testimony was previously filed under seal, was revealed to be Abolghasem Mesbahi, a former MOIS operative in charge of Iran’s espionage operations in Western Europe. Judge Daniels found that Mesbahi has testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists, including the Mykonos case in Germany and the AMIA case in Argentina, and found to be highly reliable and credible.

 

Judge Daniels also credited Mesbahi’s testimony that he received messages during the summer of 2001 from inside the Iranian government that an Iranian contingency plan for unconventional warfare against the U.S. called “Shaitan dar Atash” had been activated. “This is compelling proof that Iran was deeply involved in the 9/11 conspiracy,” said Tim Fleming, lead investigative attorney for the Havlish group. Included among Judge Daniels’ findings in Havlish are the following:

 

  • Members of the 9/11 Commission staff testified that Iran aided the hijackers by concealing their travel through Iran to access al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Iranian border inspectors refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report addressed these facts and called for further investigation. 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT at pp. 240-41.

 

  • Expert and U.S. government evidence also confirmed that Iran facilitated the escape of al Qaeda leaders and members from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan into Iran and provided safe haven inside Iran after 9/11.

 

  • Abolghasem Mesbahi testified he was part of an IRGC-MOIS task force that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the U.S., code-named “Shaitan dar Atash” (“Satan in Flames”) which included crashing hijacked passenger airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. During the weeks before 9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside Iran’s government indicating that the Shaitan dar Atash plan had been activated.

 

  • Mesbahi also testified that in 2000 Iran used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757- 767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists. Due to U.S. trade sanctions, Iran has never had any Boeing 757-767-777 aircraft, but all the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft.

 

  • A May 14, 2001 memorandum from inside the Iranian government demonstrating that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was aware of the impending attacks and instructing intelligence operatives to restrict communications to existing contacts with al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri and Hizballah’s Imad Mughniyah. – Documents obtained from German federal prosecutors showing that 9/11 coordinator Ramzi Binalshihb traveled to Iran in January 2001 on his way to Afghanistan to brief Osama bin Laden on the plot’s progress. – Evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report that a “senior Hezbollah operative,” which the Havlish evidence identifies as Hezbollah terrorist chief Imad Mughniyah, coordinated activities in Saudi Arabia and was present (or his associate) on flights the hijackers took to and from Beirut and Iran. 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT at pp. 240-41. Mughniyah, a longtime agent of Iran, orchestrated a string of terror operations against the U.S. and Israel during the 1980s and 1990s. He was assassinated in Syria in February of 2008.

Attorneys emphasized that it is important to understand that Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. The attorneys cited their national security and intelligence experts, including Dr. Patrick Clawson, Dr. Bruce Tefft, Clare Lopez, Kenneth Timmerman, Dr. Ronen Bergman, Edgar Adamson, and 9/11 Commission staff members Dietrich Snell, Dr. Daniel Byman, and Janice Kephart, as well as the published writings of Robert Baer, to explain how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”). Iran and Hezbollah then provided training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings. The Iran-Hezbollah-al Qaeda alliance led to terror strikes against the U.S. at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia (1996), the simultaneous U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole (2000). Shortly after the Cole attack, Iran was facilitating the international travel of the 9/11 hijackers.
“It was a wonderful day. A great day where the truth was finally revealed in a court of law with strong, strong evidence. The judge allowed us to put on and present all the evidence that we had filed directly or under seal and he accepted it and made a ruling in our favor,” said Dennis Pantazis, one of the Havlish attorneys. “Now we go on to prove damages for each one of the family members,” he added.

 

The case is Fiona Havlish, et al v. Usama Bin Laden, et al, 03-CV-9848 (GBD), and is part of the consolidated proceeding In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD).

 

Click these links to access:

Press Contacts:
Email:  [email protected]
Toll-free telephone:  800-348-7705
215-348-7700

 

 

 

FLIGHT 93 HERO’S FAMILY AND OTHER 9/11 FAMILIES FILE NEW LAWSUIT AGAINST IRAN

September 8, 2011.

 

Attorneys representing families of 9/11 victims today are filing their second lawsuit against Iran asserting evidence that Iran played a key role in planning and facilitating the 9/11 attacks.  The new case, Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., is being filed in federal court by the same attorneys who have been litigating Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., now pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

 

