Merkel of Germany Admits Terrorists Among Refugees

Posted on July 12, 2016July 12, 2016 by Denise Simon

Can she be impeached? Do they do that in Germany? Is Merkel concerned about the security of her citizens and country at all? She and Barack Obama have the same attitude…a free for all for migrants…

‘Terrorists’ smuggled into Europe with refugees, Merkel says

Reuters: Militant groups smuggled some of their members into Europe in the wave of migrants who have fled from Syria, German Chancellor Angela said on Monday.

“In part, the refugee flow was even used to smuggle terrorists,” Merkel told a rally of her Christian Democrats in eastern Germany.

More than 1 million migrants arrived in Germany last year, many of them Syrians.

***** Sure wish the study below polled the thoughts of Americans, but then the political elitist class in Washington DC would spin the results anyway….right? We are all citizens of the world now….

Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs

Sharp ideological divides across EU on views about minorities, diversity and national identity

PewResearch: The recent surge of refugees into Europe has featured prominently in the anti-immigrant rhetoric of right-wing parties across the Continent and in the heated debate over the UK’s decision to exit the European Union. At the same time, attacks in Paris and Brussels have fueled public fears about terrorism. As a new Pew Research Center survey illustrates, the refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism are very much related to one another in the minds of many Europeans. In eight of the 10 European nations surveyed, half or more believe incoming refugees increase the likelihood of terrorism in their country.

But terrorism is not the only concern people have about refugees. Many are also worried that they will be an economic burden. Half or more in five nations say refugees will take away jobs and social benefits. Hungarians, Poles, Greeks, Italians and French identify this as their greatest concern. Sweden and Germany are the only countries where at least half say refugees make their nation stronger because of their work and talents. Fears linking refugees and crime are much less pervasive, although nearly half in Italy and Sweden say refugees are more to blame for crime than other groups.

Most of the recent refugees to Europe are arriving from majority-Muslim nations, such as Syria and Iraq. Among Europeans, perceptions of refugees are influenced in part by negative attitudes toward Muslims already living in Europe. In Hungary, Italy, Poland and Greece, more than six-in-ten say they have an unfavorable opinion of the Muslims in their country – an opinion shared by at least one-in-four in each nation polled.

For some Europeans, negative attitudes toward Muslims are tied to a belief that Muslims do not wish to participate in the broader society. In every country polled, the dominant view is that Muslims want to be distinct from the rest of society rather than adopt the nation’s customs and way of life. Six-in-ten or more hold this view in Greece, Hungary, Spain, Italy and Germany. Notably, the percentage saying that Muslims want to remain distinct has actually declined since 2005 in four out of five countries where trend data are available. The biggest drop has been in Germany, where the share of the public expressing this view has declined from 88% to 61%.

While most Europeans think the recent surge of refugees could lead to more terrorism, there is less alarm that Muslims already living on the Continent might sympathize with extremists. The percentage of the public saying that most or many Muslims in their country support groups like ISIS is less than half in every nation polled. Still, 46% of Italians, 37% of Hungarians, 35% of Poles and 30% of Greeks think Muslims in their countries are favorably inclined toward such extremist groups. On these and other questions included on the poll, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Poland often stand out for expressing greater concern and more negative views about refugees and minority groups.

Across the EU nations surveyed, the refugee crisis has brought into sharp relief deep ideological divides over views of minorities and diversity. On nearly all of the questions analyzed in this report, people on the ideological right express more concerns about refugees, more negative attitudes toward minorities and less enthusiasm for a diverse society.

For example, negative opinions about Muslims are much more common among respondents who place themselves on the right of the ideological spectrum. In Greece, 81% of those on the right express an unfavorable view of Muslims, compared with 50% of those on the left. Significant right-left gaps in attitudes toward Muslims are also found in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, France and the United Kingdom.

Similarly, supporters of far-right political parties hold much more negative attitudes toward refugees and Muslims and are much more skeptical about the benefits of a diverse society. For instance, fears that the surge of refugees will lead to more terrorism and harm the economy are considerably more widespread among supporters of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the UK and the National Front in France.

