Iran – Iraq: The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement

 

The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement
by Mustang 
 
Some background
 
Iran is the seventeenth largest country in the world, encompassing just under one-million square miles of land—larger than the combined nations of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal.  It is also the sixteenth largest country in terms of human population.  The size of the country, its terrain, weather patterns, shortage of water, and the distribution of human populations make Iran unsuitable for sustained land warfare. 
 

Reza Shah Pahlavi

Reza Shah Pahlavi (1878-1944) (also known as Reza Shah) was the Shah of Iran from December 1925 to September 1941, when a joint British-Soviet invasion forced his resignation.  Before leading Iran as its monarch, Pahlavi served as Iran’s prime minister.  He was appointed legal monarch by the Iranian Constituent Assembly, which deposed the previous shah, Ahmad Shah Qajar [1].  Reza Shah sought to restrict opposition to his regime by restricting freedom of the press, worker’s rights, and certain political freedoms.  Political parties were banned—including the party most loyal to Reza Shah—along with trade unions. 

He was also known for punishing through torture criminal elements, spies, and those accused of plotting regicide.  There are some today who accuse Reza Shah of suppressing religious expression, particularly those practicing the moslem faith and of suppressing the communist elements in Iran during his reign.  The confiscation of clerical land holdings did not endear him to a group of increasingly radical Iranian clerics—and the more these leaders protested Reza Shah’s policies, the more he cracked down on Islamic extremists.
 
In 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa—the invasion of the Soviet Union.  It was a direct violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  That summer, Soviet and British diplomats sent a number of notes to the government of Iran, stating that they regarded the presence of Germans in Iran, such as those administering state rail systems, as a threat to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom.  The implication was that if Iran did not expel these German civil servants, a state of war might exist between Iran and the allied powers. 

It was the intent of the British to ship arms to the Soviets through Iran.  Iran, however, did not believe the British would declare war on Iran, particularly since Iran had declared its neutrality in the growing conflict.  However, on 25 August 1941, British and Australian forces attacked the Persian Gulf and Soviet land forces invaded Iran, which included the aerial bombing of Tehran.  It was not long before Iranian defense forces collapsed.  On 16 September, Reza Shah resigned and was replaced by his son, Mohammed Reza [2].
 
In 1953, the United States helped to orchestrate a coup d’ẻtat, which overthrew a popularly elected prime minister and strengthened the Iranian monarchy.  Despite his demonstrations of enlightenment in 1941, Shah Reza Pahlavi by 1971 had become increasingly authoritarian (and inept).  His domestic policies did as much to foment revolution as did the radical Islamist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who was working to achieve revolution in the background from Paris). 

One might argue that through their support of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian people have suffered mightily of their own choosing.  It can also be argued that the policies toward Iran of the United Kingdom and United States have not served the interests of either country, or of Iran and its people [3].

 
More Recently
 

Soleimani

The United States eliminated through extreme prejudice Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, a thoroughly nasty fellow who commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the so-called Quds Force, an organization responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations, which involved providing military assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. 

Soleimani was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 due to his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government in its suppression of civil protests.  Owing to the fact that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist since Osama bin Laden, the United States listed him as a known terrorist.  At 0100 on 3 January 2020, a US drone strike introduced Soleimani to the afterworld.  This strike came as a consequence of Soleimani’s orchestration of the attack on the United States Embassy in Baghdad [4].
 
Shortly after the drone strike, President Donal J. Trump warned leaders in Iran against following through on their threats to avenge General Soleimani.  By now, all of Donald Trump’s “tweets” have become famous, but his communique via Twitter in the aftermath of Soleimani’s demise is particularly noteworthy. 
Mr. Trump wrote, “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, and badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. 
“Let this serves as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, will be hit very fast and very hard.  The United States of America wants no more threats.”
 