Alice Hoagland, lead plaintiff in the new Bingham case, is the mother of 9/11 hero Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on United Flight 93 who stormed the cockpit to try to re-take control of the aircraft from the terrorist hijackers.  In the ensuing struggle for the cockpit, the hijackers were forced to crash the plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania before it could reach its intended target, which is believed to be the White House or the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.  Their heroic actions saved the lives of countless people.
“Mark Bingham and other passengers on Flight 93 gave their lives for their country, without any knowledge on that morning they would have to do it, yet they proceeded without hesitation.  We, their survivors, deserve to know why they had to give their lives and who was supporting, aiding and abetting al Qaeda.  Our whole country deserves to know,” said Mark Bingham’s mother.
On May 19, 2011, the lawyers filed papers in federal court in Manhattan disclosing for the first time that Iran’s and Hizballah’s terrorist leader, Imad Mughniyah, was an active participant in escorting 9/11 hijackers through Iran and into Afghanistan for terrorist training, and in assisting  the hijackers to obtain “clean” passports and visas enabling entry into the United States.  Also, the attorneys for the families have filed evidence establishing that top Iranian officials assisted al Qaeda leadership and operatives to escape to Iran from Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in the wake of 9/11.  Iran then provided safe haven and support for these al Qaeda members inside Iran.
In July, the Havlish attorneys filed under seal the sworn testimony of three defectors from Iran’s intelligence agency, the Ministry of Information and Security.  The 25 hours of sworn testimony of the three defectors, recorded on videotape, shows Iran’s key role, involving top Iranian government officials, in the planning and preparation for the 9/11 attacks.  Lead attorney Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania of the law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly stated that “our ten experts, including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, have stated the evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ that the Islamic Republic of Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that Iran’s agent Hizballah was a direct participant.”
One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Havlish and Bingham, Timothy Fleming of the Washington, D.C. office of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, in Birmingham, Alabama, said, “Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Iran has been shown to be a key al Qaeda supporter.  It is well known that Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism throughout the world for the last thirty years.  The Havlish and Bingham cases will hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of al Qaeda and 9/11.”
On July 28, 2011, the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Treasury said that Iran has been supporting al Qaeda by permitting terrorist operatives, recruits, and cash to be transported across Iran’s territory to al Qaeda camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  In a Treasury Department press release, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence said, “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today.  By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al-Qa‘ida allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism.”
Former CIA case officers and nationally recognized terrorism analysts also support the Havlish and Bingham cases’ proof.  Their sworn affidavits disclosing and analyzing Iran’s involvement can be found on the internet at www.iran911case.com.
Janice Kephart, a former staff counsel to the 9/11 Commission, was specifically involved in the 9/11 Commission’s investigation regarding how the 9/11 hijackers attained entry into the United States.  Havlish attorneys submitted Kephart’s sworn affidavit to federal judge George B. Daniels in which Kephart noted that “the 9/11 terrorists had engaged in a specific terrorist travel operation.  In other words, not only did the four nearly simultaneous hijackings of four commercial airplanes constitute a coordinated operation, but so did the hijackers’ travel.”  Kephart also states that, because Iran assisted al Qaeda to acquire “clean” passports and visas, “there is clear and convincing evidence that Iran and Hizbollah provided material support to al Qaeda by actively facilitating the travel of eight to ten of the 9/11 hijackers to Iran or Beirut immediately after their acquisition of the U.S. visas, into and out of Afghanistan, and that these U.S. visas were garnered specifically for the purpose of terrorist travel into the United States to carry out the 9/11 attacks.”  As the Kephart affidavit states, “for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.”
A Senior Counsel on the staff of the 9/11 Commission, Dietrich L. Snell was the leader of the Commission staff team investigating the 9/11 plot.  Snell’s affidavit, also submitted to Judge Daniels in May, states that “there is clear and convincing evidence pointing to the involvement on the part of Hizbollah and Iran in the 9/11 attack, especially as it pertains to travel facilitation and safe haven.”
“We need to have the entire truth revealed regarding who was involved in 9/11, that’s the only way for there to be closure for the families of the victims of 9/11,” said Ellen Saracini, wife of Victor Saracini, Captain of United Flight 175, which was the aircraft that hit the World Trade Center South Tower.
Fiona Havlish, whose husband Donald Havlish died in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, added, “We welcome the addition of more people to the legal cases against Iran.  It’s important that people stand up against the world’s principal state sponsor of terror because, unless we do, 9/11 could happen again.”

 

Attorneys in the case, as well as Alice Hoagland, Fiona Havlish, Ellen Saracini, and others, are available for interviews. 

For further story information, see the Havlish & Bingham website at www.iran911case.com.
Or contact:

Email:  [email protected]
Toll-free telephone:  800-348-7705
215-348-7700

 

 

9/11 LAWSUIT REVEALS IRAN’S DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 PLOT

May 19, 2011.  Attorneys representing families of 9/11 victims today are informing a federal court in Manhattan that they are filing comprehensive evidence that Iran played a key role in planning and facilitating the 9/11 attacks and called on the U.S. Government to declassify documents detailing what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Iran’s relationship to al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.  “Today, nearly a decade after the attacks that took so many of our loved ones away, we believe

 

the 9/11 families and the American people deserve to know the full truth about Iran’s complicity,” said Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly, the lead attorney in Havlish, et al. v. bi Laden, et al., now pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

“We simply want to make sure that those who are responsible for assisting the September 11 terrorists in their attack on the United States are found accountable for the harm they caused,” said Fiona Havlish whose husband, Donald, perished on the 101st floor of the North Tower.

