PODCAST: Obama’s Policies in the Middle East Destablizing World Security

I recently did a talk radio interview with former U.S. Federal Judge Joe Miller, USMA ‘89, the host of the Joe Miller Show. As a former counter terrorist intelligence operative who was on the DOD Task Force after 9/11 which reported to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, I served in nine counter-terrorist operations, was recruited as an Arabic linguist by Special Warfare Group ONE in order to deploy with SEAL Team ONE, was an armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in DHS, and was assigned as an Intelligent Analyst in the FBI after graduating from the FBI Academy in Quantico.

Listen to my interview on the Joe Miller Show:

I voiced my concern that for the past 6 years, the Obama administration’s policies in the Middle East have been destructive for the stability of the region. The Obama administration’s foreign policy has shifted support from the United States’ 60 year traditional alliance with friendly Sunni countries (Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates) to Iran, the world’s number one major sponsor of terrorism with Shite ruling class. Iran regularly declares that it is enemy of the “Great Satan”, the United States, who has been killing and maiming thousands of members of the US Armed Forces for 36 years.

The Obama administration’s absence of a foreign policy in the Middle East has resulted in Iran filling the void by taking control of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon with Afghanistan and Bahrain in their gun sights.

The Obama administration’s policies toward Iran has been facilitating Iran’s development of nuclear weapons for the last two years. The foreign policy of the Obama administration continues to embrace the terrorist state of Iran, while continuing to reject military aide for friendly Sunnis countries in the Middle East (the request for urgent military aide for Jordan, Egypt, Kurdistan, and the Assyrian Militia have been denied).

If the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations permits Iran to continue the development of nuclear weapons and eventually obtain nuclear weapons, that agreement will result in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and might set the stage for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, which might result in the outbreak of World War III.

VIDEO: A False Hope of a Reformed Islam

There is an ongoing fantasy that Islam can be reformed so that it is moderate. This ignores the fact that Islam is based upon the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed, none of which can be changed. A recent effort of good will towards Jews by Muslims is a false hope.

Life long Opponent of Israel appointed as Obama’s Senior Assistant

Robert Malley has been a controversial policy insider and opponent of Israel in both the Clinton and Obama Administrations. Malley faulted Israel for the collapse of the 2000 Peace negotiations with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak at Camp David stoking the late Yassir Arafat to opt for the Second Intifada.

Last Friday, the White House announced his new position as Senior Assistant to  the President  coordinating policies of North Africa, the Middle East and Iran nuclear negotiations. He replaces Phillip Gordon (no relation). He was recently involved in meetings with Rice and Israeli National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen in the run up to Israeli PM Netanyahu’s address to the Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd.

Look upon Malley’s promotion as a bad omen for worsening relations with Israel unless Netanyahu is not  elected for a third term on March 17th.  He was brought back to the Obama National Security Council in 2013 as a deputy to Gordon who had the MENA portfolio. There had been adverse criticism of his role as foreign policy adviser to President Obama in the 2008 Presidential campaign on Israel issues. He was accused of having held discussions with Iran proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. In the interim before his return to the NSC, he had an equivalent post at the International Crisis Group. His parents, while both Jewish, were leftists who supported pro-Arab anti-Israel activities in both Egypt and Algeria.

The Times of Israel (TOI) reported last weekend on this latest move by the Administration to isolate Israel under the current Netanyahu government, White House names Israel critic to top Mideast post:

The White House named Robert Malley, a U.S. negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks, to lead the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. Malley, whose appointment was announced on Friday afternoon, since last year has handled the Iraq-Iran-Syria-Gulf States desk. In replacing Philip Gordon, who has been Middle East coordinator since 2013, he assumes responsibility for Israel and the Palestinians as well as North Africa and the Persian Gulf.

He also assumes a more senior title, moving from senior director to special assistant. Malley already deals with Israel, and has attended meetings on the Iran-nuclear issue between his boss, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and her Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen.

We wrote about Malley’s foreign policy advisor background in a March 2014 Iconoclast post, Saudi-led Gulf Squabble Spells Trouble for Obama?

National Security Advisor Malley was a former Middle East foreign policy aide to President Clinton during the failed 2000 Camp David Israel-Palestinian negotiations between former Israeli PM Ehud Barak and the late Yassir Arafat. Malley had accused Israel of nixing the agreement, when it was evident that Arafat had purposely sabotaged it. Malley went on to become head of the Middle East and North African program of the International Crisis Group and later advised then Senator Obama and was part of the President’s transition team. He holds views that may further complicate Administration Middle East policies. Malley propounded speaking with terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Malley, was appointed in 2013 to the National Security Council. He had the portfolio for Israel-Palestinian peace talks and the Iran nuclear P5+1 diplomatic initiative.

In  October 2009, we noted his family background and Soros connections in a post Robert Malley and Benny Morris debate One State/Two State Solution at Skidmore College:

Malley is Jewish on both sides. His father was a Mizrahi from Syria who became an Egyptian journalist and was alleged to be an Egyptian Communist party member who fled to France, where young Malley was raised. Malley’s mother was a US Jewish leftist who worked for the Algerian FLN UN delegation. Check out his bio here.  He is a former Middle East adviser to President Clinton on the Camp David 2000 debacle. He alleged that Israel was at fault, rather than the late Yassir Arafat head of the Fatah-PLO, in the failure to achieve a peace accord during the abortive Camp David discussions. That opinion was not shared by former President Clinton and Amb. Dennis Ross, formerly on the Obama NSC staff.  Malley was a mainstay at the International Crisis Group (ICG) supported by George Soros who sits on the ICG board. Malley has been a prominent proponent of ‘engagement’ with Iran proxies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He was a controversial informal foreign policy advisor during the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign.

Watch this brief You Tube video of Malley in an excerpt from a 2009 documentary discussing outreach to  Hamas:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Robert Malley newly appointed White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf Region. Image source: YouTube.

Israel’s March 17th Knesset Election: Political Intrigue, Yellow Journalism and Economic Brinkmanship

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a snap election in December 2014 for next Tuesday, March 17th, it was on the basis that he would be popularly returned to serve an unprecedented third term as the Jewish nation’s political leader.  That prediction is now ancient history, given what has has turned into one of the nastiest of Israel’s Knesset elections.  While he has admirers outside of Israel exemplified by his laser-like focus on the dangers of Iran bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon, that doesn’t appear to be the case inside Israel in the midst of the current electoral campaign. Some in Israel and abroad looking at the alleged dead heat between Likud and the so-called Zionist Union in notoriously-biased polls in Israel say, in retrospect, perhaps Bibi made a mistake. Add to that the biased print and even TV media in Israel that have waged a daily war against him touting the meme of “anyone but Bibi”.  He has been chastised for some maladroit TV political spots. The opposition has emblazoned phony $100 bills with his punim (face in Hebrew) trying to make him out as the poster boy for plutocrats. The left in Israel accuse him of pushing the economic land values in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem into the stratosphere out of range of young families who need affordable housing. All while many secular Jews have found such housing in the forbidden zone, the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria driving the population in those so-called settlements to more than 350,000. Last Saturday evening there was a monster rally in Tel Aviv with overblown estimates of the crowd ranging from “tens of thousands to over 400,000” who thronged Rabin Square.  Israel’s economy overall is booming, jobs are being created, overseas direct investment is pouring into “silicon wadi” from across the globe.

Nonetheless the country’s economic future and wealth creation is being constrained by the dead hand of the dual economic structure in basic sectors controlled by the remnants of the Histadrut Labor Federation. Regulation by mind numbing bureaucracies defies imagination in the mixed economies of the West. It is exemplified, by the virtual stop of development of Israel’s significant off shore gas fields. Their development could pour billions into the economy, alleviate the burden of defense in the country’s budget and greatly enhance productivity and job creation. Billions have been spent by a joint US-Israeli partnership on that development and billions of royalty and tax revenues were about to flow.  That stoppage is attributable to Dr. David Gilo, who heads the independent Israel Antitrust Authority who unilaterally pulled the plug within days of PM Netanyahu’s calling a snap Knesset election in December 2014. Gilo issued a consent decree accusing the U.S.-Israel partners of constituting an anti-competitive cartel.  Recently Gilo suggested that any final resolution of the impasse would have to wait until after next Tuesday’s Knesset elections. Cynics abound accusing Gilo of being a political hack of the left opposition.

The left opposition itself isn’t robust. The Zionist Union was the merger of Netanyahu’s former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni’s party Hatnuah and the Labor Party. The Labor Party, resuscitated from a near death spiral, is headed by Yitzhak Herzog.  Israel’s antique political system, the proportional representation for Party lists, is plagued by jockeying among the many parties for membership in so-called ruling coalition governments for control of a majority of the 120 Knesset seats. Israelis cast ballots for the party lists. The country’s basic law does not have the equivalent of ridings as in the Westminster or Canadian Parlia mentary systems or Congressional Districts here in the US. A suggested change in the proportion for party representation under Israel’s basic law of 5.00 was compromised at 3.25 percent in a March 2014 Knesset vote. This was a marginal increase from the previous threshold of 2 Percent.  That led the Arab list of parties, harboring seditious MKs, to announce a unified list that enabled them to pick up 11 mandates in the new Knesset. That led the Zionist Union to consider a possible alliance with Arab MKs to join the government and possibly fill Ministerial posts. The polls currently bounce around showing on any given day a swing of three votes giving Likud a lead one day and on another day the Zionist Union. There is a 20 Percent undecided which has to be factored into final outcome. That might break in favor of Netanyahu and Likud. The only poll that counts in Israel is the one on March 17th in the polling booths.

In the midst of this roiling unseemly campaign, classic yellow journalism has reared its ugly head in the form of a disinformation campaign by one of largest dailies, Yediot Ahronoth (YA).  But first let’s set the stage by looking at the media and the major opponents in this titanic struggle.

Most of Israel’s dailies like Ha’aretzMa’ariv and YA align their editorial and news slants with the left opposition in Israel. Channel 2 and 10, the government owned outlets, also engage in broadcasting opinion as news; especially with it comes to the Netanyahu government. The media is unstinting about uncovering whiffs of corruption such as the alleged lavish spending on cleaning at the PM’s official and other residences following a report by the Auditor General.

The lone exception is Israel Hayom (IH), a virtually free newspaper widely distributed  and funded in large measure by American billionaire Sheldon Adelson.  IH is the newspaper of record of the center right in Israel, Likud and Habayit Hayehudi (The Jewish Home) headed by  Naftali Bennett, a former IDF Special Forces commando and high tech centi-millionaire. Bennett had a center left counterpart headed by former Israeli TV news reader, Yair Lapid, whose Yesh Atid party levered the grumblings of what passed for the Israeli version of the Occupy Movement.  That movement sought to obtain increases in government social programs and housing allotments.  Some might argue forgiveness for over draft checking account bank balances that many Israel families use to keep body and soul together. Both Bennett and Lapid held ministerial posts in the Netanyahu cabinet until a blow up with Netanyahu resulted in Lapid and Livni, the former Justice Minister, being fired.

The owner of YAArnon Mozes, sought last weekend to destroy Netanyahu’s center right alliance with a report last Friday that the Prime Minister had sanctioned a 2013 peace proposal created by the US to provide concessions including dividing Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem.  It is alleged his objective was to divide the center right, defeating another term for Netanyahu and scoring a tie vote resulting in a unity government. Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin had suggested that as a possibility. A majority of Israelis (53%) polled about that prospect rejected it.  Mozes’ manipulation of the truth led to rejection by Likud and Netanyahu and ultimately by US Ambassador Dennis Ross and a PA negotiator as a total fabrication.  Ross was cited by IH saying, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “never agreed to Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders, dividing Jerusalem or the right of return.”

That didn’t stop the editors at Bloomberg from published a  column by Dr. Daniel Gordis, an American ordained Conservative rabbi, who made aliyah  to Israel with his family in 1998.  Next to CNN in the US, Bloomberg has a pronounced bias in favor of the Administration in Washington that would dearly welcome a possible defeat for Likud and Netanyahu.  Gordis had been the founding dean of the Zeigler School of Theology at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.  He is widely published, an author whose books have won Jewish National Book awards. His columns and articles have been featured in publications like the New York Times and Commentary in the US andAzure Quarterly in Israel.  He serves as Senior Vice President and  Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem.  He writes a regular column — “A Dose of Nuance” — for the Jerusalem Post.  When Operation Defensive Edge broke out last summer in the third rocket war by Hamas, Bloomberg approached him to write a “View Column” seeking to explain Israel and its conflicts to an international audience.  Many follow his columns on the quotidian experiences of his family and children in their absorption into Israeli society. As his children entered mandatory IDF service, we got impressions of the families concerns for their safety and evidence of their resourcefulness in coping. His most recent and well regard book is Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul.

That was yesterday.

The most recent Bloomberg View Column by Gordis was entitled “Netanyahu Campaign Hit by Perfect Storm”.  Gordis portrays Netanyahu as caught up in a web of vitriol by the media and opposition taking shots at the Prime Minister, as well as shooting himself in the foot. Gordis begins with former Mossad emuneh (the “boss”) Meir Dagan  speaking at the monster rally  in Tel Aviv raising the ire of the leftist anti-Netanyahu throng saying, “ Israel is in the worst crisis since its creation”.  Dagan, as you may recall indicated that Iran was incapable of producing a nuclear weapon.  As Israel’s intelligence chief, Dagan also missed the eruption of the Arab Spring and rise of Salafist Supremacist groups like ISIS surrounding Israel. The New Statesman cited him in 2012 with this mea culpa statement:

We didn’t anticipate the timing and we didn’t anticipate the magnitude, but we did think there were severe structural problems. It is important to say that, in terms of the intelligence agencies, their principal focus is not the people but what the governments think. If the governments are surprised, we too are going to be surprised.

Gordis then serves up a Likud TV ad with  depiction of a mobile phone executive, a lazy port worker and a Hamas terrorist, calling it “stupid and offensive”. He cites a YA article published Monday with a response  from a Likud candidate, an Airport Authority director, saying that workers told him they wouldn’t vote for Bibi because the ad  showed them consorting with terrorists. Defense Minister Ya’alon provided thin cover alleging  that the PM didn’t know the content, despite  Netanyahu being filmed reading the lines.  The coup de grace is the now defamed YA fraudulent report about Bibi’s alleged acquiescence to dividing Jerusalem. Gordis then goes after Netanyahu:

On Sunday night, apparently seeking to prove that Netanyahu has not softened, the Likud announced that the prime minister no longer supports the two-state solution. Hours later, Netanyahu denied he ever said that. The Likud is desperate, struggling to keep the ship afloat in a storm that keeps growing stronger.

It has been a steep and precipitous fall since those glory moments on the podium before the U.S. Congress. Netanyahu is clearly in trouble. The two major questions that will determine the outcome of next week’s election are what number of Likud voters will actually abandon the right-wing camp, and whether fear of Tzipi Livni as prime minister will prevent many people from voting Labor (now the Zionist Union).

Gordis returning to Israeli President Rivlin’s unity-government suggestion concludes:

For Netanyahu, the specter of a unity government is painfully ironic. It was a unity government in 1967, just before the Six Day War, that [brought] Menachem Begin (Likud’s founder) into the government. If Israelis end up with a unity government in the next few weeks, the looming question will be whether these elections were a slight bump in Likud’s enduring run, or whether they signal the gradual return to power of Labor, which — beginning in January 1949 — ruled this country uninterrupted for 29 years.

The editors at Bloomberg View didn’t check the breaking news on the YA yellow journalism about the defamed 2013 report on Netanyahu’s alleged agreement to return to the 1967 lines, meaning the 1949 Armistice Line. Why bother when Gordis provided ample ammunition to damage his reputation misleading Bloomberg readers with his lack of fact checking and biases. Now, we await the results in next Tuesday’s Israeli elections.  Whatever those results are will set the stage for negotiations by the leading party selected by Israel’s President to form a ruling coalition for the 33rd Government of Israel. But never before in the Jewish nation’s history has there so many foreign interests opposing the current government led by PM Netanyahu. That is the most troubling aspect of these elections.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

President Obama — Please explain how you will prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East?

President Obama, please explain to me how you will prevent a nuclear arms race among the various Muslim countries in the Middle East and elsewhere as your nuclear agreement with Iran will surely cause it?

Hopefully you and your close advisers understand that Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East including Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are already preparing their own nuclear programs as depicted in the below graphic. What do you think will happen if Iran has a “clear path to the bomb”?

TTH1747G1CC

For a larger view click on the image.

A “Good Deal” Needs to Bolt the Door on the Iranians Getting a Nuclear Weapon – Ronen Bergman interviews Gen. David Petraeus (Ynet News)

  • “To accept that Iran’s nuclear ambitions over the years have been exclusively peaceful would require a willing suspension of disbelief….The International Atomic Energy Agency has extensively documented the so-called ‘possible military dimensions’ of the Iranian program, which clearly indicate that – at least until a few years ago – the Iranians were conducting activities whose only rational explanation is that they wanted a nuclear weapons capability.”
  • “History suggests, however, that countries that get to that [nuclear] threshold do not stay there. And regardless, based on everything we know and see about the Iranian government, we cannot allow them to be on the brink of having a nuclear weapon.”
  • “To my mind, a ‘good deal’ needs to bolt the door on the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. In this respect, certainly large swaths of the program need to be dismantled or at least altered. I don’t know that this requires an end to enrichment, but certainly it would seem to me that there need to be substantial limitations on how much enriched material Iran can possess and the percentage to which they can enrich, as well as restrictions on the research, development, and deployment of new, more sophisticated models of centrifuges.”
  • “An extremely robust inspections program is also necessary – going beyond the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, the inspections regime is, in my mind, the most critical component of a deal.”Gen. (ret.) David Petraeus served as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, and head of the CIA.

Why Did Ayatollah Khamenei Come to the Table? – Ben Cohen interviews Michael Ledeen

Ladeen: It’s conventional wisdom that Iran came to the negotiating table because of sanctions. I’m not sure that’s correct. It may well be that Iran came to the negotiating table because President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif convinced the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, that if they went to the table, they would get everything they wanted from President Obama. Because, they said, America’s will has been broken, and the Americans are prepared to make endless concessions just to keep talking.

I’m not convinced that there’s going to be a deal with Iran. Khamenei doesn’t want to deal with U.S., he wants to destroy us. He says that every week – sometimes every day. So why should he make a deal when he’s getting everything from us now without a deal?

You have the moderate Arab countries who are, all of a sudden, talking to Israel, working out joint plans and contingencies with Israel. What can they do? If Iran is going nuclear – and there’s not a leader in the Middle East who doesn’t believe that Iran is going nuclear – then they have to defend themselves. And if America isn’t available, who is?

Dr. Michael Ledeen, a former consultant to the U.S. National Security Council, Department of State, and Department of Defense, is a Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (Fathom-BICOM)

Gas Pains During Israel’s Election

Polls in Israel are notoriously biased by the polling organizations. Probably worse than in the US. As Mike Bates, my colleague at 1330am WEBY’in Florida, said, during a recent Voice of Israel  National Security segment, “you only get the response your are seeking by asking biased questions”. That may explain a lot about why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got only a modest bounce overall in Israeli polls following his compelling address before a Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd.  Some polls had results that favored Netanyahu’s speech and views about the overarching threats to Israel’s security on Israel’s Golan frontier and a looming nuclear one from apocalyptic Shia Mahdist regime in Iran.

What is perplexing is why the opposition in Israel during the last 10 days of the upcoming March 17th Knesset elections is pounding home the line of “anyone but Bibi”. The so-called Zionist Union with former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni of Hatnua and Labor Party leader, Yitzhak Herzog, aka Tzipi and Bluji, were reaching out to the Unified Arab list to form a working coalition so that they might be selected to form a  government.  Perhaps they were seeking to be included in a rotating government should a draw occur with the Likud party list headed by PM Netanyahu.  The Zionist Union appears to follow the line set by the Obama White House that Netanyahu has torn the fabric of the long enduring relations between the US and Israel. They further contend that he has  thrown  over a possible peace deal with the corrupt Palestinian Authority in an uneasy alliance with terror group Hamas. A peace deal virtually dividing Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice line.  What legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban called the “Auschwitz Line”.  There are even leftist extremists among the supporters of the  Zionist Union party list who favor replacing the Jewish nation’s anthem, “Hatikvah – the Hope”, because they consider it ‘racist”.

It would appear that Netanyahu will need all on the luck of the loyal Yiddish sons of Ireland on St. Patrick’s Day to win, let along form the next ruling coalition in the new Knesset.

There is a more troubling aspect of the 2015 Knesset election. It is  the debacle over a major impetus to the spectacular growth of Israel, exploitation of its significant offshore gas fields. The prospect has been been hamstrung by the December 2014 ruling of the country’s independent Israel Antitrust Authority (IAA) headed by former Tel Aviv University law professor, Dr. David Gilo.  That ruling, as we have written, accused the partnership of Houston, Texas-based Noble Energy, Inc., Israel’s Delek Drilling Partners and Ratio Oil of being a cartel. It  requested  that  the partners sign a consent decree forcing them to  sell the existing Tamar offshore gas field virtually stopping  development of the Leviathan field in Israel’s Exclusive Economic Zone.  This after $6 billion was spent to develop the off shore gas fields, denying the realization of an estimated $65 billion in future royalty values to Israel.  Gilo revealed that he was an ally  of  the opposition Zionist Union slate when he virtually kicked the can down the road until after the March 17th election. One wonders if he would cancel his consent decree calling the  Noble Energy – Delek partnerships a cartel if a new government was led by the opposition Zionist Union?  He is intent on fixing the price of gas by placing a cap on it.  The Netanyahu  National Economic Council,  Infrastructure and Energy Ministries produced a convoluted proposed solution to the IAA cartel consent decree.  Dr. Gilo and the governmen authors of the failed alternative proposal are reportedto be  off on a junket to The Netherlands to see how they regulate their on-shore and offshore North Sea gas fields.

All of this comes on the cusp of the March 17th election. There has been some good-bad news about the idiocy of the IAA recommendations.  Professor Norman Bailey of Haifa University, a former Reagan National Security official, lambasted the IAA cartel  consent decree stopping  Israel’s gas development in a March 5, 2014 Globes Israel Business article,  “Antitrust commissioner spoiling the picture”:

On the other side of the ledger, however, is the ongoing crisis of offshore gas development, triggered by the December decision by David Gilo, director of the Antitrust Authority, to renege on his agreement of the previous March with the developers, Noble Energy of the US and the Israeli Delek and Ratio groups, demanding that they relinquish control of either the Tamar or the Leviathan gas fields.

As a result of that reversal, development of the Leviathan field has ceased, Jordan and Egypt are looking for alternative sources of gas, such as Cyprus’ Aphrodite field, and Edison of Italy has withdrawn from consideration of a bid on the development of the smaller Karish and Tanin fields. A committee set up by the government proposed a compromise settlement so complex and unworkable that it was immediately rejected by all sides and withdrawn.

Now the Ministry of Energy has reported that in 2014, the first full year of production from the Tanin field, the government earned 744 million shekels in royalties, expected to rise to 820 billion this year “…and climb to 3.2-3/4 billion by 2019, PROVIDED THAT PLANS FOR EXPANDING THE …GAS RESERVOIRS ARE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT ANY DELAY CAUSED BY THE RECENT EVENTS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR.” (emphasis mine) It goes on to say “The contribution of natural gas to the Israeli economy is extremely significant”.

The Globes headline said it all about the current dilemma, “David Gilo’s zigzag on Noble Energy and Delek’s gas holdings is an economic and political wrecking move.”  Those royalties from the Tanin  gas field, Globes reported were up by more than 40% over earlier estimates. Our colleague Shoshana Bryen  of The Jewish Policy in Washington, DC told us that Professor Bailey will have more to say on Israel’s gas pains in the next quarterly journal  of the JPC’s inFocus.  Her comment on the current situation was  that if Israel’s  offshore gas development is not speedily resolved it could delay develpment by more than three decades.

Criticism  of Gilo and the IAA’s consent decree on off shore gas regulation also came from Shraga Brosh, of the National Manufacturers Association, in a  March 1, 2015Globes article:

An examination by the Manufacturers Association Research Department of the macroeconomic effects of a delay in development of the Leviathan reservoir found that already in 2018-2019, the economy will lose NIS 15.5 billion from a delay in development of the reservoir. 57% of the loss will consist of lost state tax revenues and royalties. The remaining 43% will result from extra energy costs  paid by the economy.”

Brosh added, “The government decided to combat bureaucracy and excess regulation only a few months ago, but by 2018, the current regulators will probably no longer be in their positions, while we, the citizenry, will be left to pay the prices of their irresponsibility.”

We had earlier noted that the royalties from revenues produced  by Israel’s off shore gas fields would finance a Sovereign Wealth Fund for invest both domestically and abroad. Moreover, tax revenues produced from the gas fields revenues could materially offset the current defense expenditures that claim over 17% of Israel’s budget.  There may even be funds made available to take care of social programs and housing issues behind opposition complaints.  But Gilo, Tzipi and Bluji appear indifferent to that largess  for Israel  arising from the offshore gas developments.

