U.S.

President Obama boasts that 22 of Al-Qaeda’s top 30 leaders have been killed on his watch, mostly by drone strikes (The Long War Journal doubts this claim). That number just grew to 23, with U.S. officials confirming that Abu Yahya al-Libi has been killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.

This is devastating for Al-Qaeda. Libi was the second-in-command of the group, only surpassed by Ayman al-Zawahiri in importance. He performed many roles for the group: As the “gatekeeper” between field operatives and the leadership; an administrator in Al-Qaeda’s Shura Council; a terrorist trainer; an operations manager; a dynamic spokesman, releasing more tapes than any other Al-Qaeda figure in recent years and a cleric, drawing upon his advanced religious education in Mauritania to preach and issue fatwas with authority.

“There is no one who even comes close in terms of replacing the expertise Al -Qaeda has just lost,” a U.S. official said.

Libi’s escape from America’s Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan brought his reputation to a whole new level. He was captured in 2002 and held until July 2005 when he and several of his terrorist colleagues (including Al-Qaeda’s former top operative in Southeast Asia) snuck out of the maximum-security prison. The terrorists took careful watch of the facility’s security procedures, identifying loopholes. Somehow, they were able to pick the locks on their jail cells, change their outfits and crawl over a wall. One of their terrorist friends was waiting in a truck. The escape set off a fruitless manhunt.

The strike happened in the village of Hassu Khel, a village near Mir Ali, in North Waziristan, Pakistan. The drone blew up the compound he was staying at and a pickup truck next to it, killing a total of 16 people. One resident says that Libi was here recovering from an injury he suffered in another drone strike that happened on May 28.

In my debate with Thom Hartmann on RT America about President Obama’s “Kill List” of terrorist operatives the CIA has permission to kill, he brought up the oft-repeated argument that this “whack-a-mole” strategy of killing top Al-Qaeda operatives may not work because each death results in more recruits.

Libi’s resume is one (of several) rebuttals to this argument. The experience Libi brought to Al-Qaeda takes many years of preparation. Such skill is hard to come by. With Libi and other top leaders of the terrorist group being killed and captured left and right, there is a huge void of leadership and skill left.

The newer, more amateur operatives won’t be able to replenish the group’s losses because they won’t have mentors to teach and guide them and they’ll come under the U.S. radar before the time they can acquire the necessary experience to resuscitate the group.

Al-Qaeda is reaching the point where it becomes operationally ineffective, only able to inspire individual homegrown terrorists and small cells of carrying out attacks largely on their own. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the weakened state of the world economy means that even a small, simple attack can do tremendous damage. An ongoing string of small attacks, even with few casualties, can do much to revitalize Al-Qaeda and energize the overall jihadist movement.

No matter what happens to Al-Qaeda, we can’t take our sights off of the larger battle: The struggle against radical Islam based in Islamist doctrine and thinking. Al-Qaeda may soon become inconsequential but stronger, smarter, more pragmatic and more popular groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Taiba and others grin as we take our eyes off of them.

Stay informed! Get our free newsletter

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

An Iranian newspaper tied to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently boasted that the U.S. has “rejected” Israel over the past three months. This belief could have disastrous consequences. The author writes that the only “obstacle” remaining is the Saudi Royal Family and once it falls, Israel can be destroyed.

“It can be said that within the last 60 years, this is the first time that the Zionist regime, since its illegal inception, has had to endure rejection by the West over its vision and interest in the region,” wrote Sadollah Zarei, according to a translation by Reza Kahlili.

It’s easy to see why Iran has picked up on this fact, which Democrats have desperately tried to deny throughout Obama’s tenure. Headline after headline is about the U.S. trying to hold Israel back. In March, an anonymous administration official told the Washington Post, “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.”

There’s been a steady stream of leaks from administration officials potentially damaging Israel. On March 28, Foreign Policy reported on the alleged existence of a secret agreement between Israel and Azerbaijan making the latter’s airbases available for a potential strike on Iran. The results of a classified war game simulating a conflict between Israel and Iran that showed hundreds of U.S. casualties made its way into the press. Another report claimed that Israel is using members of the MEK Iranian opposition group to target Iran’s nuclear scientists.

The author attributes the change in U.S. policy to recognition of Iranian strength because of the Arab Spring, which he refers to as the “Islamic Awakening.” He specifically mentions the removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the subsequent takeover of the country by Islamist forces. Zarei also claims that the U.S. is “on the verge of accepting the Iranian nuclear program” and points to statements by Israeli officials that Iran is “rational” as proof that the Israeli government is weakening.

Don’t let the fact that Iran is Shiite and the Muslim Brotherhoodand Salafists are Sunni fool you. The two forces may be battling in Syria, but the Iranian regime still believes that its rise is a fulfillment of Islamic End Times prophecy. Last year, Ahmadinejad’s office produced a documentary titled The Coming Is Upon Us. It outlined how it views its role in Islamic prophecy and plainly states that the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascendance is “in accordance with the Hadith.”

In February, Khamenei declared, “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help.” This should be seen as an overture to the Muslim Brotherhood. The film states that the destruction of Israel is preceded by the creation of an anti-Western Arab coalition.

Arguably the most important line in Zarei’s column is this: “With diminishing support for Israel and with the (upcoming) collapse of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, there won’t be any obstacles left facing Iran with its policy of annihilation of Israel.”

This statement echoes what the apocalyptic documentary said. In The Coming Is Upon Us, the regime teaches that the death of Saudi King Abdullah will be a fulfillment of prophecy and one of the last precursors to Israel’s destruction. Saudi Arabia will be consumed with internal turmoil until the Mahdi appears to vanquish Islam’s enemies. King Abdullah is at least 87 years old.

In August, a Hezbollah MP in Lebanon, retired Brigadier-General Walid Sakariya, stated that two other things must happen before the final war to destroy Israel can begin: U.S. forces must leave Iraq and the Assad regime in Syria must be secure. The first objective has been completed.

President Ahmadinejad recently stated the war is not necessary to destroy Israel if the Arab world unites against it. However, the voices describing such a war in detail are getting louder.

In February, the deputy-commander of the Iranian military announced a change in policy. “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” he said.

Around the same time, the director of the parliament’s research institute, Ahmed Tavakoli, said Iran should attack Israel by the end of the year, urging the regime to take advantage of the political climate in the U.S. Tavakoli said that Iranian missiles could pummel the coastal area to the south of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in order to degrade Israel’s retaliatory capacity. He said that the Dimona nuclear reactor and a smaller reactor south of Tel Aviv must also be destroyed.

That same month, the former governor of Kish Province and pro-Khamenei strategist, Alireza Forghani, went even further and outlined a strategy of genocide against the Jewish population of Israel. His analysis was reposted at several other regime websites, most notably the Fars News Agency operated by the Revolutionary Guards.

Forghani said that Shahab-3 missiles could destroy Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, eliminating 60% of the Jews in Israel. Nuclear reactors, air force bases and airbases should be targeted in the first wave by Sejil missiles. Secondary targets would include power plants, communication sites, transportation sites and sewage treatment facilities. Altogether, he said, it would take about nine minutes. He strongly recommended that the attack happen before 2014. That is when Ahmadinejad’s term ends.

This genocidal madness was endorsed by Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, an influential hardline cleric. Reza Kahlili reports that he recently ruled that all Israelis who did not oppose the country’s “vicious crimes” are legitimate targets. Mesbah-Yazdi has written in support of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and one of his disciples issued a fatwa in 2006 justifying their use.

Policymakers need to recognize that public tensions between the U.S. and Israel and displays of American weakness reinforce the regime’s beliefs. In The Coming Is Upon Us, the regime uses quotes from U.S. officials stating that there is no viable military option against Iran as proof that prophecy is being fulfilled.

No good comes from making Iran believe that the U.S. isn’t interested in defending Israel.

Stay informed! Get our free newsletter

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

This article appeared originally on FrontPageMage.com

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it might do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da'wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, to simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it might do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da'wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, to simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

According to a 2010 report, "Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border," which appeared in the NY Daily News:

Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.

Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, "with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen." This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah's strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants' country of origin.

A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO's) operating along the U.S.—Mexico border."

As far back as 2005, an article entitled "Islam is gaining a Foothold in Chiapas" showcased the inroads of Islam in Mexico:

Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….

"Life is cheap" in impoverished Mexico. You want a job? Fine, pray five times a day, etc…

Kidnappings, as part of a drug cartel or as part of a jihadist operation, which legitimizes crimes such as kidnapping and child slavery, have become increasingly common. To convert non-Muslims to their cause, Islamists also whip up—and then exploit—a sense of "grievance" against the "white man."

In addition, according to counterterrorism experts in this report, Islamic terrorists blend in better with Mexicans than with Europeans, thereby enabling them to sneak into the U.S. across the southwest border. This Muslim cleric, for example, discusses how easy it is to smuggle a briefcase containing anthrax from Mexico into America, thereby killing at least some 330,000 Americans in a single hour.

Similarly, Michael Braun, formerly assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America; however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on "the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels."

Only a few months ago, Washington announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. The increased violence—including beheadings, Islam's signature trademark—is even more indicative that Islamists are well ensconced in Mexico's drug cartel.

The threat is not limited to Hezbollah; back in 2006, according to an ISN, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a da'wa, or missionary-outreach, organization named after historic jihadists along Spain's borders] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group's European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."

Even innocuous reports, such as this Muslim article, are cause for concern: "Today, most Mexican Islamic organizations focus on grassroots da'wa. These small organizations are most effective at the community level, going from village to village and speaking directly to the people." Although this may not sound problematic, the strain of Islam being spread by many of these da'wa organizations is the radical, "Salafist," anti-American variety. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian TV cleric saying that while Muslims must never smile to non-Muslims—who, as "infidels," are by nature the enemy—they are free to do so if the Muslim is engaged in da'wa, trying to win over the infidel into the fold of Islam, especially if the potential convert can help empower Islam in any way.

These are but a few of the many reports on Islam in Mexico. The evidence that many Islamists in Mexico are plotting against the U.S., using all means—such as drug trafficking, which is not forbidden in Sharia law if it serves to empower Islam—is overwhelming.

Under various methods—from the violent to the subversive to the exploitative—Islam allows Muslims to lie and commit other duplicitous acts in the furtherance of Islam. Taqiyya [dissimulation] permits Hezbollah and other Islamists to engage in Mexico's drug cartel, just as "pious" members of the Taliban in Afghanistan pursued the heroin trade. Aside from sheer violence, justified as "jihad," or holy war, tactics pursued by Mexico's Islamists include:

· Kidnappings and enslavement, for which Mexico is already notorious. Sharia permits kidnapping, and even enslaving the infidel, in this situation, any non-Muslim in Mexico. The Quran not only approves of this, but allows male jihadists to have sex with female captives of war (Sura 4, verse 3). Here, for example, is a Muslim politician trying to legalize the institution of "sex-slavery."

· Extortion and blackmail, features of the Mexican landscape, are also permissible in Islam. According to Sharia, during jihad, Muslims are permitted to hold for ransom infidels to be sold back for large amounts of money. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian sheikh saying that the Islamic world's problem is that it has stopped plundering and enslaving its infidel neighbors. He even boasts that under true Sharia, he could go to the local market and "buy" a female "sex-slave."

In using subversive elements for da'wa, Muslims might comfortably use false arguments to turn Mexicans against their northern neighbors. They might, for instance, argue that Islam is a religion of "racial equality," whereas Christianity is the "white man's" religion, imposed on their ancestors by racist whites who sought to keep them "impoverished" beyond the border. Islamist strategies in Mexico amount to trying to win the unbelievers over to their side, whether through conversion or just cooperation. For those who refuse to cooperate, they are infidels to be used in any way that seems fit.

Stay informed! Get our free newsletter

Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. A widely published author, he is best known for his book,  The Al Qaeda Reader .  Mr. Ibrahim's dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents —has provided him with unique advantages to understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets.

This article appeared originally on GatestoneInstitute.org

The Obama Administration and elected officials from both parties suffer from a profound misunderstanding of what the Muslim Brotherhood is. 

The State Department welcomes the Islamist group’s bid for the Egyptian presidency. It even told Customs and Border Protection not to conduct a secondary inspection of Brotherhood officials coming to the U.S., even though one of them was implicated in a child pornography investigation. Once in America, the Brotherhood delegation met with National Security Council officials. A spokesman defended the meetings because, in his words, it is “committed to democratic principles, especially non-violence.”

The claim that the Brotherhood does not advocate violence or terrorism is demonstrably false. It is only non-violent in Egypt because it would be counter-productive, but it supports violence in Israel and elsewhere. In September 2010, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammed Badi, declared that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the U.S. and Israel and must commit to “raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life."

The Muslim Brotherhood has never once condemned Hamas or its terrorist actions. In fact, the Brotherhood is an unwavering supporter of Hamas and the terrorist group is one of its affiliates. Hamas even changed its name to define it as “a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood-Palestine.”

The Muslim Brotherhood logo, (left). The Arabic word at the bottom of the circle is waidu, meaning “prepare,” and comes from the first word of Qur’anic verse 8:60, which tells Muslims to “Make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.”   The Brotherhood's motto is: Allah is our objective, Muhammad is our Prophet, the Quran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.                                     

The Vice Chairman of the Brotherhood’s political party in Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party, says Hamas is a “resistance group” and that Egypt should host its offices. The Brotherhood’s website includes supporting “Palestinian resistance” as part of its platform. When Israel agreed to release over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Brotherhood hailed it as a vindication of Hamas’ violent jihad. On November 24, top officials publicly called for attacks on Jews and a Brotherhood affiliate said Muslims must “revive the duty of jihad in all its forms.”

The Brotherhood is unflinching in its calls for the ultimate destruction of Israel. Former Supreme Guide Mehdi Akef says it will “resist them [Zionists] until they no longer have a country.” It flatly rejects a permanent two-state solution. Its most senior cleric, Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, below, is among the most influential supporters of violent jihad and suicide bombings, calling himself the “mufti of martyrdom operations.” He says that the Holocaust was a judgment upon the Jews by Allah and that he hopes Muslims deliver the next judgment. He turned down the Brotherhood’s request to become its Supreme Guide in 2004.

Brotherhood apologists are quick to point out that the group condemned the 9/11 attacks and has publicly clashed with Al-Qaeda and Iran. Their only difference is over strategy. The Brotherhood still considered Bin Laden to be a Muslim holy warrior and when he was killed, it honored “Sheikh Osama Bin Laden” and endorsed “legitimate resistance against foreign occupation.” Brotherhood officials regularly speculate that 9/11 was a Zionist conspiracy. As for Iran, Brotherhood officials went there last year and said Ahmadinejad is the “bravest man in the Muslim world.”

The Brotherhood’s participation in elections does not mean it is truly democratic. Qaradawi preaches "gradualism" towards the implementation of sharia-based governance. He is quick to point out that the Islamist definition of democracy is different than the West’s. He wants a “genuine type of democracy” that is “driven by the laws of sharia.”

Khairat el-Shater, the Brotherhood presidential candidate in Egypt who has won the affection of U.S. officials, says the same thing. “Sharia was and will always be my first and final project and objective,” he says. He met with the Salafists, the very people the U.S. hopes he will counter, and assured them that he’d create a council of clerics to review and approve all legislation. A translation of a concerning speech he gave on April 21, 2011 has been published. He said that the Brotherhood agenda is “restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception,” “instituting the religion of God” and “Every aspect of life is to be Islamicized.”

How’d we get to this mistaken view of the Brotherhood? There are a few reasons.

Firstly, compared to the fiery rhetoric of Al-Qaeda and Salafist puritans, the Brotherhood does appear moderate—but moderate is a relative term. Condemnations of 9/11, use of Western-friendly language, pragmatic strategies of non-violence and participation in elections are mistakenly viewed as proof that the Islamists share our interests and values.

The second factor is the influence of Brotherhood front groups, Islamist apologists and efforts to marginalize anti-Islamist Muslim voices. Brotherhood fronts and allies earn the cooperation of government officials by casting themselves as the representatives of the Muslim community. This is a bi-partisan problem. Law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials are among those that have been won over, as well as major universities.

The U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, has a long history with Brotherhood groups. Azizah al-Hibri sits on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and says “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law.” Her resume includes once having a top position with the American Muslim Council, a Brotherhood front and relationships with similar groups.

The person that most influenced President Obama’s speech in Cairo was Dalia Mogahed, left. She was appointed to the President’s Advisory Council of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is a close associate of John Esposito, one of the top defenders of the Brotherhood and its groups in the U.S. Mogahed is a staunch defender of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America; two Brotherhood fronts that the federal government says are tied to Hamas. When the government labeled them as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the terrorism financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, she said it was part of a “concerted effort to silence, you know, institution-building among Muslims.”

Another close associate of John Esposito is William Taylor, who now leads the State Department’s Office of Middle East Transitions. When Taylor was vice president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, it sponsored a conference organized by Esposito’s organization on April 28, 2010 that the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report described as “perhaps the largest public gathering of global Muslim Brotherhood leaders and U.S. government officials to date.”

Taylor’s office provided election training to the Muslim Brotherhood. He defended it by saying that the U.S. isn’t picking sides. “As long as parties, entities, do not espouse or conduct violence, we’ll work with them,” he said. He further said we “should not be afraid of” working with Islamists and “we need to…judge people and parties and movements on what they do, not what they’re called,” inferring that the fear of the Brotherhood is inspired by the inclusion of the word “Muslim” in its title. He positively compares the Brotherhood with the Ennahda Party of Tunisia, another so-called “moderate” party whose extremism is ignored.

The failure to understand the Brotherhood was on display during Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s embarrassing testimony to Congress. The factual errors in his statements, such as calling the Brotherhood “secular,” overshadowed the greater point he was trying to make: The Brotherhood is non-violent, democratic and should be seen as a partner. In January, he described it as a “moderate Islamist” group that can serve as a counter to Al-Qaeda.

At the same time, the Brotherhood and its allies marginalize competing voices within the Muslim community and pressures government agencies, especially those involved in counter-terrorism, to blacklist their critics.  In the process, these groups get influence over counter-terrorism training and law enforcement policies. For example, the Chicago Police Superintendent recently spoke at a fundraising banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

An example would be how the Brotherhood-tied groups are foaming at the mouth because Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, right, an anti-Islamist Muslim activist, was recently appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Jasser was previously nominated to the State Department Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy but was blocked at the last moment with no given reason. It’s safe to assume that these same groups were responsible.

This intelligence failure is the fruition of a decades-long Muslim Brotherhood campaign. And, like with other intelligence failures, we will one day look back and wonder how we could’ve gotten it so wrong.

Stay informed! Get our free newsletter

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel.

This article appeared originally on The Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Sanctions and the threat of military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities aren’t swaying the leaders of the Islamic regime in anticipation of negotiations this weekend. In fact, Iranian pundits proclaim, Iran does not have to make concessions to the United States because it is a powerhouse.

In an analysis that appeared Saturday, Mohammad Mohammadi, an Iranian international affairs and nuclear program expert, wrote, “Iran is in a position now that it does not necessarily need to compromise with the U.S.”

“It is quite clear that when we watch the current arguments between America and Israel over Iran, the Obama administration is quite confused,” Mr. Mohammadi said in the Keyhan newspaper, an outlet under the direct supervision of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In his article, titled “The Lessons from the Past for the Negotiations in April,” Mr. Mohammadi wrote: “Looking back at the past decade, all the red lines by America and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. America has always adopted radical actions at first that have changed to symbolic measures later. Iran has always known that America and the West needed a way to solve the nuclear issue with some honor, and today it is quite visible that with the defeat of America’s policies toward Iran, the talk about a need to solve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically is a way to obtain that honor.”

The United States initially demanded that Iran suspend all its nuclear activities, Mr. Mohammadi said. “Today, though, the Americans have given up on that, and what Obama is asking is the halt of the enrichment to the 20 percent level with a full acceptance of Iran’s enrichment rights to the 5 percent level.” Enriching uranium to the 20 percent level is a critical step to achieving nuclear weaponization.

“The Americans have also changed their language,” Mr. Mohammadi said, “where at first they claimed that they had evidence that Iran was working to make the nuclear bomb. Now, though, they state openly that Iran has not yet decided to make a bomb. This change in their demands and in their language can only mean one thing - that they are incapable of stopping Iran’s nuclear program.”

Mr. Mohammadi said that with the recent U.S. sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and Iranian oil, America has burned its last options with its economic threats against Iran, which will only hurt the global economy and create a paradox in which the Americans have to choose between an economic recovery or oil punishment of Iran.

“The increase of oil prices in the last three months is in itself a verification that they will have a hard time,” Mr. Mohammadi said.

“The talk of a military attack by Israel and some American officials in itself caused many Western leaders, diplomats, military officials and others to openly state that such an option cannot be implemented against Iran and that it will be devastating for the region and world,” Mr. Mohammadi said.

So in a very short period of time, the two most important choices for the West, one a military option and the other crippling sanctions, have now left the West empty-handed for the upcoming negotiations, Mr. Mohammadi said. The next round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group - the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - will be held on April 14 in Turkey.

“The ineffectiveness of the American policies toward Iran has now reached an acute point where the intelligence to avoid a checkmate over Iran’s nuclear program is not visible in the White House,” Mr. Mohammadi concluded. “Maybe the clearest sign is what at one time George Friedman, the head of the intelligence outlet Stratfor, said: ‘Iran wants to become a regional power without any compromise with America.’ However, we can rewrite Friedman’s words that ‘Today, Iran is proving the point that in order to be a powerhouse, it does not need to compromise with America.’ “

Meanwhile, Iran continued its saber-rattling Saturday through other mouthpieces.

“If Israel dares to make any mistake, the Islamic republic will plough under the existence of the plunderer and murderous Zionists,” threatened Gen. Hassan Firoozabadi, the Iranian armed forces joint chief of staff.

In raising the stakes, Iranian lawmaker Gholamreza Mesbahi Moghadam said that although Iran does not want a nuclear bomb, it has the capability to build one. This was further verified by an article titled “The Last Bullet in the Political Direction of the United Nations” on Mashregh News, a media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, stating that the Iranian nuclear program “has now reached a point that it can make a nuclear bomb, should it want to, and the fact that Iran could share its nuclear technology with other countries, it’s in fact the last bullet” the Islamic regime can use against its enemies.

Stay informed! Get our free newsletter

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board member of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

This article appeared originally on The WashingtonTimes.