Representing eight law firms from across the United States, the attorneys and their team of investigators have turned up convincing evidence that Imad Mughniyah was the main liaison between Iran’s leadership and al Qaeda and that Mughniyah played an active role in planning the 9/11 attacks.  Mughniyah, a Lebanese Shiite, was a top commander in Hezbollah, the terrorist organization created and supported by Iran since the early 1980s.  Mughniyah was assassinated on February 14, 2008, in Damascus, Syria.

“Our experts, including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, have stated that the evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ that the Islamic Republic of Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks,” said Timothy B. Fleming, the lead investigative attorney in the case, of the D.C. office of the firm Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.

“The 9/11 Commission called for further investigation by the U.S. Government into the al Qaeda-Iran-Hezbollah relationship, but until now there’s been no indication that any government agency has taken any action to pursue this matter,” said Mellon.  “Through interviews with former U.S. Government and intelligence officials, members of the 9/11 Commission staff, former Iranian intelligence officers, and a wide variety of non-governmental experts and fact witnesses, we have undertaken this ‘further investigation,’” Mellon added. Before 9/11, the FBI considered Mughniyah to be the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The United States Government has accused Mughniyah of masterminding the April 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, that killed 63 people; the October 1983 simultaneous attacks on the U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers; and the kidnapping and murder of numerous U.S. hostages in Lebanon, including the CIA’s Beirut station chief William Buckley and U.S. Marine Lt. Colonel Richard Higgins.

Mughniyah was also wanted by the FBI for his involvement in the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847 and the murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, and by Interpol for his role in the 1992 attack on the Israeli Embassy, and the July 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish community center, both in Buenos Aires.

Today, the Havlish attorneys disclosed that they have taken sworn testimony, which will be filed under seal, from former Iranian intelligence operatives describing the direct participation of Imad Mughniyah and top government officials of Iran in the planning of, and preparation for, the 9/11 attacks.

These witnesses also describe the roles of Mughniyah and top Iranian officials in assisting al Qaeda leadership and operatives to escape from Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in the wake of 9/11.  Iran then provided safe haven and support for these al Qaeda members inside Iran.

“The 9/11 Commission discovered, just days before publication of its report, important U.S. intelligence documents that detailed Iran’s involvement in aiding and abetting the 9/11 plot,” Mellon pointed out.

On page 240 of its final report, the 9/11 Commission stated that “a senior Hezbollah operative visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there,” and that this “senior Hezbollah operative” and his associate were on the same air flights as several of the future hijackers who were traveling to and from Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

“We have compelling evidence that the ‘senior Hezbollah operative’ was Imad Mughniyah,” added Dennis G. Pantazis, of the Birmingham, Alabama law firm of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.

“Imad Mughniyah was known to be an agent of Iran, running terrorist operations for Iran and Hezbollah.  Mughniyah’s participation in the hijackers’ preparations for the 9/11 attacks leaves no doubt that Iran was directly involved in, and had foreknowledge of, a planned terrorist attack on the U.S.,” Mellon said.  “Discoveries about Mughniyah’s role are very important because, as found by the 9/11 Commission, ‘after 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda,’” Fleming added.

The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has already entered a default against the Iranian government defendants, and the Havlish Plaintiffs now ask the Court, based on all the evidence, to enter judgment against Iran.

The case appears as In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD): Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-9848 (GBD).  Over the past nine years, the eight law firms of the Havlish consortium have invested thousands of hours of time to investigate Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

“When Tim Fleming and I joined this coalition of attorneys representing the 9/11 families, our immediate and ultimate goal was to provide the families with a full accounting of what happened, how it happened, and who was responsible for that terrible day in September 2001,” said Pantazis.

“Developing evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda regarding the events of 9/11 is like putting together a large jigsaw puzzle where many of the pieces are missing and will never be found.  Still, the picture is clear that Iran’s and Hezbollah’s complicity cannot be seriously challenged,” said Mellon.  “Over the last nine years, after interviewing dozens of people, reviewing hundreds of documents, and consulting with many experts in the field, we have developed a strong evidentiary case of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks,” Mellon added.

“These families have waited nearly ten years to hear the truth.  Under the scrutiny of a federal Judge, hopefully this will be accomplished in the next few months,” Pantazis said.

Ellen Saracini, the widow of Victor Saracini, Captain of United Flight 175, which was the second aircraft to hit the World Trade Center, stated, “The September 11 attacks were an attack on the American way of life and on the American belief in a civil society where we respect others and resolve our differences in an orderly and peaceful way.  It is only appropriate that those who are attacking our way of life are found accountable in our American system.”

Attorneys in the case, as well as leading Plaintiff Ellen Saracini, and others, are available for interviews.