MIT- educated PM Netanyahu has assiduously navigated the shoals of conflicting Knesset coalition partners to foster a more open economy than the one  the country’s Labor Socialist founders created. We should recall that during the Second Yishuv pre-state period, leading sectors of  Israel’s economy, were created by the Histadrut Labor Federation, including the country’s health program, construction, Israel Electric Corporation, the Dead Sea Works and Israel Chemicals Limited. One example is Koor Industries.  Koor was  a conglomerate of consumer retail, electronics, fertilizer, pesticides  and even bio tech enterprises that  has been partially broken up through privatization.

Israel has talented world ranked economists and well respected entrepreneurs. This is  reflected in billions of investments in high tech sector start ups and direct investments by firms like Intel, Microsoft and recently Chinese firms.  Israel’s current gas pains arise from the IAA director general’s misshapen economic views which may be the last gasp of the Socialist Labor origins of the country’s economy. Instead of Dr. Gilo running junkets to Holland, he might best read  Austrian  émigré Friedrich Von Hayek’s, The Road to Serfdom. As The Economist wrote in 2014 about the debates between Von Hayek of the London School and Lord Keynes at Cambridge University:

[von Hayek] “argued that the extension of central planning is the start of the growth of constraints on individual liberty, which inevitably leads to the emergence of tyrannical regimes, both communist and fascist in nature.”

Let us hope that the Israeli polity will see the wisdom in returning Netanyahu as Prime Minister following the March 17th Knesset elections.  Perhaps, one of his first orders of business following formation of a new government might be to eliminate Israel’s gas pains so that the Jewish nation has a robust economic future to complement its national security and social program needs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of the Tamar gas field in Mediterranean Sea. Photo: Albatross Aerial Photography.

Revealed: Obama carefully orchestrated lie about al-Qaida demise to win re-eelction

Former New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani started a firestorm with his assessment that President Barack Obama does not love America. The liberal progressive media came down on him and the guilt by association trick was launched. Even a 12-year-old Georgia fella named CJ Pearson came to the defense of America’s mayor – and was smacked down by Facebook. And during a Fox and Friends Sunday interview with Tucker Carlson I was asked the same question. I gave a simple response — you don’t lie to someone you love. And from the lips of this president, sadly, there have been many instances of such.

And here’s yet another example as reported by Fox News via the Wall Street Journal: “On May 2, 2011, a small team of American military and intelligence professionals landed inside the high white walls of a mysterious compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The team’s mission, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, had two primary objectives: capture or kill Osama bin Laden and gather as much intelligence as possible about the al-Qaida leader and his network. A bullet to bin Laden’s head accomplished the first; the quick work of the Sensitive Site Exploitation team accomplished the second.”

“It was quite a haul: 10 hard drives, nearly 100 thumb drives and a dozen cellphones. There were DVDs, audio and video tapes, data cards, reams of handwritten materials, newspapers and magazines. At a Pentagon briefing days after the raid, a senior military intelligence official described it as “the single largest collection of senior terrorist materials ever. The United States had gotten its hands on al-Qaida’s playbook—its recent history, its current operations, its future plans.”

Now, you’d think that with this “treasure trove” of actionable intelligence data, the United States under the Obama administration would have embarked on a series of strike operations to bring the bin Laden terrorist network to its knees. It would be a time when we could rally behind the young community organizer from Chicago, and maybe he’d find the courage to go on offense against the Islamic jihadist enemy that brought the most horrific attack against the United States. Yes, you would have thought…

What happened is completely the opposite, and is now being fully revealed.

“Nothing was done. The analysis of the materials—the “document exploitation,” in the parlance of intelligence professionals—came to an abrupt stop. According to five senior U.S. intelligence officials, the documents sat largely untouched for months—perhaps as long as a year. In spring 2012, a year after the raid that killed bin Laden and six months before the 2012 presidential election, the Obama administration launched a concerted campaign to persuade the American people that the long war with al-Qaida was ending. In a speech commemorating the anniversary of the raid, John Brennan , Mr. Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser and later his CIA director, predicted the imminent demise of al-Qaida. The next day, on May 1, 2012, Mr. Obama made a bold claim: “The goal that I set—to defeat al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild—is now within our reach.”

And that was as close as we ever got — within reach. The sad reality was that politics was more important to the Obama administration than destroying the enemy. What happened was yet another deception — a great deception indeed.

“The White House provided 17 handpicked documents to the Combatting Terror Center at the West Point military academy, where a team of analysts reached the conclusion the Obama administration wanted. Bin Laden, they found, had been isolated and relatively powerless, a sad and lonely man sitting atop a crumbling terror network. It was a reassuring portrayal. It was also wrong. And those responsible for winning the war—as opposed to an election—couldn’t afford to engage in such dangerous self-delusion.”

The American people were told in 2012 that Osama bin Laden was dead. We were told al-Qaida was on the run and decimated. We were led to believe that Islamic terrorism had been defeated. I think we can all come to a consensus at this point in time that we were lied to — unless the intoxicants in the kool-aid are still active.

ISIS is not a jayvee team. Al-Qaida in Iraq has resurrected itself, is reconstituted, and is now being engaged by an Iraqi Army backed by Iran. Please, do not just take my words to heart, but hear what the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, LTG Michael Flynn has to say: “The leadership down at Central Command wanted to know what were we learning from these documents,” says the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the transcript of an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier for a coming Fox News Reporting special.”

“We were still facing a growing al Qaeda threat. And it was not just Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq. But we saw it growing in Yemen. We clearly saw it growing still in East Africa.” The threat “wasn’t going away,” he adds, “and we wanted to know: What can we learn from these documents?”

Here is the truth. As President Obama was campaigning on the imminent death of al-Qaida, those with access to the bin Laden documents were seeing, in Bin Laden’s own words, that the opposite was true. Says Lt. Gen. Flynn: “By that time, they probably had grown by about—I’d say close to doubling by that time. And we knew that.” Sadly, the American people did not know that.

What was true was this: “Lt. Gen. Flynn says bin Laden was giving direction to “members of the wider al-Qaida leadership team, if you will, that went all the way to places like West Africa where we see a problem today with Boko Haram and [al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb], all the way back into the things that were going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Bin Laden advised them on everything from specific operations in Europe to the types of crops his minions should plant in East Africa.”

Osama bin Laden was killed back in May 2011, going on four years and 1.5 million documents were captured during Operation Neptune Spear. To this day, only two dozen have been revealed to the public. Sure, if there is still actionable intel data, it should be kept classified, but I tend to believe that window of opportunity has long since closed.

“Mr. Harvey, the senior DIA official, believes that the documents should be declassified and released to the public as soon as possible, after taking precautions to avoid compromising sources or methods. Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, inserted language in the 2014 intelligence authorization bill requiring just that.”

The Wall Street Journal writes, “one letter, dated July 2010, the brother of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s current prime minister, sought to strike a peace deal with the jihadists. The letter also shows that Pakistani intelligence was willing to negotiate with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s network in Iran is also described in bin Laden’s letters. The Iranian regime held some senior al-Qaida leaders, eventually releasing them. One letter recounts a plan, devised by Yunis al Mauritani, one of bin Laden’s senior lieutenants, to relocate to Iran. Once there, Mauritani would dispatch terrorists to take part in operations around the world.”

This has been a very revealing week for America. We now know that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her private email from a private server in her personal home to conduct official diplomatic business for four years.

We now know President Obama has obstructed access to the Bin Laden raid materials by intelligence professionals in order to manipulate the political dialogue and messaging.

Now we are facing a potential non-transparent negotiation with a nuclear Iran.

We have little knowledge about why four Americans were abandoned to die in Benghazi.

We ask ourselves, how and why was ISIS allowed to grow and fester like a malignant cancer right under our nose?

These are troubling times in the Republic — but what is more troubling, who will stand up to this absolute lawless tyranny and deception?

From Russia with Love: A Nuclear Suppository for Obama

The ballistic missile with Obama’s name on it, paraded in the streets of Moscow last Monday, was only an imitation – but the sentiment was genuine.

Looking like a gigantic allegorical suppository for the American president, the green twelve-foot rocket emblazoned with the hammer and sickle over a red star brought up Cold War memories of real intercontinental missiles the Soviet government would parade in Red Square as a vague threat to its enemies. There was no vagueness this time: in large print letters, the message on the rocket said, “To be delivered to Obama in person.”

Russian missile for Obama from Rashkin

The occasion was the Day of the Defenders of the Motherland – a big annual celebration of the creation of the Red Army in 1918 by Leon Trotsky. To be sure, Trotsky’s name had not been attached to this holiday ever since his removal from power and assassination by Stalin. Additionally, the country has since changed its name, borders, ideology, the system of government, and renamed the very holiday in question.

