World Threats

There is good news for Chinese activists striving for democracy, the country’s oppressed religious minorities and those fearful of Communist China’s rise. The number of anti-government protests is rising and top experts expect the arrival of a democratic China, with one, Gordon Chang, evenpredicting the fall of the ruling Communist Party this year.

The signs of a forthcoming Chinese Spring began surfacing immediately after the Arab Spring began in Tunisia early last year. Over 100 activists were arrested or put on house arrest in a single sweep. Security was out in force and a huge amount of text messages and websites were blocked. Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution made the government so anxious that it even blocked the word “jasmine” from being searched on social networking websites. Hundreds still assembled in Beijing, Shanghai and elsewhere to peacefully express their desire for change.

In July, there were riots in Guizhou Province after a peddler with only one leg was killed, allegedly by government personnel. The incident brought attention to the unrest in the province that locals said is common but unreported. One resident wrote online, “In truth, China experiences riots worse than those in England every single week.”

Click here to read the rest of my article for the Institute on Religion & Democracy.

In the 2012 Republican presidential race, a caucus or primary’s front-runner often becomes tomorrow’s runner-up. This was the case last night. Mitt Romney, as predicted, won by a landslide in Arizona and came from behind to win Michigan, the state that his father governed. Rick Santorum, hardly discouraged, characterized his narrow loss as something to celebrate because of the odds against him in the state.

At the time of publication, Romney had 48% of the vote in Arizona. Santorum came in second with 26%, followed by Newt Gingrich with 16% and Ron Paul with 9%. Romney appears to have won Michigan by only about three percent — 41% to Santorum’s 38% at last estimation. Paul defeated Gingrich for third, 12% to 7%.

Click here to read the rest of my FPM article.

Al-Qaida’s style of jihad may be about to change, because of the loss of several of the terror group’s key leaders including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and the fact that they may be replaced in a fashion by several chiefs released recently by Iran and Syria.

That doesn’t, however, mean less violence is expected, only different.

It was reported earlier this month that Iran had granted greater freedom to five al-Qaida leaders on its soil. The most prominent official is Saif al-Adel, a key operations chief. According to the 9/11 Commission, he disagreed with the 9/11 attacks.

The newly released leaders also have expressed criticism of the previous strategies that included the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

It was in 2002 when Saif al-Adel wrote, “We must completely halt all external actions until we sit down and consider the disaster we caused. During six months, we only lost what we built in years.”

He criticized his colleagues for ordering “random” attacks that jeopardize “the establishment of an [Islamic] state.”

Click here to read the rest of my WorldNetDaily analysis.

After 9/11, it became commonplace to ridicule the status of Saudi Arabia as an “ally.” For decades, American leaders cuddled up to the Saudi Royal Family as it spent billions of dollars to export radical Islam around the globe. Today, the U.S. is eager to have our “ally,” Qatar, take a leading role in the region while it does the exact same thing.

Qatar is home to Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the most influential Sunni theologian and top Muslim Brotherhood cleric. He uses his popular show on Al-Jazeera, also based in Qatar, to rally support for Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism and to spout the most vile forms of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Support flows to the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabist ideologues from Qatar.

Soeren Kern wrote an eye-opening article about Qatar’s role in funding the spread of radical Islam in the West. In France, it is spending $65 million low-income suburbs inhabited mostly by Muslim immigrants. Hundreds of these areas were coined by Dr. Daniel Pipes as “No-Go Zones”after the French government designated them as “Sensitive Urban Zones” because of their hostility to authority. When the police dare to enforce the law in these areas, violent riots are often sparked that quickly spiral out of control.

Click here to read my latest FSM column.

Reinforcements from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have just arrived in Syria, raising the number of Iranian and Hezbollah operatives helping the Assad regime to the “high hundreds.” The majority of foreign assistants are training Assad’s thugs and helping them gather intelligence, which presumably means operating the electronic communications monitoring equipment that the Iranian regime uses. Some are even involved in the physical attacks on the Syrian opposition.

The report says that Iran’s financing is being used to stabilize Damascus and Aleppo, two of the regime’s power centers that have yet to erupt into full-blown protests. In recent weeks, the opposition took over some suburbs of Damascus and demonstrations spread to Aleppo. The regime launched a military offensive that took back the suburbs from the rebel forces.

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, is also helping Assad. One of his government’s ships delivered fuel to Syria recently for the second time.