Ideology is not the only dividing line in European attitudes, however. On many questions, education and age also matter, with older people and less-educated individuals expressing more negative opinions about refugees and minorities.

These are among the key findings from a new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted in 10 European Union nations and the United States among 11,494 respondents from April 4 to May 12, 2016, before the Brexit referendum in the UK and terrorist attacks at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport, both of which took place in late June. The survey includes countries that account for 80% of the EU-28 population and 82% of the EU’s gross domestic product.

Along with worries about refugees and minorities, the survey finds mixed views regarding the overall value of cultural diversity. When asked whether having an increasing number of people of many different races, ethnic groups and nationalities in their country makes their society a better place to live, a worse place or does not make much difference either way, over half of Greeks and Italians and about four-in-ten Hungarians and Poles say growing diversity makes things worse.

Relatively few Europeans believe diversity has a positive impact on their countries. At 36%, Sweden registers the highest percentage that believes an increasingly diverse society makes their country a better place to live. In many countries, the prevailing view is that diversity makes no difference in the quality of life.

Negative attitudes toward minorities common in many nations

Muslims are not the only minority group viewed unfavorably by substantial percentages of Europeans. In fact, overall, attitudes toward Roma are more negative than attitudes toward Muslims. Across the 10 nations polled, a median of 48% express an unfavorable opinion of Roma in their country. Fully 82% hold this view in Italy, while six-in-ten or more say the same in Greece, Hungary and France. Negative views of Roma have gone up since 2015 in Spain (+14 percentage points), the UK (+8) and Germany (+6). Greeks have also become increasingly unfavorable (+14 points) since 2014, the last time Greece was included in the survey.

Negative ratings for Muslims have also increased over the past 12 months in the UK (+9 percentage points), Spain (+8) and Italy (+8), and are up 12 points in Greece since 2014. In France – where coordinated terrorist attacks by ISIS at the Bataclan concert hall and elsewhere in Paris in November left 130 people dead – unfavorable opinions are up slightly since last year (+5 points).

Negative attitudes toward Jews are much less common. A median of only 16% have an unfavorable opinion of Jews in their country. Still, a majority of Greeks give Jews in their country a negative rating, and one-in-five or more express this view in Hungary, Poland, Italy and Spain. Unfavorable attitudes toward Jews have been relatively stable since 2015.

Language, customs and tradition seen as central to national identity

Opinions vary about the key components of national identity, but European publics clearly agree that language is fundamental. Across the 10 EU countries surveyed, a median of 97% think that being able to speak the national language is important for truly being able to identify with their nationality. A median of 77% say this is very important. Majorities believe it is very important in every nation polled.

There is also a strong cultural component to national identity. A median of 86% believe sharing national customs and traditions is important, with 48% saying this is very important. Fully 68% in Hungary say sharing national customs and traditions is very important for being truly Hungarian, and 66% express similar sentiments in Greece. In contrast, fewer than four-in-ten consider sharing these traditions and customs very important in the Netherlands (37%), Germany (29%) and Sweden (26%).

There is less agreement about the need to be born in a given country. Still, a median of 58% say it is important for someone to be born in a country to be truly considered a national of that country; a third think this is very important. Religion is generally seen as less central to national identity. However, it is an essential factor to many in Greece, where 54% say it is very important to be Christian to be truly Greek.

To further explore this topic, we constructed an index based on the four questions we asked regarding national identity (importance of speaking the national language, sharing customs, being native born and being Christian). The results highlight the extent to which exclusionary views vary across the EU. By far, restrictive views are most common in Hungary, Greece, Poland and Italy; they are least common in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.

More to the study here.

Tehran Lives in John Kerry’s Head, Aggressions Approved

Posted on July 12, 2016July 12, 2016 by Denise Simon

It is Iran stupid…yet both the National Security Council, led by Susan Rice, Barack Obama and John Kerry are declared honorary citizens of Iran with gold keys to the city of Tehran.