Still, the holiday spirit runs strong, along with patriotic rallies, propaganda posters, and nationally televised bombastic military-themed concerts puffed up by a full roster of Kremlin-approved celebrities.

It’s also dubbed Men’s Day, as all Russian men and boys receive greetings and gifts from women and girls – a rather manipulative hetero-normative reminder that all male citizens belong in the army.

unnamed (18)In a way, this mirrors Women’s Day on March 8th – another originally communist holiday that comes twelve days later, when women and girls receive greetings and gifts from men and boys, as men volunteer to help around the house and do women’s work in the kitchen – which may also be seen as a hetero-normative reminder of a woman’s place on all other days of the year.

This year Ukraine officially canceled the celebration of Russia’s military holiday, belatedly joining other ex-Soviet republics that had suffered the wrath of the Red Army. In contrast, Vladimir Putin’s government has boosted the celebration even further, making February 23rd an official day off and using it to crank up the already excessive Russian patriotism.

With full support of the government-controlled media, national chauvinism is now spilling over the state borders, as gangs of armed “patriots” flock to eastern Ukraine, eager to show the uppity ukrops their place in Pax Russiana. Jingoism dominates Russia’s online forums and social media, as well as the streets and city squares, with rallies that support Putin, military adventurism, and Pax Russiana, while at the same time trashing everything non-Russian, especially America and Gayrope (a new Russian slur deriving from “gay” + “Europe.”) The stunt with the Obama-targeted missile is merely a small piece in the world’s largest jigsaw puzzle called Russia.

According to the Levada Center, a Moscow-based independent polling organization, America is seen negatively today by 74% of the Russian population (60% also have a negative view of Europe), and 69% believe the United States is a hostile nation. At the same time, after the break-up of the USSR in the early 1990s, only 10% of Russians viewed the U.S. negatively. What happened?

The Levada Center has registered four waves of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in Russia – in 1999 (the war in Serbia), in 2003 (the war in Iraq), in 2008 (the war in Georgia), and in 2014 (the war in Ukraine), with today’s wave being the strongest in the last 20 years. Sociologists also believe that Russia’s public opinion is shaped largely by the government-run media, with more than one half of the respondents admitting they couldn’t form opinions independently.

Russian most popular politicians

It would be fair to say that every such wave of anti-Americanism in Russia (and to some extent around the world) has been orchestrated and paid for by the Kremlin’s powerful propaganda machine, which deploys two parallel narratives – one for the foreigners and one for domestic use. The domestic narrative is always a variation of the same formula: “Once again, the Motherland is under attack from American imperialism. The West has always hated Russia. Out of sheer hatred they want to humiliate us and push Russia out of its traditional spheres of influence. To survive, our nation must unite around a strong leader and his party.” The leader is, of course, Vladimir Putin; the party is United Russia.

During the first wave of post-Soviet xenophobia and anti-Americanism in December of 1999, Putin conveniently upgraded his position from Russian prime minister to Russian president. It is hardly a coincidence that now, during the fourth and strongest anti-American wave, Putin’s approval rating has risen to an astronomical 86%. The survey was taken on February 23rd, the same day the Russia-to-Obama rocket was spotted in the streets of Moscow.

Russian missile for Obama from Rashkin

A sign at a pro-Putin rally in Moscow showing America and Europe as two rats biting at Ukraine, and Russia as a cute red squirrel. The caption says, “Time for rodent control?”

This only means that about the same number of Russians also share a paranoid obsession with Ukraine, honestly believing that Vladimir Putin is fighting an epic and noble battle against the American aggression launched by the CIA through its Ukrainian proxies.

A similar narrative existed during Russia’s invasion into Georgia in 2008, when the Russian media referred to the Georgian president Saakashvili as America’s puppet.

In the days of the Maidan protests in Kiev last year, a number of protesters had been taken away and beaten by national security, which at the time was largely run by Russia’s FSB. Between the beatings, the interrogators demanded a “volunteer confession” that the protests had been organized by American agents and paid for in dollars. No such “confessions” had been obtained.

From the start of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, the Russian media cooperated with the Russian intelligence in trying to find evidence of American presence in the war zone. All they have found was a broken foreign-made rifle, a damaged Hummer vehicle, and a two-second video footage of a British anti-land-mine activist in Mariupol, whom the Russian media described as an American cutthroat mercenary.

In the absence of facts, fakes will do. The government media, with the assistance of an army of paid online activists have launched a slew of rumors, conspiracy theories, and internet fakes – for example, presenting footage from Iraq as coming from Ukraine, or publishing wild-eyed “eyewitness accounts,” the latest of which included an apocalyptic story of drunken American Negroes dancing on top of Ukrainian tanks while pointing guns at terrified civilians. A separatist warlord once posted a “humorous” story online about how one dark night he saw an “American Negro” jumping out of a burning Ukrainian tank and immediately taking off his clothes, hoping that his black skin would help him to blend with the night.

Barack Obama receives a similar race-baiting treatment, with many online cartoons and posters mocking his race and portraying him as a monkey. On Obama’s birthday last year some “patriotic” Muscovites unveiled a large street banner picturing the U.S. President as “three wise monkeys.” Later that evening, the wall of the U.S. embassy in Moscow became a screen for a crude animated laser show picturing Obama eating a banana.

anti-Obama sign in Moscow

In this context, a missile for Obama in the middle of a patriotic rally hardly raised any eyebrows. A bigger problem is the fact that this agitprop rocket was conceived and signed by a Valery Rashkin (pronounced as “Rushkin”), a notoriously belligerent member of the Russian parliament and the leader of the Moscow branch of the Communist Party. The picture shows him proudly pumping his fist in front of his art project. Putin’s policies to restore the USSR obviously make this communist leader a happy camper.

A week earlier Rashkin fell under a new round of EU sanctions for promoting war in Ukraine, along with nineteen individuals and nine organizations whose assets held in EU countries have now been frozen, accompanied by an EU-wide travel ban. In total, Brussels has already sanctioned 151 individuals and 37 companies in Russia and eastern Ukraine.

Russian missile for Obama from RashkinThe new blacklist caused an overwrought reaction in the Duma, which quickly became the subject of ridicule in social media. The indignant head of the education commission Nikonov (United Russia) took the floor to defend his communist colleague by saying, “If they (in Europe) are all Charlie, then we are all… Rashkin!”

The following day, the Russian-speaking Internet was filled with “Je suis Rashkin” Internet memes, Tweets, and spoofs.

Rashkin himself responded to the sanctions by saying that in WWII his father entered Berlin without any sanctions and he was hoping that history would sort it out like it did in 1945. Standing next to his rocket, the leader of Moscow communists explained his stunt as follows: “Someone today is conspiring against my Motherland. I am the son of my father, I wanted to send a present. This present doesn’t abide by any sanctions either. It will fly wherever the Motherland wishes it to fly.”

A crowd of communists, several thousand strong, carried red flags, portraits of Soviet leaders, and the Obama-designated rocket through Moscow streets to Revolution Square, where they held a planned rally with Rashkin as a speaker. “The United States is causing destruction, violence, and bloodshed all over the world. We must stop these rapists and murderers, we must fight to defend the sovereignty of our great nation,” said the member of the Russian parliament and head of the commission on ethnic policies.

The next speaker was Gennady Zyuganov, head of Russia’s Communist Party, claiming that the West doesn’t want Russia to be strong and powerful and that they only “need our resources, our talent, and our land. That is why they have imposed their sanctions and continue to choke us any way they can. That is why they have unleashed the bloody war in Ukraine, directed by the CIA, unscrupulous diplomats, outright Nazis, Banderites, and corrupt oligarchs.”

Leader of Russia’s communists Gennady Zyuganov is not only a long-serving member of the Russian parliament (since 1993), but he is also a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (since 1996). Additionally, in 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012 he was a candidate in Russian presidential elections and came in second every time. Zyuganov and Rashkin exemplify the pre-approved pool of candidates in Putin’s Russia circa 2015.

Rashkin - Red Army hat

To be fair, the Kremlin’s political technologists are hard at work trying to misrepresent the reality of Russia’s pool of candidates by manufacturing and promoting political opposition which it can control, while marginalizing the independents. As a result, the only “viable” opposition leaders in Russia are the Soviet-style communist Zyuganov (4% of the vote) and the psychotic nationalist Zhirinovsky (5% of the vote). Both are grotesque scarecrows; compared to them Putin looks like a knight in shining armor to most Russians and appears a lesser of two evils in the eyes of the West.

After the fall of the USSR Russia had a real chance to develop a civil society, modernize its economy, and join the family of Western nations as an equal. Instead, as many independent Russian analysts believe, Vladimir Putin has squandered that chance, choosing to control the population by cultivating fear and hostility towards the outside world as a means to shift the blame for Russia’s continued problems and to divert attention from his and his circle’s abuse of power.

Russian most popular politicians

If a president’s goal is to become a national hero but he can’t do it by improving his country, Plan B is to create the appearance of heroics by means of media manipulations and byzantine political technologies. The latter worked for Putin: according to a survey conducted early February by Public Opinion Foundation, 72% of Russians would have voted for Putin today, with only 5% distrusting their president. The annexation of the Crimea only added to his popularity. Analysts believe the current crisis may actually be a boon for Putin, as the average Russian is likely thinking, “If he could pull off getting us the Crimea, he’ll find a way out of this crisis as well.”

On the international arena, Plan B means dragging the rest of the world down to his level by sabotaging other economies and stirring political turmoil abroad, making Russia look stable and prosperous in comparison.

Russian Aryan mythologyBy choosing Plan B, Putin has pushed the Russian society thousands of years back, into the age of mythology with its hierarchy of gods, heroes, and monsters. In compliance with the state-approved zeitgeist, Russia’s cultural elites are filling the post-communist void in their souls with ancient Slavic mythology and “Aryan” pseudoscience, submerging into the depths of imaginary history, resurrecting forgotten words, notions, and meanings, and defining Russia as the Third Rome.

In other words, they are doing pretty much everything the cultural elites in Hitler’s Germany did when they tried to resurrect the pre-Christian Aryan mythology and lifestyle, defining themselves as the Third Empire, better known to us as the Third Reich.

The parallels in cultural attitudes are striking – and yet, in the mythological hierarchy of today’s “Third Rome,” the Third Reich was populated by monsters. According to the same mythology, the monsters have now reappeared in Ukraine, and Pax Russiana is once again standing up to the noble task of stomping them out. As a bonus, this view allows the participants to re-enact the mythologized heroics of the Great Patriotic War, better known to us as WWII. The circus pleases the plebs, and lowering vodka prices also helps.

A decade of mind-boggling oil revenues may have made Putin look like an invincible superhero, but easy petrodollars have also bloated his ego and made him detached from reality. The rest of the nation simply jumped on the presidential bandwagon. Now that the oil prices have dropped by half, Russia is back to square one: a poor and paranoid outcast, with crumbling currency, junk credit rating, and residual delusions of grandeur.

Superhero Putin is now asking his citizens to “sit tight for a couple of years, it’ll get better,” while his sidekick, prime minister Medvedev, threatens the world with a terrible “boom” and “ka-pow.” The sidekick’s sidekick, deputy prime minister Shuvalov, follows suit by declaring that for Putin’s sake Russians will be happy to eat less and live in the dark.

Quite fittingly, Putin has begun to exchange regular friendly messages with Kim Jong Un. North Korea’s dictator is expected to visit Moscow on May 9th to attend the Victory Day military parade in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War. Both must be looking forward to comparing notes on how to maintain a long and productive career as an international outcast. The Russian media is already producing stories claiming that life in North Korea is not as bad as Western imperialists would want us to believe. Whether Russia is ready for the Ten Principles of Juche remains to be seen, but latest opinion polls indicate that Russia’s positive view of the authoritarian China has grown as high as 77%.

According to a running joke among his critics, Putin has turned Russia into a Burkina Faso with nuclear rockets. And if you’re a member of the Russian parliament, you can even have a personal rocket, or at least a cargo-cult imitation thereof, or perhaps a rocket-shaped voodoo doll, on which you can write the name of your true enemy: Barack Obama.

Russian most popular politicians

EDITORS NOTE: This column was first published in FrontPage Magazine, now with added illustrations. The featured photo is courtesy of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation – KPRF.ru

Brookings Study of ISIS Twitter Accounts Reveals U.S. among Top Targets

A Brookings Institution examination of a complete data set of 20,000 ISIS Twitter accounts ranked Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and US as the top four locations of twitter users, The ISIS Twitter Census: Defining and Describing the population of ISIS supporters on Twitter. The authors of the ISIS Twitter census are J.M. Berger and Jonathan Morgan.  Berger “is a non-resident fellow with the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at Brookings and the author of Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam (Potomac Books, 2011) and ISIS: The State of Terror (Ecco, 2015).”  Morgan “is a technologist, data scientist, and startup veteran. He runs technology and product development at CrisisNET, Ushahidi’s streaming crisis data platform, and consults on machine learning and network analysis. Morgan is also co-host of Partially Derivative, a popular data science podcast.”  The Brookings ISIS Twitter project was “commissioned by Google Ideas and published by Brookings”.

The Brookings Saban Middle East Center think tank has had a close relationship with the Obama National Security Council. Use of social media by Islamic extremist groups like ISIS figured prominently in President Obama’s recent, Summit to Counter Violent Extremism. See our March 2015 NER article, ‘Did President Obama’s Violent Extremism Conference Fail?

Notwithstanding the provenance of the Brookings Twitter Census report, the data and methodology are credible and revealing of  how ISIS and supporters use social media.  The authors noted three classes of Twitter users as a precaution interpreting the study results:

Covert supporters of ISIS:

Users who took medium to strong steps to conceal their support due to fear of prosecution or suspension by Twitter. Users who took only casual steps to disguise their support were generally detectable.

Pro-ISIS intelligence operatives:

Some users who follow accounts related to the enemies of ISIS, such as rival jihadists, would be coded as non-supporters under the conservative criteria we employed.

Anti-ISIS intelligence operatives:

These are accounts created to appear as ISIS supporters in order to allow ISIS’s enemies to monitor its activities, which would be coded as supporters (if done effectively).

Brookings ISIS Twitter top locations_jpg SMALL

Locations of ISIS Twitter Accounts. Source: The ISIS Twitter Census, Brookings Institution, 2015.

 Here is the  Twitter Census Data Snapshot drawn from the Brookings study:

Best estimate of total number of overt ISIS supporter accounts on Twitter: 46,000

Maximum estimate of ISIS supporter accounts on Twitter: 90,000

Number of accounts analyzed for demographics information: 20,000

Estimated percentage of overt ISIS supporters in demographics data set: 93.2 percent (+/- 2.54 percent)

Period over which data was collected: October 4 through November 27, 2014, with some seed data collected in late September 2014

Top Locations of Accounts: “Islamic State,” Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, U.S.

Most common year accounts were created: 2014

Most common month accounts were created: September 2014

Number of accounts detected using bots and deceptive spam tactics: 6,216 using bot or spam technology for some tweets; 3,301 accounts were excluded from the Demographics Dataset for primarily sending bot or spam content

Average number of tweets per day per user: 7.3 over lifetime of account, 15.5 over last 200 tweets by user

Average number of tweets per user (Over lifetime of the Account): 2,219

Average number of followers: 1,004

Smartphone usage: 69 percent Android, 30 percent iPhone, 1 percent Blackberry

Among the principal findings from the Brookings Twitter Census were:

  • From September through December 2014, the authors estimate that at least 46,000 Twitter accounts were used by ISIS supporters, although not all of them were active at the same time.
  • Typical ISIS supporters were located within the organization’s territories in Syria and Iraq, as well as in regions contested by ISIS. Hundreds of ISIS-supporting accounts sent tweets with location metadata embedded.
  • Almost one in five ISIS supporters selected English as their primary language when using Twitter. Three quarters selected Arabic.
  • ISIS-supporting accounts had an average of about 1,000 followers each, considerably higher than an ordinary Twitter user. ISIS-supporting accounts were also considerably more active than non-supporting users.
  • A minimum of 1,000 ISIS-supporting accounts were suspended by Twitter between September and December 2014. Accounts that tweeted most often and had the most followers were most likely to be suspended.
  • Much of ISIS’s social media success can be attributed to a relatively small group of hyperactive users, numbering between 500 and 2,000 accounts, which tweet in concentrated bursts of high volume.

Based on their analysis, the authors concluded:

Recommend social media companies and the U.S government work together to devise appropriate responses to extremism on social media. Approaches to the problem of extremist use of social media, Berger and Morgan contend, are most likely to succeed when they are mainstreamed into wider dialogues among the broad range of community, private, and public stakeholders.

Our assessment is that given the close Brookings Middle East Center liaison with the Obama National Security Council and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Richard Stengel, the latter tasked with social media counter messaging,  that little follow will occur. That is reflected in Google sponsorship of this Brookings Twitter Census report and overarching concerns of social media like Facebook, Google YouTube, Twitter and  Instagram about maintaining Constitutional guarantees of free speech.  These social media would prefer to establish their own criteria for suspending terrorists and supporters accounts.  Monitoring and development of metadata from  ISIS Twitter supporters in the West, especially in the US and the UK, should be left to counter terrorism intelligence echelons or private groups like SITE Intelligence Group and effective individuals like our colleague Joseph Shahda. Congressional Homeland Security and Select Intelligence Committees should hold hearings and investigations into current terrorist social media surveillance, especially for those US ISIS accounts identified in the Brookings ISIS Twitter Census.  Shahda commented after reading:

The only way to stop the terrorists propaganda and recruitment is to keep shutting down all their means of communications which means all their social media (Facebook, Twitter) accounts as well as their websites.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with graphics originally appeared in the New English Review.

Islam and how it impacts us today [+Video]

Activate Worcester on WCCA TV is hosted by Ron Motta. Motta shows viewers how to participate and become active in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ron welcomes me back to Activate Worcester. Islam and how it impacts us today is up for discussion.

EDITORS NOTE: This movie is part of the collection: WCCA TV

Senator Tom Cotton’s Open Challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Obama on Nuclear Deal with Iran

Tall Lincolnesque Arkansas Junior Senator Tom Cotton did his constituents and all Americans proud.  His open letter to Iran’s Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei signed by 47 fellow Republican Senators was a ringing Constitutional declaration of Senate authority to review major international treaties. A rather remarkable achievement for the youngest US Senator  in the 114th Session of Congress following his electoral victory  on November 4, 2014  over incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor.  His letter put on notice the theocratic tyrant in Tehran that the US Senate had the right under Article II, Sec. 2 of our Constitution to advise and consent on treaties negotiated by the Executive branch of our government.  Moreover it put the Supreme notice that Congress has the right to vote on the lifting of any sanctions passed under existing legislation and signed into law by President Obama. Further, it basically informed Iran’s Supreme Ruler and its President that any bilateral agreement entered into by executive order by the President would be null and void upon his leaving office and the end of his second and final term.

Josh Rogin in his Bloomberg report captured the essence of this latest riposte to President Obama in the headline, “Republicans Warn Iran — and Obama — That Deal Won’t Last.”  He noted:

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal — — which is reportedly near done — especially if it is working reasonably well.

Cotton told Rogin:

Iran’s ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril.

Rogin went on to note an ironic precedent by Vice President Biden;

Vice President Joe Biden similarly insisted — in a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell — on congressional approval for the Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear weapons with Russia in 2002, when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He further noted that Cotton’s letter came against the backdrop of recent review legislation:

The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.

The relevant language of Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution reads:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:

Gives the Senate a share in foreign policy by requiring Senate consent, by a two-thirds vote, to any treaty before it may go into effect. The president may enter into “executive agreements” with other nations without the Senate’s consent, but if these involve more than minor matters they may prove controversial.

The emerging so-called phased P5+1 deal to forestall Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state is anything but “minor.”  The Islamic Republic’s possession of nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel, America and the World.  In the hands of an apocalyptic Mahdist Shiite Islamic Republic nuclear weapons would foment chaos.  The chaos these madmen are eager to trigger they bizarrely believe would bring  about the rise from his slumber their moribund Messiah, the 12th Imam, from the Holy Well in the Holy city of Qom, Iran.  Just recall the first action of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was to have his cabinet sign a letter to this effect that was deposited in that well in Qom.  Those possible Iranian nuclear weapons and the means of delivery could result in Islamic domination of the World and the possible destruction of both the reviled Great Satan (the U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel).

The reaction from Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif about the open letter to Iran’s leadership was:

In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.

The Democrats in the Senate were apoplectic.  Senate minority leader Harry Reid said, “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”  White House press Spokesman Josh Earnest said in reaction to the Republican Senate “open letter”:

Just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

President Obama said:

It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.

Sen. Cotton issued this statement following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address before a Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd:

I am happy to welcome a truly courageous leader to address the Congress today.  There is no one better equipped to discuss the danger posed by a nuclear Iran than Prime Minister Netanyahu. For decades, Iran has had as its expressed goal for Israel to be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’ and has been a lead financier and arms supplier of terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying Israel. If Iran is allowed to retain their nuclear program, the United States will find itself in a similar position.

The Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran have become an endless series of concessions. Any deal reached at the end of this month will inevitably empower our enemies and put our national security at risk. It is up to Congress to stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and restore the credible threat of force against Iran to permanently end their nuclear program.

We wrote this about Senator Cotton when he was elected on November 5, 2014:

Cotton, reading a profile of him by retired Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), had a career that resonated. He was a highly educated double Harvard graduate who voluntarily served as an Infantry officer in the US Army during the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict.  Wisse’s WSJ op-ed   was an unabashed endorsement, “Vote for Tom Cotton—and Redeem Harvard”.

[…]

Cotton is a sixth generation Arkansan from a cattle raising ranching family in the small community of Dardanelle, Arkansas. A graduate of both Harvard College and Law School, motivated by the events of 9/11, he rejected a JAG Commission. Instead, he volunteered   to go through OCS at Fort Benning and trained at both the Infantry and Ranger Schools.  Cotton served from 2005 to 2009. He had two tours, one in Iraq and a second in Afghanistan with the famed Screaming Eagles, the 101st Airborne, rising to the rank of Captain and received a Bronze Star for his combat actions. At 6’5″, he was selected as Platoon Leader at the Old Guard that provides the honor guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington Cemetery.

Perhaps the Senator Cotton’s open letter to Iran’s leadership was a forthright confirmation that the Republican leadership in the Congress heard PM Netanyahu’s message.  The letter represented a Constitutional challenge to the Administration asserting the Senate’s rights of review on any agreement that might be reached with Iran by March 31st that also called for lifting Congressional passed sanctions.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel, Jews, and the Obama Administration

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Arkansas Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton.

Obama Lied: Sent emails to Hillary at hrd22@clintonemail.com [+Video]

By Jim Hoft.

On Saturday night, President Obama told CBS’s Bill Plante that he first learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address “through news reports,” the implication being that he didn’t personally email with his Secretary of State . . .

At today’s White House briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama did in fact email with hrd22@clintonemail.com and had to be aware of Clinton’s private email account, making his Saturday night comments misleading at best.

Read more.

The question remains, what did President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discuss in those emails. Private emails and whether they meet government restrictions is a side note. This is an issue of a potential national security breech.

Katie Lapotin from the IJ Review reports here’s a quick look back at some other times the President has claimed innocence, as pointed out by both Bongino and former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson:

  1. Fast and Furious: When asked about the gun-running scandal that resulted in the death of border agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama told reporters on Oct. 11, 2011, “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.”
  2. NSA spying on foreign leaders: President Obama said he didn’t know his administration was spying on foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He told the press on Oct. 28, 2013 that, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.”
  3. The General David Petraeus sex scandal: Petraeus, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was forced to resign in Nov. 2012 after news surfaced that he was having an affair with his biographer. The White House repeatedly refused to answer questions about when the President was finally briefed about Petraeus’ situation.
  4. The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups: President Obama told the media in May 2013 that he first learned about the IRS’s improper targeting “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
  5. The Justice Department’s wiretapping of AP and Fox News reporters: When asked about the secret seizure of reporters’ phone records, Obama spokesperson Jay Carney told the media that the president “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”
  6. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs healthcare ‘waiting list’ scandal: The White House appeared to be in the dark about the waiting list scandal and cover-up related to medical care for the country’s military vets. Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that, “We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them.”
  7. The Unauthorized Air Force One photo-op: New York City residents were panicked when, in April 2009, Air Force One — sans President Obama — flew over the Statue of Liberty for a pre-scheduled photo-op. Obama’s response: “It was something that, uh, we found out about, uh, along with all of you.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Huma Abedin – Hillary Clinton’s Unindicted Email Co-Conspirator – Investors.com

7 Other Times President Obama Said He Found Out About World Events By Watching the News

Hillary Clinton scandal spreads as TEA Party group seeks private IRS emails

RELATED VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Complains about Bush administration secret email accounts in June 2007.

Film a death blow to vicious lies about the Vietnam War — ‘Believe it or not, we were the good guys’

ride the thunder book coverMany of the greatest lies of my time are those told about the Vietnam War. As a Vietnam veteran who served with the 101st Airborne Division during Tet of 1968, I recommend the book ‘Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph‘ by Richard Botkin. I also recommend every American see the film, based upon Botkin’s book, which tells the truth about those American and Vietnamese soldiers who fought and died.

Those with whom I served, men like Captain Ken Crabtree, Lieutenant Mike Watson, Lieutenant Jim Ritter and Captain Cleo Hogan, are still brothers-in-arms in an ‘honorable and just cause.’ There are two refrains you will often hear from Vietnam veterans. The first is “when I left Vietnam we were winning” and second is “welcome home brother” when one Vietnam veteran meets another. Both are telling as both are the truth and the unfortunate result of the many lies told about those who served in Vietnam. The greatest sadness, that stays with me even to this day, is that America, the greatest nation on this earth, abandoned our Vietnamese brothers and sisters in their greatest time of need.

I know that we won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people and won the ground war in South Vietnam. I also sadly understand that we lost the hearts and minds of the American people, because of anti-war activists such as John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Bill Ayers. We lost the war in the halls of Congress when our elected officials voted to break their promise of support to the people of South Vietnam and abandoned men like Lieutenant Colonel Le Ba Bihn in 1972.

That stark history lesson is playing out even today in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today America faces enemies who are as or more vicious than the Communists of North Vietnam. During the Vietnam War the threat doctrine of our greatest enemies was Communism. The threat doctrine of our greatest enemies today is Islam.

ltc le ba binh

Lt. Col. Le Ba Binh stands in Quang Tri prior to being wounded for the 9th time, 1972.

In his book, “Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph,” author Richard Botkin tells the amazing true story of the remarkable collaboration between U.S. Marine Capt. John Ripley and South Vietnamese Marine Maj. Le Ba Binh. In the process, he vigorously dispels the notion that the military situation in Vietnam was lost, even as American war correspondents and policy makers were surrendering to the winds of political and economic pressure.

“For men like Ripley and Binh, who fought long and hard only to have victory pulled from their grasps, ‘Ride the Thunder’ celebrates their heroism, their humanity, their story,” says Botkin.

Using his keen Marine insight and years of in-depth research, Botkin takes the reader back in time, deep into the heart of the jungle and into the midst of the American-Vietnamese struggle for liberty.

In the prime of their youth, the two noted warriors were inspired by their fathers to fight for their country’s freedom – one American, Capt. John Ripley, and the other South Vietnamese, Maj. Le Ba Binh. Their destinies would collide in Vietnam.

Watch the official trailer of ‘Ride the Thunder: A Vietnam War Story of Honor and Triumph‘:

RELATED ARTICLES:

In 1968, the Tet Offensive began in South Vietnam

VIDEO: The Truth About the Vietnam War — Are we seeing this happening today in Iraq?

Secretary of State Kerry views the Gaza Conflict through the prism of his Vietnam experience

“The Innocence of Hillary” by Daniel Greenfield [Video]

This article was written and video produced last year. But it seems like a good time to dust it off!

The Incomparable Daniel Greenfield lays out the case of “The Innocence of Hillary”. Hillary Clinton somehow manages to distance herself from any responsibility for the deaths of four Americans on her watch. An internet filmmaker is where the blame lies, not Islamic jihadists … or HER!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Senate Democrat urges Clinton to address private email controversy

Hillary Clinton Emails: A Timeline of What Rules Were Allegedly Ignored – ABC News

Hillary Email Scandal Evaporates As Democrat Reveals The Contents Of Clinton Emails

Rep. Issa: Clinton Could Face Criminal Charges

America’s Military Power in a Steep Decline

“Eliminating the terrorists of today with force will not guarantee protection from the terrorists of tomorrow. We have to transform the environments that give birth to these movements…It may be training young people so they can get jobs…it may be working to eliminate corruption and promote the rule of law…”

The Obama administration proposal that a jobs program be created for the militants in the Middle East was met with appropriate derision because what the jihadists need is killing. That’s what they are doing to Christians, Jews and others in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The quote above is by John Kerry, the Secretary of State, and to be fair, his February 18 Wall Street Journal commentary began by saying “The rise of violent extremism represents the pre-eminent challenge of the young 21st Century. Military force is a rational and often necessary response to the wanton slaughters of children, mass kidnappings of schoolgirls, and beheading of innocents. But military force along won’t achieve victory.”

Kerry is wrong. History as recent as the mid-20th century is proof enough that the military defeat of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan was the only thing that ended the threat they represented. He was also wrong when he told a congressional committee that the world is a safer place these days when it is clear to anyone it is not.

We are being led by people who live in some alternative universe where pixie dust and unicorns exist.

The real question the Obama administration has to answer is why, since he took office in 2009, has he been systematically reducing the military power of the United States? By pulling our troops out of Iraq he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State (ISIS) that now threatens the entire Middle East and parts of North Africa. He has since curtailed plans to pull most of our troops out of Afghanistan.

soldiers in dust stormOut of sight of Americans, however, the key personnel, the leaders on which our military depends, have been subject to a purge. General Paul Vallely (Ret) has warned that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented,” adding that “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

In late February, 84 former U.S. government officials, retired U.S. military leaders, and national security experts sent an open letter to the House and Senate leadership asking them to work together to end the harm that the Budget Control Act and sequestration is inflicting on our Armed Forces.

They deemed the trillion dollars of required defense spending cuts “a grave and growing danger to our national security…as threats intensify across the globe.” The cuts “are undermining the readiness of our forces today and investment in the critical capabilities they will need tomorrow.”

“In the last three years, the Army’s strength has been cut by nearly 100,000 soldiers. The Navy’s contingency response force is at one-third the level of what it should be. Less than half of the Air Force’s combat squadrons are fully ready. Approximately half of the Marine Corps non-deployed units lack sufficient personnel, equipment, and training.”

These were facts set forth in the National Defense Panel’s July 2014 report. It warned that if sequestration takes effect in fiscal year 2016, the U.S. would be facing an “immediate readiness crisis.”

putin 2This lack of readiness was the subject of a Wall Street Journal commentary, “Europe’s Defense Wanes as the Putin Threat Grows” by Ian Birrell, so it is not just the United States that lacks sufficient troops and weapons in the event of a war. Birrell noted that “With fewer than 100,000 full-time troops, Great Britain now has a smaller army than during the mid-19th-century Crimean War.” Other members of NATO have cut their defense budgets in recent years. He warned that “As we fight this new Cold War, Western leaders need to relearn the old lessons of crisis management and deterrence that defeated Mr. Putin’s Soviet predecessors—and relearn them quickly.”

Recall that Secretary Kerry has gone on record saying that “climate change” is the greatest threat the U.S. and the world faces. Little wonder that Chuck Hegel resigned as the former Secretary of Defense given the pressure he was under from a White House indifferent to the real problems and threats the U.S. faces.

In 2014 the Pentagon released a “Climate Change Adaptation Forecast” and any defense funds diverted to this plan were just that much less than needed for our troops in the field and the real needs of the U.S. military. Are they supposed to be fighting melting ice bergs or staying ready for potential military threats from China or Russia?

An example of the idiotic political correctness, scarce Pentagon resources are being diverted to a plan to generate 50% of the Navy’s energy needs from “alternative sources” by 2020, including $3.5 billion for biofuels. You cannot fight a global war if the Navy cannot swiftly and easily acquire oil to run its ships that are not nuclear-powered and fly its aircraft.

At the same time, the U.S. has been reducing its stockpile of nuclear arms. The State Department’s Rose Gottemoeller, under-secretary for arms control and international security, recently told a group “The U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable.” She noted that the nation’s stockpile of active weapons is down 85% from maximum cold war levels, falling to 4,804 in 2013 from a high of 31,255, adding that “We still have more work to do.”

This completely ignores nuclear nations like North Korea who have bad intentions toward the U.S. and their neighbors and it runs completely contrary to the U.S. negotiations with Iran that would permit it to become a nuclear armed nation.

This is worse than diplomatic schizophrenia; it is a plan for national suicide.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently told Congress that Russia and China have placed their highest priority on building up and maintaining strategic nuclear forces.

If you want to know what is wrong about the entire approach to our nation’s military needs, consider that since 2009 when Obama took office, the Pentagon’s civilian workforce has grown about 7% to almost 750,000, while active-duty military personnel have been cut by approximately 8%.

At the same time, dozens of military-equipment and weapons programs have been canceled, including a new Navy cruiser, a new search-and-rescue helicopter, the F-22 first-generation fighter, the C-17 transport aircraft, missile defense and the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

We are not prepared to fight a war and now you know why.

© Alan Caruba, 2015