While Assad is getting plenty of foreign help, his opposition is still begging for its own outside aid. The Syrian National Council, the umbrella opposition body, is asking Russia to pressure Assad into allowing three humanitarian corridors to open so that international aid can flow into the country. I would recommend that the SNC doesn’t hold its breath while waiting for this request to be granted.

The opposition wants three routes to be opened up: A route to Homs through Lebanon, a route to Idlib through Turkey and a route to Deraa through Jordan.

Click here to read the rest of my post at RadicalIslam.org.

Last Saturday, U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford made an unnoticed mistake. In an interview with the Arab press, he questioned the wisdom of arming the Syrian rebels because, in his estimation, they probably won’t topple Assad and it’ll just lead to more bloodshed.

You can bet that Assad and his enemies read every statement that Ford makes and here’s what they heard: The U.S. believes the regime will defeat the rebels and the West probably won’t come to their aid. There are few messages that are worse to send, especially when the U.S is calling on Assad to step down from power.

Robert Ford has, for the most part, been a remarkable ambassador. On many occasions, he met with opposition political activists and spoke on their behalf. He attended funerals for protesters murdered by the regime’s thugs, infuriating Assad. When he joined crowds of protesters, he was met with cheers, flowers and olive branches.

His admirable record in Syria, though, does not excuse this mistake and he should be called out for it so it doesn’t happen again. The last thing that the U.S. should do is encourage the regime when its morale is falling and discouraging its opposition when its morale is rising.

Click here for my original post at RadicalIslam.org.

A series of defections have occurred in Syria over the past two weeks that prove that the momentum is on the side of the Free Syria Army (the name of the rebel forces that are fighting to topple the terrorism-sponsoring Assad regime).

Last Saturday, opposition sources reported that 2,500 soldiers joined the Free Syria Army. This number is impossible to verify but it’s clear that this was the largest bulk defection to date. On Wednesday, an additional 200 soldiers defected in Idlib Province near Turkey, along with an unidentified brigadier-general.

The general’s defection is especially important if he is an Allawite. The regime’s top leaders come from this minority, which accounts for only 10-13% of the entire population. The regime’s vicious Shabbiha militia is entirely Allawite. This minority continues to support Assad, if only because it fears being massacred if he falls. If the rebels can add Allawites to its leadership and public face, it could make the minority feel more comfortable about a post-Assad Syria.

Earlier this month, the opposition revealed that it has received its highest defector to date: Brigadier-General Mostafa Ahmed al-Sheikh, who was the deputy commander of the northern army. He predicts that Assad’s army will “collapse” by the end of the month.

General al-Sheikh explained to The Telegraph that only 40% of the military’s equipment and 32% of the military’s troops are combat-ready. The military’s Sunni officers (the top leaders are from the Allawite minority) have defected, been arrested, put on house arrest or aren’t being deployed because of fears they’ll switch sides.

About two-thirds of the army’s reservists are not reporting for duty. If it were easy for Assad’s troops to defect, there’d be a tidal wave. If I was a betting man, I’d bet on the rebels.

Click here for my original post at RadicalIslam.org

Three of the four Republican presidential candidates endorsed regime change in Syria during last night’s debate, with Ron Paul being the lone exception. These candidates were quick to call for action against the Iranian ally but failed to mention some of the concerns about Islamists within the Syrian opposition and the support it has gotten from the terrorist group al-Qaeda. National security is becoming a more pronounced issue as voters in Arizona and Michigan go to the polls on February 28.

Rick Santorum, arguably the new frontrunner, described Syria as a “puppet state of Iran” and said “we could do no worse” than the Assad regime. Newt Gingrich was more specific and said the U.S. should covertly arm the Syrian rebels so they can topple the regime. Ron Paul railed against any type of interventionist policy.

Mitt Romney said that Syria is “Iran’s route to the sea” and that the revolution is something that the U.S. must “grab hold of.” He said that a message must be sent to the Allawite minority that supports Assad that it will be safe if it joins the opposition. He argued that regime change in Syria would maximize pressure on Iran and “change the course of world history.” One concerning suggestion he made was to ask Turkey and Saudi Arabia to arm the Syrian rebels. Both governments are Islamist and we should be very wary of their influence.

Click here to read the rest of my FPM article.

During the collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s regime last year, he ordered soldiers to the Sinai Peninsula to guard against Islamic terrorists using the internal crisis to smuggle men, money and weapons into the Gaza Strip. Sadly, the military government that succeeded Mubarak did not keep up with security and Israel was attacked in August, 2011, in a cross-border raid.

With more than one year passed from Egypt’s revolution, which sees the state slipping further into the hands of islamists, Israel has had enough with the unsecured Sinai border and they are currently in the process of constructing a 140 mile long iron barrier stretching from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

The barrier is six-teen feet high and gleaming in the middle of the old desert, which is almost entirely unpopulated, except for a few Egyptian soldiers at border crossings and random guard crossings. It is hoped that the barrier will both add an additional layer of security from the lawlessness of Sinai, and prevent thousands of African refugees from continuing to flood Israel on a yearly basis.

I applaud the Israeli government for taking the necessary steps to secure their borders with an uneasy neighbor who seems unwilling, or unable to guard its own lawless lands and prevent terrorism against innocents. Perhaps the United States should take notice and consider Israel’s example when dealing with our own hostile southern border.

What say you?

Cross-posted at Pundit Press.

The al-Shabaab Islamist movement has been dealt a heavy blow in Somalia. The branch of al Qaeda has been driven out of the town of Baidoa, which had been one of its strongholds. It has also been removed from the country’s capital, Mogadishu. The city was captured by a joint Ethiopian-Somali expedition.

Witnesses say that after fierce fighting on Tuesday, al-Shabab fighters pulled out of Baidoa – which was then taken on Wednesday without a battle.

BBC Somali service analyst Abdullahi Sheikh says Baidoa is a big loss to al-Shabab, as the main road linking Mogadishu to the south-west and parts of Kenya and Ethiopia passes through the city.

Some more good news. Perhaps this will start a cascading effect.

Egyptian presidential candidate Tawfiq Okasha predicted on February 9 that “Egypt will go to war with U.S., Germany and Israel within three months.”

Okasha is the owner of Al-Faraeen TV in Egypt, which experts call “anti-American, anti-Semitic.” For example, on October 31, he promoted an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the Jews control the West. He said, “The Jews, who devised the philosophy of the American economic system, placed a pyramid and an eye on the back of the dollar bill—symbols of global Freemasonry…enables them to maintain their grip upon the nations.”

As for his opinion of the U.S., Okasha says it is “the second civilization to be founded on blood.”

Last month, Egypt’s Administrative Court banned his talk show from the airwaves. He wasn’t banned because of his radicalism. He was banned after a lawsuit was filed by two officials for defamation of character.

Okasha is able to bring a lot of attention to himself, but according to Ahram Online, he has little support. The news outlet states:

“Okasha has been openly critical of many pro-revolution and political figures. His show was known for its high viewership. However, it mostly met with sarcasm.

Okasha ran in the latest parliamentary elections in his hometown Mansoura in Dakahliya but lost.”

Four developments this week make it clear that we are in the midst of an Iranian terror offensive that began in the fall. First, there were three Iranian-orchestrated attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand. And then came a chilling headline: “Fears Iran Helping Al-Qaida for ‘Spectacular’ Attack.”

The astonishingly small reaction to that news story shows just how far we’ve come since 9/11. You would have been called overly cynical if, in October 2001, you said that in February 2012, there’d be almost no reaction to a news story about two of our worst enemies working together for a “spectacular” attack on the West, one of which is close to having nuclear weapons. Yet, that sorry state of mind is exactly where we find ourselves.

An intelligence source unequivocally told the British press, “We do know that an operation is under way.” Verifying the source claim is an intelligence memo that discusses Iran’s “improvement of operational and intelligence ties with the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in recent months.” This includes training in explosives. Ayman al-Zawahiri is reportedly working on an operation involving simultaneous terror attacks and British intelligence believes that Europe is the most likely target.

Click here to read the rest of my FSM column.

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer says that there must be “increased scrutiny” of Iran’s diplomats at the United Nations in the wake of the three Iranian-sponsored terrorist actions last week. He wrote a public letter to Secretary of State Clinton warning her that Iranian “diplomats” can actually be members of the Revolutionary Guards or Ministry of Intelligence and Security sent to carry out acts of terrorism.

In 2004, the U.S. kicked out two Iranian security guards at the U.N. after they were caught videotaping the State of Liberty, bridges, tourist attractions and a subway despite warnings from the U.S. that it is not permitted. The State Department said this was the third time that it had to expel Iranian security guards for doing this kind of thing, with the two previous incidents happening in June 2002 and November 2003.

Already in the 1980s’, Jack Anderson revealed how Khomeini’s “terrorists are masquerading as Iranian diplomats, with diplomatic credentials and immunity,” in order to carry out attacks on its enemies.

In Venezuela, there is a serious Iranians are not required to get visas. Hugo Chavez is linked to anti-Colombian FARC terrorists that are working with Hezbollah.

Iranian diplomats are also used to penetrate U.S.-friendly countries like Panama and Costa Rica. A few years back, there was an alert in Costa Rica when Iranian “diplomats” tried to cross the border from Nicaragua, which has been sometimes referred to as the Iranian northern border of Costa Rica.

While Iran has not accepted these offers, we have made our bottom line clear: For the safety of our people and the peace of the world, America will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

–George W. Bush, December 5, 2008

Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow — endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.

– Barack Obama with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, September 25, 2009

According to who you ask, Iran is not far from nuclear weapons capability. Israeli officials are stating that Iran is near or past the ‘point of no return’ while others put the program just six months from enough uranium to construct a weapon. Even opponents of military action or apologists for the Islamic Republic will admit that Iran is not far from a nuclear breakout activity.

With all of the pressure that the international community is heaping on Iran, it should seem unlikely that that same world would allow the country to acquire nuclear weapons. However, to many, the diplomatic and military options to stop such a program are at a higher risk factor than doing simply nothing.

Over the last decade, Iran has benefited from various missteps or lack of action from the Western powers and even Israel. For years, the Western powers would warn Iran was nearing a nuclear device and put in place various sanctions to try and slow their progress. Many of these sanctions were either superfluous or cosmetic while the intelligence agencies in the West were deathly afraid of political blame that backlashed after the 2003 Iraq War. The 2007 NIE report that claimed Iran had suspended its nuclear program was an intelligence fiasco, bolstering Iran’s position while showing the skittishness of the American intelligence agencies.

It was a well-known “fact” that the Bush Administration would not leave office while Iran was moving closer to the bomb. It was widely believed that the White House would bomb Iran before leaving office in January 2009. No such bombing occurred. True, there was Stuxnet, but even with the relative success of the malware, it did not stop the program.

The Obama Administration has often times carbon-copied the Bush Administration’s approach to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. The sanctions and diplomatic pressure have been ramped up, now with Europe finally agreeing to stop purchasing Iranian oil. Meanwhile, sanctions on Iran’s Bank Melli (Central Bank) could hobble the country’s financial system. Or maybe not.

The Obama Administration is in a quandary. Nine months before the election, any military operation within Iran will have unexpected consequences, even if Iran’s nuclear program is set back significantly. With Hezbollah and Hamas prepared to act on Iran’s behalf, Obama’s re-election team could see any military action as possible electoral defeat.

Obama’s stricter line on sanctions and imports is welcome, but could show that the Administration is betting that these actions will work– or will be the last non-military options. China and Russia would not condone an attack, and the instability in oil prices and supply could crush the American and European economies during this fragile period.

If Obama will act on Iran (unless directly provoked), he will likely wait until after the election.

But what about Israel, you ask?

Israel’s capability to launch a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is likely lower than advertised. The Iranians learned from Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program to have the facilities spread out, hidden, and buried. A multi-pronged Israeli attack is unlikely to do the damage necessary. Killing Iranian scientists and sabotaging facilities has worked somewhat well, but has not stopped the program.

Put simply: even the Mossad and the IDF would have great difficulty stopping Iran’s nuclear program in an attack or even series of attacks. Sure, tactical nukes would work, but would be diplomatic suicide.

What may very well happen over the next year is that the focus on Iran’s nuclear program will shift. Rather than trying to stop Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability, the West and Israel may shift to trying to stop only the final stage: the actual deployment of these warheads. Any early Iranian device would likely not be miniaturized and ready to put on a missile. The new refrain could become “It’s okay, they may have the bomb (or get it soon) but it will be years before they can actually use it.”

This new red line will effectively reset the game. The moment that the United States shifts to this focus, it (almost) neuters Israel’s ability to act unilaterally. It will also act as a sigh of relief for many of the European powers, Russia, and China, who can then just start importing more Iranian oil.

This kicks the can down the road five more years, for the next President to deal with. The fear of losing re-election or putting the economy into a tailspin may be just what is needed to give Iran what it’s been coveting.

Click the headline to watch an important new video released by the Clarion Fund, where I am now a Fellow. Our film, “The Third Jihad,” has sparked a huge controversy in New York City, thanks to smears from the New York Times and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Watch our rebuttal video below and send it to a friend: