 The Fort Hood killings, perpetrated by Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a psychiatric by training, no matter what the judiciary reports will conclude is for now the largest single Terror act in America since 9/11. This quantitative finding will take into consideration dramatic change in the data released by authorities. The shooting inside a US military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix Jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel. This year, a person by the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, shot two US military at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock, killing one. In cyberspace Jihadi threats against US military in the homeland and against American cities has been ongoing. Information collected by authorities, including from suspects and indicted individuals has shown a pattern by the Jihadists (militants or propagandists) indicating their intentions to strike at military and security installations. Such incident in Fort Hood, whatever is the personal motive, falls in the category of demonization of the US and its military. Meaning, whatever were the causes of the individual aggression, the latter was legitimized by the perception that America is the "enemy."
Investigation will show quickly if the motives are strictly personal or ideological, or a hybrid set of motives. All depends on the early investigation made available to the public.
According to Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who was interviewed by Fox News and who knew Major Malik Nadal Hasan, the latter has made several statements indicating his ideological attitude such as: “The killing of the soldier in Arkansas and any attack against US military inside the homeland is legitimate because of American military involvement in the Middle East.”
Terry detailed remarks made by the killer “against US policy and in support of potential suicide attacks inside the country.” Obviously, these statements by former Colonel Terry needs to be analyzed and verified. While waiting for these investigations to be released, analytical projection based on the historical context, on the specific circumstances of engagement between the Jihadist propaganda and the United States for the past eight years and the type of attack involving an individual in the military leaves us –at this point- with the projection that the ideological factor is part of the motives leading to the shooting.
Psychological factors are to be looked at seriously but the ideological component –legitimacy of attacking US military- needs also to be investigated: For the latter element was the alibi fueling the psychological factor, if indeed that was the case. Although I would place this attack within a wider context involving the evolution of what we call homegrown radicalization, I would recommend waiting for at least the early findings of investigators. This is where the judicial investigation and expert analysis may depart for a little while until more information is made available and correct the analytical projections. Meanwhile, if indeed it has any link to ideology or its derivatives, it will then be the single largest Terror attack in America (regardless of its homegrown origin or not, of the psychological reason or not) since 9/11. In that case, what the world has seen and is eager to learn about cannot be described just as “horrific outburst of violence” performed on American military, rather is part of an ideological war, generated by radicalization, and inciting individuals to perform such acts. Lone wolf or not, organized or not, fully self aware perpetrator or not, influenced by overseas or not, this massacre of servicemen has moved America from stage to another. Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. Source: Counter Terrorism Blog 
 As soon as the Oslo committee issued its Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, an expected debate raged in America about the legitimacy of such a move so very early in a U.S. presidential term. The debate soon will espouse the dividing lines between domestic and foreign policy issues and, in a few weeks, will die out under the awe of new unfolding events. What will remain are future policy debates that will refer to one of the world's most prestigious awards as a fact in international relations. Months and few short years from now, supporters of the "new direction" in U.S. foreign policy as well as academics will frame Obama's Nobel as a consolidation of a new world order, while the media outburst following the granting declaration will be forgotten. Hence, bypassing the noise of did-he-earn-it-or-not deliberations, let's ask: What is the strategy behind the decision to grant this particular trophy to the sitting American president? To answer this, we simply can connect the dots between the statements made by the grantor and the grantee. Naturally every American must be proud, and many people around the world are happy for such a decision to honor the White House, although some U.S. leaders wished the committee had granted past presidents such as Bill Clinton for his gigantic efforts in worldwide humanitarian assistance. The alternative choices are arguable, but this particular gesture isn't about past achievements, as the committee and the recipient have concurred. It is about supporting a specific policy, which has been enunciated firmly during 2009 and is now being grounded in layers of moral recognition. This honored policy is to ensure that there will be no more American intervention overseas to provoke democratic change, let alone revolutions, particularly in the so-called "Muslim world." The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded "the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls and initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: easing American conflicts with Muslim nations." In other words, the transnational group of academics, politicians, and multinational corporations involved in the Oslo process of the Nobel Peace Prize clearly has championed the policy of Western restraint from "meddling" in the domestic business of authoritarian regimes. Read more here,,,, Source: International Analyst Network