 

 

 

 

The Havlish plaintiffs initiated this action in February, 2002.

The lead plaintiff, Fiona Havlish is the surviving spouse of Donald Havlish who was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 on the 101st floor of the South Tower while working for AON, Inc.  Additionally, the action was brought by six other individuals representing their loved ones.

Russa Steiner is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of William R. Steiner.  Bill Steiner was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Bill was employed by Marsh, Inc. on the 97th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

 

Clara Chirchirillo is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Peter Chirchirillo.  Peter was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Peter was employed by Marsh, Inc. on the 98th floor of the North Tower in the World Trade Center.

 

Tara Bane is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Michael A. Bane.  Michael Bane was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Michael was employed by Marsh & McLennan Company on the 100th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Grace M. Parkinson-Godshalk is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the mother of William R. Godshalk.  Bill Godshalk was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Bill was employed by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods located on the 89th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

 

Ellen L. Saracini is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Victor J. Saracini.  Vic Saracini was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Vic was employed by United Airlines and was the pilot of United Flight 175 which crashed into the South Tower.

 

Theresann Lostrangio is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Joseph Lostrangio.  Joe Lostrangio was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Joe was employed by Devonshire Group on the 77th Floor of the North Tower in the World Trade Center.

 

The above named plaintiffs maintain that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 involve the participation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Specifically, proofs filed in the Southern District of New York before The Honorable George B. Daniels maintain there is clear and convincing evidence that Iran provided material support to al Qaeda before, during and after the events of September 11, 2001 especially pertaining to travel facilitation and safe haven.

 

Please see the links to the relevant legal documents regarding the history and background of the Havlish case.

*** Then today:  

Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Perspectives on the Strategic Necessity of Iran Sanctions, on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 27, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

In his January 27, 2015 statement before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a cogent case for Congress dropping the threat of new sanctions on Iran while nuclear talks are ongoing and while the interim Joint Plan of Action (which freezes certain Iranian nuclear activities) remains in effect. At the same time, however, he claimed that the administration would “also continue to hold [Iran] accountable for its actions on other fronts.” After going down an impressive list of Iranian transgressions, Blinken noted, “Similarly, we have called out Iran for its support of the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

“Calling out” someone is a staple of the American schoolyard. Although there is something to be said for publicly condemning the murderous Syria policies of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Russia’s president, and the like, words unaccompanied by action often fail to produce desired policy results. After mentioning the “call out,” Blinken observed, “We hope that Iran soon recognizes that there is much more to be gained through constructive engagement in the region and promotion of inclusivity than through disruptive policies.”

“Disruptive policies” indeed. When Syria’s Bashar al-Assad decided, in March 2011, that peaceful protest should be put down with lethal violence, he signed death warrants for over 200,000 Syrians. He set in motion a process that would stampede 3.5 million people out of the country, drive another 7 million from their homes within Syria, and incarcerate tens of thousands under conditions featuring torture, starvation, and sexual abuse. His over-the-top repression, replete with strong sectarian overtones, helped to resurrect al-Qaeda in Iraq from the dead and brought it to Syria in the forms of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) and the Nusra Front. In all of this, Assad has had the unflinching and regime-saving support of Iran, which views him as an irreplaceable asset fully in the service of Hezbollah: Iran’s Lebanese missile and rocket pressure point on Israel.

Yes, Iran’s support of Assad has been “disruptive.” Tehran has helped to create the signature humanitarian abomination of the twenty-first century. The costs to the people of Syria have been unspeakable. The prices being paid by Syria’s neighbors—all friends of the United States—are dangerously out of control. Iran’s supporting role in this travesty has also burdened a humane and thoughtful US president with the prospect of a legacy tarnished forever with a Levantine Rwanda: in this case a multi-year program of mass murder whose Iranian facet may account in large measure for the failure of that president to stop or at least mitigate the slaughter.

Evidently, the Obama administration believes that “calling out” Iran and counseling it on the merits of “constructive engagement in the region” are all that can reasonably be expected of the United States so long as nuclear discussions are ongoing. Presumably, the throwing of a spanner into the Assad regime’s ability to unload barrel bombs and chlorine canisters onto residential neighborhoods with absolute impunity would upset Iran, perhaps inspiring the Supreme Leader to abandon the nuclear talks and opt instead for a new wave of economic sanctions while oil prices plunge. Seen from this don’t-rock-the-boat-with-Tehran point of view, the suffering of Syrians merits a “call out” and nothing more.

Perhaps there is also a sense inside the administration that a successful nuclear negotiation will persuade Iran that its penetration of the Arab east should be abandoned: that “constructive engagement in the region and promotion of inclusivity” will be the wave of the future. Leave aside estimates of the numbers of Syrian children yet to be sacrificed before this hypothesis is sufficiently tested. Is there any evidence at all that Iran’s “disruptive” policies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen are somehow linked to the absence of a nuclear understanding with the P5+1? Is there any evidence that the activities of General Suleimani and his Quds Force operatives do not represent a carefully calculated conclusion about Iran’s regional interests, one easily (and perhaps best) pursued without the impediment of destabilizing nuclear weapons? Is all of this some kind of cosmic misunderstanding to be cleared up by arriving at a nuclear agreement?

President Obama has credited himself with “strategic patience.” It is indeed a worthy attribute. But it has nothing to do with doing nothing in the face of mass murder, particularly when doing something—causing, for example, regime helicopters loaded with barrel bombs to fall from the sky—need not involve invasion, occupation, or even a slippery slope. Yes, the Supreme Leader will not like it. He would prefer to be called out. He has no trouble being on the receiving end of earnest, Dutch Uncle advice about avoiding disruptive policies. In the end, however, he has no problem negotiating with the P5+1 while facilitating mass murder in Syria. The United States should not have a problem negotiating with Iran while making impunity more difficult for the murderers.

Frederic C. Hof is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

 

Denise Simon Appears on The JJ McCartney Radio Show – 02/03/15

Posted on by

Tuesday on The JJ McCartney Show JJ’s guest will be fellow conservative talk radio host Denise Simon of The Denise Simon Experience.

Denise is the Senior Research/Intelligence Analyst for Foreign and Domestic Policy for Stand Up America US as well as the aide de camp for MAJOR GENERAL PAUL E. VALLELY, US ARMY (ret).

Her weekly show delves into the very deep and murky waters of foreign and domestic issues. Denise’s show can be heard Thursdays at 9PM Eastern time at jjmccartney.com and WDFP.us!

Libya: Hillary’s Gift to Herself and Qatar

Posted on by

Libya was designed by Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. She manufactured the crisis and worked countless back-channels to remove Qaddafi for the sake of her ties to Qatar. The al Thani clan has years of ingratiating itself within the circles of power in the Obama administration while back scratching was done in covert circles. Hillary is an accessory to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens of three others of the diplomatic security services.

Barack Obama bought into the plot along with those of the National Security Council when the Pentagon fought back hard against the early part of Hillary’s mission but to no avail. Congressman Kucinich worked diligently to get facts from several placeholders in the Middle East as at the time, no Republicans were in power in Congress. There was never any authorization for war in Libya.

Of particular note, the weapons Hillary Clinton in cadence with Qatar were not bound and did not in any quantity end up in Syria. Sadly, they ended up in several other locations, but not Syria as widely chattered and believed.

 

Part 1 of 3 of the WT Hillary Clinton Libya matter is found here. The recorded tapes can be heard here as part of 2 of 3 of the Washington Times expose on Hillary and Libya. Part 3 of 3 is below. It is an intensive read but cannot be missed.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today, more than three years after Gadhafi fell from power and was killed, Benghazi and much of the rest of Libya remain in chaos, riddled with violence among rival tribes and thriving jihadi groups.

Mrs. Clinton, now considering a run for president, was the moving force inside the Obama administration to encourage U.S. military intervention to unseat Gadhafi in Libya. The latest documents and audio recordings are likely to give her Republican critics on Capitol Hill fresh ammunition to question whether she had an adequate plan and whether her efforts led to the tragedy in Benghazi a year later and the general lawlessness and chaos that have gripped Libya since. The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion: that Gadhafi would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country.

The Times also reported that the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.

In one conversation recorded in summer 2011 between Libyan officials and an intelligence asset dispatched by the Pentagon as a back-door channel, the asset told Mr. Ismael, who served then as Gadhafi’s chief of staff, that U.S. officials were considering taking some of the Libyan dictator’s frozen money assets and sending it to the rebels.

“I’m in contact with some of the people over in Benghazi and they’ve told me point blank that their first use of this money is, is to buy military training, weapons and mercenaries,” the Pentagon intelligence asset told Mr. Ismael on July 24, 2011.

In a separate conversation with Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving in the House, Gadhafi’s eldest son, Seif, told the congressman that Libyan intelligence had observed Qatar, a major U.S. ally in the region, facilitating weapons shipments. Qatar has steadfastly and repeatedly denied arming the rebels.

“The Qataris have spent more than $100 million on this, and they have an agreement with the rebels that the moment you rule Libya you pay us back,” Seif Gadhafi told Mr. Kucinich in a conversation recorded in May 2011.

“So, it’s your position that your government has been trying to defend itself against an insurrection brought about by jihadists who were joined by gangsters, terrorists and that there’s basically about 1,000 people who were joined by NATO?” Mr. Kucinich asked. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

Distrust between Libya and Qatar had simmered for years before the civil war in Libya erupted. Mr. Ismael told The Times in an interview that the Qataris had a grudge against the Gadhafi regime because it did not give them natural gas and oil concessions that were promised in 2007.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

“On 15th of March the ship loaded with arm[s] arrived to the seaport of Tobruk. On 4th April 2011 two Qatari aircraft laden with a number of tanks, [ground-attack] missiles and heavy trucks was arranged. On 11th April 2011 a number of boats departed Benghazi for Misrata, the shipment comprised assistance including SAM-7 [anti-aircraft] missiles. On 22nd April 2011, 800 rifles were sent from Benghazi to Misrata,” the report said.

Whether such shipments were supposed to stay with NATO or go to the rebels remains in dispute. But academic analysts say the Libyan concerns that arming the rebels would benefit terrorists were shared widely.

NATO allies knew of the dangerous jihadi elements operating in Benghazi before the 2011 intervention began, according to Noman Benotman, president of the British-based Quilliam Foundation, a think tank dedicated to combating Islamic extremism.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“A lot of jihadists that had been locked up by the regime were released after the revolution started. They picked up many of the guns that were coming into the country and fought, but they were not fighting for democracy — they were fighting their own revolution, trying to build a state based on a vicious, violent, radical, Islamic ideology. They took advantage of the situation,” he said.
Yes,” Seif Gadhafi replied.

“You’re saying that this relates to internal matters, matters internal to the region relating of a power struggle in which they then turned their attention to Libya to try to engulf Libya in their own desire for increasing their power?” Mr. Kucinich asked.

“For the Qataris, they are doing this with every country, with every country,” Mr. Gadhafi said. “This is their plan, I mean in public. This is their own agenda. I mean, it’s not something hidden, or something, you know, private. But now, we have, and plus the French and British have also have their own agenda, you know, commercial interests, political interests, they have their own interests. They told us, especially the French, and the Qataris and the British: We want those people to share the power with you, our own people, the heads of rebels.”

The recorded conversations also included concerns that the U.S. might try to arm the rebels despite a U.N. arms embargo on Libya.

On March 27, 2011, days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, but defense officials in the United Kingdom disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

Likewise, Qatari officials sent a letter Feb. 2, 2012, to the United Nations about the Libyan uprising, “categorically” denying that they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions” as some had reported. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

Distrust between Libya and Qatar had simmered for years before the civil war in Libya erupted. Mr. Ismael told The Times in an interview that the Qataris had a grudge against the Gadhafi regime because it did not give them natural gas and oil concessions that were promised in 2007.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

“On 15th of March the ship loaded with arm[s] arrived to the seaport of Tobruk. On 4th April 2011 two Qatari aircraft laden with a number of tanks, [ground-attack] missiles and heavy trucks was arranged. On 11th April 2011 a number of boats departed Benghazi for Misrata, the shipment comprised assistance including SAM-7 [anti-aircraft] missiles. On 22nd April 2011, 800 rifles were sent from Benghazi to Misrata,” the report said.

Whether such shipments were supposed to stay with NATO or go to the rebels remains in dispute. But academic analysts say the Libyan concerns that arming the rebels would benefit terrorists were shared widely.

NATO allies knew of the dangerous jihadi elements operating in Benghazi before the 2011 intervention began, according to Noman Benotman, president of the British-based Quilliam Foundation, a think tank dedicated to combating Islamic extremism.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“A lot of jihadists that had been locked up by the regime were released after the revolution started. They picked up many of the guns that were coming into the country and fought, but they were not fighting for democracy — they were fighting their own revolution, trying to build a state based on a vicious, violent, radical, Islamic ideology. They took advantage of the situation,” he said. “There were pro-democracy demonstrators participating in the revolution, of course, but there was also crystal-clear evidence of jihadists and jihadist tactics in Benghazi before the NATO intervention started, so no one can say there were no jihadists there,” he said.  *** Thank you Washington Times.

The Reason for Boehner’s Invitation to Netanyahu

Posted on by

Having some clarity about future threats that include nuclear weapons, ICBM’s and genocide is clearly required. If it has to be the voice of Benjamin Netanyahu, then so be it as the threats against Israel are shared by allied countries to the United States.

Why Netanyahu, The Churchill Of Our Time, Must Speak Before Congress

It is fitting and proper–indeed essential for our very security–that Speaker John Boehner has extended an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them anywhere in the world. The invitation has bipartisan support because many members on both sides of the aisle recognize the fundamental threat to world peace that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. Like Winston Churchill in the 1930s with Nazi Germany, Netanyahu has been sounding the alarm about Iran’s ominous nuclear and terrorist activities.

It’s a message much of Europe and even segments of the US, particularly in the Obama administration, don’t want to hear. The President has made clear his intense dislike of Israel’s prime minister and his refusal to keep quiet about Obama’s desire to conclude a Neville Chamberlain-like deal with Teheran. In a flagrant interference in another country’s election, Obama operatives are working hard in Israel to help bring down the courageous Prime Minister.

Congress needs to hear first-hand the truth about what Iran is doing and the dreadful implications of those activities.

