New NATO hub will gather the Alliance’s cyber defenders
Cyber defenders from across the Alliance have a new community(!!!) where they can exchange information, share best practices and work together in an encrypted workspace with secure video, voice, chat and information gathering capabilities. The community was launched today (12 February 2019) by the NATO Communications and Information Agency (“NCIA”).
Computer emergency response teams from five countries are already connected to NATO’s protected business network: Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States. Access to the network will roll out to all 29 Nations later this year.
The launch of the cyber defenders’ community is the first step toward the creation of an information hub for Allies, called the Cyber Security Collaboration Hub. This initiative was announced last year by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that one of NATO’s key roles in cyber space is “to act as a hub for information sharing, training and expertise”.
The future hub will not require additional funds or staff, or changes in policy. The collaboration is facilitated through existing Memorandums of Understanding with NATO Nations.
Trump’tan Türkiye’yi kızdıracak karar! İmzalayıp o tarihi işaret etti
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, 2019 mali yılı harcamalarına yönelik torba kanunu imzaladı. Onaylanan torba kanuna göre, Türkiye’nin Rus yapımı S-400 hava savunma sistemlerini alması halinde 1 Kasım 2019 tarihine kadar F-35 savaş uçaklarının alımını durduruyor.
ABD, Türkiye’ye karşı harekete geçti! Son bir haftada…
ABD Başkanı Trump, Suriye’den çekilme sözü verirken Pentagon daha çok yerleşme planı yapıyor. Son bir hafta içinde PKK’lı teröristlerle Kamışlı, Ayn İsa, Ayn el Arab’ta (Kobani) 3 ayrı toplantı yapan ABD heyetleri, Türkiye’siz “güvenli bölge” planlarını konuştular.
SOROS GROUPS FILE LAWSUITS ATTACKING TRUMP’S BORDER WALL
Sixteen states sue to keep the nation’s southern border wide open for illegal aliens and terrorists.
Sixteen states and at least six activist groups have filed or are preparing lawsuits taking aim at President Trump’s Feb. 15 emergency declaration that seeks to divert already appropriated government funds to build a wall on the nation’s porous border with Mexico.
This was to be expected. When the Left loses elections, it turns to unelected federal judges to carry out its will.
There is also an effort afoot in Congress to overturn the declaration. If both chambers pass a resolution of disapproval, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller seemed to indicate Sunday that the president would veto it. Trump is “going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed,” Miller said on Fox News Channel.
Of the six activist organizations, four –Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Defenders of Wildlife— have been funded by radical leftist financier George Soros through his philanthropies.
The 16 states seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent Trump from moving forward with wall construction while the case is pending in the courts are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, according to the Washington Post.
In what is clearly an example of judge-shopping, the states filed at U.S. District Court in Northern California, which is part of the territory covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where various judges have issued sweeping injunctions against Trump administration policies.
The legal action accuses Trump of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme.” The states say they are attempting “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”
The activists have initiated three lawsuits at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., aimed at frustrating President Trump’s efforts to secure the border and halt the long-running invasion of the nation by illegal aliens.
Founded by former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Public Citizen initiated a lawsuit Friday to strike down the president’s proclamation under the National Emergencies Act, on behalf of the Frontera Audubon Society of Weslaco, Texas, and a group of Texas landowners. The lawsuit claims that endangered species will be harmed if the wall if built.
In its suit CREW is trying to force the Justice Department to hand over internally produced legal opinions “that discuss the power of the president to invoke emergency powers to build a wall or other type of barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico[.]”
Defenders of Wildlife launched a legal action Saturday to freeze the emergency declaration. The Center for Biological Diversity and Animal Legal Defense Fund are also listed in the papers as plaintiffs. Like the suit filed by Public Citizen, this suit alleges endangered species will be adversely affected if the wall goes up.
At time of writing, the national ACLU did not appear to have filed a lawsuit seeking to stay Trump’s emergency declaration, but on Friday the group’s affiliate in Massachusetts filed “a lawsuit demanding information about a contract for a section of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that President Donald Trump said his administration awarded,” the Boston Herald reports. Trump tweeted in December that he “just gave out a 115 mile long contract for another large section of the Wall in Texas.”
On Friday, California’s new leftist governor, sanctuary city fanatic Gavin Newsom (D), said his state would soon hop on the anti-declaration bandwagon.
Soros personally gave money to Newsom’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign and to his campaign for his previous post, lieutenant governor of California, in 2014, according to the California secretary of state’s online campaign finance database.
Many other litigious left-wingers vow to sue to stop the wall. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and other Democrat lawmakers may also sue.
Officials in El Paso County, Texas, say they will litigate. Ditto for the fake libertarians at the Niskanen Center, and the leftists at the Soros-funded Border Network for Human Rights.
The Left and NeverTrumpers in the GOP have suffered a collective nervous breakdown since the declaration was unveiled.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who has called for the in-your-face harassment of Trump administration employees, told MSNBC Friday that there should be nationwide protests over what she called the “fake” emergency declaration.
“And so it’s time for everybody to stand up. All hands on deck to refuse this president these fake emergency powers that he would like the have. And so I’m urging everybody get together —rally in every community across this country all this weekend, send a message to Washington, D.C., ‘No, Mr. President, we’re not going allow you to do this.”
Soros-funded MoveOn.org called for national protests.
“Donald Trump has declared a #FakeNationalEmergency—an illegal power grab from an unhinged man to push his racist, dangerous policies.”
“We’re mobilizing rapid-response events on Presidents Day—Monday, 2/18—against Trump’s fake crisis and racist deportation force and to stand with immigrant, Muslim, and Black and brown communities to stop Trump’s dangerous and illegal power grab.”
Answering the leftist call for anarchy, on Saturday around 50 protesters, some of whom wore masks, occupied and vandalized the National Border Patrol Museum not far from the border in El Paso, Texas. The demonstrators reportedly hoisted banners reading “No Deportations on Stolen Ground” and shouted “Say it loud, say it clear, Border Patrol kills!”
Twitter is filled with often-strident denunciations of the emergency declaration by GOP pundits inside the Washington Beltway.
NeverTrumper David French of National Review penned an over-the-top column titled “Trump’s Emergency Declaration Is Contemptuous of the Rule of Law,” in which he calls the declaration “a contemptuous document,” and “the proclamation of a monarch, not an argument by a president.”
President Trump invoked the National Emergencies Act Friday as Congress finalized the 1,169-page, $333 billion omnibus spending bill that keeps the government operating until Sept. 30.
The bill, now law, contains $1.375 billion for 55 miles of border barriers in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The emergency declaration would take $6.7 billion in previously allocated funds to build the wall. Included in the already appropriated funds are $600 million from the Department of the Treasury Department, $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense’s anti-drug program, and $3.6 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction budget.
Law professors Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, a left-winger, and John Yoo of UC Berkeley, a conservative, say the president can call upon the statute, which President Gerald Ford signed into law in 1976, to get construction of the wall underway.
President Trump has already invoked the National Emergencies Act three times in his tenure. President Barack Obama invoked the statute no fewer than 10 times. Thirty-one previously-declared presidential emergencies reportedly remain in effect.
“Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally,” Turley wrote in a recent column.
The National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas,” he wrote. The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”
Yoo wrote earlier this month that Trump is on especially strong ground because Democrats and Republicans passed a law in 2006 authorizing the building of a border wall.
In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Supreme Court held “that when Congress broadly delegates a general power to the executive branch in the area of foreign affairs, such as the power to impose economic sanctions, it would not read Congress’s neglect to grant a more specific, related authority as foreclosing the president from exercising that authority. Instead, it would treat Congress’s silence as acquiescence to presidential initiative, especially in times of emergency,” Yoo wrote.
“That is exactly the case here: Congress has authorized a wall and other security measures at the border, it has not passed any law forbidding such a wall, and the president has invoked delegated powers to continue the wall’s construction.”
More lawsuits are coming. Count on it.
And George Soros, the preeminent funder of the Left, will be there writing the checks.
DEALING WITH EUROPE’S ISIS RETURNEES
Will our allies heed Trump?
“Seven hundred German citizens have gone to Syria to fight for the Islamic State. It’s not what they’re doing over there that scares us. It’s what happens when they come back.”
– Astrid, German intelligence officer, Homeland, season 5, episode 2.
Now that ISIS has been reduced from a caliphate to a cipher, the question arises: what to do with its former members who traveled from the West in order to crush the West – and who remain in the hands of the U.S. military and its local allies? Ship them all to Guantánamo so that the European media can paint them as victims of American abuse? Set them free to fight another day?
Early on Sunday morning, President Trump addressed this issue on Twitter. He wrote:
The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them….
….The U.S. does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go. We do so much, and spend so much – Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!
Trump’s right, of course. Terrorists with British or French or German passports shouldn’t be our problem. But are our allies prepared to go along?
Some observers would say they already are. In 2014, the Guardian reported that Britain had “arrested at least 60 [ISIS] returnees,” while thirty or more others were “facing trial in Germany.” Only last Friday, the Euronews website outlined the ways in which various European governments are purportedly responding to this challenge. “Initially,” wrote Rachael Kennedy, those governments “generally turned their backs on repatriating their citizens, but some have since started to reconsider their stance following US encouragement.” Kennedy stated that France “was considering the repatriation of 130 men and women to be tried,” that Germany was reportedly “watching the French case closely,” and that under U.K. law “some repatriated British fighters could simply walk free once they return.” Kennedy added that “[w]hile Europe appears uninterested in seeking its citizens out, there is one thing that is clear — if an IS member returns to their home border on their own accord, they can probably expect to be prosecuted.”
Both the 2014 Guardian story and last Friday’s Euronews report were rather puzzling, because you would never imagine, after reading them, that ISIS terrorists have actually been returning for years to some of these countries without ever being prosecuted. Generally speaking, indeed, these countries’ approaches to the return of ISIS members appear to have been feeble, confused, and highly uneven, sometimes varying significantly from one part of a country to another. There have been claims that it’s all but impossible to prosecute these people successfully – partly because European courts eschew jurisdiction over atrocities committed in far-off places and partly because hard evidence is hard to come by. But in many cases the reluctance to prosecute also seems to be rooted in the twisted temptation, on the part of at least some European authorities, to regard these evil beheaders (or would-be beheaders) as victims.
Take Britain. First, a brief detour in the name of context. Keep in mind that it’s only recently begun to be officially acknowledged that, over the last few decades, thousands of non-Muslim girls in British towns and cities have been subjected to Muslim gang rape. As of yet, the true dimensions of this emerging horror can still only be guessed at; but given the scale of what has already been uncovered, and given what this horror has illuminated about the true nature of Islam, you might expect it to have been a total game-changer for British society. You might, that is, expect the grooming-gang scandal to have compelled a total rethinking of immigration policies, to have been at the very heart of parliamentary debates, and to have altered entirely the way in which the British media cover Islam. Nope. In fact, even though this nightmare has only begun to be exposed, Britain’s elites are already eager to move on from it.
Precious few Brits, I would wager, could name even one of the girls who’ve been brutally raped by Muslim grooming gangs. But everybody in Britain now knows the name of 19-year-old Shamima Begum, who left Britain in 2015 to join ISIS. Begum, who this weekend gave birth to her third child at a refugee camp in Syria, has said that she wants to go back to the U.K. and live at her parents’ home in London. Even though she’s refused to express the slightest remorse for her treason, people across Britain have fretted over her fate.
For example, Richard Barrett, a former head of MI6, Britain’s counterpart to the CIA, has said that Britain should let her come home “if we are to stand by our values.” Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott concurs, saying she opposes “making people stateless.” On Sunday, a woman with a working-class British accent phoned into the two-hour Nigel Farage Show – on which Begum’s fate was Topic A – and insisted passionately that “we have a duty to look after that girl!”
Home Secretary Sajid Javid disagreed, saying last week that “if you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return” and that “If you do manage to return you should be ready to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted.” Not exactly tough talk, especially given that being “questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted” is nowadays the possible fate of anyone in the U.K. who’s caught criticizing Islam on Facebook. Merely by breathing the word prosecution, however, Javid was asking for trouble. Hanif Qadir, a “senior expert” at Prevent – Britain’s ridiculous excuse for an official “counter-extremist” program – told the Guardian that Javid, apparently by failing to offer returning ISIS terrorists candy and flowers, was “fuelling the [ISIS] narrative and giving wind to the sails of other extremists.” In other words, if you don’t coddle these monsters, you’ll create more of them.
Yesterday, fortunately, in what seemed a rare and precious moment of sanity – and genuine toughness- for the Home Office, Javid banned Begum from Britain.
Compare this to the policies in other European countries. But hey, let’s pop over to North America first. Six months ago, a Canadian blogger noted that “over sixty former ISIS fighters have returned to Canada, with more on the way,” and that, instead of being imprisoned or prosecuted, they were being given “thorough rehabilitation.” Some leaders might worry about the risk that such terrorists pose to law-abiding citizens, but the Trudeau administration, unsurprisingly, is more concerned about the safety of the terrorists, whose “identities and locations” are being systematically concealed in order “to protect them.” In a recent speech, a spokesman for Canada’s diplomatic service asserted that “every Canadian citizen – no matter how reprehensible – has the legal right to ‘re-enter’ Canada.” (Don’t ask me to explain those scare quotes around “re-enter.”)
What about the Netherlands? At least a few Dutch citizens who have fought for ISIS have reportedly been flown back home free of charge by the government and given places to live. In February 2017, De Volkskrant ran a rosy report claiming that returnees, then numbering about fifty, seemed to pose “no violent threat at all”; on the contrary, many of them, poor things, were themselves “traumatized.” (Reality check: by the time that piece appeared in De Volkskrant, returnees had already been involved in major terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris.) “Last month,” reported the Economist in December 2017, “a court in the Netherlands convicted a 22-year-old Dutch woman” who had moved with her Palestinian husband to ISIS territory “of helping to plan terrorism. It then set her free.” Indeed, though there are ISIS trials in the Netherlands, the percentages don’t look good: as of February of last year, according to one source, only seven of 50 ISIS returnees had been tried and convicted of criminal charges, while eight were being prosecuted. The other day, the Netherlands’ Minister of Justice and Security, Ferdinand Grapperhaus, affirmed that his country is, at present, actively involved in repatriating female ISIS members who hold Dutch passports. He didn’t say anything about arresting them.
And Sweden? In that country, it’s up to individual municipalities to decide what to do about returning ISIS members. In 2015, Expressen reported that one such municipality, Örebro, was giving them jobs and offering them “help by a psychologist” to “process the traumatic experiences they’ve undergone.” In 2016, the Sun reported that the city of Lund was offering them “free housing, a driver’s license and a range of tax benefits.” (This policy was formulated in accordance with a criminologist’s warning that “terrorist fighters will face difficulties unless they are supported”; a Lund official, Anna Sjöstrand, explained: “We cannot say because you made a wrong choice, you have no right to come back and live in our society.”) And just last week it was reported that the city of Stockholm, in response to critics who claimed it had failed to provide sufficient succor to returning jihadists – this is not a joke – had formulated a new policy to ensure that “the children of returnees feel good and receive the protection and support they need” and was also planning to set up a “help line” for the ex-jihadists themselves. In any event, as of last December, Swedish officials acknowledged that they’d lost track of the great majority of returned ISIS members.
Denmark? In 2014, the Guardian reported at length on “the so-called Aarhus model,” named after Denmark’s second-largest city, the premise of which was summed up as follows by a psychology professor at Aarhus University: “Look: these are young people struggling with pretty much the same issues as any others – getting a grip on their lives, making sense of things, finding a meaningful place in society. We have to say: provided you have done nothing criminal, we will help you to find a way back.” Of course’s that one hell of a big proviso: how to know what some returning ISIS member has or hasn’t done? As it happens, a report that appeared last Saturday in The Local seemed at least in part to contradict that account: Denmark, it implied, had thus far not taken in ISIS returnees, but might be obliged to do so in accordance with U.S. wishes. Interestingly, while no ISIS terrorist had yet been prosecuted in Denmark as of last summer, a Danish citizen, Tommy Mørck, was sentenced in June to six months for joining the fight against ISIS – and prosecutors were seeking a stiffer sentence. According to Mørck, the Danish judiciary was “cracking down on those who fight IS instead of going after extremists that have returned to Denmark.”
What of Norway? Last week, at a security conference in Munich, Prime Minister Erna Solberg told VG that her country will accept returning ISIS jihadists who have Norwegian citizenship. Will any of them be put on trial? Hard to imagine, at least with Solberg in power.
Germany? In January 2018, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Berlin government believed that over 960 people had left Germany to fight for ISIS, and that about a third had already returned home. In that country, too, the goal is “deradicalization.” Although state, not federal, officials are responsible for carrying out that process, the federal government provides “support for families of those who left Germany to fight for Islamic State” and, since last year, has funded programs “to educate and deradicalize returning foreign fighters.” Not a whisper about prosecution or punishment. This past Sunday, a statement by the German Interior Ministry asserted that “all German citizens, including those suspected of having fought for the so-called IS, have the right to return to Germany.” It further indicated that Germany’s goal is to “deradicalize returnees.” Notwithstanding that 2014 Guardian mention of thirty arrests of returned jihadists, the German Interior Ministry made no mention of putting any of these returnees on trial.
Let’s move on to the European country that has contributed more members to ISIS than any other. That would be France. According to one report, as of last August, when it had “1600 people in prison on terrorist offences…including returnees,” France had “made clear that it has little desire to repatriate and try those returnees who committed terrorist offences off the battlefield.” On January 31, the Guardian quoted French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner as saying that all ISIS members returning to France would be locked up at once and put on trial. Also quoted was Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, who declared that it was better for French jihadists to be “judged, convicted and punished in France rather than disappearing to plan other actions, including against our country.” This past Saturday, the same newspaper quoted a professor at Ghent University as saying that, of all the countries in Europe, only France wants its ISIS members back.
One last country: Belgium. A February 2018 Egmont Institute report noted that while its terrorist laws had been beefed up and returnees were “now more likely to be prosecuted and condemned for terrorism than they were before,” most Belgian returnees were not behind bars at that time. The most important detail in the report was this: “returnees are typically sentenced to 5 years in jail.” Yes, five years. Five. Such grotesquely brief sentences are, alas, par for the course in western Europe.
And that’s the ultimate problem here: our allies may be willing to go along with Trump and prosecute at least some of these barbarians, but their tame punishment regimes haven’t been overhauled to take into account the realities of the world we now live in. In most of these countries, most of these savages, if locked up at all, will get ridiculously short sentences in cells far nicer than they deserve, then be released into the general population, where they’ll pose an ever-present danger to everyone around them. As Danish Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said the other day about the prospect of giving ISIS terrorists a Danish trial: “They have beheaded people, raped women and children and sold people,” he said. “For me, it is paradoxical for those militants to now claim Western norms regarding protection of rights.”
Perhaps what each of these countries really needs is its own Guantánamo. But what are the chances of that happening? Besides, even if every last one of these monsters could be fenced in forever on, say, the island of St. Helena, what to do about the innumerable sons and daughters of Allah who, though they themselves never went to fight for ISIS, cheered on the caliphate from the safety of their homes in the Westt?
IRAN’S REVOLUTION: FORTY YEARS LATER
In Warsaw, we might see the murderous Iranian regime exposed.
Forty years ago this month, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown, replaced by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in what has become known as the Iranian Islamic revolution, a bloody affair that created the theological dictatorship of the Ayatollahs, and destabilized the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran began its days with a murderous spree that eliminated all opposition. First to be murdered was everyone associated with the Shah, including top military and intelligence (SABAK) brass. Next, the Khomeini gangs murdered their leftist partners in the revolution, and finally fellow Islamists such as Mujahedeen e-Khalq, whose remnants have been moved to Paris.
In the meantime, this week, Warsaw, Poland is serving as host city for an international conference (February 13-14) initiated and organized by the Trump administration in what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo termed as a ministerial conference “on stability, peace, freedom and security in the region and beyond.” The ostensible reason for the gathering is however, Iran’s destabilizing influence. According to Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz, 11 Middle Eastern countries responded with confirmation of their attendance, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Israel. Egypt and Tunisia also agreed to attend. Significantly, President Trump is aiming to build a wide coalition of countries from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe to thwart Iran’s threat to the region.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has subverted Lebanon, with Hezbollah practically running the government and the country. In Iraq too, the Shiite-Muslim government is directed by the powerful Shiite militias loyal to Iran. In Yemen, the Tehran regime supports the Houthis, a Zaidi-Shiite confessional group cum militia, who control Sanaa, the Yemeni capital. The Ayatollahs regime has been the primary military land force (along with Hezbollah and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, commanded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp) that helped Bashar Assad, the Syrian Alawi (branch of Shiite Islam) minority dictator, survive the civil war in Syria. The result is Iranian entrenchment and attempted control of Syria.
On the nuclear issue, the Ayatollahs took notice of how the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi-Sunni dictator. Hussein’s Iraq was suspected of developing nuclear weapons. To preserve their regime, the mullahs were determined to possess nuclear weapons, and built them in secret. The U.S. was able to invade and defeat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq because he didn’t yet have nuclear weapons. Had Saddam possessed them, the Iranian Ayatollahs reasoned, the U.S. would not have dared to invade. Hence, they deducted, they needed to possess nuclear arms. While Iran was a signatory to the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on July 1, 1968, it had nevertheless, already began research and development during the Shah’s tenure.
On June 16, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) led by Egyptian Mohammad El-Baradei, declared that “Iran failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities.” A year later, Kamal Kharrazi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, responding to numerous demands by the IAEA that Iran halt its nuclear program, said, “We won’t accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability, and has to be recognized by the International community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path.” On July 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Then, in late 2006, new traces of plutonium and enriched uranium had been found by the IAEA, in a nuclear waste facility in Iran. These were potential materials for nuclear warheads.
Iran has repeatedly cheated all the way through the Iran Nuclear Deal and beyond. Israel has recently exposed Iran’s deception with material proof, as revealed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Iran is however, clinging to the nuclear deal because it knows that the agreement does not permanently block, but only delays Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In Warsaw this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may bring up the conditions he set for Iran to resume future negotiations. They include: Providing full account of the military dimensions of its nuclear program, and verifiably abandon such work; End uranium enrichment and never process plutonium; Give international inspectors unfettered access to all nuclear sites; Release all U.S. citizens and others unjustly imprisoned; Stop proliferation of ballistic missiles, and the development of nuclear capable missiles; End support for Houthi rebels in Yemen; End support for Taliban and other terrorists, and end the harboring of Al-Qaeda terrorist leaders in Iran; End support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists; Respect Iraqi sovereignty, and the demobilization of the Shiite militias; End the IRGC support for terrorism and terrorists worldwide; Stop threatening U.S. allies including, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Unlike the 2015 toothless Iran nuclear deal, which ignored Iran’s cheating, its mischief worldwide, its development of ballistic missiles (aiming one day to hit Europe, the U.S. and of course Israel) and support for terrorism, the Warsaw conference puts Iran on notice on all accounts. As James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation pointed out, “The Trump Administration is going big: expanding the parameters of possible negotiations while staking out broad red lines to deter Iran’s maligned behavior, and offering a vision of mutually beneficial bilateral relations. The diplomatic ball is now in Iran’s court.”
After forty years in power, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. And like forty years ago, it still takes American and Western journalists and others as hostages. The Ayatollahs regime continues to incite the masses with rallies that dub the U.S. as the “Great Satan and Israel as “Little Satan.” The regime defies the international community by parading its latest missiles in Tehran. The same Ayatollahs of Iran still seek Shiite-Islam domination of the Muslim world. They are certainly trying to dominate the Middle East region, and possibly the entire world. In the process, the regime has created clandestine terrorist networks around the world including South Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, North America and the U.S. as well.
Internally however, the Ayatollahs regime has encountered several uprisings. Ten years ago, crying “Allahu Akbar,” a huge segment of Iran’s population flooded the streets of Tehran protesting against the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. They coopted the slogan and tactics the revolutionaries used 30 years earlier. The protesters included sons and daughters of the regime’s elites. Last year witnessed a series of nationwide demonstrations that included many with close connections to the regime. They railed against the regime’s corruption, its imposed restrictions and failures, as well as its unfulfilled promises of freedom from tyranny, and its inability to deliver economic prosperity. The demonstrators did not blame the sanctions imposed by the U.S., rather, they held the regime’s corruption and ineptitude responsible.
Revolutionary Iran, forty years later, is a much more dangerous country. It is on the way to becoming a nuclear power. It is building delivery systems, namely ballistic missiles, to actualize its ambitions to control the Middle East and beyond. In the meantime, the Islamic Republic of Iran is using terrorist groups to cover its nefarious designs. Hopefully, the Warsaw conference has shined a light on the danger Iran poses to the region and the world, and with some providential luck, it might help bring about a regime change.