 The following is an interview with Dr. Walid Phares that appeared in Nowe Panstwo (Our Times), a Politics and History Journal in Poland, conducted by Olga Doleśniak-Harczuk. The title of the interview in Polish is "ihad jak joga" which translates to "Jihad like Yoga." In this extensive discussion, Dr. Phares addresses the strategic structure of al Qaeda, Europe's readiness to confront the threat, the Obama Administration ability to win a war of ideas over the Jihadists, the necessary Western rethinking of the conflict, indoctrination and penetration in the U.S., the role of Oil lobbies, the influence of theological texts on Jihadists, the numbers of Islamists in Europe, Western inability to fight this war, and Polish American relations in the war with the Jihadists. QUESTION: In an interview, you mentioned the second generation of al Qaeda. What is the role of Osama bin Laden for the younger generation of terrorists? Is he "only" a symbol of the global jihadists movement, or still a real "true-born" leader? WALID PHARES: Al Qaeda as an organization has a hard core center linked to its chief, Osama Bin Laden, and it has affiliate organizations operating in various areas, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, etc. In addition, there are Jihadist movements and organizations allied to al Qaeda, such as Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Jemaa Islamiya in south Asia, Shabaab al Jihad in Somalia, Abu sayyaf in the Philippines etc. The sum of all these organizations and movement is a Salafist nebulous, which I define as combat Salafists. Those who believe that terror Jihad is the shorter way to reach their goal of reestablishing the Caliphate. In that web, al Qaeda is seen as the center and its commander Bin laden as the “Fuehrer.” Read more ...Source: FSM
 By Dr. Walid Phares
It is unprecedented in American counter terrorism annals: in one day the nation was dealing with three separate Jihadist plots to blow up civilian and other targets inside the Homeland. Although the cases were addressed at different time periods by the FBI and other agencies, nevertheless, the thickening web of Terror attempts breached the crossing line of US national security. This week, authorities revealed three conspiracies by American Jihadists: Michael C. Finton, a 29-year-old man who wished to follow the steps of American-born Taliban John Walker Lindh, was arrested after trying to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian national was arrested after placing what he believed was a bomb at a downtown Dallas skyscraper. But perhaps the most troubling case is of Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi who set up shop in suburban Denver , scouting the Web and visiting beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda. Sources called the alleged plot one of the most significant terror threats to the U.S. since 9-11. Add to the list the North Carolina Jihad cell, led by Saifullah Boyd, which was planning on attacking civilian and military targets across the country.
The immediate question raised by an increasingly worried public is about the connection between all these terror cases: are they all connected? While law enforcement and certainly judicial authorities proceed in a bottom up reasoning, that is to build the case for a global connection between all what is happening with the help of legal evidence, analysts in the field of counter terrorism and conflict are already realizing the meaning of what is happening inside America. In my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America (2005-2006) I clearly projected that Jihadists, individuals and cells will be mushrooming and expanding inside the United States within few years from then and that they will precisely do what they are trying to do now. I have also projected how large they will become, with time. It was a simple deduction: if the Government doesn’t counter this ideological growth, Jihadists will keep coming. And in fact they kept coming, spreading crossing the barriers of ethnicities, races, nationalities and geographical frontiers. The Jihadists committed to harm the US , and based inside our borders, are now by the hundreds. When I suggested this fact on CNN in 2006, and reiterated it on Oprah’s show so that the public realizes what is to come, I raised a few eyes brows. Now unfortunately, we are meeting the cells of Jihadism in our cities and little towns, and sadly the expectation is that we will see more, and we may unfortunately not be able to stop them all from reaching their goals.
The North Carolina cell, the New York subway plot, the Dallas attempt, the Illinois case, added to the previous cases of the shooting of a soldier in Arkansas, the precedent New York cells, Georgia’s young Jihadists, all the way back to the infamous Virginia paintball network, if anything gives us the genome of what is morphing inside the country -- a vast body of dispersed cells with at least one binding force -- the Jihadi ideology. The question thus is to find out who is propagating the doctrines of Jihadism: who is funding it; who is protecting the indoctrination operation which leads naturally to the rise of homegrown or foreign linked, lone wolves or packs of Jihadists, Terrorists. That is the real question: where is the factory?
What should the US Government do? Well, it must first of all come to the front of the threat and lead the nation against it. This is not a matter of only local police or law enforcement efforts. President Obama and Congressional leaders from both parties must give this spreading plague a top priority: for if one of these groups is successful, our national economy will crumble again, or at least will be wounded even more severely, let alone the human consequences of terror. Americans are watching with great concerns, these terror plots being revealed. They expect their elected officials to address these fears before the worse happens.
Dr Walid Phares is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad and the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Dr Phares is an advisor to the US House Caucus on Counter Terrorism, Source: Walid Phares
 By Dr. Walid Phares The release by Scottish authorities of convicted Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from prison has created one of the most negative emotional reactions in the United States and other countries. Moved by anger toward the injustice displayed by Scottish authorities to the families and survivors of the victims of the terror attack against Pan Am Flight 103, Americans and large segments of international public opinion are infuriated by the freeing of the convicted terrorist, even under the so-called Scottish legal values based on compassionate release due to terminal illness. These exceptional stipulations, when applicable, are designed for criminal cases where one person killed another individual under complex circumstances. A sudden terminal illness is perceived as enough punishment by nature or the divine to grant a severely conditioned release to the family, without any affront to justice and pain to the survivors of the victim. But that is one thing. Granting freedom to a terrorist who murdered hundreds of innocents civilians bound on an airplane is something that no Scottish, British, American, or international legal value permits. The statements made by Scotland’s minister of justice should not stand in this case. This was no regular murder. This was a mass murder, and compassionate release can only be granted by the survivors of the victims, and should have been legally considered by the national legislatures in Britain and the United States. Read more ...Source: FSMScottish Government
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Dr. Walid Phares | August 20  Hamas' attack against a Jihadist group inside Gaza is about to provide the Palestinian Islamist organization a pass to become a “mainstream” movement, acceptable internationally as a partner in negotiations. Or at least that is what Hamas strategists think may happen as a result of crushing the minuscule militant entity known as Jund Ansar Allah (The Soldiers or the Partisans of Allah) last week. This is another murky development in the world of Jihadism, where the biggest brothers in holy war devoured the little ones, in a race between who can achieve final victory against the Kuffar (infidels). But in Gaza, these intra Jihadist slaughter fests are peculiar in as much as the “Palestine cause” is so central to the Islamist political narrative worldwide. In November of 2008, a new group in Rafah declared itself as the ultimate Salafi Jihadist force of Palestine. After many previous attempts by al Qaeda inspired factions at least since 2001, Jund Ansar Allah (JAA) led by Abel Latif Mussa, aka Abu al Nour al Maqdissi, seized control of a local Mosque and segments of a neighborhood and launched a couple attacks against Israel as of early 2009. The JAA issued many declarations calling for “real Jihad,” ending negotiations with Fatah, the international community and opposing any type of elections and constitutional structure in Gaza other than pure Sharia. From his pulpit, Sheikh Mussa criticized Hamas’ leadership for failing the Jihad they promised to deliver and for betraying their own constitution calling for an Islamic Emirate all over Palestine, not just in Gaza and the West Bank. Hundreds of already indoctrinated youth joined the JAA and formed the nucleus of a Jihadi milita. Their ranks were growing at an alarming rate for Hamas, which felt time came to squash them, before they became a competitive organization. The JAA was on its way to devouring Hamas from the inside. It was using the same doctrines upon which Hamas was founded, grew and used to overthrow Fatah from Gaza. Read more here ...Source: New Media Journal
 By Dr. Walid Phares What are the strategic reasons behind Western reluctance to support Iran's opposition? One theory is that there are immense Oil interests in partnership with the region's Jihadist regimes obstructing the advance of democracy in the region. The reluctance by the Obama Administration and other European Governments to extend their hand of support to Iran's civil society during the June uprising can be explained through the pressures applied by interest groups, including Oil producing regimes not to "meddle" in Iran's affairs and let go of the democratic movement. We've seen the Administration pressuring Israel, while talking gently to the Iranian government. When staff of the British embassy and a French researcher, were arrested in Tehran, there was only a lukewarm response by the European Union to this humiliation of two of its member states. How can we make sense of this bizarre situation? It looks like Americans and Europeans have abandoned Iran's civil society. There are strong political and financial interests which block a significant support of democracy in Iran. Politically, the new U.S. Administration has made a massive change in American Foreign Policy moving away from what was known as “spreading democracy” during the past eight years to cutting “realistic” deals with sitting regimes, including the present Jihadi regime in Tehran. If we don’t understand the change that took place in Washington this year, we will fail in understanding the a-historical U.S. attitudes towards Iran’s latest uprising. Read more ...Source: FSM
 By Dr. Walid Phares Every time a liberal democracy was targeted by Jihadi terror – 9/11, Madrid's trains, London's subways, Holland's Van Gogh assassination, to all other terror-related arrests in France, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark – a similar question was repeated senselessly: "Why do they hate us?" Unfortunately in all of these Western societies, the political debate about the root causes and future of Jihadi violence failed to answer this seminal question. Furthermore, a stunningly compromised expertise failed its governments by dragging authorities into chronic misinterpretation of what is happening and what to do about it. One more time, the experiment is repeating itself in Australia. Here is why: As in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other Western democracies, law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies have been efficient in monitoring the threat, swift in responding and lucky in uprooting networks planning terror. With the exceptions of the first strikes of 2001 in New York, 2004 in Madrid and 2005 in London, police and security teams have been able to stop the plots before they are executed; knock on wood so far. But these law enforcement heroes are operating under the aegis of questionable government strategies, or rather non-strategies, with dramatic consequences. The latest arrests made in Melbourne, Australia, are another example. Read more ...Source: FSM
 The radical Islamists in Nigeria obviously have local issues, but as with all Jihadists, the local is subservient to the higher "cause:” to resurrect the caliphate from China to the Atlantic Ocean.By Dr. Walid Phares The renewal of violence in the northern provinces of Nigeria brings this oil producing country to the brink of "Talibanization," threatening not only the precarious ethnic and religious makeup of the most populous African state but also the entire region, from Chad to Senegal. The fight between the now-called "Nigerian Taliban" and the governmental forces took place this week within a country whose borders are 300 miles from where President Barack Obama stood inside the Ghana Parliament to address Africa's "problems." Unfortunately last month, the president didn't use mention words such as “Taliban,” “Jihadists,” “Shariah,” “salafists,” or any term indicating that Nigeria and 10 other African countries are suffering from a real invasion, fueled by a totalitarian ideology. That was a miss that came back to haunt the international public opinion as dramatic pictures of the bloodshed were disseminated by the news agencies. Read more ... Source: FSM
A former Islamic extremist, two senators, a former CIA director and a Lebanese man who missed his parents’ funerals rather than be silenced were honored last week as “Rays of Light in the Darkness” during EMET-the Endowment for Middle East Truth’s third annual awards dinner. About 225 people gathered in the Russell Senate office building to pay tribute to Sens. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), former CIA director James Woolsey, Fox News television terrorism analyst Walid Phares and former Islamic extremist Tawfik Hamid. I am proud to say that Tawfik Hamid spoke at the May 3rd rally in defense of Human Rights in Times Square. Read more ...Source: The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical IslamJames Woolsey
Joe Lieberman
John Kyl
Tawfik Hamid
Walid Phares
Latest recipients of The MASH Award
 By Alan Caruba The wars going on in the Middle East will soon be the entire world’s next war as the fanatic Islamists throughout the region threaten to take over Pakistan and Afghanistan while continuing to wage war in Iraq. If they’re successful, India will be dragged into the full scale battle against the Taliban and al Qaeda. Where it spreads from there is anyone’s guess.It is a battle between the seventh century of Islam and the twenty-first century of the rest of the world. It is a battle between men who believe that Allah demands it and they are prepared to spend as much time as necessary to achieve victory.It is a battle in which the United States has been an unwilling participant for a very long time. The jihadists drew blood in Beirut, Lebanon during the Reagan years in the 80s and again when they blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa during the Clinton years. Tellingly, it included an abortive effort to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993. After September 11, 2001, Americans applauded the vigorous response of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, but in point of fact al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri easily moved across the border into Pakistan and intelligence services believe they have been there ever since. This enemy senses serious weakness in the new President. Obama has chosen Afghanistan, the worst place to fight a war, as his new “front” while at the same time announcing he is withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The increase of bombings in Iraq is no accident. It is an al Qaeda calling card. The worst of the news is the potential collapse of Pakistan as Taliban factions acquire more and more territory in what has always been a very poor excuse for a nation. As Pakistan’s leading English-language newspaper, Dawn, recently said in an editorial, “…the Taliban are no longer a threat, but a grotesque reality,” noting that “The writ of the government weakens by the hour, while the terrorists are steadily emboldened. Yet the state and its institutions—including the military—have so far shown an appalling lack of commitment or wherewithal to force back the swarm.” This is a newspaper in a Muslim nation, written by Muslims, who call the Taliban “grotesque.” And they should know! The editorial warned that, “The time in which to turn back the tide is fast running out.” One of the most brilliant analysts of Middle Eastern affairs is Walid Phares, the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move—but this time it’s inside Pakistan.” “If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” wrote Phares, “which unfortunately may be the case now, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India.” Simply put, you cannot negotiate with the Taliban or al Qaeda. Their promises mean nothing because they operate under taqiyya, an Arab/Muslim term that terrorism expert, Douglas Farah tells us is “embraced by radical Islamists. It blesses the concept of disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies from the enemy and the infidel.” Read More,,,,,
By Dr. Walid Phares As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move — but this time it’s inside Pakistan. As I’ve written over the past few months, we need to look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as one regional battlefield where the “other side” is coordinating strategically, acting methodically and for sure beating the international coalition in speed. If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India, if not beyond. That’s how I suggest “reading” the recent worrisome leaps achieved by the Taliban from the SWAT valley into the neighboring district of Buner. So what’s the story and why should we consider it as a crossing of red lines? Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
 By Walid Phares The British government's recent announcement that it will open a dialogue with "the political wing of Hezbollah" is most troubling. In a statement before a parliamentary committee, Bill Rammell, the British foreign office's minister for Middle East affairs, rationalized the decision on the grounds of what his office perceives to be "more positive developments within Lebanon." This British declaration underscores a pervasive failure to properly understand the structure of the Iranian-backed terrorist organization. At worst, the call to distinguish between the group's political and military wings (in terms of decision-making) may be driven by a desire to construct imaginary facts for diplomatic and political purposes. Are officials selling a false image of what Hezbollah is so that they join in the "sitting, talking and listening" with Iran and Syria's regimes now underway? Very possible. But it would have been much better to inform the public that the government intends to talk to a terrorist organization for purpose of national interest, rather than claiming the talks are only with the political wing. Eight years after 9/11 and the subsequent attacks worldwide, citizens are much better informed about jihadist organizations than they were in the 1990's.
Officials in the United Kingdom and the United States must realize that claiming there are two Hezbollahs will not fly with most of the public. Hezbollah was founded by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) in 1981. Its military organization, responsible for terror operations, is part of the Consultative Council (al majliss al Istisharee), which is Hezbollah's supreme command, along with the organization's legislators, Fatwa clerics, financial executives and political operatives. This Hezbollah "politburo" oversees the military, security, doctrinal and political actions of the entire apparatus — there is no structural delineation. Furthermore, the Jihad Council — Hezbollah's War Department — which issues the orders for acts of terror, is headed by the secretary general of the organization, Hassan Nasrallah. The council includes many of the organization's "political leaders" — Hashem Safi al Din, Hussein al Khalil, Abbas Ruhani, Ibrahim Aqil, Fuad Shukr, Nabil Kauq and others. Hezbollah is not the I.R.A., which had a clearer delineation between its militia and its military wing, the Sin Fein. Moreover, Lebanon is not Northern Ireland. Yes, British citizens can be easily led to make the comparison by government officials who use the clichés by which most Britons remember the I.R.A., but the attempt to fool the public will be short-lived. The lack of separation between Hezbollah's political and military operations is well documented in public sources. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply ridiculous. If the British government wishes to make that distinction, they will find themselves incapable of answering the most basic questions. Nasrallah, as the secretary general and purported partner in any dialogue, is at the same time the chief political executive of the organization and Hezbollah's supreme military commander. How then will meeting Nasrallah be political, when he is the commander in chief of the militia and its security apparatuses? Will diplomats meet with him between 9:00 and 11:00 AM when he is a secretary general and avoid him at other hours when he wears his military hat? It simply doesn't make sense. If the British government wishes to engage in talks with a terrorist organization, it must make that case and not obfuscate its true intentions of working with Hezbollah's political wing. At the end of the day, Hezbollah will remain who it is, who it says it is and who it will continue to be: a terrorist organization devoted to Jihad against the West. It is more honest to try to convince the public that the time to talk with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, and even perhaps Hamas, has come. It will be more productive to acknowledge that some liberal democracies aren't able to carry the load of a confrontation with the jihadists than to attempt to rewrite history and reality. Even if the British government chooses to engage with Hezbollah — which is certainly a questionable strategy — they should not do so on the false pretense that there are "two Hezbollahs" just as there were two I.R.A.s. There are not, and the British people are well aware of that fact. Moreover, any negotiations which are premised on such a mischaracterization by the interlocutor cannot possibly succeed for the British. Hezbollah, on the other hand, can and likely will. Dr. Walid Phares, author of "The Confrontation: Winning the War on Future Jihad" is the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Source: EuropeNews
 February 03 PRESS TV, the Iranian-government-owned English-language web and television broadcasting company, recently published a report contending Iran’s intelligence ministry had uncovered and publicly disclosed details regarding an alleged “’US-backed’ spy ring which had plans to topple the Tehran government.”
According to the report:
“Following the arrest of four Iranian nationals on charges of plotting to overthrow the government with Washington’s support, head of the counterespionage department in the Intelligence Ministry said Monday that the group intended to build social and political tension in the country.”
The official, whose name was not revealed, added “organizing anti-government public rallies and creating ethnic division in the country” were among the tactics to be employed by the network.”
In our ongoing conversations with Dr. Walid Phares – director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies who now also serves as secretary general of the Trans Atlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism — we asked for his interpretation of any underlying message within the report.
We know what the report says. What are the Iranians not saying?DR. WALID PHARES:First, the Iranian regime has always conducted arrests among its opposition. It has done so since coming to power in 1980. The regime has – for all intent and purposes – physically eliminated Iranian citizens – thousands of them – by labeling them as being “U.S.-backed” and/or “Zionist” elements inside the country. If you look at the archives of the various international human rights organizations, or country reports in various foreign ministries; and of course, if you review the information collected from the many Iranian opposition groups, you’ll easily discover a continuous and systematic suppression of freedoms in Iran for the last 30 years. The arrest campaigns have covered nearly every sector of Iranian society: students, women, labor, artists, but also ethnic minorities such as Arabs, Kurds, Baluch, Azeri and others. Also, religious minorities such as Christians, Jews and Bahais have also been persecuted. The news regarding arrests of Azeri ethnics in Iran is not unusual. We’ve been reading open sources reports about Bahais arrests in recent weeks, as well as arrests of Ahwaz Arabs over the past several months, and women over the last year. So, the reports by the Iranian regime about a “U.S. conspiracy” is neither strange nor exceptional. W. THOMAS SMITH JR.:The Iranian press reported the unnamed intelligence official as saying “the group” had been successful in fomenting dissent among Azeri people in the Azerbaijan Province. Why the regime’s focus on this province? PHARES:This is very telling in that anti-Khomeinist sentiment is spreading in the northwestern part of the country and among the single largest ethnic minority in Iran. Azeris are the second group after the Persians, and they form a contiguous group settling the entire northwestern part of Iran in what is known as southern Azarbaijian. It is historically a part of the Azeri nation and they speak a Turkic language. Traditionally the Iranian Azeris have been loyal to the Iranian nation, and many among them have served in Iran’s military. But with the radicalization of the regime and the economic crisis now underway in Iran, many ethnic minorities are protesting bad socio-economic conditions in their areas. They mainly accuse the Mullahs in Tehran of concentrating wealth among their own elite in the center while letting the provinces decay. The Azeris aren’t happy with the state of affairs in the so-called ‘Islamic republic.’ Hence we’re witnessing the rise of local opposition movements in their areas. The regime responds with preemptive arrests, and of course labels any protest as a ‘pro-American’ conspiracy: Classical Khomeinist narrative. SMITH:Why would the Iranian press quote ‘Intelligence officials’ and not the justice ministry? PHARES:Because most likely when the opposition is widening, the regime unleashes its strongest arm, the intelligence services. If anything this is an indicator that the Azeri movement, and all other movements are getting stronger with time. SMITH:The report states: “Tehran’s Islamic Revolution Court sentenced the four suspects without announcing the length of their sentence.
‘They have confessed to trying to distance the people of Iran from the government and introduce the United States as their sole savior,’ the court said in a statement.
“Two of the detainees are internationally renowned doctors Arash and Kamyar Alaei, who specialize in HIV/AIDS.
“In the Monday press conference, the top Iranian counterespionage official said that the US intelligence agencies had resorted to ‘soft overthrow projects’ over the past decade, as there is no international statute law against such measures.” What are we to deduce from such arrests? PHARES:It means the middle class in Iranian Azarbaijian is fed up with the Mullah regime. When the Khomeinists begin striking out at citizens – doctors as in this case, or professors and bloggers as in other cases – we’re talking about a serious development. When educated people are accused of political ‘incitement’ against the regime – which translates to political opposition – it means that many more activists are mobilizing civil society, and that of course is a red line to the regime. SMITH:The report also mentions the U.S. having spent $32 million on “soft overthrow projects,” a means by which the U.S. could “infiltrate elite and expert circles” and therein gain access to information regarding national “infrastructure, microbiological achievements, and defensive capacity.” They also named names of Americans. Why? PHARES:It is an act of desperation. It shows the regime is angry and wants to send a message to the U.S. government, which by the way is preparing to open dialogue with Tehran. By naming names and agencies, the Iranian Pasdaran [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and intelligence services are sending a message to the Obama administration telling them that if they want to open dialogue, they will have to shut all these ‘democracy operations.’ What is ironic is that the Bush administration was criticized for doing so little to help the Iranian democracy movement. If indeed the Iranian regime is complaining about $32 million spent allegedly by the U.S. on democracy activities, this is peanuts compared to the billions of dollars spent on the war on terror and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the war of ideas. This amount is ridiculous: Yet the Iranian regime wants Washington not to spend a penny on any program that would help democracy groups in Iran. This pressure is aimed at preempting the Obama administration. SMITH:The report said “Iranian intelligence operatives had been able to infiltrate the network and ‘launch an intelligence war with the CIA by leaking false information.’” It also said the UK and Israel were involved. PHARES:Typical of the regime to try to frame all three governments of the U.S., UK, and Israel in one giant conspiracy. For by linking alleged Israeli activities to alleged U.S. and British activities against the regime, they would create a ‘radioactive’ environment in the region. Again, Tehran is trying to build a big bargaining chip for the day of dialogue. Thus the Iranian negotiators hope to be in a position of strength: Hold the high ground and lead with other subjects before the discussion of the most relevant ones, i.e. the nuclear issues. SMITH:The report mentions the claim by Mohammad-Javad Zarif, the former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, that “the White House is taking essential measures to orchestrate a ‘Velvet Revolution’ in Iran.” PHARES:It is a reminder of the last decade of the Soviet Union when Soviet citizens invited to the West were eager to learn about open and free societies. They were often punished by Moscow for concocting revolutions against the Communist regime. The Iranian establishment lives in the paranoia of a similar situation. They spy on their own citizens when they travel and accuse them of being recruited by the West. When the Khomeinists start talking about a so-called ‘American support’ of a so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’ inside Iran, it means they are indeed afraid that seeds have already been sown for such a revolution. In fact, what worries the regime are not these scientific conferences but the narrative on many Iranian web sites talking about ‘democratic revolution.’ Ali Khamenei’s Pasdaran can feel the sentiment inside Iran’s civil society. Thus they want to suppress these sentiments by connecting them to an alleged American and Western activity. [Dr. Phares, who has provided similar analysis to U.S. government – and who regularly conducts Congressional and State Department as well as European Parliament and UN Security Council briefings – has been providing exclusive analysis to us for nearly five years.] [The Iranian Press TV report also states: “Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed in July that U.S. Congressional leaders had secretly agreed to President George W. Bush’s $400-million funding request for a major escalation in covert operations inside Iran.” Our sources coordinating with the Iranian opposition groups, have informed us that members of those opposition groups “are wondering why Hersh is leaking such information, which is in turn used by the regime against them.”] Source: Europe News
 By Walid Phares To Usama Bin Laden, the confrontation in Gaza is not a local national issue but it is part of what he coins as world Jihad against the Kuffars (infidels), or more precisely the “Crusader-Zionist enemy.” This stark ideological reminder came through a new audio message by the leader of al Qaeda at a time Israeli forces and Hamas’ Jihadists were still fighting in the enclave. The Bin Laden address was titled “Call to Jihad to stop the aggression against Gaza” and was addressed to the “Umma” (Islamic Nation). The following is my analysis of this latest tape. The usual questions firstThe media’s first questions are about identification and timing. Is it really Bin Laden on the tape and if so, why is he talking now after long months of silence? While many question the survival of the man who ordered the 9/11 attacks until now, the counter terrorism community as a whole still believe that Usama Bin Laden is alive; this is his voice but arguments are different and diverse. In my view, the two salient indicators about him being alive are: the fact that he mentions contemporary events (assuming this is indeed his voice) and as important, the issue of leadership of the organization. If he dies, it will be known internally, and thus claims for leadership would emerge. As far as timing of UBL’s messages, it has now taken a different character as in the 1990s and just after Tora Bora. The commander of al Qaeda projects himself as the supreme leader of Jihad, a sort of an undeclared Caliph. His interventions are often a “state of the Union” type, dealing with the global war against the infidels, focusing on battlefields here and there. His deputy, a sort of undeclared Prime Minister of Global Jihad, takes care of expanding on issues and responding to arguments and “questions” from the base. However, as Gaza’s battle became unavoidably “the” most important topic in Jihadi propaganda over the past weeks, the “virtual Caliph” was pressed to utter the sublime position, and he just did. Read more ...Source: Counterterrorism Blog
By Walid Phares As the Israeli Government has decided to commit to a unilateral cease fire in Gaza, and in light of the US-Israeli agreement on blocking the flow of weapons to Hamas; also in light of a NATO exploration of a possible high sea control of arms shipments to the pro-Iranian organization and as news of Arab financial grants to the enclave, components of the internationalization of the strip are now being taken into consideration. But at the same time, Hamas and its supporters in the region, Iran and Syria, are adamantly opposed to any form of UN or international role in the enclave. At the same time, Egypt rejected the deployment of any international force on its side of the border with Gaza. In this context, I conducted the following media discussion with military expert Thomas Smith published in the International Analysts Network and on the Family Security Matters site. Read more ...Source: Counterterrorism Blog
As we enter 2009 and witness the first steps taken by President-elect Barack Obama and his administration, we thought it would be a good time to consider priorities. The new President will have to tackle the economic crisis, which would be enough to keep everyone busy if that were the only challenge. However, Barack Obama will be America's first new Commander-in-Chief since 9/11. In the aftermath, our nation's course fighting terror has been set only by the Bush administration. We asked 2 men who've studied global terrorism for years what they think are the three biggest terrorism challenges facing the new administration. Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington D.C. He is also a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy. Dr. Phares is the author of several books in English, French and Arabic. His most recent book is The Confrontation: Winning The War Against Future Jihad. More ...Source: The Investigative Project
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr. The AP is reporting: "The United States and Lebanon on Monday set up a joint military commission to bolster military cooperation - a move that follows the first visit by the newly elected Lebanese president to Washington. ... "At the time [of Lebanese Pres. Michel Sleiman's September visit to Washington], U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying the Lebanese army was given nearly $400 million in military assistance. A further $60 million worth of aid, including helicopters, ammunition and Humvees, is awaiting Congress' approval." Both nations have reportedly "signed three new military contracts worth $63 million" in U.S. grants to the Lebanese Army for "secure communications, ammunition and infantry weapons:" Military aid which will ultimately end up in the hands of Hezbollah, according to Middle East terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares. Read more ...Source: Family Security MattersU.S. Government
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
The upcoming documentary movie, "The Third Jihad", will be beginning its upcoming coast to coast limited theatrical release today. This is a movie you must see to appreciate the danger we face in America from radical Islam. After the FBI releases a radical Islamist manifesto describing how to weaken America from within, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim American and former physician to the US Congress, decides to investigate. The Third Jihad is about what he discovered. How is radical Islam operating inside the West? Is a subversive "cultural jihad" underway? How does radical Islam plan to bring America to its knees? What is the endgame? The Third Jihad exposes the war the media is not telling you about. It reveals the enemy our government is too afraid to name. One person who is not afraid to tell you the truth is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim American and former physician to the US Congress. After the FBI releases a radical Islamist manifesto describing how to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decides to investigate. The Third Jihad is about what he discovered. Interviews are conducted with radical Islamists in the US and the leaders trying to stop them, such as Rudy Giuliani, Clinton CIA Director Jim Woolsey, NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Senator Joe Lieberman, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and former terrorist group member Tawfik Hamid. IntervieweesAyaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Phares, Tom Ridge, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Ray Kelly, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, Rev. Eugene Rivers, Manda Zand Ervin, Wayne Simmons, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Mark Steyn, Rudy Giuliani, Bernard Lewis, Clare Lope, Jim Woolsey, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Melanie Phillips, John Miller. Read more ...Source: TheThirdJihad.comH/T: Europe News
 By Walid Phares Prague, September 16, 2008 At the invitation of the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), a think tank for international relations in the Czech Republic, I delivered a lecture on “Jihadist Strategies against Europe: Background, Projections and Options.” The event was co-sponsored by the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy, and the forum was attended by PSSI officers, diplomats and NGO members. It is to note that under the forthcoming Czech Presidency, the European Union may be able to take perhaps more daring steps in recognizing the importance of the dissident segments of the Greater Middle East in the process of opposing totalitarian ideologies. In this lecture, part of my second summer European tour, I called on policy makers to focus seriously on a strategic support to dissidents and democracy forces inthe Arab and Muslim world instead of relying exclusively on the so-called hopeless engagement with Jihadist movements. For, as I tried to make the case, findings tells us that in every balanced opportunity when counter Jihadist Muslims engage the Jihadists in a battle of ideas, the counter Jihadists win. And everytime the Jihadists have no challengers from within the Arab and Muslim political culture to contend with, they naturally win. Read more ...Source: Counterterrorism Blog
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
The Fort Hood killings, perpetrated by Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a psychiatric by training, no matter what the judiciary reports will conclude is for now the largest single Terror act in America since 9/11. 
Posts
