By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
Why is the FBI missing the extremists in our midst? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the organization consulted by the Department of Justice for information on extremists is in bed with them.
Evelyn Schlatter, the deputy director of research of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), was listed as a participant in the recent Left Forum conference, which featured an assortment of communists, 9/11 truthers, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists, and other extremists. Schlatter was described as an expert on “right-wing political and social movements, gender, and sexuality.”
Schlatter should have some knowledge of left-wing political movements, especially since she rubbed elbows with some of their followers at the conference. Indeed, these far-left extremists are allies of the SPLC, which works directly with and advises the Obama Justice Department on hate groups and extremism. The FBI is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.
In the case of the Orlando terrorist attack on a gay nightclub, the SPLC has been careful to avoid discussing in any significant detail the killer’s devotion to radical Islam, including his regular attendance at a Mosque and the presence of a Koran, a Palestinian book, and other Islamic paraphernalia in his apartment. Instead, an article on the SPLC website described Omar Mateen as simply “a 29-year-old American citizen who worked as a security guard and had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before the attack.” The article focused on the reactions of a few members of the “racist right” to homosexuals being targeted in the attack.
Fred Fleitz, senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, says his organization was named by the SPLC as a “hate group” precisely because of “our work highlighting the threat from radical Islam.”
Denouncing the SPLC’s use of despicable tactics against leading conservatives, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (ret.) has said that the SPLC is “probably next to the Muslim Brotherhood the most evil group in America.” The Muslim Brotherhood functions as a front for terrorist organizations but is treated as a friendly Muslim group by the Obama administration. Indeed, national security reporter Bill Gertz reports that Obama has issued Presidential Study Directive-11, backing the Muslim Brotherhood.
As if the Justice Department needed more evidence of how the SPLC can’t be trusted to report on “extremists” in America, the SPLC’s Schlatter was joined at the Left Forum by pro-terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart. Stewart participated in a panel titled, “Free Our Political Prisoners,” a reference to terrorists in prison. Stewart knows something about terrorism. As noted by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, she was convicted for helping the Blind Sheikh run his Egyptian terrorist organization, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya or “the Islamic Group,” from his high-security U.S. prison confinement. However, Stewart was freed from prison by the Obama administration on medical grounds.
The chairman of the panel featuring Stewart was Jennifer Meeropol of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, an organization named for the Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.
An advertisement in the conference program guide proclaimed, “Time to Take Down the Wall between the Left and the Truth Movement. No Justice or Peace without Truth.” This was an attempt to get more left-wingers on board the 9/11 truth movement, which claims U.S. government agents—not Muslim terrorists—were behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A panel associated with this view argued that Islamophobia was responsible for blaming Muslims for the terrorist attacks.
Among the organizations joining with the Southern Poverty Law Center at the recent Left Forum in New York City were:
- The Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a self-declared Marxist-Leninist organization raided by the FBI in 2010 because of its links to the terrorist FARC in Colombia and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Palestinian Marxist-Leninist terrorist group.
- The Progressive Labor Party, whose motto is “Fight For Communism.”
- Red Star Publishers, described as “a small publishing company dedicated to making Marxist-Leninist literature available in print format at low cost.” It isassociated with the Party of Communists USA and US Friends of The Soviet People.
- Revolution Books, “A bookstore for a radically different world,” is associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, headed by former SDS leader Bob Avakian.
- Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the United States, and principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.
The opening plenary was titled, “Capitalism and Militarism—at Humanity’s Peril,” and was predictably covered by Russia Today (RT) in a story headlined, “‘Democracy in the US is a fraud’ Left Forum debates next steps for Sanders movement.” Speakers were:
- Medea Benjamin, an anti-Israel activist who co-founded Code Pink.
- Tariq Ali, a British Pakistani associated with the Marxist Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, who co-wrote the screenplay for the Oliver Stone film glorifying Venezuelan Marxist ruler Hugo Chavez.
- Chris Hedges, a former New York Times reporter who holds the distinction of being so far left that he was booed and greeted with chants of “USA” when he delivered a graduation speech on “War and Empire” at Rockford College in Illinois.
Titles of panels at the conference included:
- The Proletariat is Still the Revolutionary Class.
- Tear Down the Prison Walls!