Thanks to US leadership, the ever-harder sanctions imposed over the years had taken a politically damaging toll on the Iranian economy. The mullahs agreed to sit down with the US and Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to come up with an agreement ostensibly to get Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions. Iran’s agenda was simple: get the sanctions eased, and then with a loophole-ridden treaty, get them removed altogether.

The basic problem is that the Obama administration wants a deal–any deal–with Teheran and the other parties to the talks are willing to go along in order to snag business contracts with Iran, oblivious to the implications of a radical regime that will be in the position to get the Bomb any time it wants.

Appeasers argue that containment will work with a nuclear-armed Iran just as it did with the old Soviet Union during the Cold War and thus there is nothing to really worry about. Israel and other Mideast nations know better.

The Iranian government, despite the immense corruption of many of its leaders, is a revolutionary regime. Its actions over the years demonstrate that the rhetoric of its officials is more than just hot air. Iran is terror central. It bankrolls and provides arms to Hamas, Hezbollah and all sorts of Islamic terrorists organizations. If the US tacitly concedes its resignation to Iran becoming a nuclear power, then other countries will follow suite in creating their own nukes, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

That kind of proliferation enormously increases the chances of a nuclear war. We saw in 1914 how the then-center of civilization plunged into a catastrophic war. Even during the Cold War, Washington and Moscow went to the brink of a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (President John Kennedy was acutely aware during those fraught days of how events in 1914 ran away from European leaders.) With nukes in so many unstable hands, a disaster is almost a certainty. Moreover, the widespread knowledge of how to make the Bomb will certainly fall into terrorist hands, which is why the US must prevent this nuclear proliferation in the first place.

Ominously Iran has apparently developed an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach not only Israel but also Europe. It won’t be many years before the mullahs can aim nuclear tipped missiles against the US. No surprise, the current negotiations don’t cover Iranian missile development.

Another factor Obama and his appeasement-minded minions willfully ignore is the existential threat Iran poses to Israel. Given the size of the Jewish state, it has no room for error. A nuclear-armed Iran will put Israeli leaders in a dangerous, hair-trigger situation. Israel is a crucial US ally, strategically and morally. It is the only durable democracy in the Mideast. With only 8 million people, Israel has surpassed the European Union, with a population of over 400 million, in high technology, rivaling Silicon Valley. It was born from the ashes of the Holocaust. The destruction of Israel would mean, ultimately, the end of Western civilization; the moral rot that would permit such an event would be just about impossible to surmount.

It is not only Israel that is appalled by what Iran is up to. When Israel very nearly undertook preemptive action against Teheran in 2012, countries such as Saudi Arabia were remarkably open about their support for Israeli military actions that would destroy or cripple Iran’s nuclear facilities.

President Obama is either oblivious to all this or feels that in his perverted worldview, these things don’t much matter. Iran knows Obama desperately wants an agreement. It figures that the more it refuses to accept Obama’s willingness to surrender, the more concessions he will offer.

And spin to the contrary, an agreement will be a surrender. For all intents and purposes, Iran will be allowed to make a nuclear device any time it wishes. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will proclaim that if Teheran goes to make the Bomb, the US will have plenty of time to stop them before the Iranians can actually do it. Nonsense. It is has already crossed a very difficult threshold on uranium enrichment. The mullahs are moving ahead on the plutonium front. Teheran has brazenly blocked the International Atomic Energy Agency from access to its nuclear installations.

Congress is considering legislation proposed by Sen. Robert Menendez (D., NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) that would impose stiff sanctions on Iran if an agreement is not reached by the deadline of June 30. Twice before, negotiation deadlines have been extended. This would effectively tell Iran, put up or shut up. Obama is naturally opposed. He wants nothing that might jeopardize his dangerous course of abject appeasement of an evil regime. The President outrageously dragooned British Prime Minister to play the role of unregistered lobbyist to call Senators to block the Menendez-Kirk bill.

Which gets to why Speaker John Boehner was well within his bounds to extend that invitation to Netanyahu. Such a momentous treaty with Iran as desired by Obama must, under the Constitution, be submitted to the US Senate for ratification. Obama has trampled on the Constitution time and again–making laws and changing laws at will–and wants no Congressional involvement precisely because the resultant debate would glaringly show what a dangerously miserable deal he had cut. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez, recently declared: “The more I hear from the Administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Teheran.” When President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address that Iran has “halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” the guffaws could be loudly heard from every intelligence agency in the world.

Congress is a separate branch of government. Hearing directly from Netanyahu is well within its prerogatives, especially on a matter as critical as this. By the way back in 2011, Speaker Boehner attempted to coordinate a Netanyahu invitation with the White House. Naturally Obama gave Boehner the back of his hand by ignoring this courtesy.

 

 

A Future Coup in Egypt?

Posted on by

Not enough can be said about the Muslim Brotherhood and their wide and global influence in policy. Several countries have listed the Muslim Brotherhood as terror organization including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. So one must ask what information do they have to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group. Last year, a petition was placed on the White House website to deem the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization in the United States and after the required number of signatures the White House responded with a ‘no’ stating not enough evidence for that classification. The question again here is why? Given the Holyland Foundation trial and years of evidence, the associated organizations and names were tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This brings us to current day where the Muslim Brotherhood is on an aggressive mission to escalate policy and they still have their sites on a power shift once again in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is working diligently to maintain power, recognition, community service, financial stability and legitimacy in Egypt with the full support of the White House and the State Department. The Muslim Brotherhood is getting huge support from academia most of all Georgetown University.

It was Georgetown University that coordinated the recent confab of the Muslim Brotherhood at the State Department as told by the State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

A must see video from Georgetown University who has a foreign policy office in Doha, Qatar and it was there that a presentation was made on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, explaining the movement politically and diplomatically in Egypt and beyond.     

Qatar is also the location where Hamas has moved their headquarters, it is the new location for the Muslim Brotherhood and lastly the location of the Taliban home office, where the 5 Taliban generals released from Guantanamo now reside freely.

Open Jihad Declared in Egypt Following State Dept. Meeting with Muslim Brotherhood-Aligned Leaders  

Muslim Brotherhood call for ‘long, uncompromising jihad’The Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt just days after a delegation of the Islamist group’s key leaders and allies met with the State Department, according to an official statement released this week.

Just days after a delegation that included two top Brotherhood leaders was hosted at the State Department, the organization released an official statement calling on its supporters to “prepare” for jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.

The State Department meeting was attended by a deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor and other State Department officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood statement also was issued just two days before a major terror attack Thursday in Egypt’s lawless Sinai region that killed at least 25.

“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom,” it states.

Preparation for jihad is a key theme of the Brotherhood’s latest call for jihad.

An image posted with the statement shows two crossing swords and the word “prepare!” between them. Below the swords it reads, “the voice of truth, strength, and freedom.” According to the statement, “that is the motto of the Dawa of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The statement also invokes the well-known Muslim cleric Imam al-Bana, who founded the Brotherhood and has called for the death of Jews.

“Imam al-Bana prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers,” the statement says.

The Brotherhood’s renewed call for jihad comes at a time when current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is cracking down on the group and imprisoning many of its supporters, who notoriously engaged in violence following the ouster of Brotherhood-ally Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt experts said the timing of this declaration is an embarrassment for the State Department.

“The fact that the Brotherhood issued its call to jihad two days after its meeting at the State Department will be grist for endless anti-American conspiracy theories about a supposed partnership between Washington and the Brotherhood,” said Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). “The State Department should have foreseen what an embarrassment this would be.”

One member of that U.S. delegation, a Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom in which he held up the Islamic group’s notorious four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.

“Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone,” reads an Arabic caption posted along with the photo.

Other members of that group included Gamal Heshmat, a leading member of the Brotherhood, and Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery, a Brotherhood member who served as a parliamentarian from Luxor.

When asked on Tuesday evening to comment on the meeting, a State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon, “We meet with representatives from across the political spectrum in Egypt.”

The official declined to elaborate on who may have been hosted or on any details about the timing and substance of any talks.

The meeting was described by a member of the delegation, Maha Azzam as “fruitful,” according to one person who attended a public event in Washington earlier this week hosted by the group.

The call for jihad, while surprising in light of the Brotherhood’s attempts to appear moderate, is part and parcel of organization’s longstanding beliefs, Trager said.

“Muslim Brothers have been committing violent acts for a very long time,” Trager explained. “Under Morsi, Muslim Brothers tortured protesters outside the presidential palace. After Morsi’s ouster, they have frequently attacked security forces and state property. “

“But until now, the official line from the Brotherhood was to support this implicitly by justifying its causes, without justifying the acts themselves,” he added. “ So the Brotherhood’s open call to jihad doesn’t necessarily mean a tactical shift, but a rhetorical one.”

Terrorism expert and national security reporter Patrick Poole said he was struck by the clarity of the Brotherhood’s call.

“It invokes the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist past, specifically mentioning the ‘special apparatus’ that waged terror in the 1940s and 1950s until the Nasser government cracked down on the group, as well as the troops sent by founder Hassan al-Banna to fight against Israel in 1948,” he said.

“It concludes saying that the Brotherhood has entered a new stage, warns of a long jihad ahead, and to prepare for martyrdom,” Poole said. “Not sure how much more clear they could be.”

Poole wondered if the call for jihad would convince Brotherhood apologists that the group still backs violence.

“What remains to be seen is how this announcement will be received inside the Beltway, where the vast majority of the ‘experts’ have repeatedly said that the Brotherhood had abandoned its terrorist past, which it is now clearly reviving, and had renounced violence,” Poole said. “Will this development be met with contrition, or silence? And what says the State Department who met with these guys this week?”

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment before press time.