Check it…

U.S. Confirms Purchase of Iranian Nuke Materials for $8.6 Million

FreeBeacon: U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed on Monday that the United States had completed a $8.6 million taxpayer-funded purchase of Iranian nuclear materials, a deal undertaken by the Obama administration to keep Iran in compliance with last summer’s nuclear agreement.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, right, embraces President Hassan Rouhani / AP

Abbas Araghchi, a top Iranian diplomat and negotiator of the deal, announced on Iranian television that the United States had moved forward with the purchase of 32 tons of heavy water for a price of $8.6 million. That money is said to have been successfully transferred to Iran, according to Persian language reports in the country’s state-run media.

An Energy Department spokesperson, speaking on background to the Free Beacon, confirmed the purchase.

“I can confirm reports that the DOE Isotope Program has completed the acquisition of 32 metric tons of heavy water from Iran,” the spokesperson said.

One U.S. official told the Free Beacon that while the deal is being announced officially now, it was actually concluded in April, when the administration first announced it.

“The heavy water deal was really concluded in April and it just took a few months to make all the necessary arrangements you would expect from such a deal,” the official said.

The disclosure could complicate matters on Capitol Hill with lawmakers who have been rebuffed by the administration in their attempts to learn more about the deal, sources said.

An Energy Department spokesperson told the Free Beacon in late April: “We cannot discuss details of the payment until after the purchase is complete.”

The timeline for the deal is raising new questions from congressional sources.

“The confirmation of this late April date is likely to anger lawmakers who were denied details of the deal because the Energy Department told them several months ago that key details surrounding the deal had not yet been firmed up,” said one congressional adviser familiar with attempts to compel further details about the deal.

The source pointed to a a letter presented to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas). The Free Beacon was the first outlet to obtain that letter.

“The Obama administration’s deal with the Mullahs in Tehran to purchase heavy water demonstrates a disturbing, potentially illegal, willingness of the administration to subsidize Iran’s nuclear program,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon at the time. “This purchase allows the Iranians to offload previously unsellable product and it destigmatizes the act of doing business in Iran.”

The purchase has sparked opposition on Capitol Hill among lawmakers who say that the United States should not engage in nuclear-related business with Iran. The purchase was made outside of the nuclear accord and was touted by the administration as a way to keep Iran within the limits set under the deal.

Lawmakers have been critical of the sale due to their inability to get specific details from the administration about how the deal would be completed and how U.S. taxpayer funds would be awarded to Iran.

“One of the most important achievements of the JCPOA was that we are now recognized as a seller of heavy water by America, which did not accept heavy water production by Iran,” Araghchi was quoted as saying, according to an independent translation provided to the Free Beacon.

“Heavy water production has reached 25 tons per year and storing heavy water in Oman was the decision of the Atomic Energy Organization [of Iran]. … The need of Arak [heavy water reactor] was between 80 to 90 tons,” Araghchi added. “We considered 130 tons for caution. We have this amount inside the country and send some to storage facilities in Oman.”

Lawmakers are expected to vote Thursday on legislation that would ban the administration from carrying out similar purchases in the future.

Update, 5:30 p.m. The headline and body of this post have been revised to reflect confirmation of the purchase by an Energy Department official.

Oh wait….there is more…..beyond the IRGC, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps hijacking our sailors, naval aggression is a very common occurrence and threat.

Votel sees cause for concern as U.S., Iranian ships share tight space

TampaBayTimes: ABOARD THE USS NEW ORLEANS — The Iranian vessel with its antiship cruise missiles did what ships from Iran often do — cruise within 500 yards of a U.S. Navy vessel.

Only this time, the USS New Orleans had a special guest — Army Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command. Votel was visiting the ship in the Strait of Hormuz as part of his tour of the 20-nation CentCom region, which began last week when he flew out of headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base.

Two days after visiting Afghanistan, Votel arrived aboard the New Orleans on a tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey, landing on a flight deck in sweltering heat. He landed just in time to see a Houdong-class warship, belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps navy, cruise close by.

It would happen five times during the hours Votel spent passing through the Strait of Hormuz aboard the New Orleans, an amphibious transport dock ship. The experience gave Votel a front-row seat to the complex challenges Iran poses to the U.S. and its allies in the region — challenges that fall on Votel’s shoulders as officer in charge of U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. More here.