- Intifada in America: The History of the Palestine Left in the United States.
- A Dialogue on Israel and Palestine With Tariq Ali and Norman Finkelstein.
- Animal Liberation Strategies in the Face of Indifference and Repression.
- Bully Nation: How Militaristic Capitalism Creates A Bullying Society.
- One Year of the SYRIZA-ANEL Government in Greece: The Perspective of the Greek Communist Party (KKE).
- Silencing Dissent: False Accusations of Anti-Semitism Against Palestine Solidarity.
- Cuba—Political and Economic Reforms for 21st Century Socialism.
- Prison Abolition: A Movement Towards New Directions.
- Deconstructing Gender Identity Under Male Supremacy.
- Some Reflections on the Russian Revolution.
- A Call for Leninist Unity.
- Queer Immigrant Organizing for Liberation.
Fleitz notes that the SPLC has become “a far left group with one purpose: manufacturing material to slander conservatives for use by the news media and on the Internet.” This is indeed why The Washington Post and other news organizations use the group in the first place. But the media carefully avoid any discussion of the extremists in bed with the SPLC, proving the essential dishonesty of what passes for coverage of extremism in American society.
Until this approach changes, on the part of the government and the press, Islamists will continue to escape scrutiny and kill Americans.
As the news keeps coming with regard to the horrors of the Iran deal – and the horrors of how Obama and Kerry are conducting themselves – I have no choice but to continue to write on the subject.
This issue remains number one in importance for Israel, and for the Western world. It must be taken with dead seriousness, and yet the the unfolding of revelations has become something of a self-parody. One is tempted to respond, “Nah, this cannot be happening…” But it is.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, a mind-boggling issue was raised by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) and then pursued by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The question at hand: Does Iran get to collect its own soil samples from the military site at Parchin for analysis by IAEA? Senator Risch’s understanding was that the IAEA will be monitoring Iran’s soil collection by video.
As Fred Fleitz, “a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction,” explained in National Review (emphasis added):
“The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.”
From where I sit, there could have been only one acceptable response by Kerry to these queries on process: “Of course Iran will not collect its own samples.” But instead Kerry let it be known that this issue was covered in a side agreement and was confidential. Would confidentiality be necessary if it were a straight up process structured with integrity and an eye to keeping Iran accountable?
Kerry then followed up with a statement on Friday at the Council of Foreign Relations in NY that was a pathetic mix of attempted intimidation and postured self-pity (All emphasis following here added):
As to intimidation, he said: “[if Congress rejects the Iran agreement] our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”
MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) responded thus:
“If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”
While Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) countered that:
“Israel will make its views clear on the Iranian nuclear issue, which is relevant to its security and its existence, and no one has the authority to intimidate us.” What is more, Steinitz pointed out, objections are not coming exclusively from Israel: “Criticism of the agreement in the United States in general and Congress in particular is due to the serious flaws and loopholes displayed in the deal.”
I have a strong aversion at this point to having Kerry refer to Israelis as “our friends in Israel.” I think not. His statement is a follow-up to an earlier one – that any military action by Israel would be an “enormous mistake.”
But this argument by Kerry as to why Congress had to vote to accept the accord perhaps wins the prize for offensive and ludicrous positions (emphasis added):
“…it would be embarrassing to him and a blow to US credibility on the world stage if Congress rejects the deal.
“It would be a ‘repudiation of President Obama’s initiative and a statement that when the executive department negotiates, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because we have 535 secretaries of state.’
“’I mean please. I would be embarrassed to try to go out. What am I going to say to people after this as secretary of state.’”
Tears out your heart, does it not? The prospect that John Kerry might be embarrassed before the ayatollahs.
For members of Congress not already angry, this statement should make them furious. Kerry is negating the Congressional role mandated by the Constitution, and claiming unilateral prerogative to make earth-shaking agreements. What would he say to people? That the US is a democracy, and has a due process by which he must abide. That it was understood when he got up from the negotiating table that agreements would not be final until after a Congressional review.
Kerry’s attitude here is a reflection of that of his boss. Obama behaves in an autocratic fashion that is not consistent with the role of the president of a democracy.
“A top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that the Islamic Republic would deny International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors any access to the country’s military sites, contradicting remarks by US officials following the signing of a nuclear agreement with Tehran last week.
“’The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden,” Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite TV. Velayati further stressed that the directive will be enforced regardless of interpretations by the P5+1 world powers to the contrary.’”
Two points to make here: First, and most importantly, this signals the futility of striking an agreement with Iran – for Iran will not adhere by it in any event, as its leaders will do as they please.
And then, the refusal to allow inspectors into Iranian military centers rather confirms the charge that at Parchin Iran will be doing its own soil collection.
I want to share here a video of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). The Senator was speaking at a rally against the Iran deal – and for the release of American hostages held by Iran – in front of the White House last week and was harassed by leftists calling themselves “Code Pink.” The senator’s method of handling the hecklers is a pleasure to watch – a class act. But I am sharing this because he responds rationally to their charges, and this is precisely what we need: rational answers when all sorts of off-the-mark charges are leveled against those battling the Iran accord.
There is, to provide one example, the charge that those for the accord, which offers a “diplomatic resolution,” are for “peace,” while those against it are “for war.” The critical point that the Senator makes is that peace comes with strength, and that the accord makes war more likely. (More on this below.)
What was left out of mainstream media coverage of this rally was background on who the Code Pink hecklers are. Code Pink is an NGO led by women, which claims to be “pro-peace.”
According to Gateway Pundit:
“Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans was an early fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Evans has met with several times over the years with President Obama and his most trusted White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Code Pink has acted as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.
“Code Pink travels to Iran as guests of the regime. Code Pink leaders are regulars on the Iranian government’s PressTV propaganda outlet. Code Pink did Iran’s bidding in an effort to undermine the government of U.S. ally Bahrain in 2012.”
This is information that ought be shared.
Let me close with this outrageous exchange between a journalist and White House spokesman Josh Earnest, held right after that rally (shared by The Gateway Pundit, with my emphasis added):
“Q Secondly, I wondered if you were aware that, just before the briefing, Senator Cruz was across the street at Lafayette Park. It was a protest against the nuclear deal. Among other things, he was very vocal about how, because of the sanctions being lifted eventually, that there would be so much money flowing into the country that the country would use the money to ‘kill Americans.’ Do you have any thoughts about that?
“MR. EARNEST: Well, Anita, I was aware that Senator Cruz was planning to hold a pro-war rally in front the White House today. I didn’t see actually how many people turned out for the rally, but it doesn’t sound like he said anything there that he hasn’t said anywhere else.
“Q Pro-war rally? Is that what you just called it?
“MR. EARNEST: I did.
“Q You have no other thoughts about it?
“MR. EARNEST: I think that pretty much says it all.”
Really low. It is what happens when there is no good argument for a position one has embraced: Rely on insults and innuendoes. Senator Cruz’s rally was NOT “pro-war.”
David Greenfield, writing in FrontPage, described part of the exchange between Cruz and Code Pink – with regard to being “pro-war” – this way:
“One CODEPINK member responded to Cruz by saying that he does not like ‘war mongers’ and asking Cruz, ‘Why are you so aggressively violent?’
“’I recognize that the folks in CODEPINK like to hold up signs saying, “Peace with Iran.” You know who doesn’t reciprocate those views? Iran,’ Cruz said, to cheers.
“’In the midst of this negotiation, the Ayatollah Khamenei led thousands of Iranians in chanting death to America while they burned American flags and Israeli flag,’ Cruz continued to more applause. ‘Iran has stated its objective to murder as many Americans as possible. They are not seeking peace with us.’”
By: Benjamin Weingarten
What, if anything, would cause President Barack Obama to step away from the negotiating table with Iran?
This is the question I find myself pondering in light of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy Patrol’s unchecked act of aggression on Tuesday against America’s interests in the Straits of Hormuz – an act that in a sane world would in and of itself put an end to the president’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.
As of this writing, reports indicate that the Iranian Navy Patrol fired shots at and ultimately seized a commercial cargo ship, the M/V Maersk Tigris, which flies under the Marshall Islands flag. Some believe Iran was even targeting a U.S. vessel.
In a helpful dispatch, commentator Omri Ceren notes the significant implications of such an action given that the U.S. is: (i) Treaty-bound to secure and defend the Marshall Islands, and (ii) Committed to maintaining the free flow of commerce in the strategically vital waterways of the Middle East — as affirmed just one week ago on April 21 by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf and Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren.
The U.S. fulfilling its obligations to its protectorate, and acting to ensure vital shipping lanes remain open are not trivial matters.
Further, this act can be seen as a brazen test of the sincerity of U.S. resolve, as it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Senate’s debate on the Corker-Menendez Iran bill.
Yet there is a broader and perhaps more important context in which to consider what Ceren calls an act of “functionally unspinnable Iranian aggression.”
Even if we ignore the history of Iranian aggression against the U.S. and its allies since the deposal of the Shah in 1979, the firing upon and seizing of the Tigris marks the latest in a long series of such provocations that Iran has undertaken in just the last few months. Consider:
- On February 25 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard blew up a replica U.S. aircraft carrier during defense drills
- On March 24 it was reported that the Iranian regime had increased its naval threats against the U.S., including “[T]hreats to take over and sink American aircraft carriers and other warships; to close the Strait of Hormuz and Bab El-Mandeb; to carry out large-scale missile attacks inside and outside the Persian Gulf; and to mine the Persian Gulf”
- On March 31 Basij militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable”
- On April 1 it was reported that an Iranian military observation aircraft had “buzzed” an armed U.S. navy helicopter over the Persian Gulf during March 2015
- On April 12 it was reported that Iran had been working to deliver surface-to-air missiles to the Houthis in Yemen
- On April 13 it was reported that Iran had increased arm shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas
- On April 14 Russia lifted its ban on the sale of missiles to Iran, no doubt with the firm support of the Iranians
- On April 17 it was reported that Iran was sending an armada of seven to nine ships – some with weapons – toward Yemen
- On April 18 Iran celebrated Army Day with calls of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”
- On April 19 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s deputy leader Gen. Hossein Salami declared that there would be no inspections of military sites under any nuclear deal, threatening “We will respond with hot lead [bullets] to those who speak of it…;” and
- On April 24 the Iranian Navy Patrol intercepted the Maersk Kensington, a U.S.-flagged vessel
This rhetoric and action comports with Iran’s historic hostility toward the U.S. since the fall of the Shah. Lest we forget, this list of atrocities includes, but is certainly not limited to:
- The 1983 bombing of the U.S. army barracks in Beirut
- Aiding and abetting Al Qaeda with respect to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on our nation
- Funding, training and arming terrorists responsible for slaying American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
Would Iran’s most recent actions in the Strait of Hormuz coupled with the litany of other recent and historical bellicose acts lead one to question whether it is in the United States’ interest to continue negotiating with the mullahs?
Put more directly: In what respect can the U.S. consider Iran to be a reliable, honorable negotiating partner?
Concerning the content of the nuclear deal being negotiated, it should be noted that the Iranians have stated the agreement accomplishes the very opposite of what the American public been led to believe. With respect to sanctions, Iran says they will be fully lifted upon the execution of the accord. As MEMRI notes, in an April 9 address, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini gave a speech in which he called America a “cheater and a liar” and
publicly set out the negotiating framework for the Iranian negotiating team, the main points of which are: an immediate lifting of all sanctions the moment an agreement is reached; no intrusive oversight of Iran’s nuclear and military facilities; the continuation of Iran’s nuclear research and development program; and no inclusion of any topics not related to the nuclear program, such as missile capability or anything impacting Iran’s support for its proxies in the region.
It is no wonder then that the nuclear deal has been lambasted on a bipartisan basis, including at the highest levels of the national security establishment. Even former Secretary of State James Baker is highly critical of the Iran deal – and his animus toward Israel, perhaps the primary casualty of the deal, may be second only to that of President Obama.
As to whether Khameini’s portrayal of the deal is accurate, former CIA analyst and Iran expert Fred Fleitz asserts that under the terms of the agreement, Iran will (i) be able to continue enriching uranium, (ii) not have to disassemble or destroy any enrichment equipment or facilities, (iii) not be required to “permit snap inspections and unfettered access to all Iranian nuclear facilities, including military bases where Iran is believed to have conducted nuclear-weapons work,” (iv) be able to continue to operate its Arak heavy-water reactor, a plutonium source, in contravention of IAEA resolutions and (v) be subjected to an eased sanctions regime that will be incredibly difficult to re-impose.
If this were not enough, so intent is the Obama Administration on reaching a deal that it has been reported that for signing this agreement, Iran may even receive sweeteners including a $50 billion “signing bonus.”
The contorted logic used by the president in defense of his progressive stance towards Iran is worthy of Neville Chamberlain. During an interview with New York Times soulmate Thomas Friedman, Obama opined:
Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
Sen. Tom Cotton provides a necessary corrective in a recent interview:
I am skeptical that there are many moderates within the [Iranian] leadership … I think it’s kind of like the search for the vaunted moderates in the Kremlin throughout most of the Cold War, with the exception that we could always count on the Soviet leadership to be concerned about national survival in a way that I don’t think we can count on a nuclear-armed Iranian leadership to be solely concerned about national survival.
As for Lord Chamberlain, Sen. Cotton – he of that irksome letter to Iran — takes a more charitable view, noting:
It’s unfair to Neville Chamberlain to compare him to Barack Obama, because Neville Chamberlain’s general staff was telling him he couldn’t confront Hitler and even fight to a draw—certainly not defeat the German military—until probably 1941 or 1942. He was operating from a position of weakness. With Iran, we negotiated privately in 2012-2013 from a position of strength … not just inherent military strength of the United States compared to Iran, but also from our strategic position.
To those who recognize reality, this deal – coupled with our weak response to the ongoing provocations of the Iranian Government — not only threatens our national security and that of our allies, but reflects an utter dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution, and protect our people against foreign enemies.
In a word, it is treasonous.
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
Considerable media coverage has been devoted to House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the state of radical Islam movement worldwide. But “Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election,” writes Caroline Glick for the Jerusalem Post. “He invited Netanyahu because he cares about U.S. national security. He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.”
The outcome of negotiations with Iran could be the ultimate game-changer for the course of history. But, as Glick argues, the Obama administration’s policy is one of enablement—not the prevention of a new nuclear power coming on the scene. Will a nuclear Iran be President Obama’s enduring legacy in the Middle East? One wonders whether this is how World War III will start. Or should I say, World War IV? Maybe we’re in World War III right now, but just haven’t acknowledged it yet.
To clear up one point that has fueled a great deal of misinformation, Speaker Boehner did inform the White House of the invitation to Netanyahu before the invitation was accepted. The White House remained silent, and then encouraged the narrative that they had been blindsided by the announcement of the plans. The New York Times was forced to acknowledge that fact in a correction.
Iran’s nuclear program may be one of the most important issues of our time. I recently attended an event at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. that tackled the critical national security issue that Iran represents. Two members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, Clare Lopez and Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, spoke at this forum as well.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media didn’t think that the “Iran Truth Squad” event on January 28, hosted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), deserved coverage.
The topics addressed at this gathering included:
- How should we approach Iran?
- The state of the current negotiations
- What to make of Iran’s tactics and intentions
- Of the threat Iran poses to the U.S. and Israel
- Of Iran’s historical and religious roots
- Of the Obama administration’s attitude and response to them
This two-hour conference, put on by Frank Gaffney and his CSP, answered these pressing questions about the current nuclear negotiations with this regime, and also placed them in the context of what is certainly a corrupt, jihadist government, inimical to free speech and free expression supporting terror worldwide. I urge everyone to watch this, but if you can’t, here are summaries of the different experts who spoke there.
Gaffney opened the conference by pointing to the considerable amount of disinformation and “confusing statements,” if not outright dissembling, that the Obama administration has provided regarding the Iran negotiations. President Obama said in his recent State of the Union, “with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.” However, Center for Security Policy projections were actually cited by The Washington Post as a “fact check” on President Obama’s claims, and Glenn Kessler of the Post awarded the President three Pinocchios for his false statements.
“We think at the very minimum these are the sorts of alternative assessments that are needed for the American people and their elected representatives to have under consideration as they weigh not only these negotiations that are underway…but also with respect to legislation that is expected to be addressed by the Congress on both sides of the aisle …in the days to come,” said Gaffney. He also noted that you wouldn’t know from the characterizations and negotiations between Washington and Iran that this repressive regime considers not just Israelis or Jews impure, but all infidels.
In addition, Gaffney said, we need to remember there are not only the nuclear capabilities that Iran has declared, but their secret capabilities, as well.
Rep. Trent Franks:
“I would suggest to you that Iran’s nuclear pursuits are one of the most critically significant and grave threats to the peace of the world that we have anywhere to discuss,” declared Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the House EMP Caucus. The costs in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be high. However, his response is that these costs pale in comparison to the cost of overcoming a nuclear Iranian regime. “To deal with a nuclear capable Iran is an unthinkable scenario,” he said.
Rep. Franks emphasized that Iran poses a real threat to the United States. He said that Iran has actively been researching electromagnetic pulse (EMP) technology and that hardening the United States infrastructure against EMP could serve as a deterrent by reducing an EMP’s efficacy against America. “But let me suggest to you that even missile defense is not as important as hardening our grid when it comes to deterring a potential enemy against attacking our grid with the use of EMP,” he said.
He condemned the current administration’s current negotiation approach toward this repressive regime, saying, “All Iran needs to gain a nuclear weapons capability is time and this administration seems unfortunately either naively or just insanely willing to allow them to have that time…”
Ambassador Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomat who served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel’s Embassy in Washington and as Director of Israel’s Government Press Office, emphasized that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is in the United States’ national interest, not just Israel’s interest. After all, Iran’s desire for nukes exists “independent” of Israel and advances a mega-historical goal of this country: domination of the Persian Gulf and stopping America’s power projection in the region.
“All that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel,” said Ettinger. “Iran, obviously, is a lethal threat to Israel, but the motivation of becoming a nuclear power is focused on [a] much, much more important factor, as far as they’re concerned, and that is the USA.”
After all, “Iran annually celebrates November 4 as ‘Death to America Day,’ commemorating the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy, featuring a burning of the American flag,” Ambassador Ettinger writes on his website.
He expressed skepticism that Iran could be contained or tolerated once it gains or develops its nuclear weapons program, because such strategies contradict the country’s track record. Ettinger called for regime change and said that once Iran gets the bomb, “the only question will be how rapid and how wide in scope will American concessions be” worldwide.
Dr. Andrew Bostom:
Dr. Bostom, author of Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, outlined the cultural background of the Shiite revolution that brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran in the 1970s, and pointed to the Islamic religious components that make Iran’s antisemitism so virulent.
“The recent [Charlie] Hebdo murders in Paris targeting journalists and, even more egregiously without cause, Jews at a Kosher market, represent uniquely Islamic phenomena certainly in the present era,” he said.
He emphasized that the hatred of Jews and non-Muslims, or infidels, is so intense that it becomes dehumanizing because Islam views infidels as physically, as well as spiritually, impure. As such, someone might even be beaten for going out in the rain because their impurity might wash off, and, in other cases, infidels are not allowed to touch products as they are manufactured. The physical and spiritual impurity of the infidel is derived from Islam’s core texts, he said.
Comparing the Green Movement to those currently in power, Bostom said, “We see really no difference in terms of their attitudes about jihadism, and it’s based on the prototype of Mohammed…” One might ask whether regime change would make much difference.
Antony J. Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State, recently admitted during Congressional questioning that the United States was no longer negotiating to stop Iran from a “breakout” capability to nuclear weapons, “but only to get a better alarm” or “signal” ahead of time, according to Clare Lopez, a member of the CCB and former CIA officer. She serves as the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Research and Analysis.
Blinken, speaking for the State Department on January 27, outlined how the U.S. continues to provide Iran with “limited” sanctions relief of “about $14 to $15 billion from the start of the [Joint Plan of Action] through this June.”
In addition to sanctions relief, Lopez said that the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action gave Iran just about everything it wanted: the right to enrich, the right to keep uranium, centrifuge research and development, and continued intercontinental ballistic missile development.
On January 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that “According to unnamed officials, Washington ‘has given the Iranians 80 percent of what they want’ out of the negotiations…”
“Let’s look at this satellite photo imagery from a couple weeks ago,” said Lopez during her presentation, pointing to a satellite image of a new ICBM sitting on a launch pad outside of Tehran. “It’s 89 feet tall, it is definitely intercontinental in reach. That means this one, at least…is not aimed at Israel” but much farther away, she said.
IHS Jane’s 360, on February 1, reported to the contrary that “Claims that Iran is preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are based on incorrect analysis of a satellite image showing the new facility at the Khomeini Space Centre in Semnan province.”
Lopez, in response, pointed out that “a simple, small 1-3 kt nuclear weapon used for an EMP attack does not have to weigh much more than 100 kg,” which is the weight that Jane’s 360 reports Iranian media had indicated the Simorgh can carry into orbit. Also, “the nosecones already are visibly configured to carry a nuke,” she remarked.
Lopez also pointed to the recent alleged American intervention in Argentina on behalf of the Iranians. “The United States pressed Argentina to end its investigation of Iranian complicity in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in which nearly 100 people were killed,” reported the World Tribune citing the Middle East Newsline and unnamed diplomats on January 23rd.
We have since learned that “Before his death, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman had drafted an arrest warrant for the country’s president in connection with an alleged secret deal with Iran to cover up the bombing of a Jewish community center two decades ago, the chief investigator of Nisman’s death said Tuesday.”
Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, said that he wrote for National Review that Obama’s State of the Union address was “a straight up lie.” In 2008, when President Obama took office, the number of weapons that Iran could make from its enriched uranium or further enriching its uranium stood at zero. Now, the Center for Security Policy estimates it could create eight weapons.
“The number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, rising from seven to at least eight over the last year,” he wrote.
“Iran could make a weapon out of its enriched uranium at the reactor grade in 2.2 to 3.5 months right now,” argued Fleitz, basing this on numbers compiled by the Center for Security Policy, where he works as a Senior Fellow. “This administration has no intention of stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he argued. The administration has decided it can live with a nuclear Iran, he said.
The next deadline for nuclear talks is March 24 of this year, with a final deadline set for June 30th. Fleitz would prefer that the talks end altogether, and start over, because a bad deal is worse than no deal.
After all, Iran is already hiding evidence of its nuclear research activities, and not cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, he said.
Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.):
Admiral Lyons, another CCB Member, said that “you don’t negotiate with evil,” and called the Khamenei regime both evil and corrupt. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the hands of this country since 1979, he said, and one should not forget the role that Iran played providing material support to the September 11, 2001 hijackers—necessary aid without which this attack could not have happened.
He argued that the only way to stop the Iranian program is to take it out physically. However, since the Obama Administration won’t, it’s up to Israel to do so.
“As the former Secretary of Defense said, ‘it’ll buy us about two years,’” Lyons said. “And I think the way the situation is today, I’ll take those two years. I don’t think we can afford to wait until a potential change in administration.”
“And let me hasten to add, I’m not a hundred percent sure with a change in administration that the appropriate action will be taken,” he said.
But if action were to be taken, the U.S. should provide tanker support to Israel as a number one priority, as well as electronics and suppression weapons and the “bunker buster.” Doing so might just send a message to Iran.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2015
For More Information Contact:
Alex VanNess | (202) 719-2421
Recommends Approach Reagan Used to Destroy Last Totalitarian Ideology Threat
(Washington, DC): Murderous attacks by Islamic supremacists in recent weeks in France, Nigeria, Australia and Canada have made obvious a fact long ignored by too many Western governments and elites: The Free World is under assault by Islamic supremacists.
The perpetrators of this assault may have different organizational affiliations, alternative state-sponsors, divergent sectarian views about Islam or even be acting individually. But they have two things in common: They seek to impose their ideology or doctrine, shariah, on the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And they intend to create an alternative form of governance, often called a Caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.
Consequently, the United States and the rest of the Free World urgently needs to identify this Global Jihad Movement as our enemy and to bring to bear an effective, counter-ideological strategy for defeating this political, supremacist shariah doctrine.
The Center for Security Policy, which prides itself on being the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” has sponsored in recent months an informal “tiger team” modeled after an actual special operations A-Team drawing upon individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction: Soviet communism.
Participating Members of the Secure Freedom Strategy “Tiger Team”:
- Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
- Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
- Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and best-selling author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Attacked the U.S. Stock Market and Why it Can Happen Again
- Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President Center for Security Policy for Research and Analysis and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
- Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on information warfare and influence operations
- David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder and partner, American Freedom Law Center, and expert on shariah
- Fred Fleitz, career intelligence professional who served under William J. Casey at the Central Intelligence Agency
- Moderator: Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan
National Press Club
529 14th St NW, 13th Floor
Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:00-1:30 pm Luncheon will be served.
About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org