Two Important Articles from Dr. Andrew Bostom

Few, if any, Americans have a more sober and complete understanding of Islamic doctrine, particularly Shariah and Jihad, than Dr. Andrew Bostom.

Two days ago, he penned two very important and educational articles on the threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the willful blindness and denial Westerners and Americans in particular have when it comes to that threat. It is just this willful blindness and denial that has allowed us to sit back and watch for 20+ years as Iran builds nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missiles, all while sponsoring Jihadist terrorism directed at us…

Everyone should read these two articles…

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/03/15/iran-denial-left-and-right-illustrated-simply-and-clearly/

http://pjmedia.com/blog/educating-conservatives-about-modern-shiite-quietists/?singlepage=true

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Democrats’ Broken Record on Iran

Over on Investor’s Business Daily, Michael Barone reports that Stratfor analyst Robert Kaplan has suggested that Obama is trying to forge some alliance of sorts with Iran.

As implausible as this might seem, Kaplan evidently makes a case for it and it certainly wouldn’t be the first move by Obama that defies all logic and appears to work directly against US interests and those of our allies:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021014-689504-obama-shifting-mideast-alliance-to-iran.htm?p=full

The apparent basis for Obama’s obsequiousness toward Iran, a country that has sponsored Hezbollah in its campaigns of murder of US citizens and even cooperated with Al Qaeda (YES, Al Qaeda: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223992/iranian-entanglements/christopher-w-holton)–not to mention Iran’s involvement in supporting insurgents battling US GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan–is the newly fashionable mythology that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is at long-last the “moderate” Iranian leader that we have all been waiting for.

The basic flaw in this thinking is that the President of Iran has no real authority over foreign policy and national security issues and policy. That authority resides only with the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Despite the absurdity of the theory that Rouhani will make a real difference in US-Iranian relations, history suggests that it should not come as a real surprise that Team Obama is championing him. Democrats in office have held out this theory for decades. (Not that Republicans should get a free pass, since they too have sat idly by as Iran built up its nuclear infrastructure.)

The first known example of damaging Democratic naivete came, of course, during the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. Carter’s UN ambassador, Andrew Young, declared that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was akin to an Islamic “saint.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski considered Khomeini someone America could work with to oppose the Soviets. Young’s saint proceeded to seize political power despite public pledges not to do so and ordered the slaughter of thousands of opponents. He then dragged Iran back centuries with the imposition of Shariah law and began exporting the Islamic revolution through terrorism.

The next nauseating episode of Democratic gullibility when it came to Iran involved Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who served in several capacities in the Mullahs’ hierarchy in Iran, including Speaker of the Majles, a sort of parliament, and president of Iran from 1989-1997. Rafsanjani is one of the wealthiest men in Iran, his family having earned its fortune in the farming of pistachio nuts. The Clinton administration went to far as to ease sanctions on pistachio nut imports from Iran to the US under the misguided expectation that such a move would win favor with Rafsanjani, who many in the Clinton administration considered a “pragmatist.”

The rest is, as they say, history. Clinton’s pragmatist was evidently the Ayatollah in direct charge of kicking off Iran’s nuclear program to begin with.

In a 2001 speech, Rafsanjani had this to say about nuclear weapons and the conflict with Israel:

“If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession – on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”

This was not Rafsanjani’s first statement on nuclear weapons. Before he became president of Iran and long before Bill Clinton’s team came along to declare him a pragmatist, Rafsanjani was making worrying statements about Iran and nuclear weapons.  In a broadcast over Tehran radio in October 1988, when he was speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Ayatollah Rafsanjani made this chilling declaration that called for the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons:

“We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons.” 

Rafsanjani was eventually replaced as president by Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami, another Great Iranian Hope for the Democratic Party in the US. Khatami served as president from 1997 to 2005 and many in the West portrayed him as a champion of reform and dialogue between the West and Iran.

Of course, none of that amounted to anything, perhaps because Khatami, as president, had no authority over foreign policy and served at the pleasure of the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But, like his predecessors, Khatami was not what he appeared to be. When he was Iran’s minister of culture and Islamic propagation, Khatami was directly involved in the creation of Hezbollah, the global Jihadist terrorist organization that has served as Iran’s proxy in waging war against the West. It should also be noted that Iran’s nuclear program accelerated during Khatami’s presidency.

So, now we have Rouhani and Obama’s apparent miscalculation to follow in the footsteps of Clinton and Carter before him. The difference now is that the Iranians are so much closer to becoming a nuclear power.

 

 

Why is Iran Developing ICBMs?

1451611_10151923977122740_1883617851_n

Why is Iran working on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

There is no possible peaceful purpose for ballistic missiles. Iran may claim that their nuclear program is peaceful, but they cannot possibly make that claim when it comes to ballistic missiles. The only reason to have ballistic missiles is to target enemies with high explosives and WMD.

Iran’s Shehab-3 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles have sufficient range to hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and US bases in Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait and Turkey.

Why are the Iranians working with the North Koreans on multi-stage Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs)?

Who might the Iranians be targeting with such missiles?

NATO? Probably, but parts of NATO in Europe are already in range of the latest versions of the Shehab-3. Iran is working on missiles with much greater range than that.

Clearly, Iran seeks to target countries much further away.

Certainly, Great Britain and France are possible targets. China and Russia both sell Iran weaponry, so it is unlikely that either would be targeted.

The answer is obvious. Iran wants ICBMs to target the US homeland. And one does not build ICBMs and arm them with conventional warheads. ICBMs are not generally accurate enough to make a high explosive warhead effective. ICBMs are armed with nuclear warheads.

Now, Iran claims it does not want nuclear weapons. But the Ayatollahs have a history of lying, going all the way back to 1978-79 when the Ayatollah Khomeini claimed that he had no interest in governing Iran after the Islamic revolution. He made this statement repeatedly to the international media. He was, of course, lying–just as the Iranians are lying today about their nuclear ambitions. Khomeini ruled Iran as a totalitarian dictator for an entire decade until his death.

The problem is, we have a president in Washington who doesn’t seem to care that Iran has a history of lying and cheating as part of their duty under Islamic doctrine.

34 Years Ago Today

unitedstatesputspressureoniran_06

 

Thirty-four years ago today, Iranian “students” stormed the US embassy in Tehran, Iran with the approval and, later, outright support, of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Islamic Revolution.

This should properly be regarded as the opening action in the modern era of a global Islamic jihadist insurgency directed at the US in particular and the West in general.

To be sure that insurgency is not homogenous and has been executed in fits and starts with often violent disputes between Islamic jihadist factions, but a global insurgency it is nonetheless.

To those of us old enough to remember, these images are vivid. Today, America will do nothing to commemorate the events of 4 November, 1979. But in Iran, it is annually a day of celebration.

Iranburn

 

Some in America, particularly the “Blame America First” crowd on the Left and the Right, will blame America for the embassy invasion and hostage crisis, due to a US backed coup in the early 1950s. This expresses a profound ignorance of the doctrine behind the Islamic revolution, its goals and its self-imposed requirement to export itself globally. In a nutshell, the 1953 coup which overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh of the National Front Party was not the defeat of an Islamic regime such as came to power under the fall of the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s. The Islamists were not supporters of Mosaddegh and did not seek the return to power of his political faction. In fact, the Ayatollah Khomeini declared the leaders of the National Front to be apostates in 1981, effectively a death sentence under Shariah.

The takeover of the US embassy was the opening salvo in a clandestine war waged against the US by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which continues up through today…

iran_hostages

 

US_Iran

 

iranhostages

 

1

 

679870_original

 

image

 

pic_13_0001.0