**** Given the constant aggression by the IRGC with the knowledge and approval of Tehran, these events are likely a leak by Navy officials due to anger and rightly so. Since the Obama administration is pro Iran due to overwhelming protections of the deals with Iran including the Joint Plan of Action, the National Security Council and the State Department stop at nothing to ensure Iran’s actions are acceptable at the cost of law regarding international sea traffic and the major threat to our Navy.

In part from Reuters: The five Iranian vessels consisted of four speedboats, three with mounted machine guns, as well as a guided missile patrol ship.

One of the four speedboats that approached the New Orleans and its escort, a Navy guided missile destroyer, the USS Stout, cut its engines and watched as the U.S. warships passed. An hour before, a larger Iranian guided-missile patrol craft came by.

U.S. officials stressed that such approaches fell within the category of professional interactions, the kind they see during 90 percent of the U.S. Navy’s roughly 250 transits through the Strait of Hormuz each year. But the Navy says some 10 percent are classified as unsafe, abnormal or unprofessional. More here.

NATO Website Goes Dark During Summit

Posted on July 11, 2016July 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

Those Russians are good, good at hacking…

A suspicious outage was reported and interesting that Obama was there too. The Warsaw Summit hosted by Poland where several distinct events happened. 1. There was an agreement to strengthen the alliance with military presence in the East that includes Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 2. The alliances also agreed to operational strength of ballistic missile defense as well as cyber defenses and applying cyberspace as an operational domain. 3. For Afghanistan, a resolution was approved to continue the mission and funding forces through 2020. 4. A comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine passed. 5. The NATO website/domain was likely hacked.

So….the chatter at more casual breakout sessions and in formal session did include escalating protections in the cyber realm. Obama got the message. Certainly on the heels of the Hillary emailgate scandal, Barack Obama finally admits there things still to be done to tighten up security.

Obama says U.S. government must improve cyber security

Reuters: U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday that the U.S. government has to improve its cyber security practices for the modern age of smart phones and other technology, saying that hackers had targeted the White House.

“I am concerned about it, I don’t think we have it perfect. We have to do better, we have to learn from mistakes,” Obama told a news conference in Madrid. “We know that we have had hackers in the White House,” he added.

Concerns have been raised about the security of government information after the head of the FBI said presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s email servers may have been accessed by foreign actors when she was Secretary of State.

****

In 2015, Obama held a cyber security summit. Also there was an Executive Order. He wants better coordination between government and the private sector to fight online threats. Companies on board include Apple and Intel. It was a busy year in 2015 as Obama Announces New Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal and Other Cybersecurity Efforts.

Earmarking $19 billion for cyber programs by Obama also included a czar, Howard A. Schmidt. So how smart is Schmidt, or rather how UN-smart is he?

So far, there is no official proof that any country has ever engaged in a cyber attack, although certain malware attacks have been linked to different nations. The Stuxnet worm, which disrupted Iran’s nuclear facilities, has been attributed to the United States and Israel and the recently uncovered cyber espionage operation Red October is rumored to be either a Russian or a Chinese operation.

To avoid a cyber arms-race and an escalation in cyber attacks, Kaspersky has openly advocated for more online regulation, including international treaties limiting the use of malware — just like there are treaties against biological and nuclear weapons.

For Schmidt, that’s not a viable solution because it would be hard to enforce such a treaty. “At some point in the future maybe that will work but right now, number one, we have enough difficulty enforcing treaties of physical things that you can actually count, whether it’s weapon systems or whether it’s export import of these things, it’s extremely difficult,” he said.

Instead of a treaty that will take decades to become reality, Schmidt thinks countries should just respect the rules of engagement that already apply in real warfare. In war “we don’t just arbitrarily start shooting at people, we don’t send planes, we have respect for airspace, we have respect for a lot of the international laws,” he said. “Cyberspace should not be any different.” More here from Mashable.

One more thing to Obama and Mr. Schmidt….don’t forget the Office of Personnel Management, that experienced one of the largest intrusions of data belonging to and managed by the Federal government. Furthermore, that lady, Mrs. Katharine Archuleta who ran OPM never had any security experience with cyber and directly after the hearings on the cyber hack of the agency, well….she quit.

Cyber doom is here and no one talks about it….most of all the media…it is the best kept secret and classified condition inside the beltway.

Former DHS Official Explains Islamic Infiltration and the Agency

Posted on July 11, 2016July 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

I personally sat in this conference call with several others….it was chilling.

Words and symbols have meaning when it comes to the Islamic world. The Islamic Caliphate has a foothold in America going back decades.

YOU MUST SIT STILL FOR THIS VIDEO SESSION.

Inside this conference call, Mr. Haney referred to the Words Matter Memo of 2008. Here is that memo.

This site wrote about Tablighi Jamaat directly after the San Bernardino terror attack.

TABLE 1 – The Six Principles of the Tablighi Jamaat3

Kalimah An article of faith in which the tabligh accepts that there is no god but Allah and the Prophet Muhammad is His messenger
Salaat Five daily prayers that are essential to spiritual elevation, piety, and a life free from the ills of the material world
Ilm and Dhikr The knowledge and remembrance of Allah conducted in sessions in which the congregation listens to preaching by the emir, performs prayers, recites the Quran and reads Hadith. The congregation will also use these sessions to eat meals together, thus fostering a sense of community and identity
Ikram-i-Muslim The treatment of fellow Muslims with honor and deference
Ikhlas-i-Niyat Reforming one’s life in supplication to Allah by performing every human action for the sake of Allah and toward the goal of self-transformation
Tafrigh-i-Waqt The sparing of time to live a life based on faith and learning its virtues, following in the footsteps of the Prophet, and taking His message door-to-door for the sake of faith
*A Simple Message: Tablighi Jamaat’s simple message is compromised of six basic principles formulated by Muhammad Ilyas in 1934 (See TABLE 1). With its easily understood literature, the organization reaches a wide population, varying in education and knowledge of Islam. Eschewing abstract debates on doctrine, the group focuses on the need to reform the individual spirit.
*Distance from Politics: While some current and former Tablighis occupy government posts in South Asia, the Tablighi Jamaat asserts an avowedly apolitical stance. Rather than seeking to improve the well-being of society as a whole, the group focuses on transforming the individual. Borreguero argued that this approach allows the group to remain adaptable to diverse socio-political contexts and has facilitated its expansion. By remaining apolitical (unlike the Muslim Brotherhood), the Tablighi Jamaat avoids political confrontation, allowing it to exist in countries from Latin America to Africa to the Middle East without fear of proscription. However, Borreguero emphasized that this does not completely separate the movement from political authority: some members of Tablighi Jamaat have held government positions in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the group tends to keep close and peaceful ties with governments in South Asia.
*Respect for Authority: Tablighi Jamaat respects political authority, perhaps because the group itself is hierarchical in nature and emphasizes the authority of group elders.
*Absolute Secrecy: An important key to the group’s transnational appeal is the near absolute secrecy with which it operates. Very little is known about the group’s inner workings because it does not hold official records of its membership and leadership ranks, nor does it keep formal financial books or minutes of shura decision-making. Other than Muhammad Ilyas’ “Six Principles” there is no other overarching doctrine to which the group adheres. According to Borreguero, maintaining secrecy stems not from a concern that authorities will uncover any nefarious dealings within the movement. Instead, it is ostensibly a shield against charismatic personalities creating internecine squabbles and splinter factions. More here.

Yet, the most terrifying organization as described by Mr. Haney in this video is The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. While we fret over the turn of our Supreme Court, this Islamic group changes all law enforcement culture in American, lower courts and education through indoctrination.

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America

ClarionProject: AMJA’s jurists preach jihad, female genital mutilation and allow marital rape. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) says it “was established in response to the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence specific to Muslims in the West. Its main goal is to uphold authentic standards using high academic standards, moderate approach and a rejection of extremism.”

In 2008, Al-Sawy said that Muslims are only allowed to become American citizens when there are no other viable options because the country is not ruled by sharia law:

“As for optionally obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country it is definitely prohibited without a doubt, moreover it could be a form of apostasy or main means leading to apostasy because willingly accepting the laws of disbelievers and obeying it without any valid excuse or enforcement, or ignorance is considered a nullifier to Tawheed [the doctrine of oneness of God] and Islam.” Read the full summary here.

*****

“See Something, Say Nothing” author Phil Haney reveals the
shocking truth about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the U.S. and how they are being aided and abetted by our government. Includes powerpoint and Q&A session following the presentation.

Iran’s Selective Celebrations over Dead in Syria/Iraq

Posted on July 11, 2016July 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

The long relationship primer of Iran and Syria. Raqqa, Syria is the base of operations for Islamic State. While Barack Obama just authorized and additional 560 Marines for deployment to Iraq for a probable Mosul liberation operation, questions need to be answered: 1. Who will lead the government in towns such as Fallujah and Mosul, much less Iraq? 2. Who will lead Syria if Russia and Iran continue to support Bashir al Assad or will sanctions and other actions force Assad to be removed and he flees?

Mosul Raqqa

Support for radical Palestinian groups: Both allies backed Palestinian groups opposed to negotiations with Israel, such as Hamas. Syria has long insisted that any deal between Palestinians and Israel must also resolve the issue of Israeli-occupied Syrian territory (the Golan Heights). Iran’s interests in Palestine are less vital, but Tehran has used its support for Palestinians to boost its reputation among Arabs and in the wider Muslim world, with varying success.

Support for Hezbollah: Syria acts as a conduit for the flow of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite movement whose armed wing is the strongest military force in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon acts as a bulwark against a possible Israeli land invasion of neighboring Syria, whiling equipping Iran with some retaliatory capability in case of an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.

Iraq: After the US invasion of Iraq, Iran and Syria worked to prevent the emergence of a US-dependent regime in Baghdad that could pose a threat. While Syria’s influence in its traditionally hostile neighbor remained limited, Iran developed a close relationship with Iraq’s Shiite political parties. To counter Saudi Arabia, the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government followed Iran’s lead by opposing calls for regime change in Syria following the outbreak of the anti-government uprising in the country. Read more here.

Iran, Once Quiet About Its Casualties in Syria and Iraq, Now Glorifies Them

TEHRAN — The first news report, to a nation usually kept in the dark about military matters, was shocking: 13 Iranian soldiers, all with links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, had been killed in an ambush near the Syrian city of Aleppo. What followed this spring may have been even more surprising. Details about the soldiers appeared extensively in the Iranian news media, which not only gave the names of the dead but lionized them with sweeping life stories. Poster-size portraits were plastered all over their hometowns.

For years, Iran covered up its military activities in Syria and Iraq, so the government could deny any official involvement on the ground. Coffins arrived with the bodies of soldiers who went unidentified, referred to only as “defenders of the shrines” of the Shiite saints. When the bodies began to come home in larger numbers, the state news media began calling them “volunteers.”

No longer. Now every Iranian killed in action is named, his picture published, his valor lauded in elaborate tributes in the hard-line news media and on Instagram accounts dedicated to the fighters. The reason for the change, analysts say, is not some newfound dedication to transparency but a rift between the Iranian establishment’s hard-liners, who control the military, and the moderates.

The hard-liners, they say, want to prevent any decline in Tehran’s absolute support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and to undermine the moderates, who they fear might be open to a political settlement in which Mr. Assad would step down.

The Revolutionary Guards see publicizing the sacrifices of the fallen as a way to build domestic support for the current Syria policy and squelch any talk of compromise. The Instagram accounts have attracted tens of thousands of followers, most of them supporting the military effort.

Hard-liners are promulgating Iran’s military successes — and even setbacks — in a variety of ways, including news reports and documentaries. An exhibit at the recent Tehran International Book Fair allowed ordinary Iranians to pose as “defenders of the shrines,” photographed sitting on a military motorcycle in front of a billboard showing a pulverized city street in Syria.

The main focus, however, is on social media.

Facebook and Twitter are blocked by the state in Iran, but the photograph-sharing app Instagram is freely accessible. Previously used mostly by middle-class Iranians showing off new puppies or vacations on the Caspian Sea, the app is now suffused with images of “martyrs” and young men proudly wielding machine guns.

One of the more prominent Instagram accounts is run by a reporter for Iranian state television, Hassan Shemshadi, who honors Iranian fighters and Afghans in the Iran-backed Fatemiyoun brigade.

Mr. Shemshadi’s more than 90,000 followers are treated to selfies and other shots from the front lines in Syria. There are pictures of him doing a stand-up for state television in front of an armored vehicle, of his passport and boarding pass for a flight to Damascus, and of the star officer of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

But most of Mr. Shemshadi’s posts concern the increasing number of Iranian casualties in Syria and Iraq. Since he started posting news of soldiers’ deaths in 2015, he has published a total of 346 mini-obituaries of Iranians and Iranian-backed Afghans in Syria and Iraq. That is a large majority of the 400 or so Iranian and Afghan soldiers thought to have died so far in the conflicts there.

“In the name of the Lord of the Martyrs and the honest, the defenders of the shrine, Asadollah Ebrahimi and Saheb Nazari both from #Fatemiyoun, Mehdi Asgari from #Karaj, Mehdi Bidi from #Tehran, Mohammad Amin Karimian from #Mazandaran were martyred by takfiri terrorists in Syria,” Mr. Shemshadi wrote a week ago, using an Arabic word for infidels. Over 3,700 people said they liked the post.

Mr. Shemsadi continued, “They died while defending the pure Mohammedan Islam and the holy shrines and also maintaining the national security of our country, and ascended to the heavens.”

More here from the NYT’s.

*****

1. Iran vs. Saudi Arabia: Perfect Enemies?

At its core, the Iranian-Saudi rivalry is about power and money: two oil-rich giants, vying for control of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow water passage that accounts for almost 20% of all oil traded worldwide (and 40% of all US crude imports pass).

Iran and Saudi Arabia would always struggle to avoid collision, but ethnic and sectarian tension certainly doesn’t help. Iran is a majority Persian country that belongs to the Shiite branch of Islam. The vast majority of Saudis are Sunni Arabs, with a Shiite Arab minority (about 10%).

The two governments are also ideological rivals:

Wahabism: Saudi royals have spent vast amounts of money funding the spread of the (Sunni) Wahabi school, an ultra-conservative, literal interpretation of Islam, which is the state religion in Saudi Arabia. The official title of the Saudi King includes the duty of the “Guardian of the Two Holy Places”, Mecca and Medina, suggesting a degree of a divine authority.
Supreme Leader: The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, has promoted its version of political Islam, a combination of elected republican institutions under the guidance of a Muslim cleric, the Supreme Leader. The founder of the Iranian regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, condemned the Saudi monarchy as a tyrannical, illegitimate clique that answers to Washington, rather than God.

2. The Rise of Iran & Sunni-Shiite Sectarian Tension

Cultural and ideological differences aside, the growing tension has more to do with Iran’s growing regional clout that threatens Saudi Arabia’s position in the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf.

When the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran brought to power Khomeini’s Shiite Islamists, Saudi Arabia feared that Iran would try to export its revolution into the Gulf Arab monarchies. When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, Saudi Arabia enthusiastically supported Saddam Hussein’s war effort, and the Iraqi dictator remained a bulwark against Iran’s expansion until he was toppled by the US-led coalition in 2003.

The perceived threat never receded. Although Iran’s distinctly Shiite model of an Islamic state found little traction among Sunnis in the Arab world, Gulf Arab monarchs feared that Iran would incite rebellions among Shiite populations in Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

With Saddam’s regime now replaced with a government dominated by Shiite political parties friendly to Iran, Saudis thought that the nightmare scenario was closer than ever. In 2004, Jordanian ruler Abdullah II warned of an emerging “Shiite Crescent” in the Middle East.

Since the peak of the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq (2006-07), the geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East have been acquiring an increasingly sectarian tone. With Iran firmly embedded among the Shiite Islamists in Lebanon and Iraq, Saudi Arabia poses as the protector of Sunnis. Never before has religious identity in the region been so politicized. Read more here, excellent basis and summary.