President Trump made two important decisions: to kill Soleimani —and to do it publicly.  In making the act public, Mr. Trump left no doubt as to whom was responsible for Soleimani’s long-overdue death.  Trump in fact emphasized the direction of his administration when he also announced that there would be no more Benghazi’s.  Bravo, Mr. Trump!  But of course, the decision places Iran in the unenviable position of having to decide what to do about the drone strike. 
Currently, there is a lame duck government in Iraq, which Iran must see as an opportunity.  There is also an issue among some Afghanis who wonder why, if Mr. Trump can reach out and touch Soleimani, why can’t the United States reach out with equal precision and rid the world of a number of Pakistani thugs who fund or orchestrate Taliban anti-government campaigns.  It is an interesting question.
 
What the US government should keep in mind, in addition to the fact that Iran is unsuitable for a sustained land engagement, is that only 55% of the Iranian people are ethnic Persian; a large percentage of the Iranian population are minority Sunni moslems.  This is a fact that should lead US political leaders to avoid any policy or action that would serve to unite these disparate groups behind the Ayatollah or any of his henchmen [5]. 
With substantial American military forces to the east and west of Iran, the Iranian regime must have concerns that the United States is well-placed to foment rebellion inside Iran—and this may be the reason Iran is desperate to develop an offensive nuclear capability.  It may also explain their support of ideological extremism, which equates to cheap warfare for Iran, while remaining costly for everyone else.

The problem we have with Iran today is more than just a little of our own fault.  We need to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs; it is a nasty habit we picked up from the British.  We also need to stop appeasing thugs and criminals.  There is no good reason for any American president to “understand the plight of Islamic freedom fighters.” 

What these Islamists do in their own country is none of our concern; it should only be a concern to us when their unseemly behaviors affect our (actual) national security, the safety of our people, and the protection of our property.  I support the concept of using our air forces to punish any Iranian revenge attack.  I do not care about any collateral damage that might result from it.

The Iranians opted for their plight in 1978-79; they continue to put up with radical regimes today.  The sooner Iran understands that western civilization will defend itself, that we (collectively) will not tolerate Islamic extremism (in any form), the quicker they learn that there are dangerous consequence to global extremism, the better for everyone.

 

Donald J. Trump is the only president we’ve had in the past 32 years with the courage to set Iran straight.  Not only should we (true) Americans be thankful for that, we should also demand it from all future presidents/presidential candidates.

Sources:
  1. Buchan, J.  Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences.  Simon & Schuster, 2013.
  2. Abrahamian, E.  Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran.  University of California, 1999.
  3. Daniel, E. L.  The History of Iran.  Greenwood Press, 2000.
  4. United States Department of State, American Foreign Policy Basic Documents, 1977-80.  Washington, DC 1983.
Endnotes:
  1. Ascended to the throne of Iran at the age of 11 years after his father was overthrown in 1909.  His reign was short lived, sent into exile in 1925.  He passed away at the age of 32 years in 1930.
  2. Mohammed Reza reigned until 1979 when he abdicated and went into exile.  The Iranian revolution was unusual in the sense that it occurred in a relatively prosperous nation, not the result of war, financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or a military coup d’ẻtat.  Rather than evolving as a single event, the revolution involved a series of incidents beginning in 1977 which culminated in wide-scale civil disobedience that included both secular and religious elements and university students.  Strikes and demonstrations paralyzed Iran between 1978-79.  On 16 January 1979, the Shah went into exile leaving the government in the hands of a regency council headed by an opposition prime minister  The council in turn invited Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran, thinking that he would serve the interests of secular government by maintaining the status of a religious figurehead.  That didn’t happen, of course.
  3. The Iranian Hostage event occurred in November 1979, lasting for 444 days, which proves beyond question that US elections have significant consequences to the safety and security of the American people, United States property, and our national prestige.  It is a shame that the American voter has never learned this important lesson of history, which is illustrated by their election of Barack Obama to the presidency, their continued and bewildering support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and their jaw-dropping support of Marxist/globalist politicians.
  4. American diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to limit Iranian influence in the Middle East has had no impact on Iranian behavior since the Iranian Revolution in 1976.  In addition to murdering Americans, Soleimani was also responsible for the deaths of (estimated) thousands in Syria, but of course the American political left has condemned the attack, arguing that it violated international and human rights standards protecting known terrorists, murderers, and rapists generally, and Soleimani particularly.
  5. It is only through the fear and intimidation imposed on them by Iran’s revolutionary guard that keeps minority groups “in line.”  

