The Impact of Crude’s Collapse on the Islamic State

/in , , , /by

As oil prices continue to fall, flirting with the US$40/bbl floor, there has been much talk of cheap oil’s winners and losers. The discussion has focused on big producer and consumer countries, but there may be another contender in the loser category – namely, the Islamic State (IS). In its gambit to become a state, it unwittingly became a hydrocarbon state, and as such has exposed itself to the same economic volatility that plagues other rentier states. However, unlike most hydrocarbon states, the IS has not had the benefit of having been around long enough to build a stabilization fund – the cash reserves that can smooth out the highs and lows of commodities markets – and in this sense it is likely to be even more of a loser than conventional oil reliant countries. (the IS’s own claims to have a budget surplus of US$250 million are not credible.) What this means is that with less revenue the nature and focus of the the IS’s military operations will change and that the IS will have to turn to other financing methods such as extortion and organized crime to address the revenue shortfall.

With the IS’s conquest of oil producing regions in Syria and Iraq during the summer of 2014, it quickly began to derive the lion’s share of its revenue from oil sales, orders of magnitude above its historic sources of revenue such as overseas donations and criminal activities. Because the IS did not have legal title to the oil, it was forced to sell it on the black market at a steep discount from global commodities prices. While crude (Brent) was trading in the neighborhood of US$100/bbl, the IS was selling its own crude for an estimated US$39/bbl. The IS’s average estimated combined production for Iraqi and Syrian fields was 160kbpd, which meant that on the upper end, the IS could have been earning as much US$6 million/day. According to a recent article in the Financial Times citing the local population around IS-controlled oil fields in Syria, anti-IS coalition efforts to disrupt IS hydrocarbons production have had little impact.

Although there is no available information about how exactly the IS allocated its oil revenue, it undoubtedly went a long way toward paying for the provision of social services, for public sector salaries, and most importantly for foreign fighters and military operations.

Since June, however, the price of crude (Brent) has fallen by 50%. Although black market crude prices do not directly track with prices on regulated commodities exchanges, it is safe to assume that black market crude prices collapsed in line with official prices. In other words, 2015 IS oil revenue is likely 50% of what it was in June 2014.

The consequences of missing oil revenue for IS are severe. IS is unlikely to decrease funding for its military operations so it will have to find ways to simultaneously cut costs elsewhere and raise new revenue – and both methods are likely to jeopardize popular support for the group.

In the immediate term, infrastructure projects and social services will have to be curtailed, thereby undermining IS’s efforts to portray itself as an Islamist utopia and likely exacerbating local populist animosity toward the group.

But the IS’s options for raising new revenue are limited. Because it claims to adhere to Sharia dictates regarding fixed tax rates (zakat for Muslims and jizya for Christians and Jews), it does not have recourse to tax hikes to offset falling oil sales. Instead, it could raise import duties, but these are already high and doing so would likely further erode already waning popular support. The IS could also resort to its predecessor’s preferred funding methods – relying on donations from foreign supporters and sympathizers. But there is little likelihood that donations would match oil sales’ value and the IS would face an inevitable financial crunch. It could also intensify its criminal activities like extortion and kidnap for ransom. Again, revenue from these activities would fall far short of oil receipts. Lastly, it could try to capture more oil. It could decide to cede non-oil producing territory and refocus its military efforts on seizing other oil-rich regions in Iraq. Falling oil revenue may also impact the nature of the IS’s military activities. Prior to having access to oil receipts the IS behave more like an insurgency, relying heavily on terrorist tactics, than conventional military strategy. In the face of falling oil prices, it could revert to this style of fighting.

The IS’s most likely way forward is to try some sort of combination – reduced services, increased import duties, overseas donations, heightened criminal activities, a strategic shift to capturing more oil fields and a return to overt terrorist tactics.

Meanwhile, the anti-IS coalition’s campaign to degrade its oil production capacity will continue so that even in the off chance that oil prices make a near term rebound, the IS will not have much oil to sell. The tough lesson for the IS is that when trying to form a new state, an oil state is not the best option.

EDITORS NOTE: The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or any of its subordinate commands.

Jihad vs Crusades: Facts are a Pain

/in , , , /by

Can someone please get this to Rasputin a.k.a. Valerie Jarrett for President Obama to view? It’s just 5 minutes long, surely it can hold his attention that long.

The great thing about history, regardless of what a teleprompter says, is it cannot be revised. At least for the literate.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Obama: Media overstates terror threat as opposed to “longer-term problem of climate change”

/in , , , , , , , /by

Obama’s timing couldn’t be worse. First there was this:

“The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” by Christopher Booker, the Telegraph, February 7, 2015:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming….

But Obama is entirely oblivious. He readily agrees with Matthew Yglesias’ contention that “the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease.”

Also, it is not surprising that in an interview devoted entirely to foreign policy, Obama never once mentions Islam, or even “Islamist.” He does refer to “violent extremism,” which seems to be his euphemism of choice these days, as it is also the name of his Countering Violent Extremism summit, which should be renamed Countering the Threat We Dare Not Name.

Worst of all, he refers to “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” No one was randomly shot in that “deli in Paris.” It was a kosher supermarket, and the people who were murdered there were murdered because they were Jews. They were murdered by people who were animated by the Qur’an’s relentless Jew-hatred and labeling of the Jews as the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82). But that, too, is a threat that Obama dares not name.

It’s also significant that he gave this massive, detailed, extensive interview to Vox, a far-Left publication that just last Saturday was claiming that those who took issue with Obama’s reprehensible moral equivalence regarding the Crusades were just looking for an excuse to hate Muslims. That is the milieu from which Obama comes, and in which he is most comfortable. That is, almost certainly, his world view as well: that those who believe that Islam uniquely teaches and justifies violence in a way that Christianity and other religions do not are motivated solely by hatred of Muslims. This is the line that Hamas-linked CAIR and its henchmen have promoted for years. In the White House today, they have their most powerful champion ever.

“Obama: The Vox Conversation,” Vox, February 9, 2015:

Matthew Yglesias

Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease?

Barack Obama

Absolutely. And I don’t blame the media for that. What’s the famous saying about local newscasts, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires, because that’s what folks watch, and it’s all about ratings. And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos, along with plane crashes and a few other things, that’s the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs. There’s just not going to be a lot of interest in a headline story that we have cut infant mortality by really significant amounts over the last 20 years or that extreme poverty has been slashed or that there’s been enormous progress with a program we set up when I first came into office to help poor farmers increase productivity and yields. 7 It’s not a sexy story. And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.

7 The little-noticed “Feed the Future” initiative has reached about 7 million people already, and introduces farmers in poor countries to more advanced technologies and management practices to boost crop production.

Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our country safe.

And despite the incredible valor of our troops — and I’m in awe of them every single day when I work with them — you know, the strategy that was crafted in Washington didn’t always match up with the actual threats that were out there. And we need to make sure that we’re doing the right things and doing those well so that we can also deal with future threats like cybersecurity or climate change or different parts of the world where there are huge opportunities, but [that] before I came into office, we had neglected for quite some time, Asia Pacific being a perfect example. Or our own backyard, the Western Hemisphere, where there’s been real progress in Latin America and we’ve got the opportunity to strengthen our relationships. But there are also some big problems like Central America where, with a relatively modest investment, we could really be making a difference and making ourselves safer. 8

8 This is not necessarily directly relevant to “our safety,” but it’s worth noting the horrific conditions documented by NGOs that have looked at the lives of Central Americans sent back to their homes by US officials. Here’s what the administration is doing now in Central America.…

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK Muslim rape gang victims “sacrificed” so Labour wouldn’t lose Muslim votes

Many in Jordanian pilot’s home town side with the Islamic State

President Obama: Netanyahu Speech to Congress could “Sour Negotiations” for Iran Nuke Deal

/in , , , , /by

President Obama and German Chancellor Andrea Merkel held a Joint White House Press Conference today. The bulk of their remarks concerned the questions on Ukraine, Russia, the EU and NATO. One question posed by Christi Powers, Washington correspondent for The Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times), dealt with alleged Administration “outrage” over Israeli PM Netanyahu’s acceptance of an invitation to address a Joint Session of Congress in Early March.

The President objected to Netanyahu’s appearance because it allegedly violates diplomatic protocols that the President doesn’t meet with foreign leaders in the midst of their domestic political campaigns. The President further suggested the Prime Minister’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress would “sour negotiations” for a final nuclear agreement with Iran. Even before today’s news conference there have been questions raised about White House objections to Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress. Further, there are questions as to whether the leaked terms of an agreement regarding nuclear enrichment would prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout.

Watch this C-Span video clip of President Obama’s responses to this question posed by Ms. Powers of the L.A. Times. Note this excerpt from the White House Joint Press Conference Transcript: Christi Parsons, White House correspondent, L.A. Times:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. [ …] Sir, some have suggested that you are outraged by the Israeli Prime Minister’s decision to address Congress. Is that so? And how would you advise Democrats who are considering a boycott?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as I’ve said before, I talk to him all the time, our teams constantly coordinate. We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House — (laughter) — and I suspect she wouldn’t have asked for one. (Laughter.) And I think it’s important for us to maintain these protocols — because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is not about a particular party. This isn’t a relationship founded on affinity between the Labor Party and the Democratic Party, or Likud and the Republican Party. This is the U.S.-Israeli relationship that extends beyond parties, and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to Israel’s security, and the shared values that we have. And the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn’t get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. Whether that’s accurate or not, that is a potential perception, and that’s something that we have to guard against. Now, I don’t want to be coy. The Prime Minister and I have a very real difference around Iran, Iran sanctions. I have been very clear … that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they’re about to be completed. …. If, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should embrace that. If we can’t get a deal, then we’ll have to make a set of decisions, and, as I’ve said to Congress, I’ll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against Iran. As the President of the United States, I’m looking at what the options are if we don’t get a diplomatic resolution. And those options are narrow and … not attractive. And from the perspective of U.S. interests — and I believe from the perspective of Israel’s interests, although I can’t speak for, obviously, the Israeli government — it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution. So there are real differences substantively, but that’s separate and apart from the whole issue of Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington.

Late today, the Iran Task Force organized by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and The Council of Foreign Relations, reported technical findings that raised basic questions about whether the pending P5+1 final agreement would deter nuclear breakout. It cited former IAEA Deputy Director Dr. Olli Heinonen:

That with 9,500 centrifuges and a stock of nuclear material, Iran would have a breakout time of “no more than six months.” This is far less than the one-year breakout time that the administration has stated it is seeking. In effect, it would represent recognition of Iran as a nuclear threshold state—a status FDD believes would be dangerous to U.S. national security.

But there are others who would disagree with the President on what was behind the swirl of news stories on Netanyahu’s speech controversy.

Prior to today’s Joint White House Press Conference with President Obama and Chancellor Merkel, there was a Washington Post commentary on Sunday by David Bernstein with the provocative question, “Did the Obama Administration lie about Netanyahu?”  Bernstein wrote:

The notification issue that the White House has focused on is a bit of a red herring. The White House knew about the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it, and it hardly seems worthy of a major diplomatic incident that the Israelis relied on Boehner to convey the fact of the invitation. The problem, instead, seems to be that the Administration (a) believes that Boehner and Netanyahu’s representatives in D.C. plotted the invitation behind the White House’s back; (b) Netanyahu didn’t give the White House a chance to consider whether it wanted to veto the invitation before it was made public; (c) all against a backdrop of profound mistrust, or perhaps hostility, on the part of Obama toward Netanyahu. (Let’s recall that, speaking of diplomatic protocol, this president and his top advisors have not always extended diplomatic niceties to Netanyahu). Was the White House really blindsided by all this (is it really possible that no one in the Administration had an inkling that an invitation to Netanyahu was in the works?) Or did the Administration take the opportunity to try to drive a wedge between Netanyahu and Congressional Democrats, and to try to make Netanyahu look bad before upcoming Israeli elections?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu rejects criticism: I am determined to address Congress

LIARS: Biden, Kerry Meet Bibi’s Opponent in Munich

Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr. on President Obama demanding Christians not name Islam as the Enemy!

/in , , , , /by

Bishop Earl Walker Jackson, Sr. is an American politician, Christian minister and lawyer in Virginia. He was the unsuccessful Republican Party nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in the 2013 election. In the below video interview Bishop Jackson criticizes President Obama for comparing the Islamic State to Christians.

Bishop Jackson states, “We are not on our high horse, we are on high alert.”

From Rabbi and Professor Jeffrey Wolf:

“This is a demagogic and dumb game of smoke and mirrors. I’ve studied and taught the Crusade era for many years. It’s true that the Crusades were bloody, cruel and violent. So were the wars of Islamic conquest (starting with the massacres of Jewish tribes in the the Hijaz by Muhammad himself). So, what does that have to do with anything? The Crusades ended eight centuries ago. The Inquisition closed up shop over two centuries ago. (For the same money, we can condemn Judaism for calling for the annihilation of the Canaanites 3000 years ago—something we didn’t obey, by the way).”

“Islam is the only religion in the world TODAY, which spawns religiously sanctioned babarism and terror, and is backed by credible religious argument and endorsed by religious leaders who are not outliers. Even if 10-20% of Muslims endorse ISS or sympathize with it (as the statistics seem to show), that means 200,000,000 Muslims are on the dark side. That is not a marginal phenomenon. It is an authentic Muslim phenomenon, even if it doesn’t represent the majority of Muslims.”

Palestinian Authority Rewards Jihadis for Number of Jews they Murder

/in , , , , /by

Don’t you dare call it savagery, you racist, bigoted Islamophobe. “Palestinian Authority Rewards Terrorists for Number of Jews They Kill,” by Edwin Black, Algemeiner, February 8, 2015:

Last year, Congressional legislators were astonished to learn that the Palestinian Authority was issuing monthly payouts totaling between $3 and 7 million as salaries and other financial rewards to specific terrorists and their families.

The money was channeled, in part, through the Ministry of Prisoners pursuant to the Law of the Prisoner. The law set forth a graduated scale, pegging monthly salaries to the length of Israeli jail sentences, which generally reflects the severity of the crime and the number of people killed and/or injured.

Thousands of documents, newly obtained by this reporter through a lawsuit to unseal court-protected files, demonstrate that these payouts are not blind automated payments. Rather, senior Palestinian Authority officials as high as President Mahmoud Abbas scrutinize the details of each case, the specific carnage caused, and the personal details of each terrorist act before approving salaries and awarding honorary ranks in either the PA government or the military.

Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser has explained, “We are very proud of this program and we have nothing to hide.” Nonetheless, in response to the international furor, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would replace the Ministry of Prisoners with an outside PLO commission known as the Higher National Commission for Prisoners and Detainees Affairs.

The PA is dependent upon foreign donor countries to supply much of its budget, which now exceeds $4.2 billion annually. About ten percent of the PA budget, more than $400 million, is contributed annually by United States foreign aid. The U.S. and many other countries have enacted laws forbidding any payments when the monies directly or indirectly support or encourage terrorism.

The interdepartmental bureaucratic notations the Palestinian Authority has recorded on each terrorist before approving the level of salaried compensation is extensive. For example, one prominent case involved Ahmad Talab Mustafa Barghouti, who personally coordinated numerous terrorist acts. These included a January 2002 shooting spree on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem, killing two and wounding 37; a March 2002 shooting spree at a Tel Aviv restaurant, killing three and wounding 31; and finally a March 27, 2002, attempt to smuggle an explosive suicide belt in an ambulance. The Israel Defense Forces arrested Ahmad. On July 30, 2002, a military court concluded that he was responsible for murdering 12 Israelis, and Barghouti was sentenced to 13 life sentences.

According to on-going internal Palestinian Authority security reviews dated February 3, 2009, and July 6, 2009, Barghouti’s special compensation began retroactively to July 1, 2002, the first of the month that the 13 life sentences were imposed. At the time of his arrest, Barghouti was a Sergeant in the Palestinian Police. As a reward, while in an Israeli prison, Barghouti’s annual salary of 12,953 Israeli shekels was continued and gradually escalated when he was promoted to First Sergeant.

Still in prison, Barghouti was promoted again, this time to Warrant Officer, pursuant to a November 13, 2008, Presidential Order 15999/3, according to Palestinian internal security records. One document lists Barghouti’s bank account as account 36079 at the Housing Bank for Trade and Finance in Ramallah. A related document tabulates additional monthly allocations for Barghouti’s two named beneficiaries, showing they jointly received 900 shekels monthly in 2002, beginning the month he was sentenced. That monthly allocation rose to 1,000 shekels in January 2004. The beneficiary payments were deposited into account 628134 at the Arab Bank’s al Bireh Branch 9030, the documents show….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims demand non-Muslim buried next to Muslim be exhumed

EU funding illegal “Palestinian” building in Israeli areas

Fidel Castro’s Testament by Brian Latell

/in , , , , /by

Oddly, there is no mention in the letter of the release of the three convicted Cuban intelligence agents from American penitentiaries. The key figures of the large Cuban spy ring that operated in the United States had been heralded as national heroes by Fidel before his retirement. He was extravagantly associated with the protracted campaign to win their release. The regime’s propaganda and intelligence machines labored long and diligently, overtly and covertly. But Fidel has not taken a victory bow now that they are home.

Rumors of Fidel Castro’s precarious health may swirl again in the aftermath of a letter issued over his signature earlier this week. Addressed to the Federation of University Students, the retired leader is quoted briefly about the changing Cuban relationship with the United States.

After remaining silent for more than five weeks following the announcements by President Obama and Raul Castro of measures taken in pursuit of détente, Fidel finally weighed in. “I will explain,” he is quoted saying, “in a few words, my essential position.”

Ghost written or not, his message provides a hedged endorsement of the process, though not of any of the steps taken by either side to normalize relations. He says nothing, for example, about the impending restoration of diplomatic relations that he caused to be broken in January 1961.

Nowhere in the message does Castro express unambiguous approval for detente. Perhaps the nearest he comes is by stating that he does not reject a “peaceful solution to conflicts or threats of war.” Employing similar lofty language, the letter merely states.

  • “Defending peace is the duty of all.”
  • “Any negotiated, peaceful solution . . . which does not imply the use of force must be addressed in accordance with international principles and norms.”
  • “We will always defend cooperation and friendship with all the world’s peoples, and with those of our political adversaries.”

In short, the message can only be read as grudging. Castro is quoted saying, “I do not trust the policy of the United States, nor have I exchanged one word with them.” It recalls his militance and intransigence during decades of dealings with ten American presidents: “revolutionary ideas must always be on guard. . . . In this spirit I have struggled, and will continue to struggle until my last breath.”

All this sounds reliably like Fidel. But the odds are good that he did not actually contribute meaningfully to the drafting of the document. It is impossible to know of course, but it reads more like a skillful brief composed by Raul Castro’s designees.

They wanted Fidel’s stamp of approval for moving toward better relations with the United States. Emblazoned on the front pages of the major Cuban dailies, the letter got maximum exposure on the island.

After Fidel’s long silence it was also necessary for the regime to stifle speculation that he had died or was on his deathbed. And, for many, his extended silence left the impression that he was opposed to normalization with Washington. It was unacceptable for either of those impressions to persist.

Yet, no utterance attributed to Fidel would have been credible had he enthusiastically endorsed rapprochement. Since his university days –as he in fact mentions in the letter — he pursued radical, anti-American ideals. For him now, in his late eighties, suddenly to abandon decades of anti-American intransigence would not have made sense. After all, the American economic embargo remains fully in force. Other historic Cuban demands are also still unassuaged. How could he give unequivocal approval to a process still in its early stages?

Oddly, there is no mention in the letter of the release of the three convicted Cuban intelligence agents from American penitentiaries, or of the America contractor who served five years in a Cuban jail. The key figures of the large Cuban spy ring that operated in the United States had been heralded as national heroes by Fidel before his retirement. He was extravagantly associated with the protracted campaign to win their release. The regime’s propaganda and intelligence machines labored long and diligently, overtly and covertly. But Fidel has not taken a victory bow now that they are home.

Nor has he met with them as they are being lionized in the official media as representatives of a new generation of revolutionary heroes. If he is not on his death bed, or severely impaired, a photo op with them would have been a routine event. Other than for reasons of health, therefore, it seems inexplicable that he has failed to boast of the Cuban success in bringing them home.

Two days after the letter was aired in Cuba, the press reported that Fidel had met with his old friend and biographer, Brazilian friar Frei Betto. They engaged, it was reported, in a friendly conversation about national and international issues. Normally under such circumstances, a photo of the two would have accompanied the article.

But this time, the photo of them attached to the story was acknowledged to have been taken in February 2014 during an earlier meeting. The most recent photos of Fidel appeared in the middle of last year and he has made no public appearance in about a year. Will rumors of his imminent demise be stoked anew?

Brian Latell, Ph.D., is a distinguished Cuba analyst and a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies at the University of Miami. He has informed American and foreign presidents, cabinet members, and legislators about Cuba and Fidel Castro in a number of capacities. He served in the early 1990s as National Intelligence Officer for Latin America at the Central Intelligence Agency and taught at Georgetown University for a quarter century. Dr. Latell has written, lectured, and consulted extensively. He is the author of After Fidel: The Inside Story of Castro’s Regime and Cuba’s Next Leader and Castro’s Secrets: The CIA and Cuba’s Intelligence Machine. Brian Latell is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Who is the Leader of the ‘Free World’ Obama or Netanyahu?

/in , , , , /by

The question ‘Who is Leader of the Free World, Obama or Netanyahu’ may at first sound foolish. However ask yourself, which other leader of a western style democracy has a better grasp of the danger Iran and Radical Islam poses to the free world.

The leader of the free world must be able to identify the enemy and confront it.

Obama has distanced himself from the reality that Radical Islam and Iran account for most of the terrorism occurring around the world. Obama cannot even utter the words ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ and as a result he cannot  be considered the leader of the Free World.

Obama’s trashing Netanyahu for accepting an invitation to speak before Congress has nothing to do with protocol. It has everything to do with Netanyahu’s understanding the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons and Radical Islam poses to America, Israel and the rest of the free world. As a result Netanyahu’s speech will stand in stark contrast to Obama’s approach to Iran and Radical Islam.

That is what is driving Obama up the wall.

Who is Leader of the Free World: Obama or Netanyahu?

By Joseph Gelman

It’s another day, so you can be pretty sure that another anonymous Obama administration “source” is trashing the Israeli Prime Minister in yet another planted story in a friendly media outlet somewhere.

This used to be news, now it’s just sad.

What is it about Benjamin Netanyahu that has the Obama administration so insecure and borderline hysterical?

Perhaps it has something to do with the way the pesky and smooth-talking Israeli Prime Minister has gradually supplanted Barack Obama as the moral leader of the free world, on the most important issue of our time.

Where there is a leadership void, someone will fill it.

Obama and his minions’ sense it, and the jealousy/resentment seem to know no bounds.

When Netanyahu, a gifted orator in the English language, speaks on the dangers of radical Islam and a nuclear Iran, he projects a confidence and persuasiveness that the administration can’t match.

In stark contrast, when Obama speaks to these matters in his painfully couched language, knowledgeable people smell politics. They can sense the hesitation and stumbling over usage of even the most basic and obvious terminology, like “radical Islam”. Not a confidence-builder when facing the mullahs of Tehran.

While the Israeli Prime Minister has no such inhibitions… the problem for Obama is, neither do most freedom-loving people in the West. They inherently know that radical Islam does in fact have something to do with Islam, no matter how desperately the President tries to convince them otherwise. And they understand that such Islamists, be them of the Shiite or Sunni variety should never be allowed the means to produce nuclear weapons.

This dynamic is not lost upon the administration, and it is, along with ego, at the very heart of the Obama administrations apoplectic reaction to Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to speak before a Joint Session of Congress.

It has little to do with a “breach of protocol.” Had Boehner invited the Prime Minister of Luxemburg to speak on European monetary policy, the words “breach of protocol” would never have come up. It’s Netanyahu himself that they fear and loath.

They are beside themselves that their appeasement policies vis-à-vis Iran are to be so publicly challenged by someone they view as of inferior status and a lot of chutzpah. And yet Netanyahu is clearly of superior knowledge on the issue, of superior communications skills, and most of all, has a superior stake in the outcome of negotiations with Iran.

Netanyahu will be speaking from the world’s most prestigious platform without the administration’s permission, directly to the American people and over the administration’s head, with the full backing of a solid majority in congress and of a very large constituency in the United States, many of whom have been lifelong supporters of the president’s own party.

It’s enough to drive any anti-Semite stark-raving mad.

Unfortunately, it’s also enough to drive this administration to the brink of DEFCON 1 political hysteria. Count on an endless barrage of negativity directed towards Mr. Netanyahu between now and the speech, and until the Israeli elections on March 17th. This will be an all-out, scorched-earth campaign conducted by the administration to get Netanyahu to back down from the speech, and to ruin his reelection prospects.

The gloves are off.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As I See It: The Obama doctrine says ‘Israel’s enemy is my friend’ – The Jerusalem Post

Obama’s Iran policy rests on false assumptions and half-truths

U.S. State Department: Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism globally

/in , , , /by

Can you imagine any U.S. president  who would cooperate with a leading and active state sponsor of terrorism and reward them with the ability to develop nuclear weapons? Most people can’t imagine such a thing because it defies belief. However that is exactly what Obama is doing. No one knows what motivates Obama to make Iran, (the leading state sponsor of terrorism) a nuclear weapons power. If you count the number of terrorist acts and deaths attributed to Iran in Syria and elsewhere, Iran is the most dangerous country on the planet. The only possible explanation is that Obama believes the U.S. hegemony in the Middle East is worse than an Iranian hegemony.

Whether you think the U.S. has too much influence in the world and Middle East in particular is not the point. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a state sponsor of terrorism with missiles that can reach the U.S. homeland present a clear and present danger.

Iran is responsible for more deaths than the Islamic State. If Iran has nuclear weapons why shouldn’t the Islamic State have them as well? Iran’s leadership is equally cruel and has little regard for life. Iran demonstrated this in its war with Iraq when it sent tens of thousands boys as young as nine years of age to detonate mine fields with their bodies and certain death. Iran is responsible for the death of 250,000 Syrians and millions refugees. Containment with a society that loves death and martyrdom more than life is an illusion. Is this the enemy we want to have nuclear weapons?

The State Department Report

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that “Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity” and that “Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.”

The report states that Iran has continued to provide “lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians,” despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on “small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets.” The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah.

The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As I See It: The Obama doctrine says ‘Israel’s enemy is my friend’ – The Jerusalem Post

Obama’s Iran policy rests on false assumptions and half-truths

Where are the Arab Armies?

/in , /by

The ongoing Syrian conflict, the fall of the Yemeni government, the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and other events make one wonder why even those Arab nations with significant military capabilities tend not to use them against a common enemy.

The attacks on ISIS by the Jordanian air force have been a dramatic example of what could be done to eliminate this threat to the entire region if the other military forces would join in a united effort.

This raises the question of why the armies of various Middle Eastern nations do not seem to be engaged in destroying the Islamic State (ISIS).

The answer may be found in a casual look at recent history; these armies have not been successful on the field of battle. Most recently what passed for the Iraqi army fled when ISIS took over much of northern Iraq.

Since 1948 the Arab nations that attacked Israel were repeatedly defeated. The Iraq-Iran war conducted by Saddam Hussein finally stalemated after eight years. Later it took the leadership of the U.S. to drive Saddam’s Iraq out of Kuwait.

Israel Air Force

Israeli fighter jets.

In October 2014, the Business Insider published a useful ranking of Middle Eastern militaries put together by Armin Rosen, Jeremy Bender, and Amanda Macias. Ranked number one should surprise no one. It was Israel which has a $15 billion defense budget, 176,000 active frontline personnel, 680 aircraft, and 3,870 tanks.

Unlike previous administrations dating back to Truman, while the U.S. is technically still an ally of Israel, in reality the Obama administration has demonstrated animosity toward the only democratic nation in the region. Indeed, the U.S. has been engaged in lengthy negotiations with Iran that would ultimately permit it to become a nuclear power. There isn’t a single Middle Eastern nation that wants this to occur and it has greatly harmed U.S. relations with them.

Ranked second militarily is the Turkish Armed Forces with an $18.1 billion defense budget, 410,000 active frontline personnel, 3,675 tanks and 989 aircraft. This nation has shifted heavily toward being an Islamist state as opposed to the secular one it had been since the end of the Ottoman Empire in the last century. Its military hasn’t been involved in a conflict since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. It is a NATO-allied military but that doesn’t mean it will support NATO in a future conflict. It was used against the Kurdish separatist movement in the 1980s, but these days the Kurdish Peshmerga, between 80,000 and 100,000 strong is now ranked as “one of the most formidable fighting forces in the Middle East” and it is likely the Kurds will carve their own nation out of an Iraq which barely exists these days.

Number three among the Middle East militaries is Saudi Arabia with a $56.7 billion defense budget, 233,500 active frontline personnel, 1,095 tanks, and 652 aircraft. It has been closely allied with the U.S. for decades, but the Obama Iranian nuclear negotiations have negatively affected that relationship. One can assume the same from its other allies, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia has also provided “substantial assistance” to post-coup Egypt.

Map - MidEast

For a larger view click on the map.

The rankings put the United Arab Emirates at #4, Iran at #5, Egypt at #6, Syria at #7, Jordan at #8, Oman at #9, Kuwait at #10, Qatar at #11, Bahrain at #12, Iraq at #13, Lebanon at #14, and Yemen at #15. The Business Insider article noted that “The balance of power in the Middle East is in disarray” and that’s putting it mildly.

Debka File, an Israeli news agency, reported on February 5 that “The group of nations U.S. President Barack Obama assembled last September for an air offence against ISIS inroads in Iraq and Syria is fraying.”

It deemed the participation of the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain as “more symbolic than active” noting that Iraq has no air force to speak of and an army in name only while the Saudis “allotted a trifling number of planes to the effort” and Bahrain has no air force at all. The UAE has the biggest and most modern air force and it has reportedly joined with Jordan to attack ISIS strongholds.

Debka reported that the coalition is “adamantly opposed to Obama’s policy…and loath to lend their air strength for its support” and that is very good news for ISIS, but not for the rest of the Middle East.

In October, Commentary magazine published an analysis by Ofir Haivry, vice president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, about the“Shifting Alliances in the Middle East.” It began with the observation that “The old Middle Eastern order has collapsed” as “the ongoing Arab uprisings that begin in late 2010 have unseated or threaten to unseat every Muslim government in the region.”

Postulating ‘five broad, cross-regional, and loosely ideological confederations”, Haivry concluded that “Perhaps our biggest challenge is not a new Middle East, but a new United States in paralysis. Under the Obama administration, America’s historic aspiration to shape events in the region has given way to confusion and drift.”

It should not come as that much of a surprise that Israel has been developing intelligence and security relations with several Arab nations, including what the Middle East Monitor described as “growing secret cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia.” That sounds like very bad news for Iran and very good news for the rest of us.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul (R-TN) on fighting the Islamic State in the Middle East.

Bosnian Muslims in U.S. used Facebook, PayPal for Jihad plotting

/in , , , /by

Why would Bosnian Muslims get involved in plotting jihad terror activity? We have for years now been repeatedly assured that all the Muslims in and from Bosnia were moderates who loved America, and threatened with charges of “Islamophobia” if we even questioned that dogma. Those learned analysts have yet to explain the activities of these Bosnians and others like them.

Meanwhile, Facebook would do well to stop its jihad against counter-jihadists and keep better watch on activities like these.

More on this story. “Indictment: Bosnian immigrants plotted over Facebook,” by Jason Keyser, Associated Press, February 7, 2015:

CHICAGO (AP) – Six Bosnian immigrants accused of sending money and military equipment to extremist groups in Syria used Facebook, PayPal and other readily available services to communicate and transfer funds, according to a federal indictment.

All are charged with conspiring to provide and providing material support to groups designated by the U.S. as foreign terrorist organizations, including the Islamic State group and an al-Qaida-affiliated rebel group known as the Nusra Front.

The indictment unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis alleges they plotted by phone, Facebook and email; shared videos and photos related to their plans on social media sites; sent money via PayPal and Western Union; and shipped boxes of military gear through the U.S. Postal Service.

The defendants are accused of donating money themselves and, in some cases, collecting funds from others in the U.S. and sending the donations overseas. It says two of the defendants, a husband and wife in St. Louis, used some of the money to buy U.S. military uniforms, firearms accessories, tactical gear and other equipment from local businesses and ship it to intermediaries in Turkey and Saudi Arabia who forwarded the supplies to fighters in Syria and Iraq.

One of the suspects, Mediha Medy Salkicevic, a 34-year-old mother of four from the Chicago suburb of Schiller Park, appeared Saturday in federal court in Chicago. Wearing an orange jail uniform, she spoke only to confirm that she understood the charges. She appeared calm and smiled occasionally while consulting with her attorney.

Speaking to reporters afterward, defense attorney Andrea Gambino stressed that Salkicevic is considered innocent until proven guilty.

The indictment says the suspects used “coded language” in their communications over email and social media, using terms like “the beach” for places in Iraq and Syria.

But it says they also used terms such as brothers, lions, mujahids and shaheeds, or holy warriors and martyrs. Such language is commonly used among Islamic extremist groups and would seem likely to draw law enforcement scrutiny if posted openly on the Internet.

But terrorism financing expert Loretta Napoleoni said it’s a clever tactic to use such usual channels for communicating and sending money as long as the amounts are small, noting that so many people use them that it’s easy to “go below the radar.”

“That’s the easiest way to send money. … And frankly using the U.S. Postal Service is also a very good way not to be caught,” said Napoleoni, author of “The Islamist Phoenix.” ”There is so much stuff going through.”

The FBI arrested Salkicevic on Friday. If convicted, she could face up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000 on each charge. The case will be tried in Missouri, where several other defendants were arrested. A bond hearing Monday will determine whether Salkicevic travels there on her own or in custody.

The indictment alleges the conspiracy began no later than May 2013.

All six people who are charged are natives of Bosnia who were living in the U.S. legally. Three are naturalized citizens; the other three had either refugee or legal resident status, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.

Besides Salkicevic, the indictment names Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, 40, his wife, Sedina Unkic Hodzic, 35, and Armin Harcevic, 37, all of St. Louis County; Nihad Rosic, 26, of Utica, New York; and Jasminka Ramic, 42 of Rockford, Illinois….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims threaten female army cadets with beheading

Jihadis returning to France from Islamic State and making more recruits

Baghdad: Islamic jihadists murder 37 people, wound 86

UPDATE: Victory for Iran — Hegemony Over the Arabian Peninsula

/in , , , /by

Iran has thrown  a lasso around Arabian peninsula with Houthi Shia takeover in Yemen.  Friends of ours here in Pensacola have two serving U.S. Marine Captains. One of them was in charge of  Marine Security for our embassies in the Middle East.  He called home to say that he was in the last group of 10 persons that  vacated the U.S. Embassy in Saana, Yemen, He told his parents in a phone call of the circuitous trip to the airport in Yemen’s capital evading Houthi checkpoints. The flight took the group to safety in Dubai. Yemen is now a failed state that will likely devolve into sectarian war between the minority Houthi and the divided majority Sunni.  It also marks another failure of this  exemplar  of the Obama ‘no name’ counterterrorism strategy.

Saudi Arabia’s fences on its northern and southern borders may become the equivalent of France’s Maginot Line that failed to stop the Nazi blitzkrieg in 1940 that saw the demise of Third Republic. The Kingdom has the largest number of Islamic State foreign fighters who will constitute a fifth column upon return to the Wahhabist realm.  That gives Iran virtual control of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, plus Lebanon with Proxy Hezbollah.  Then  there are restive majority Shia in Bahrain and oppressed Shia sitting atop Saudi Arabia’s oil fields in the eastern province on the Persian Gulf. Some argue that Iran may have even been complicit  fostering the rise of ISIS despite the alleged hatred between radical Islamist Salafist and Apocalyptic Twevlers in Tehran.

If President Obama’s quest for a nuclear pact with the Islamic Regime in Tehran occurs on March 24th with the P5+1 final agreement, Iran becomes a nuclear hegemon threatened the region, America’s ally Israel  and the West. Remember that agreement excludes ICBMs that may be capable of covering Europe and beyond.  Yesterday Uruguay arrested a senior Iranian diplomat  alleged to be involved in a possible repeat in Montevideo  of the Iranian sponsored 1992 Buenos Aires blast at the Israeli Embassy.

Obama’s ‘Strategic Patience”  document released Thursday amounts to capitulation and appeasement of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, IS, Taliban and Al Qaeda. To say nothing of his failed Russian reset with Imperialist Putin in the Ukraine and  failed pivot to contain China’s saber rattling in East Asia  He even changed the wording of his original war declaration against IS  from “degrade and destroy” to “degrade and destroy”.  He is worse than British PM Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 that sold out pre-war Czechoslovakia. At least Chamberlain brought Sir Winston Churchill into his cabinet after the declaration of war against Nazi Germany on September 3, 1939  as First Lord of the Admiralty, a prelude to Churchill being asked by King George VI to form a government on May 10,1940 following Chamberlain’s resignation.

Obama and  many Democratic Senators and Representatives deplore the proposed speech by Israel’s PM Netanyahu on the dangers of  Iran and radical Islam before a Joint Session of Congress on March 3rd at the invitation of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner. If that does occur then the leader of America’s only democratic ally in the Middle East, who is said to speak in Churchillian cadence, will like the fabled UK wartime premier, have a third opportunity to present his prescient views.

NOTE: This Twitchy headline and  tweeted  comments  posted on ‘Victory for Iran’: Shia rebels in ‘success story’ Yemen dissolve parliament, take charge

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Houthi Shia rebels in Yemen.

Iranian Diplomat expelled from Uruguay for Attempted Israeli Embassy Bombing

/in , , /by

This Breitbart /Ha’aretz report of an  Iranian diplomat attempting a bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Montevideo, Uruguay may be payback for the IAF attack on a convoy in Quneitra, Syria on January 18th. That attack that took out 11 Hezbollah and Iranian commanders, including Jihad Mughniyah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Muhammad Allahdadi.

Mughiniyah’s father, Imad, Hezbollah’s and Iran’s terrorist mastermind was at the top of the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list prior to 9/11. He was alleged to have planned the execution of the 1983 Beirut US Embassy, U.S. Marine and French Paratrooper Barracks with hundreds killed and wounded. He was alleged to have killed U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem aboard TWA Flight 847 diverted from Athens to Beirut in June 1985 whose body was dumped on the tarmac at Beirut Airport. He may have orchestrated the 1992 Israeli Embassy, 1994 AMIA Jewish Center blasts in Buenos Aires. There is suspicion that Maghniyah may have been behind the mid-air blast by an Arab suicide bomber of a Panamanian air commuter flight that killed all 21 passengers and crew, including 12 Jewish businessmen en route from Colon to Panama City the day following the 1994 AMIA bombing. Then there was the June 1996 Khobar Towers truck bombing that took the lives of 19 USAF service personnel and injuring nearly 500 had the fingerprint of a Hezbollah attack perpetrated by Mughniyah. He also figured in the 2011 New York Federal Court 9/11 Iran Links case given evidence from Iranian defectors that Mughniyah was allaged to have been involved in facilitating the travel and training of the 19 perpetrators of 9/11. There are conflicting reports that Mughniyah may have been taken out in a car bombing on February 12, 2008 by a joint CIA Mossad operation.

The Montevideo arrest illustrates that the more than three decade secret war between Iran and Israel is still going despite the recent mysterious death of Argentine Jewish prosecutor Alberto Nisman. His death occured on the cusp of Congressional testimony involving a Compliant and arrest warrants alleging that Argentine President Cristina de Fernandez Kirchner and Jewish Foreign Minister had offered to withdraw criminal charges against Iranian officials in exchange for a trade deal that Nisman had evidence were involved in the 1994 AMIA bombing that took 85 lives, perhaps 86 including his own.

Report: Senior Iranian Diplomat Attempted Bombing Of Israeli Embassy In Uruguay

Uruguay has reportedly declared a senior Iranian diplomat persona non grata after he was involved in a bomb plot against Israel’s embassy in early January, according to senior Israeli officials who told Haaretz.

Uruguayan intelligence found that the man was involved in placing an explosive device outside of the Israeli embassy. After uncovering the plot, the Uruguayan government reportedly contacted the Iranian government, and both sides decided it was best to remove the Iranian diplomat from the country.

On January 8, a partially detonated explosive device was found on the ninth floor of a building in the capital city of Montevideo, on the same floor where the Israeli embassy is located. Uruguayan officials reportedly reached out to Israeli officials regarding the matter, but kept it a low profile matter for reasons that have not been explained.

Israeli officials told Haaretz that they believe that the attempted bombing was either a measure seeking to “harm the embassy or explore its security preparedness.”

Iran is known to have sophisticated networks in much of South America, through its Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Hezbollah proxy.

Montevideo is only about 100 miles from Buenos Aires, Argentina, where Iran is believed to be responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Argentina-Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA), which resulted in the deaths of 85 with hundreds more wounded in the terror attack. According to recently deceased prosecutor Alberto Nisman, the Argentinian government conspired to cover up Iran’s role in the bombing in exchange for a lucrative oil deal with the Iranian regime.

The Iranian regime is also heavily involved in furthering defense partnerships and trade agreements with South American countries Bolivia and Venezuela.

Iran is believed to be actively engaged in attempting to retaliate for a recent Israeli air strike that neutralized a Hezbollah commander and Iranian General who were stationed in the Golan Heights.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Uruguay Police. Source: AFP.

The White Mosque

/in , , , /by

Should we rename the White House the White Mosque? At least until Obama is out?