For the best in news.

Donald Trump ends celebration of Ramadan dinner celebration

Finally Trump puts his foot down. We have been at war with Islam since the beginning of our Nation. Shades of what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued back at the time of the beginning of our Nation. Muslims were terrorizing our shipping lanes on what was known as the Barbary Coast. Capturing our sailors and ships. Appeasement? Or War? I include a small part of an earlier post of mine concerning it.

President Trump, who stayed over at the White House for the weekend, did not hold an iftar dinner to commemorate Ramadan. Instead, he issued a statement Saturday morning to celebrate the occasion, which marks the end of the holy month.

 

“On behalf of the American people,” President Trump said in the statement, “Melania and I send our warm greetings to Muslims as they celebrate Eid al-Fitr.”

Over the years, the dinners, attended by leaders of the Muslim community, foreign diplomats and members of Congress, have grown odd, given the nonstop Islamic violence spreading across the world. Ramadan brings even more terror as Muslim attackers are seen as martyrs during Ramadan, and supposedly win greater rewards in the afterlife.

And 2017 set a new record for terror attacks during Ramadan, which ran from May 26 to June 24. There were 174 Islamic terror attacks that left 1,595 people dead and 1,960 wounded, reports Religion of Peace.  H/T”Daily Wire

What Jefferson and Adams knew about Muslims that Progressives don’t

Adams wanted to pay ransom to secure the release of hostages. Jefferson said no more. Appeasement? Or war. It is good to review this piece of History at this time. Here tis a piece of it:

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease. For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. Read more

 

What Jefferson and Adams knew about Muslims that Progressives don’t

After seeing the Mayor of Philadelphia totally deny that the shooting of a police officer had anything to do with Islam when the perpetrator himself claimed so, I decided to do a re-run of our history.

Our nation has been dealing with these barbarians since the beginning of our nation. Since the beginning, Tunisia and what was then known as the Barbary Coast, the Muslims were barbarous towards the United States. Adams wanted to pay ransom to secure the release of hostages. Jefferson said no more. Appeasement? Or war. It is good to review this piece of History at this time. Here tis a piece of it:

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease. For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

42 Million plus support ISIS, US blocks attempts by allies to arm Kurds

Figure this one out. The Islamic State rolls on and we are assured that Islam is a religion of peace. Thus we are trucking in thousands of them to the United States from the Middle East as refugees without so much as attempting to vet them. How about these numbers? Millions think of ISIS positively. And the Kurds? Obama refuses to allow even our allies to arm them directly. Whose side is Obama on? Here we go:

The study, based on four recent polls, reveals the shocking level of support for the caliphate around the world.

Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project, which carried out the research, warned that “ISIS is only a fraction of what it could potentially become”.

He said: “If we don’t act quickly, this is still going to grow – and what we’re looking at today is going to look like the good old days compared to the future.”

More than 8.5million people view ISIS positively, and around 42 million view them somewhat positively, according to the data.

Read more: Express

Meanwhile, Obama refuses to help the Kurds.

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month.

The officials say they are looking at new ways to take the fight to Isil without seeking US approval.

“If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.”

The Peshmerga have been successfully fighting Isil, driving them back from the gates of Erbil and, with the support of Kurds from neighbouring Syria, re-establishing control over parts of Iraq’s north-west.

But they are doing so with a makeshift armoury. Millions of pounds-worth of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds, but American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against Isil, are blocking the arms transfers.

One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of Isil attack, the Peshmerga are fighting modern American weaponry with out-of-date Soviet equipment.

Keep reading

John Kerry gets Zero support for Syrian non-war from ‘our’ Middle East ‘Allies’

Lerch has been once again tooling around the Middle East, searching for “the willing” to support Obama and his almost plan. The Brits, Germany and Turkey were quick to say “count us out”. They have had enough of this foolishness. The Libya and Egypt fiasco should have taught all of “the willing” how far throwing in with a loser will take them. Still looking for someone to put those ole boots on the ground. Why would Egypt and the UAE even be involved after just a few weeks ago, Obama and the EU reamed them out for trying to save the Tripoli airport from the Terrorists. Recall this nonsense?

Obama’s wacko Libyan policy. Attacks UAE and EGYPT for trying to save Tripoli? August 26, 2014

The New York Times, citing unnamed American officials, reported that neighboring Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have launched airstrikes against Islamists in Libya twice over the past week.

The US and EU governments “strongly condemn the escalation of fighting and violence in and around Tripoli, Benghazi, and across Libya, especially against residential areas, public facilities, and critical infrastructure, by both land attack and airstrikes,” the statement said. (They tried to save the Airport from the terrorists)

But I digressed.

To understand and to try and figure out who these “willings” will be and how Lerch is making out, I turned to the foreign news sources. So let’s take a look at what the Turkish media has to say about how the so-called coalition is working out. How are our friends stacking up?

The header reads:  Arabs back anti-ISIL statement as Turkey abstains. Let’s look at how the words are parsed. Grab this one first:

Squabbling among Washington’s allies in the region has complicated efforts to present a united front to beat back the militants.

Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt are at odds with Qatar and Turkey because of the latter two countries’ support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in the region.

Egypt’s foreign minister, Sameh Shukri, emphasized that rift in his opening remarks, saying regional chaos is the result of a number of factors, including the tolerance of some in the region and the West with “so-called political Islam” – a clear dig at supporters of the Brotherhood.

Salman Shaikh, the director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said the Sept. 11 meeting was important because it signaled a U.S. reengagement in the region – something many Mideast allies feel has been lacking under the Obama administration.

“How the U.S. can play this role will be absolutely crucial,” he said. “It has to act as a keen leader for its friends and allies, but also act as a referee between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran, particularly when it comes to the issue of Iraq and the issue of Syria.”

Key Arab allies of the United States agreed Sept. 11 to “do their share” to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),promising to take action to stop the flow of fighters and funding to the insurgents and possibly to join military action.

NATO member Turkey refused to join its Arab neighbors in their public pledge, however, signaling the struggle the West faces in trying to get front-line nations to set aside political feuds and work together against a common enemy, according to the Associated Press.

The announcement followed a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his regional counterparts in the Saudi Red Sea coastal city of Jiddah. His visit, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, was aimed at pinning down regional allies on what support they are willing to give to U.S. plans to beat back the ISIL, which has seized large chunks of Iraq and Syria.

The meeting ended with Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon pledging in a joint statement to stand against terrorism. They promised steps including stopping fighters and funding, repudiating the ISIL’s ideology, providing humanitarian aid and “as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign.”

More at Hurriyet Daily News

The first clip gives us a flavor of the meeting and a view of the lying characters involved. The short second clip is even better. No wonder no one wants to get involved in this nonsense.

John Kerry to CNN: U.S. Is Not ‘at War’ with ISIS

Published on Sep 11, 2014

CNN’s Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott caught up with Kerry during a summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Thursday and asked him if America is “at war” with ISIS, “because it sure sounded in President Obama’s speech that we were.

 

John Kerry: No need for “war fever” in ISIS operations

 

John Kerry to Senators: ‘Stop listening to Israelis on Iran’

This administration has just sold away the safety of the Middle East and Israel for thirty pieces of silver and some phony promises. This appeasement thing never works out.

United States Secretary of State John Kerry has controversially claimed that American Senators should ‘stop listening to the Israelis’ in respect to Iran’s nuclear program. Kerry made the incendiary remark during a behind-close-doors briefing he gave to the Senate Banking Committee, where he made an impassioned plea to the lawmakers to put a halt to proposed new sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Some people never learn about appeasement.

Maggie’s Notebook: Obama To Israel:  F@%k You!

For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.

History is repeating itself in spades.

We haven’t become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out.  A war that will become a World War

.

Obama and his Kenya politics – another war in the making

What with the new terrorist attack in Kenya, one has to reflect on the U.S. role in the region.

Looking back, why is Obama determined to unsettle just about every region in the world?  What are his motivations? He shares few internal concerns for the infiltration of terrorists into our country, but loves his drones. A puzzle isn’t it? For starters, from an earlier post:

Drones Away – more kinetic Actions – here, there, everywhere October 25, 2011

A Somali government official, who spoke on the condition of unanimity, told Press TV that there are secret US bases in Kenya mainly used for flying American pilot less drone bombers.

He also said that there are secret US jails in Kenya where hundreds of young people, captured in Somalia, are being held.

The US has increased the number of its attacks by unmanned surveillance aircraft in Somalia. Many civilians have died as a result.

Washington claims the airstrikes target militants, though most of such attacks have largely resulted in civilian casualties.

Somalia is the sixth country where the US military has engaged in unauthorized aerial bombing campaigns through the use of its remote-controlled aircraft. Press TV Ir

Now with Kenya back in the news with the new onslaught of violence, bet he will be in the situation room with this one. My “older readers” got their fill of my Kenya stories back a couple of years ago. Here is a bit of a refresher on our mixing into Kenya politics.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden urged Kenyans to embrace constitutional reform during a speech here last week. But prominent politicians and Kenya’s church leaders want the draft defeated because of allowances for abortion and Islamic courts that deal with family matters, issues opposed by conservative U.S. groups.(here)

Our earlier post: Obama supporting Cousin’s radical agenda in Kenya

Most Americans don’t realize that Barack Obama campaigned across Kenya while a US Senator to get his cousin Raila Odinga elected Prime Minister. Just last month he sent Biden over to Kenya to shill for this Terrorist. For more on this Obama supports Sharia Law and Constitutional change in Kenya  Snopes disputes the notion that they are cousins, but states, “even so, it would only be genetic”.

Odinga is a radical Muslim who’s pushing a new constitution on Kenya that requires all Muslims in the country to obey Sharia law. It also forbids any public displays of Christianity. Odinga cut a deal with radical Islamic groups to get it passed and Obama continues to support him behind the scenes with millions of tax payer dollars.

Odinga burned 50 Christians in a Church seeking refuge.

Get this: Odinga’s campaign slogan was “Vote For Change.”

Members of Congress are beginning to question the Obama administration’s full throated support for a radical Islamic constitution in Kenya. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is calling for an investigation and says the administration may be violating federal law.

This is really rich. Move the vid up to about 2:45 to hear how he tells Kenyans to have transparency when he was campaigning for Odinga. No need to watch the adoring fans prance about.

Michelle says Barack’s Home country is Kenya – full statement. Talking during the LGBT Delegate (The World as it Should Be), Michelle is talking about HIV testing. Her statement is that she and Barack Hussein Obama tested for HIV, when they took their trip to Kenya and visited his ‘HOME’ country

Muslim Brotherhood official arrested, worked for Clinton Foundation

What is it about this love affair for the Muslim Brotherhood? Just in case anyone thought that Bill Clinton didn’t have his long fingers in the Egypt fiasco, one can forget it. The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated all levels of our government, and apparently our regime wants the same for other countries as well.

A senior Muslim Brotherhood official who, until recently, had been employed by the William J. Clinton Foundation was arrested in Cairo on Tuesday and charged with inciting violence.

Gehad el-Haddad served as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top communications officials until Egyptian security forces seized him as part of a wider crackdown on officials loyal to ousted former President Mohamed Morsi.

Before emerging as a top Brotherhood official and adviser to Morsi, el-Haddad served for five years as a top official at the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit group founded by former President Bill Clinton.

Just a month after El-Haddad left the Clinton Foundation to work full-time for the Brotherhood, former President Morsi was invited to deliver his first major speech at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), the high profile political family’s other nonprofit.

El-Haddad gained a reputation for pushing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist agenda in the foreign press, where he was often quoted defending the Brotherhood’s crackdown on civil liberties in Egypt.

El-Haddad’s employment at the Clinton Foundation overlapped with his official work for the Muslim Brotherhood, which began in Cairo in February 2011 when he assumed control of the Renaissance Project, a Brotherhood-backed economic recovery program

El-Haddad regularly defended the Brotherhood’s authoritarian crackdown on civil society, even running damage control in December 2012 when Morsi supporters attacked women and children.

El-Haddad served as the Clinton Foundation’s city director from August 2007 to August 2012, according to his LinkedIn profile.

More at Free Beacon

Syrian Emergency Task Force dumps disposable O’Bagy

The Syrian Emergency Task Force, a group of Syrians lobbying for American intervention, needed a American front woman with outside credentials. After the Institute for the Study of War dumped Elizabeth O’Bagy and her credibility was shot, the SETF didn’t need her anymore.

It was never about Ms O’Bagy’s credentials or lack thereof. It was about we as Americans being played. Played by McCain – or perhaps his senility got in the way of his judgement, the Obama regime who paid the freight for her “unbiased scientific work”, and most importantly many of the neocons who had to or should have known better than to mix with the Institute for the Study of War which includes funding by the Government as well as military contractors. Who are the Board Directors?

Directors included: Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and founder of the right-wing advocacy group Keep America Safe; William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative flagship magazine the Weekly Standard; Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who coauthored with Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute “Choosing Victory,” a 2007 study that served as a blueprint for the so-called “surge” in Iraq; Dennis Showalter, a military historian; Hal Hirsch; Bill Roberti; and Kim Kagan.

And who supports this organization”

 “According to ISW’s last annual report,” noted Consortium News in December 2012, now is backed by national security contractors, including major ones like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provides training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplies software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.”[18]

For the full rant, check out my earlier post: Liz Cheney, Elizabeth O’Bagy, Military contractors- a toxic brew

Now, back to the news of the dumping of Ms O’Bagy:

“The Syrian Emergency Task Force announced officially today that Elizabeth O’Bagy is no longer working with the organization,” the group’s executive director Mouaz Moustafa said Monday. “Although the SETF deeply regrets the poor judgment exercised by Ms. O’Bagy in misstating her credentials, we stand by her research on the realities on the ground in Syria. The mission of the Syrian Emergency Task Force is to educate the American public and policy makers on the Syrian crisis and to provide humanitarian assistance to Syrians in need.”

Mouaz Moustafa is a good deal worse than Elizabeth O’Bagy as documented earlier.

Senator McCain called Moustafa a “patriot”, but it’s not clear which country he’s a patriot of, since it’s not Mouaz Moustafa’s first time around on the regime change bus tour.

Before the Syrian Emergency Task Force, Moustafa was the Executive Director of the Libyan Council of North America, which like the SETF existed to help push regime change. Before that, he mentions working with “rebels” in Egypt. His Twitter account frequently features anti-Israel material, including calls for a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. On his YouTube account, he “liked” a video featuring Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, “crying while praying”.

O’Bagy is disposable and proved to be disposable. It’s the SETF that matters.

More at Front Page Mag

‘Humanitarian’ Hillary Clinton weighs in on Syrian Morality

How to even opine on the events regarding Syria yesterday. Faster than a speeding bullet. What to even chose. It could have been Susan Rice telling us the truth of the matter. Lurch who really lurched. But to me the real gagger was Hillary Clinton.

Four Americans slaughtered in Benghazi weren’t worth Hillary’s time and energy, but civil war in Syria? She’s not gonna stand for that.

The former secretary of state weighed in this afternoon on possible military strikes against Syria

H/T:Twitchy

%d bloggers like this: