Resources for Iranian Threat

Clarion Fund presents a webinar: Women's Rights & Human Rights Under Shariah Law

Webinar with Nonie Darwish

Clarion Fund presents a webinar: Women's Rights & Human Rights Under Shariah Law presented by leading Middle East expert and acclaimed author, Nonie Darwish. This webinar was originally broadcast on November 2, 2011
Please note: there is a problem with the audio quality at the beginning of this webinar, so please forward to 05:45 when the audio quality improves. We apologize for any inconvenience.

IRANIUM: 30 Years of Terror

IRANIUM: 30 Years of Terror

For over 30 years the Iranian regime has used international terror in its struggle to spread Khomeini's revolution.

Iran Is at War with Us

National Review Online
By Andrew C. McCarthy
July 9, 2011

‘You can clearly see what they are doing in Iraq.” Sen. Lindsey Graham was talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran, specifically the death trade plied by the mullahs, their Revolutionary Guard Corps, their Hezbollah operatives, and the assorted jihadists under their control. And while the plying is being done “in Iraq,” it is being done against America.
Senator Graham elaborated that Iran is setting the stage to frame the long-scheduled withdrawal from Iraq as a case of the United States being “driven out,” a cowardly retreat under fire. Nor is this happening solely in Iraq. Iran’s fortification of the Afghan Taliban also continues at a steady clip. It may even be spiking now as the planned drawdown of American forces gets under way. Again, the mullahs are determined to pose as Allah’s avengers, casting the infidels out of Dar al-Islam.
They are getting plenty of help from the Obama administration. The U.S. withdrawal is being driven by the political calendar, not conditions on the ground. Thus our enemies — and Iran has always been our principal enemy — get to make it look like whatever they want it to look like.
So, as 33,000 U.S. troops begin making their quietus, the Taliban and its jihadist allies are emboldened, not vanquished. In fact, Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reports that superior Iranian rockets enable our enemies to fire from 13 miles away, twice the range of the Taliban’s former arsenal. With U.S. air power paralyzed by the demagoguery of Iran’s new best friend, Hamid Karzai — the Afghan president minted by our government’s Islamic-democracy project — it gets awfully difficult to defend against such attacks.
Defending themselves is about all our troops will be able to do in the coming months. Karzai and the mullahs have finalized a joint defense and security agreement — in the jihadi pincer, Iran arms both the sharia “democracy” and its Taliban opposition; it’s the American troops getting squeezed. Meanwhile, fresh off the anti-American duet Iraq’s Pres. Jalal Talabani crooned with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the mullahs’ recent “anti-terrorism” summit, Iran’s vice president visited Baghdad this week to call on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, another democracy project success story. As they forged deeper economic, security, and cultural ties, they also marked a month in which 15 Americans were killed in Iraq, making it the worst month for U.S. forces in over two years.
You may recall that time in 2009 as the fleeting period of euphoria after President Bush’s troop surge transformed Iraq just as it was about to become a humiliating American failure. According to received Washington wisdom, the surge was a triumph — indeed, so spectacular a triumph that even President Obama now claims the Iraq mission as his own, as if we all share the Obamedia’s amnesia about their hero’s prominence in Harry Reid’s anti-surge legion of “This war is lost” Democrats.
To be sure, Iraq is Obama’s kind of foreign-policy triumph. The strategy was not to defeat the enemy but to stabilize a sharia democracy and protect a population that remains rabidly anti-American. So we have built Baghdad into a reasonably stable Iranian client state, pulled ever deeper into the mullahs’ orbit.
Iran has spent eight years killing Americans in Iraq. We responded by doing nothing. Attacking the source of the problem might have jeopardized Iraq’s fragile new government, whose leading factions are beholden to Tehran, a complication we chose to paper over. In fact, even as democracy-project enthusiasts crowed about Iraq’s purported evolution into a key American ally against the jihad, the Bush administration acceded to Maliki’s demand that Iraq not be used as a staging ground for U.S. operations against other nations (translation: against Iran, the kingpin of the jihad). It seems the only country we’d be permitted to attack from Iraq is Israel. And that’s no joke: Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski actually suggested that the U.S. would shoot Israeli bombers down over Iraq if they dared try to take out Iran’s ripening nuclear arsenal.
Of course, the 15 Americans killed in Iraq last month are fewer than the 19 Americans that Iran killed in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in the Khobar Towers bombing. And it is considerably less than the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. Noting that the mullahs had been supporting al-Qaeda since the early 1990s, the 9/11 Commission gingerly related sketchy evidence of Iranian involvement in the suicide hijackings that vaulted the U.S. to war: the provision of safe conduct into and out of Afghanistan for al-Qaeda operatives, the “remarkable coincidence” (to borrow the commission’s phrase) that Hezbollah leaders ended up on the same Iranian transit flights as the future hijackers, etc. Iran even harbored al-Qaeda leaders, including two of Osama bin Laden’s sons, in the years after 9/11.
Yet, these were dots the commission was content to leave unconnected. And no one — not the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, and not Congress — has shown much interest in revisiting them, despite the hundreds of Americans Iran has since killed, and continues to kill.
Here at home, a phony debate rages over whether conservatives are becoming “isolationist” — whether we are the Right’s version of George McGovern’s “Come Home America” Left. But most of us have never been isolationist. We’ve been realists about the enemy — specifically, about the need to defeat rather than court the enemy.
In the days after 9/11, President Bush outlined the only plan that had a chance of achieving victory: Hunt terrorists down wherever they operate and treat terror-abetting regimes as terrorists. That should have been the mullahs’ death knell. Instead, we’ve tried to fight a war the enemy prosecutes globally as if it were happening in only two countries, neither of them Iran.
Putting aside the merits of a Marshall Plan analogue for the Muslim Middle East, the original Marshall Plan was undertaken only after total victory was achieved over America’s enemies. There could be no free, independent, pro-American Europe without Normandy and D-Day and Hitler’s annihilation. If you leave the enemy undisturbed while indulging in self-congratulation over democracy and the Arab Spring, you’re choreographing a farce. I’d call it “Springtime for Khamenei,” except the tragic joke is on us.
“Intervention” in 2011 has become what “negotiation” was in the Obama hey-day of 2009 — something purportedly good for its own sake. The inconvenient reality is that, if it is not based on a strategy designed to defeat America’s enemies, it is inevitably counterproductive. It gives our enemies countless opportunities to show, quite dramatically, that we lack both resolve and a cogent plan.
It is not isolationist to conclude that if we are not in it to win, we are wasting time, billions of dollars that we don’t have, and precious lives. I may be wrong to deem it highly unlikely that true democracy will ever take in Islamic soil. I may be wrong in concluding that the Arab Spring is diplo-lipstick on a pig better seen as the Islamist Ascendancy. But I do know one thing for certain: Freedom has no chance of advancing in the Middle East, any more than it would have advanced in Europe, unless we conquer the enemy.
There was a moment in time when we knew that. It was long ago, though, and perhaps beyond recapturing by a war-weary, financially tapped-out nation.
If we’re not in it to win it — for victory, not for tilting at windmills — we should come home. But regardless of what we do, what was true in 1983, when Hezbollah bombed our Marines, remains true today: Iran is at war with us, whether we choose to engage or not. If we are not going to win, we are going to lose. Happy talk about democracy and springtime won’t obscure the fact that there is no middle ground.

‘You can clearly see what they are doing in Iraq.” Sen. Lindsey Graham was talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran, specifically the death trade plied by the mullahs, their Revolutionary Guard Corps, their Hezbollah operatives, and the assorted jihadists under their control. And while the plying is being done “in Iraq,” it is being done against America.

Senator Graham elaborated that Iran is setting the stage to frame the long-scheduled withdrawal from Iraq as a case of the United States being “driven out,” a cowardly retreat under fire. Nor is this happening solely in Iraq. Iran’s fortification of the Afghan Taliban also continues at a steady clip. It may even be spiking now as the planned drawdown of American forces gets under way. Again, the mullahs are determined to pose as Allah’s avengers, casting the infidels out of Dar al-Islam.

They are getting plenty of help from the Obama administration. The U.S. withdrawal is being driven by the political calendar, not conditions on the ground. Thus our enemies — and Iran has always been our principal enemy — get to make it look like whatever they want it to look like.

So, as 33,000 U.S. troops begin making their quietus, the Taliban and its jihadist allies are emboldened, not vanquished. In fact, Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reports that superior Iranian rockets enable our enemies to fire from 13 miles away, twice the range of the Taliban’s former arsenal. With U.S. air power paralyzed by the demagoguery of Iran’s new best friend, Hamid Karzai — the Afghan president minted by our government’s Islamic-democracy project — it gets awfully difficult to defend against such attacks.

Defending themselves is about all our troops will be able to do in the coming months. Karzai and the mullahs have finalized a joint defense and security agreement — in the jihadi pincer, Iran arms both the sharia “democracy” and its Taliban opposition; it’s the American troops getting squeezed. Meanwhile, fresh off the anti-American duet Iraq’s Pres. Jalal Talabani crooned with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the mullahs’ recent “anti-terrorism” summit, Iran’s vice president visited Baghdad this week to call on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, another democracy project success story. As they forged deeper economic, security, and cultural ties, they also marked a month in which 15 Americans were killed in Iraq, making it the worst month for U.S. forces in over two years.

You may recall that time in 2009 as the fleeting period of euphoria after President Bush’s troop surge transformed Iraq just as it was about to become a humiliating American failure. According to received Washington wisdom, the surge was a triumph — indeed, so spectacular a triumph that even President Obama now claims the Iraq mission as his own, as if we all share the Obamedia’s amnesia about their hero’s prominence in Harry Reid’s anti-surge legion of “This war is lost” Democrats.

To be sure, Iraq is Obama’s kind of foreign-policy triumph. The strategy was not to defeat the enemy but to stabilize a sharia democracy and protect a population that remains rabidly anti-American. So we have built Baghdad into a reasonably stable Iranian client state, pulled ever deeper into the mullahs’ orbit.

Iran has spent eight years killing Americans in Iraq. We responded by doing nothing. Attacking the source of the problem might have jeopardized Iraq’s fragile new government, whose leading factions are beholden to Tehran, a complication we chose to paper over. In fact, even as democracy-project enthusiasts crowed about Iraq’s purported evolution into a key American ally against the jihad, the Bush administration acceded to Maliki’s demand that Iraq not be used as a staging ground for U.S. operations against other nations (translation: against Iran, the kingpin of the jihad). It seems the only country we’d be permitted to attack from Iraq is Israel. And that’s no joke: Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski actually suggested that the U.S. would shoot Israeli bombers down over Iraq if they dared try to take out Iran’s ripening nuclear arsenal.

Of course, the 15 Americans killed in Iraq last month are fewer than the 19 Americans that Iran killed in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in the Khobar Towers bombing. And it is considerably less than the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. Noting that the mullahs had been supporting al-Qaeda since the early 1990s, the 9/11 Commission gingerly related sketchy evidence of Iranian involvement in the suicide hijackings that vaulted the U.S. to war: the provision of safe conduct into and out of Afghanistan for al-Qaeda operatives, the “remarkable coincidence” (to borrow the commission’s phrase) that Hezbollah leaders ended up on the same Iranian transit flights as the future hijackers, etc. Iran even harbored al-Qaeda leaders, including two of Osama bin Laden’s sons, in the years after 9/11.

Yet, these were dots the commission was content to leave unconnected. And no one — not the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, and not Congress — has shown much interest in revisiting them, despite the hundreds of Americans Iran has since killed, and continues to kill.

Here at home, a phony debate rages over whether conservatives are becoming “isolationist” — whether we are the Right’s version of George McGovern’s “Come Home America” Left. But most of us have never been isolationist. We’ve been realists about the enemy — specifically, about the need to defeat rather than court the enemy.

In the days after 9/11, President Bush outlined the only plan that had a chance of achieving victory: Hunt terrorists down wherever they operate and treat terror-abetting regimes as terrorists. That should have been the mullahs’ death knell. Instead, we’ve tried to fight a war the enemy prosecutes globally as if it were happening in only two countries, neither of them Iran.

Putting aside the merits of a Marshall Plan analogue for the Muslim Middle East, the original Marshall Plan was undertaken only after total victory was achieved over America’s enemies. There could be no free, independent, pro-American Europe without Normandy and D-Day and Hitler’s annihilation. If you leave the enemy undisturbed while indulging in self-congratulation over democracy and the Arab Spring, you’re choreographing a farce. I’d call it “Springtime for Khamenei,” except the tragic joke is on us.

“Intervention” in 2011 has become what “negotiation” was in the Obama hey-day of 2009 — something purportedly good for its own sake. The inconvenient reality is that, if it is not based on a strategy designed to defeat America’s enemies, it is inevitably counterproductive. It gives our enemies countless opportunities to show, quite dramatically, that we lack both resolve and a cogent plan.

It is not isolationist to conclude that if we are not in it to win, we are wasting time, billions of dollars that we don’t have, and precious lives. I may be wrong to deem it highly unlikely that true democracy will ever take in Islamic soil. I may be wrong in concluding that the Arab Spring is diplo-lipstick on a pig better seen as the Islamist Ascendancy. But I do know one thing for certain: Freedom has no chance of advancing in the Middle East, any more than it would have advanced in Europe, unless we conquer the enemy.

There was a moment in time when we knew that. It was long ago, though, and perhaps beyond recapturing by a war-weary, financially tapped-out nation.

If we’re not in it to win it — for victory, not for tilting at windmills — we should come home. But regardless of what we do, what was true in 1983, when Hezbollah bombed our Marines, remains true today: Iran is at war with us, whether we choose to engage or not. If we are not going to win, we are going to lose. Happy talk about democracy and springtime won’t obscure the fact that there is no middle ground.

This article was originally published here. 

10 Things You Need to Know about…the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

  1. The head of the Iranian regime is not the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but rather the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.                                                  
  2. The Iranian regime, according to its 1989 constitution, is dedicated to jihad to spread the Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution, to re-establish the Caliphate, and impose Islamic law (sharia) globally. These are precisely the same objectives pursued by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and Hezbollah—which may explain why they have all been linked together with Iran in operational relationships for so many decades.                                                          
  3. The primary mission of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is to keep the regime in power. In an especially visible way since the popular uprising after the fraudulent 2009 presidential elections, the IRGC and its subordinate Bassij units have used sheer brutality and terror to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.                                                                              
  4. The Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the IRGC to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons in the mid-1980s. Every Iranian president—including those touted as ‘moderate’—has supported the acquisition of nuclear weapons, but the program has accelerated markedly under the last two presidents: Khatami and Ahmadinejad.                                                                                                                          
  5. By sheer numbers, Iran is the number two state killer of its own citizens in the world, second only to China, a country with 20 times the size of its population.  Per capita, Iran may be the biggest killer.                                                                                
  6. The Iranian regime has supported the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in a vocal way ever since the uprising began there in early 2011. The Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist organization with a pervasive presence in the U.S. government, intelligence community, and society as a whole, has reached out to the Iranian regime in return and openly expressed interest in forging close ties with it. The Obama administration recently announced that it is expanding its long-standing ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.                                                                                                                    
  7. Current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that the Shi’a messianic figure (the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam), who allegedly disappeared down a well 1,000 years ago—is helping guide his government and manage world affairs.   He has publicly expressed his belief that apocalyptic violence can hasten the return of this figure.                                                                                                                  
  8. In spite of sanctions, Iran is far from isolated.  It is actively involved with many countries, diplomatically and economically, buying influence at a growing pace.  This includes the viscerally anti-American regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and a growing list of other countries in America’s backyard of South and Central America. Iran also has been developing relations with countries like Eritrea, Sudan,  Algeria,  Afghanistan, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, and recently Israel’s neighbor Jordan.                                                                                                                  
  9. Iran has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of conducting effective plausibly deniable attacks against Israel and the United States.”   This includes a network of terror proxies, such as Hezbollah, which has an extensive presence across Latin America, especially in Venezuela, and also in Mexico.  Hezbollah operates at least a dozen cells within the U.S. as well.                                                                                                  
  10. The Havlish case (Havlish et al vs Osama bin Laden, Iran, et al.), filed in New York in May 2011, presented compelling evidence that the Iranian regime provided direct and material assistance to al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. 

Iran Delivers Threatening Letter to President Obama

Pajamas Media
By Reza Kahlili
July 3, 2011

 

The Arab-language newspaper Al-Ahram reports that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently sent a letter filled with threats to American officials. The letter, which is said to have been delivered by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, accuses the U.S. of meddling in Syrian affairs. According to Al-Ahram, Khamenei has ordered the U.S. to cease and desist pressuring the Syrian regime leadership, cautioning that Iran will retaliate against American troops stationed in Iraq should Obama refuse to take the warning seriously.
Jalal Talabani, who recently participated in the “International Conference for the Global Fight against Terrorism” in Tehran, promised Khamenei that he would deliver the letter and the message to American officials.
Ayatollah Khamenei, in a meeting with Iranian officials on June 30, warned that the U.S. — in a complicated plot — tries to create problems for Syria, and that the nature of the regional awakening was anti-U.S. and anti-Zionist.
Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, which is a media branch of Hezbollah , quoted several of its Tehran-based sources as saying that the Iranian leadership also warned Turkey against taking any military action against Syria. The report adds that any militaristic meddling in Syria by the Turks would be considered “crossing a red line” and will not be tolerated by the Iranian regime.
The Iranian regime has denied delivering an ultimatum to Turkey, calling the reports propaganda by the West. But according to these sources, Tehran is of the belief that pressures directed at Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian leadership in general are a pretext for the main target, which is Hassan Nasrallah and ultimately the disempowerment of Iran. Therefore, as far as the Iranian leadership is concerned, defending Damascus is a part of the defense of Tehran and Beirut.
The Iranian threat against Turkey and the U.S. is due to the fact that several Arab-language and Turkish media outlets have suggested that an area on the Syrian border should be turned into a free zone in order to protect Syrians taking refuge in Turkey. The Turkish government has not made any official comments to that effect. Purportedly, Turkish authorities have assured the Iranian regime that they would not take any such action and that they would not go along with U.S. plans against Syria. On the other hand, a large majority of the Turkish media actively mentions this as a viable option.
An analysis written by Mehmet-Ali Birand in the Turkish daily Milliyet puts forth the scenario of the occupation of a piece of Syria’s land as a possible solution. However, Birand believes that this undertaking is filled with risks that at present Turkey cannot withstand or enforce. Birand concludes that the creation of a free zone will not only not resolve the Syrian refugees’ problem, but that the Turkish army will not be able to protect more than fifty thousand refugees. This will lead the UN and foreign forces into taking action, further complicating the issue.
The Iranian leadership, concerned about the situation in Syria, exacerbated their threats by conducting missile war games, and for the first time they used missile silos which they claim satellites can’t detect. The head of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division, Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, in an interview with the Iranian Fars News Agency, stated: “The Americans have reduced our labors.” He further elaborating that all U.S. military bases in the region and the Zionist regime (referring to Israel) are fully within range of the Iranian missiles. The deputy commander of the Guards, Hossein Salami, also stated : “We still have our fingers on the trigger, but the number of the triggers has increased.” The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, also boasted about Iran’s military capability, saying that the fact that Iran’s show of strength rattles the West “is a source of delight for us.”
The Iranian leadership perceives America’s involvement on three fronts — Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — as a limitation, and they have become emboldened. They see themselves as a powerhouse in the region, pushing to diminish U.S. supremacy in the Middle East.
The Iranian missile war games are intended to send a strong signal to both the U.S. and Israel that they should not be thinking of attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities, and that they should leave its allies, such as Syria and Hezbollah, alone.
With Iran pursuing its nuclear bomb project in confrontation with the West (despite four sets of UN sanctions), with Syria continuing to brutally suppress the Syrians in their uprising, with the international community’s pressure on the Assad government, and with an imminent indictment in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri implicating Hezbollah, it appears the Middle East is a tinderbox ready to explode.
On June 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Iran is furnishing new, more deadly weapons to Shiite Muslim militias targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, and that about 40 percent of the deaths of American soldiers since the official end of U.S. combat operations almost 10 months ago have occurred in the past few weeks as a result of the attacks.
One day earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons that Iran had conducted secret nuclear missile tests.
It seems the Iranians are getting ready for a confrontation. Are we?
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.

The Arab-language newspaper Al-Ahram reports that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently sent a letter filled with threats to American officials. The letter, which is said to have been delivered by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, accuses the U.S. of meddling in Syrian affairs. According to Al-Ahram, Khamenei has ordered the U.S. to cease and desist pressuring the Syrian regime leadership, cautioning that Iran will retaliate against American troops stationed in Iraq should Obama refuse to take the warning seriously.

Jalal Talabani, who recently participated in the “International Conference for the Global Fight against Terrorism” in Tehran, promised Khamenei that he would deliver the letter and the message to American officials.

Ayatollah Khamenei, in a meeting with Iranian officials on June 30, warned that the U.S. — in a complicated plot — tries to create problems for Syria, and that the nature of the regional awakening was anti-U.S. and anti-Zionist.

Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, which is a media branch of Hezbollah , quoted several of its Tehran-based sources as saying that the Iranian leadership also warned Turkey against taking any military action against Syria. The report adds that any militaristic meddling in Syria by the Turks would be considered “crossing a red line” and will not be tolerated by the Iranian regime.

The Iranian regime has denied delivering an ultimatum to Turkey, calling the reports propaganda by the West. But according to these sources, Tehran is of the belief that pressures directed at Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian leadership in general are a pretext for the main target, which is Hassan Nasrallah and ultimately the disempowerment of Iran. Therefore, as far as the Iranian leadership is concerned, defending Damascus is a part of the defense of Tehran and Beirut.

The Iranian threat against Turkey and the U.S. is due to the fact that several Arab-language and Turkish media outlets have suggested that an area on the Syrian border should be turned into a free zone in order to protect Syrians taking refuge in Turkey. The Turkish government has not made any official comments to that effect. Purportedly, Turkish authorities have assured the Iranian regime that they would not take any such action and that they would not go along with U.S. plans against Syria. On the other hand, a large majority of the Turkish media actively mentions this as a viable option.

An analysis written by Mehmet-Ali Birand in the Turkish daily Milliyet puts forth the scenario of the occupation of a piece of Syria’s land as a possible solution. However, Birand believes that this undertaking is filled with risks that at present Turkey cannot withstand or enforce. Birand concludes that the creation of a free zone will not only not resolve the Syrian refugees’ problem, but that the Turkish army will not be able to protect more than fifty thousand refugees. This will lead the UN and foreign forces into taking action, further complicating the issue.

The Iranian leadership, concerned about the situation in Syria, exacerbated their threats by conducting missile war games, and for the first time they used missile silos which they claim satellites can’t detect. The head of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division, Commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, in an interview with the Iranian Fars News Agency, stated: “The Americans have reduced our labors.” He further elaborating that all U.S. military bases in the region and the Zionist regime (referring to Israel) are fully within range of the Iranian missiles. The deputy commander of the Guards, Hossein Salami, also stated : “We still have our fingers on the trigger, but the number of the triggers has increased.” The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, also boasted about Iran’s military capability, saying that the fact that Iran’s show of strength rattles the West “is a source of delight for us.”

The Iranian leadership perceives America’s involvement on three fronts — Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — as a limitation, and they have become emboldened. They see themselves as a powerhouse in the region, pushing to diminish U.S. supremacy in the Middle East.

The Iranian missile war games are intended to send a strong signal to both the U.S. and Israel that they should not be thinking of attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities, and that they should leave its allies, such as Syria and Hezbollah, alone.

With Iran pursuing its nuclear bomb project in confrontation with the West (despite four sets of UN sanctions), with Syria continuing to brutally suppress the Syrians in their uprising, with the international community’s pressure on the Assad government, and with an imminent indictment in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri implicating Hezbollah, it appears the Middle East is a tinderbox ready to explode.

On June 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Iran is furnishing new, more deadly weapons to Shiite Muslim militias targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, and that about 40 percent of the deaths of American soldiers since the official end of U.S. combat operations almost 10 months ago have occurred in the past few weeks as a result of the attacks.

One day earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons that Iran had conducted secret nuclear missile tests.

It seems the Iranians are getting ready for a confrontation. Are we?

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.

 

Iran's execution binge

Los Angeles Time
By Mark D. Wallace
July 6, 2011
Why not Iran?
Egypt and Tunisia have overthrown repressive regimes. Citizens in Syria, Yemen and other Middle East countries are demanding change. Yet in Iran, where a wave of 2009 demonstrations helped spark the movements we are now witnessing elsewhere in the Middle East, the populace is strangely silent.
RELATED
Iran's victims
Nuclear proliferation: Engaging Iran
Iran slams U.S. at conference on fighting terrorism
Reader opinion: Those dumb Americans who went hiking in Iran
Meghan Daum: What's with the 'hiker hate'?
What accounts for the relative quiet in Iran? The answer, at least in part, is that one of the great human rights tragedies of the modern era is underway in Iran.
From the moment the first protesters hit Tahrir Square in Cairo, Iran's leadership has cracked down hard, instituting a brutal campaign of terror against its own people. The most gruesome manifestation of this repression has been a wave of public executions.
Since January, Iran has been on an execution binge. In February, the United Nations reported that the rate of executions in Iran had increased threefold in 2011 over the previous year. Amnesty International reported that Iran is the only country this year known to have executed juvenile offenders, a violation of international law. And though exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is now estimated by human rights organizations that more than 140 people have been executed in Iran so far this year, a rate that, if continued, would push the number far past the total for 2010.

Los Angeles Times
By Mark D. Wallace
July 6, 2011

Why not Iran?

Egypt and Tunisia have overthrown repressive regimes. Citizens in Syria, Yemen and other Middle East countries are demanding change. Yet in Iran, where a wave of 2009 demonstrations helped spark the movements we are now witnessing elsewhere in the Middle East, the populace is strangely silent.

What accounts for the relative quiet in Iran? The answer, at least in part, is that one of the great human rights tragedies of the modern era is underway in Iran.

From the moment the first protesters hit Tahrir Square in Cairo, Iran's leadership has cracked down hard, instituting a brutal campaign of terror against its own people. The most gruesome manifestation of this repression has been a wave of public executions.

Continue reading here

 

Iran: World Victim of Terrorism

FrontPage Magazine
By Joseph Klein
June 29, 2011

Has the United Nations no shame? Apparently not, as it continues to legitimize some of the world’s worst tyrants and human rights abusers.
The most recent example is the UN leadership’s endorsement of the so-called “World Without Terrorism Conference” hosted by the Iranian regime in Tehran on June 25-26, 2011. The “distinguished” roster of attendees included the indicted international criminal Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the corrupter-in-chief Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and the hear-no-bin Laden, see-no-bin Laden Pakistani president Asif ‘Ali Zardari.
The conference website set the tone with an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting a hooked-nose Israeli soldier looking like the devil with horns and another cartoon displaying the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite in her hand.
Kicking off the conference were the Iranian terrorist-sponsoring leaders, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each of them tried to outdo the other in branding the United States and Israel as the world’s leading terrorist states.
Khamenei, who fancies himself as the 12th Imam’s deputy on Earth, lamented the “satanic world powers which use terrorism in their policies and in their planning to achieve their illegitimate goals.” Of course, he wasn’t talking about his own government or the genocidal Al-Bashir, as he should have been doing. He was referring to the “Zionist regime” and to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and other Western governments that have a “black record of terrorist behaviors.”
Ayatollah Khamenei also pointed to “noble teachings of Islam” as the solution to ending the global terrorist threat. He just happened to leave out the “noble teachings of Islam” which teach about jihad against all unbelievers to establish Islam’s Sharia law worldwide.
After all, it was Mohammed himself who said “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me.”
To make sure that nobody misunderstood his “noble teachings” Mohammed also said: “To battle Kafirs [unbelievers] in jihad for even one day is greater than the entire earth and everything on it.”
Then again, Khamenei does not link the killing of unbelievers and all enemies of Islam to terrorism. Killing every Jew or “Crusader” in his mind is simply fulfilling the Islamist duty of jihad as laid out by Mohammed.
For his part, Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran was one of the chief victims of terrorism. He also revived his 9/11 truther claims:

Has the United Nations no shame? Apparently not, as it continues to legitimize some of the world’s worst tyrants and human rights abusers.

The most recent example is the UN leadership’s endorsement of the so-called “World Without Terrorism Conference” hosted by the Iranian regime in Tehran on June 25-26, 2011. The “distinguished” roster of attendees included the indicted international criminal Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the corrupter-in-chief Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and the hear-no-bin Laden, see-no-bin Laden Pakistani president Asif ‘Ali Zardari.

The conference website set the tone with an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting a hooked-nose Israeli soldier looking like the devil with horns and another cartoon displaying the Statue of Liberty holding a stick of dynamite in her hand.

Kicking off the conference were the Iranian terrorist-sponsoring leaders, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each of them tried to outdo the other in branding the United States and Israel as the world’s leading terrorist states.

Khamenei, who fancies himself as the 12th Imam’s deputy on Earth, lamented the “satanic world powers which use terrorism in their policies and in their planning to achieve their illegitimate goals.” Of course, he wasn’t talking about his own government or the genocidal Al-Bashir, as he should have been doing. He was referring to the “Zionist regime” and to the U.S., the United Kingdom, and other Western governments that have a “black record of terrorist behaviors.”

Ayatollah Khamenei also pointed to “noble teachings of Islam” as the solution to ending the global terrorist threat. He just happened to leave out the “noble teachings of Islam” which teach about jihad against all unbelievers to establish Islam’s Sharia law worldwide.

After all, it was Mohammed himself who said “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations spoken through me.”

To make sure that nobody misunderstood his “noble teachings” Mohammed also said: “To battle Kafirs [unbelievers] in jihad for even one day is greater than the entire earth and everything on it.”

Then again, Khamenei does not link the killing of unbelievers and all enemies of Islam to terrorism. Killing every Jew or “Crusader” in his mind is simply fulfilling the Islamist duty of jihad as laid out by Mohammed.

For his part, Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran was one of the chief victims of terrorism. He also revived his 9/11 truther claims:

Some believe that the motive behind the September 11 attacks was to ensure the safety of [the] Zionist regime, to foment insecurity in regional countries, to distract U.S. public opinion from the chaotic economic situation in the country, and to [line] the pockets of uncivilized, belligerent capitalists… Two years after the incident that provided an excuse for the invasion of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) led to the killing, injuring, and displacing of millions… the U.S. government, under pressure from public opinion, tasked a group to investigate the reason behind the attacks. But the real truth has been kept from the Americans and the world[.]

Khamenei and Ahmadinejad wouldn’t let their conference go by without making sure they got together for a tête-à-tête with Sudanese president Al-Bashir. Perhaps Al-Bashir gave them some friendly advice about how to brutally suppress their own people and get away with it. After all, Al-Bashir can speak from long experience that continues right up to the present day. His Islamist Arab regime presses on with its relentless massacre of the defenseless black African population inhabiting central Sudan’s Nuba Mountains located in an area known as South Kordofan.

Did the United Nations condemn the travesty of this supposed conference against terrorism hosted by terrorist-sponsoring Iran and attended by the international criminal Al-Bashir? Did it call for the immediate arrest of the Sudanese president on the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court? Not a chance. To the contrary, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon actually praised Iran for its initiative in hosting the conference.

The news agency FARS reported that in a message delivered to the conference via special envoy, Ban said:

The U.N. has an important role in fighting terrorism and I hope that the Tehran conference can attain [this] great goal.

FARS also quoted Ban Ki-moon as saying that the UN had approved a large number of resolutions against terrorism in recent years and that “holding conferences like the Tehran conference can be considerably helpful in implementing these resolutions.”

Lest anyone think that the UN secretary general’s words got lost in the translation or taken out of context, a UN spokesperson defended Ban Ki-moon’s message to the conference, saying, “The UN believes that it is important for all nations to work together in the fight against terrorism.”

How about we start working together “in the fight against terrorism” by ostracizing the state sponsors of terrorism like Iran itself, which has also flouted a series of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping its drive for nuclear weapons? One of the best ways to start towards Iran’s self-proclaimed conference goal of a “World Without Terrorism” is to strive for a world without the current terrorist Iranian regime.

Instead, the UN continues to reward Iran for its bad behavior. Just last week, the UN General Assembly elected Iran as one of its vice presidents and Qatar as president, each for a year-long term starting in September. Qatar is no angel either, by the way. Aside from financing the terrorists’ propaganda arm, Al-Jazeera, Qatar protected terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Sadly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon let another opportunity go by without calling out the Iranian government’s evil when he sees it and exposing its blatant hypocrisy. Instead, he allowed the United Nations to legitimize yet another Iranian exercise in anti-Western, anti-Semitic propaganda.

Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam.

Iran: The Purge of the Hojatieh Society

 

Family Security Matters
Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
May 7, 2011
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiance of Ayatollah Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is no laughing matter. An 11-day strike by President Ahmadinejad has ended with the arrest of 25 of his associates on the charge of sorcery – a charge which carries the penalty of death. 
 
Ahmadinejad’s Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim Masheia, lies at the heart of the controversy. Rumor has it that “Mashaei allegedly occasionally enters a trance-like state to communicate with the Twelfth Imam or will sometimes randomly say ‘hello’ to no one at all and then explain that the Twelfth Imam just passed by.”
 
Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds".
 
Following the 2009 elections, Ayatollah Khameini rejected Ahmadinejad’s decision to raise Mashaei to the position of First Vice President. Ahmadinejad eventually relented and made him Chief of Staff.

Family Security Matters
Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
May 7, 2011

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiance of Ayatollah Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is no laughing matter. An 11-day strike by President Ahmadinejad has ended with the arrest of 25 of his associates on the charge of sorcery – a charge which carries the penalty of death. 

Ahmadinejad’s Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim Masheia, lies at the heart of the controversy. Rumor has it that “Mashaei allegedly occasionally enters a trance-like state to communicate with the Twelfth Imam or will sometimes randomly say ‘hello’ to no one at all and then explain that the Twelfth Imam just passed by.”

Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds".

Following the 2009 elections, Ayatollah Khameini rejected Ahmadinejad’s decision to raise Mashaei to the position of First Vice President. Ahmadinejad eventually relented and made him Chief of Staff.

Continue reading here

 

Iran: From Eschatology to 21st-Century Foreign Policy

 

By Clare Lopez
inFocus Quarterly
Winter 2010
The United States faces no greater foreign policy challenge than managing the threat from the jihadist regime in Tehran while also standing unequivocally with the Iranian people in their struggle for liberty. Indeed, a succession of U.S. administrations has been wrestling with that challenge for over 31 years. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not easily compared to other nations or even other totalitarian dictatorships: after Arabia, Iran is the second state in the modern era to be captured by violence and ruled by the forces of Islamic jihad. The threat to U.S. national security and international stability derives from the primary mission of this regime, enshrined in its 1989 constitution: the establishment of an Islamic state worldwide and subjugation of all people on earth to Sharia, or Islamic law.
When Iran's constitutional mandate is coupled with a theological belief system that holds the Shi'ite messianic figure, the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi), can be prompted to return to earth through the instigation of Armageddon, then 21st century U.S. foreign policy must reckon with 7th century eschatology in quest of the bomb. Whether or not the Supreme Leader and the clerical clique that supports him seek "martyrdom" on a national scale, Iran's aggressive militarization and international power projection via its terror proxies present U.S. foreign policymakers with a set of challenges that must top the list in terms of immediacy and import.
Nuclear Weapons Ambitions
The Ayatollah Khomeini founded the Iranian revolution in 1979 on a deep-seated hostility to modernization and secularization in an increasingly Westernized world. But it was his near-disastrous military face-off with neighboring Iraq that prompted the order to acquire nuclear weapons. Pursued in secrecy for years before the Iranian opposition's August 2002 revelations stunned the world, Iran's quest for the bomb was jump-started by substantial assistance from Pakistan's AQ Khan in addition to help from China, North Korea, and Russia. After years of defying UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands that Iran honor the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and come clean about the entirety and purpose of its nuclear program, today Iran appears closer than ever to achieving a deliverable warhead capability. The threat of Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, perhaps to terrorist associates such as al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, represents an additional concern while other regional nuclear programs may well emerge under regimes that fear Iranian hegemony and perceive a diminution of the U.S. leadership role in the world.
Nuclear weapons enable this regime's key objectives: regime survival as an Islamic jihadist state; regional hegemony in the Middle East and maximization of broader geo-strategic influence; destruction of the State of Israel; and global domination of Islam and Sharia law. Grasping the primacy of these goals, it becomes easier to understand why years of U.S., European, and international negotiations with this regime have come to naught in achieving a voluntary slowing or halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Neither have stringent economic sanctions accomplished much beyond imposing additional hardships on the Iranian people. Only a covert campaign aimed at Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and intelligence agency defections, and the introduction of sabotaged components into the Iranian nuclear supply chain, reportedly have achieved some involuntary setbacks to the program.
Despite such successes that at best will buy some time, continued U.S. failure to comprehend the eschatological and existential nature of Iran's nuclear weapons quest leaves it ill-prepared to meet this regime's hostile intent. Only credible threats to the existence of that regime are likely to have any effect on its determination to carry on. And only regime change in favor of a democratic opposition pledged to eschew WMD of all kinds can eliminate for good the possibility of nukes in the hands of the mullahs.
Alliances in the Axis of Terror
Iran's chummy relations with regimes hostile to U.S. and Western interests add complexity to dealings with Tehran. Iranian dependence on proliferation assistance for its chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, and missile programs from countries like China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia has been problematic for many years. The ineffective international inspection and enforcement mechanisms that allowed nuclear proliferation to culminate in a nuclear weapons capability for Pakistan looks likely to end the same way for Iran. U.S., UN, and other efforts to impose sanctions, pass resolutions, and issue toothless condemnations are mostly disregarded with contempt by the Tehran regime.
Tehran's closest ally and partner in WMD development and sponsorship of terror is Syria. Iran is the dominant partner in the relationship, but both gain from an alliance that meets strategic needs of each. Iran receives logistical access to its terror proxy, Hezbollah, penetration for its revolution deep into the Arab world, and a frontline position from which to confront Israel. Syria receives a powerful ally that helps it dominate Lebanon (historically considered a Syrian province) and relieves Syria's isolation as a secular dynasty ruled by the Alawite minority Muslim sect, considered heretical by many Muslims. Given these mutual benefits, U.S. and Israeli fantasies about separating Syria from its Iranian orbit must be seen as the pipedreams they are.
The Iranian ballistic missile program owes much to its North Korean partnership. Tehran and Pyongyang often act as a tag team to demand or distract international attention, but their antics cannot minimize the underlying deadly intent to perfect a nuclear delivery system. Although the Iranians are not known to have achieved yet the difficult task of miniaturizing its warheads to fit ballistic missile nosecones, joint development of this technology with North Korea clearly appears headed in that direction. The threat from Iran's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) eventually will reach the U.S. homeland unless steps are taken to forestall that possibility.
Closer to home, the Iranian beachhead in Venezuela raises echoes of the 1960s Cuban missile crisis for strategists observing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's romance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since 2001, the two have signed dozens of defense, economic, and political agreements to cement a relationship that provides Iran with intelligence and military outposts in America's backyard. Chavez assists Iran on myriad fronts, from evading UN sanctions to mining for uranium; Ahmadinejad reciprocates with an influx of military and intelligence operatives who train Venezuelan forces at covert Iranian facilities around the country. The relationship involves Hezbollah as well, as 2010 photos of Venezuelan officials meeting with Hezbollah officials in Lebanon demonstrate. Iran also has been courting other Latin countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.
Military Influence
Tehran's aggressive drive for expanded geo-strategic influence in the Persian Gulf, broader Middle East, and southwest Asia, harnessed to its determination to seize leadership of the international jihad, alarms neighboring Sunni regimes that also fear erosion of the traditional American defense commitment. Iran's IRGC, Qods Force, Bassij, and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are Tehran's lead organizations for domestic control at home and jihadist terror projection abroad. Each of these demands attention by U.S. policymakers to understand its mission and capabilities, and to formulate effective countermeasures that check Iran's international agenda.
The IRGC was established by Khomeini in the early months of the 1979 revolution to augment the regular army's defense of Iran's borders and ensure the obliteration of Khomeini's domestic rivals. Later, its primary function became keeping the regime in power, especially after the widespread street demonstrations that followed the June 2009 presidential elections. Afterward, regime fears about survivability led to large infusions of resources to the IRGC to boost its ability to suppress internal regime opposition.
The Qods Force's stature and capabilities also have expanded in recent years. The operational terror arm of the Iranian regime, the Qods Force is responsible for liaison with Iran's terror affiliates, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. Both the IRGC and Qods Force (in addition to the MOIS) maintain an undercover presence in Iranian diplomatic facilities worldwide, from which joint al-Qaeda-Hezbollah-Iran operations are launched. Together, they project Iran's writ in Lebanon, which the UN Special Tribunal on Lebanon looks unlikely to weaken, even with indictments expected to name Qods Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, for his role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. IRGC and Qods Force operatives run training camps where Hezbollah explosives experts pass on their deadly skills; they also provide funding, training, and weapons to terrorist militias in Iraq and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The Qods Force handles Iranian relations with organized crime and narco-traffickers, including Afghan drug lords. Investigative reporting from Africa and the Americas indicates an expanding presence of these terrorist elements in these areas as well.
Meanwhile, in the MOIS, the Iranian regime fields a world-class, well-funded intelligence service that is directly commanded by the Iranian Supreme Leader. Numbering some 30,000 personnel, the MOIS is highly sophisticated as well as brutal and ruthless. Its number one mission is to defend the regime against all threats, domestic or foreign. Together with the IRGC and Qods Force, the MOIS shares responsibility for infiltration and suppression of regime opposition by any and all means and liaison with terror organizations worldwide. U.S. national security leadership should not have too much trouble recognizing its tactics and tradecraft, as the MOIS was trained by the Soviet KGB.
The MOIS has developed an extensive network of individuals, groups, think tanks, and others that the Iranian media have openly referred to as "the Iran Lobby in America." The principal objective of this lobby is to infiltrate top U.S.-Iran policymakers and persuade them to take a conciliatory approach to the Iranian regime, oppose coercive diplomacy, stringent sanctions, and any sort of military action, and to urge instead a policy of concessions and negotiations. It is concerning that some of the individuals affiliated with the "Iran Lobby" should have found their way into influential government posts as well as positions of trust from which to advise and brief U.S. Iran policymakers.
Indeed, U.S. civilian, intelligence, policy, and military leadership have yet to either comprehend or counter the deadly activities of these regime actors.
A Terrorist Regime's Terror Ties
There is no clearer evidence of the Iranian regime's commitment to jihadist violence than the words of its own constitution, calling for the "continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country." Regime preference to accomplish that relies on terrorist proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as well as operational alliances with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other jihadist groups.
Thanks to Iranian funding and training, Hezbollah in 2011 stands on the brink of dominating Lebanon both militarily and politically. Its effective overthrow of the Lebanese government in January 2011, coupled with assumptions of impunity for its role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, places the sovereignty of a free Lebanon in jeopardy and poses an important test for U.S. policymakers. Iran both aids and uses Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon as part of its own overall strategy to position itself as a rising regional power and rival to U.S. predominance.
U.S. leaders face a crucial choice: support the brave Lebanese who fought and died for the Cedar Revolution or see Tehran take a front-line position against the State of Israel—which it threatens regularly with genocide—as well as a foothold on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.
Hezbollah not only has developed into one of the most tightly disciplined, superbly trained, and fanatically dedicated fighting forces in the world, but it also has grown into a global terrorist network with a presence in Africa, Europe, and the Americas. That presence directly threatens U.S. national security imperatives, not least because of Hezbollah's history of acting as the Iranian regime's cat's paw for a litany of bloody terror attacks, but also because of its expanding relationships with Mexican and South American drug cartels.
Iran also provides significant material support to Hamas, its Muslim Brotherhood terror proxy in Gaza. That support includes financial infusions, terror training conducted by the IRGC/Qods Force and Hezbollah, and the provision of thousands of rockets and missiles that Hamas launches across the border into Israel. Dismissive of any genuine attempts at nation-building, Hamas under Iranian tutelage instead implements Islamic law and assails Gazan Palestinians with an incessant barrage of media messages conveying Jew-hatred and glorification of suicide killings.
Effective defense of U.S. national security priorities in the Middle East as well as the homeland requires understanding that the Iranian regime has worked for years in close coordination not only with Hezbollah and Hamas, but also with Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Qaeda to mount terrorist operations against U.S., Israeli, and Western interests around the world. This jihadist alliance began when Osama bin Laden contracted with Iran for explosives and other training from Hezbollah's global terror chieftain, Imad Mughniyah, in the early 1990s. Iran later hired out Hezbollah to Hamas, the Iraqi terror militias, and the Taliban. Major terror attacks from the Khobar Towers bombing to the East Africa Embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, September 11, and attacks against U.S. and Coalition partners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, are the result of this tri-partite arrangement.
Iran and these jihadist organizations are unified in their enmity to the U.S., Israel, and all Western-style civilization. U.S. policymakers must prioritize the urgency of studying their motivation to wage doctrinally-commanded jihad against non-Muslim targets for the purpose of imposing Sharia worldwide. Unequivocal denunciation of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and refusal to legitimize terrorist policies even when supported by a radicalized electorate must be the cornerstones of American leadership.
Tehran's 21st Century Threat
The history of the Khomeinist regime in Iran has been written in blood: first and foremost, the blood of its own people, but also in every place the regime's emissaries—the IRGC, Qods Force, MOIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others—have extended their reach. The U.S. holds a leadership role in the free world; people everywhere yearning for liberty look to the U.S. for moral inspiration and a superpower's protection against tyranny. Tehran's naked ambition for geo-strategic hegemony, inexorable march to a nuclear weapons capability, embrace of terror as a policy tool, and horrific record of human rights abuses at home define a regime that is deeply and inherently destabilizing to the international system.
U.S. policy decisions about how to deal with this Iranian regime will be among the most crucial American leadership must make in the coming months. Underestimating the hostile intent of Iran's agenda or failing to recognize the compelling strength of the Islamic jihadist ideology that binds them and their terror allies together in enmity to free societies under rule of man-made law will lead to increasing global destabilization. U.S. leadership must grapple with the reality that this Iranian regime is a serious adversary that poses a grave threat to the democratic way of life everywhere. Absent a strong, credible U.S. response, Tehran will interpret American resolve as lacking and react accordingly—advancing its hegemony over neighbors, threatening Israel, and holding U.S. policy hostage to terror and nuclear blackmail. Should Washington falter before this challenge, not only would it fail the American and Iranian people alike, but it would betray the United States' essential commitment to defend liberty wherever it is threatened by tyranny.

By Clare Lopez
inFocus Quarterly
Winter 2010

The United States faces no greater foreign policy challenge than managing the threat from the jihadist regime in Tehran while also standing unequivocally with the Iranian people in their struggle for liberty. Indeed, a succession of U.S. administrations has been wrestling with that challenge for over 31 years. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not easily compared to other nations or even other totalitarian dictatorships: after Arabia, Iran is the second state in the modern era to be captured by violence and ruled by the forces of Islamic jihad. The threat to U.S. national security and international stability derives from the primary mission of this regime, enshrined in its 1989 constitution: the establishment of an Islamic state worldwide and subjugation of all people on earth to Sharia, or Islamic law.

When Iran's constitutional mandate is coupled with a theological belief system that holds the Shi'ite messianic figure, the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi), can be prompted to return to earth through the instigation of Armageddon, then 21st century U.S. foreign policy must reckon with 7th century eschatology in quest of the bomb. Whether or not the Supreme Leader and the clerical clique that supports him seek "martyrdom" on a national scale, Iran's aggressive militarization and international power projection via its terror proxies present U.S. foreign policymakers with a set of challenges that must top the list in terms of immediacy and import.

Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

The Ayatollah Khomeini founded the Iranian revolution in 1979 on a deep-seated hostility to modernization and secularization in an increasingly Westernized world. But it was his near-disastrous military face-off with neighboring Iraq that prompted the order to acquire nuclear weapons. Pursued in secrecy for years before the Iranian opposition's August 2002 revelations stunned the world, Iran's quest for the bomb was jump-started by substantial assistance from Pakistan's AQ Khan in addition to help from China, North Korea, and Russia. After years of defying UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands that Iran honor the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and come clean about the entirety and purpose of its nuclear program, today Iran appears closer than ever to achieving a deliverable warhead capability. The threat of Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, perhaps to terrorist associates such as al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, represents an additional concern while other regional nuclear programs may well emerge under regimes that fear Iranian hegemony and perceive a diminution of the U.S. leadership role in the world.

Nuclear weapons enable this regime's key objectives: regime survival as an Islamic jihadist state; regional hegemony in the Middle East and maximization of broader geo-strategic influence; destruction of the State of Israel; and global domination of Islam and Sharia law. Grasping the primacy of these goals, it becomes easier to understand why years of U.S., European, and international negotiations with this regime have come to naught in achieving a voluntary slowing or halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Neither have stringent economic sanctions accomplished much beyond imposing additional hardships on the Iranian people. Only a covert campaign aimed at Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and intelligence agency defections, and the introduction of sabotaged components into the Iranian nuclear supply chain, reportedly have achieved some involuntary setbacks to the program.

Despite such successes that at best will buy some time, continued U.S. failure to comprehend the eschatological and existential nature of Iran's nuclear weapons quest leaves it ill-prepared to meet this regime's hostile intent. Only credible threats to the existence of that regime are likely to have any effect on its determination to carry on. And only regime change in favor of a democratic opposition pledged to eschew WMD of all kinds can eliminate for good the possibility of nukes in the hands of the mullahs.

Alliances in the Axis of Terror

Iran's chummy relations with regimes hostile to U.S. and Western interests add complexity to dealings with Tehran. Iranian dependence on proliferation assistance for its chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, and missile programs from countries like China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia has been problematic for many years. The ineffective international inspection and enforcement mechanisms that allowed nuclear proliferation to culminate in a nuclear weapons capability for Pakistan looks likely to end the same way for Iran. U.S., UN, and other efforts to impose sanctions, pass resolutions, and issue toothless condemnations are mostly disregarded with contempt by the Tehran regime.

Tehran's closest ally and partner in WMD development and sponsorship of terror is Syria. Iran is the dominant partner in the relationship, but both gain from an alliance that meets strategic needs of each. Iran receives logistical access to its terror proxy, Hezbollah, penetration for its revolution deep into the Arab world, and a frontline position from which to confront Israel. Syria receives a powerful ally that helps it dominate Lebanon (historically considered a Syrian province) and relieves Syria's isolation as a secular dynasty ruled by the Alawite minority Muslim sect, considered heretical by many Muslims. Given these mutual benefits, U.S. and Israeli fantasies about separating Syria from its Iranian orbit must be seen as the pipedreams they are.

The Iranian ballistic missile program owes much to its North Korean partnership. Tehran and Pyongyang often act as a tag team to demand or distract international attention, but their antics cannot minimize the underlying deadly intent to perfect a nuclear delivery system. Although the Iranians are not known to have achieved yet the difficult task of miniaturizing its warheads to fit ballistic missile nosecones, joint development of this technology with North Korea clearly appears headed in that direction. The threat from Iran's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) eventually will reach the U.S. homeland unless steps are taken to forestall that possibility.

Closer to home, the Iranian beachhead in Venezuela raises echoes of the 1960s Cuban missile crisis for strategists observing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's romance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since 2001, the two have signed dozens of defense, economic, and political agreements to cement a relationship that provides Iran with intelligence and military outposts in America's backyard. Chavez assists Iran on myriad fronts, from evading UN sanctions to mining for uranium; Ahmadinejad reciprocates with an influx of military and intelligence operatives who train Venezuelan forces at covert Iranian facilities around the country. The relationship involves Hezbollah as well, as 2010 photos of Venezuelan officials meeting with Hezbollah officials in Lebanon demonstrate. Iran also has been courting other Latin countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.

Military Influence

Tehran's aggressive drive for expanded geo-strategic influence in the Persian Gulf, broader Middle East, and southwest Asia, harnessed to its determination to seize leadership of the international jihad, alarms neighboring Sunni regimes that also fear erosion of the traditional American defense commitment. Iran's IRGC, Qods Force, Bassij, and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are Tehran's lead organizations for domestic control at home and jihadist terror projection abroad. Each of these demands attention by U.S. policymakers to understand its mission and capabilities, and to formulate effective countermeasures that check Iran's international agenda.

The IRGC was established by Khomeini in the early months of the 1979 revolution to augment the regular army's defense of Iran's borders and ensure the obliteration of Khomeini's domestic rivals. Later, its primary function became keeping the regime in power, especially after the widespread street demonstrations that followed the June 2009 presidential elections. Afterward, regime fears about survivability led to large infusions of resources to the IRGC to boost its ability to suppress internal regime opposition.

The Qods Force's stature and capabilities also have expanded in recent years. The operational terror arm of the Iranian regime, the Qods Force is responsible for liaison with Iran's terror affiliates, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. Both the IRGC and Qods Force (in addition to the MOIS) maintain an undercover presence in Iranian diplomatic facilities worldwide, from which joint al-Qaeda-Hezbollah-Iran operations are launched. Together, they project Iran's writ in Lebanon, which the UN Special Tribunal on Lebanon looks unlikely to weaken, even with indictments expected to name Qods Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, for his role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. IRGC and Qods Force operatives run training camps where Hezbollah explosives experts pass on their deadly skills; they also provide funding, training, and weapons to terrorist militias in Iraq and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The Qods Force handles Iranian relations with organized crime and narco-traffickers, including Afghan drug lords. Investigative reporting from Africa and the Americas indicates an expanding presence of these terrorist elements in these areas as well.

Meanwhile, in the MOIS, the Iranian regime fields a world-class, well-funded intelligence service that is directly commanded by the Iranian Supreme Leader. Numbering some 30,000 personnel, the MOIS is highly sophisticated as well as brutal and ruthless. Its number one mission is to defend the regime against all threats, domestic or foreign. Together with the IRGC and Qods Force, the MOIS shares responsibility for infiltration and suppression of regime opposition by any and all means and liaison with terror organizations worldwide. U.S. national security leadership should not have too much trouble recognizing its tactics and tradecraft, as the MOIS was trained by the Soviet KGB.

The MOIS has developed an extensive network of individuals, groups, think tanks, and others that the Iranian media have openly referred to as "the Iran Lobby in America." The principal objective of this lobby is to infiltrate top U.S.-Iran policymakers and persuade them to take a conciliatory approach to the Iranian regime, oppose coercive diplomacy, stringent sanctions, and any sort of military action, and to urge instead a policy of concessions and negotiations. It is concerning that some of the individuals affiliated with the "Iran Lobby" should have found their way into influential government posts as well as positions of trust from which to advise and brief U.S. Iran policymakers.

Indeed, U.S. civilian, intelligence, policy, and military leadership have yet to either comprehend or counter the deadly activities of these regime actors.

A Terrorist Regime's Terror Ties

There is no clearer evidence of the Iranian regime's commitment to jihadist violence than the words of its own constitution, calling for the "continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country." Regime preference to accomplish that relies on terrorist proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as well as operational alliances with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other jihadist groups.

Thanks to Iranian funding and training, Hezbollah in 2011 stands on the brink of dominating Lebanon both militarily and politically. Its effective overthrow of the Lebanese government in January 2011, coupled with assumptions of impunity for its role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, places the sovereignty of a free Lebanon in jeopardy and poses an important test for U.S. policymakers. Iran both aids and uses Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon as part of its own overall strategy to position itself as a rising regional power and rival to U.S. predominance.

U.S. leaders face a crucial choice: support the brave Lebanese who fought and died for the Cedar Revolution or see Tehran take a front-line position against the State of Israel—which it threatens regularly with genocide—as well as a foothold on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.

Hezbollah not only has developed into one of the most tightly disciplined, superbly trained, and fanatically dedicated fighting forces in the world, but it also has grown into a global terrorist network with a presence in Africa, Europe, and the Americas. That presence directly threatens U.S. national security imperatives, not least because of Hezbollah's history of acting as the Iranian regime's cat's paw for a litany of bloody terror attacks, but also because of its expanding relationships with Mexican and South American drug cartels.

Iran also provides significant material support to Hamas, its Muslim Brotherhood terror proxy in Gaza. That support includes financial infusions, terror training conducted by the IRGC/Qods Force and Hezbollah, and the provision of thousands of rockets and missiles that Hamas launches across the border into Israel. Dismissive of any genuine attempts at nation-building, Hamas under Iranian tutelage instead implements Islamic law and assails Gazan Palestinians with an incessant barrage of media messages conveying Jew-hatred and glorification of suicide killings.

Effective defense of U.S. national security priorities in the Middle East as well as the homeland requires understanding that the Iranian regime has worked for years in close coordination not only with Hezbollah and Hamas, but also with Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Qaeda to mount terrorist operations against U.S., Israeli, and Western interests around the world. This jihadist alliance began when Osama bin Laden contracted with Iran for explosives and other training from Hezbollah's global terror chieftain, Imad Mughniyah, in the early 1990s. Iran later hired out Hezbollah to Hamas, the Iraqi terror militias, and the Taliban. Major terror attacks from the Khobar Towers bombing to the East Africa Embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, September 11, and attacks against U.S. and Coalition partners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, are the result of this tri-partite arrangement.

Iran and these jihadist organizations are unified in their enmity to the U.S., Israel, and all Western-style civilization. U.S. policymakers must prioritize the urgency of studying their motivation to wage doctrinally-commanded jihad against non-Muslim targets for the purpose of imposing Sharia worldwide. Unequivocal denunciation of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and refusal to legitimize terrorist policies even when supported by a radicalized electorate must be the cornerstones of American leadership.

Tehran's 21st Century Threat

The history of the Khomeinist regime in Iran has been written in blood: first and foremost, the blood of its own people, but also in every place the regime's emissaries—the IRGC, Qods Force, MOIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others—have extended their reach. The U.S. holds a leadership role in the free world; people everywhere yearning for liberty look to the U.S. for moral inspiration and a superpower's protection against tyranny. Tehran's naked ambition for geo-strategic hegemony, inexorable march to a nuclear weapons capability, embrace of terror as a policy tool, and horrific record of human rights abuses at home define a regime that is deeply and inherently destabilizing to the international system.

U.S. policy decisions about how to deal with this Iranian regime will be among the most crucial American leadership must make in the coming months. Underestimating the hostile intent of Iran's agenda or failing to recognize the compelling strength of the Islamic jihadist ideology that binds them and their terror allies together in enmity to free societies under rule of man-made law will lead to increasing global destabilization. U.S. leadership must grapple with the reality that this Iranian regime is a serious adversary that poses a grave threat to the democratic way of life everywhere. Absent a strong, credible U.S. response, Tehran will interpret American resolve as lacking and react accordingly—advancing its hegemony over neighbors, threatening Israel, and holding U.S. policy hostage to terror and nuclear blackmail. Should Washington falter before this challenge, not only would it fail the American and Iranian people alike, but it would betray the United States' essential commitment to defend liberty wherever it is threatened by tyranny.

This article was originally published here

 

Iran’s End Times Documentary

 

FrontPageMag
By Ryan Mauro
March 29, 2011
The Iranian government has produced a bone-chilling documentary that claims that Ayatollah Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad, and Hassan Nasrallah are talked about in Islamic prophecy as leaders who will wage war to bring about the arrival of the Hidden Imam, which the film says is “very close” to happening.
Reza Kahlili, a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who spied for the CIA and authored A Time to Betray last year, procured the entire film and says it was created by close associates of Ahmadinejad and was shown to top clerics two weeks ago. His chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, is said to have played a role in its creation. Kahlili allowed FrontPage to view a shortened version of the film over the weekend, which he says the Iranian regime intends to distribute to mosques and Islamic centers throughout the region with an Arabic translation and is currently being shown to members of the Revolutionary Guards and Basiji.
The purpose of the film is to make the case that Iran is prophetically destined to lead the war against Islam’s enemies, which is as a prelude to the appearance of the Hidden Imam, also called the Mahdi, who brings the final victory for Islam and reigns over the whole world. It uses current events to argue that “the final chapter has begun” and the Mahdi’s arrival is imminent. Most disturbingly, it teaches that Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are the individuals prophesied to make this happen.
The documentary claims that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is the Seyed Khorasani talked about in the Hadith that leads a nation in the East (Iran) as “the preparer” for the Mahdi’s intervention. In July 2010, a senior Iranian cleric revealed that Khamenei had told close associates that he had privately met with the Mahdi and was told that he’d arrive before his time as Supreme Leader ends. Khamenei is 71 years old and widely understood to be in poor health, so the grand jihad that Khamenei believes he must command must come soon.
President Ahmadinejad is an End Times character named Shoeib-Ebne Saleh, the film states. He is appointed as the commander-in-chief by Seyed Khorasani (Ayatollah Khamenei).  The speaker in the film says that this individual will “move” 72 months prior to the arrival of the Mahdi and will lead the recapturing of Jerusalem on “the threshold of the Coming.” It is unclear if “move” means a physical action by Ahmadinejad or if it means his coming to power in 2005. If it is the latter, then the regime believes the Mahdi is to appear by the end of this year.
Also mentioned is military commander called Yamani, who is to form the army of the Mahdi that will march to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The film teaches that this is the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. These three prophesied Islamic leaders are to wage a war against the “Antichrist” and “the imposters,” which are said to be the United States, Israel and their allies, including Arab leaders. The current uprisings in the Arab world are viewed as the fulfillment of prophecy and confirmation that they are to wage this final war against the enemies of Islam.
The film states that the invasion of Iraq was foretold, as Imam Ali said that “they [the enemies of Islam] will conquer Iraq and through bloodshed create divisions in tribes” and “at that time, be ready for the reappearance of the last messiah, Imam Mahdi.” The Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion in Yemen is referred to as a “holy revolution” and the removal of Egyptian President Mubarak are also End Times events.
It also preaches that the death of Saudi King Abdullah will be a major sign that the destruction of Israel and arrival of the Mahdi are imminent. The film almost immediately states, “Whoever guarantees the death of King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, I will guarantee the imminent reappearance of the Mahdi,” a not-so-subtle call for his assassination. The film later refers to his “uncertain condition,” as he is ill and 86 years old and his demise is not far off. Once it happens, it will be seen as a green light by the Iranian regime.
The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is addressed as being “in accordance with the Hadith.” The Brotherhood may be Sunni, but this film states that Iran is theologically-required to ally with it. The ties between Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are not the result of converging interests but of religious commandment. The film says that according to Islamic prophecy, revolutions will happen in the Arab world that rid it of foreign influence and result in a united front to “reconquer Palestine.” As stated, it is taught that Ahmadinejad will accomplish this. If the film reflects the private views of the Iranian leadership, then it is clear the regime believes it is now on the precipice of leading a coalition to destroy Israel.
Iran’s support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons must be viewed in this context. Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, widely believed to be a close spiritual guide to Ahmadinejad, has written of the need to make “special weapons” of the kind only a few countries possess, a likely reference to nuclear weapons. In February 2006, a follower of Mesbah-Yazdi that is a cleric in Qom said that “for the first time…the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to Sharia” and it is “only natural” for Iran to acquire them. In October 2010, the website belonging to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security published an article by an advisor to the Defense Minister that said Iran must be prepared for nuclear war. “[I]f the United States launches an unconventional attack, Iran needs to respond with a nuclear strategy,” it said.
Luckily, a top seminary in Qom rejected the comparison of Ahmadinejad to Shoeib-Ebne Saleh after a clip of the documentary was aired on Islamic Republic of Iran Voice and Vision. However, the religious beliefs of the Iranian regime are not contingent upon popular approval, and Reza Kahlili told FrontPage that a portion of the complete video is devoted to showing clerical support for its message.
“For about 10 minutes, the video lists the names of clerics, including very influential ones like Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi and former Revolutionary Guards chief commander Seyed Yahya Safavi, who affirm their belief that Khamenei is Seyed Khorasani. This isn’t propaganda, the regime really believes it,” Kahlili said.
The documentary produced by the Iranian government confirms that it believes a final grand war against Islam’s enemies, which will culminate in the destruction of Israel, is not something to be avoided, but something to be sought. Recent events are being interpreted by the Iranian regime as prophetic fulfillments confirming that this war is near and its duty is to lead it. This is not a belief system that the West can accommodate.

FrontPageMag
By Ryan Mauro
March 29, 2011

The Iranian government has produced a bone-chilling documentary that claims that Ayatollah Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad, and Hassan Nasrallah are talked about in Islamic prophecy as leaders who will wage war to bring about the arrival of the Hidden Imam, which the film says is “very close” to happening.

Reza Kahlili, a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who spied for the CIA and authored A Time to Betray last year, procured the entire film and says it was created by close associates of Ahmadinejad and was shown to top clerics two weeks ago. His chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, is said to have played a role in its creation. Kahlili allowed FrontPage to view a shortened version of the film over the weekend, which he says the Iranian regime intends to distribute to mosques and Islamic centers throughout the region with an Arabic translation and is currently being shown to members of the Revolutionary Guards and Basiji.

The purpose of the film is to make the case that Iran is prophetically destined to lead the war against Islam’s enemies, which is as a prelude to the appearance of the Hidden Imam, also called the Mahdi, who brings the final victory for Islam and reigns over the whole world. It uses current events to argue that “the final chapter has begun” and the Mahdi’s arrival is imminent. Most disturbingly, it teaches that Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are the individuals prophesied to make this happen.

The documentary claims that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is the Seyed Khorasani talked about in the Hadith that leads a nation in the East (Iran) as “the preparer” for the Mahdi’s intervention. In July 2010, a senior Iranian cleric revealed that Khamenei had told close associates that he had privately met with the Mahdi and was told that he’d arrive before his time as Supreme Leader ends. Khamenei is 71 years old and widely understood to be in poor health, so the grand jihad that Khamenei believes he must command must come soon.

President Ahmadinejad is an End Times character named Shoeib-Ebne Saleh, the film states. He is appointed as the commander-in-chief by Seyed Khorasani (Ayatollah Khamenei).  The speaker in the film says that this individual will “move” 72 months prior to the arrival of the Mahdi and will lead the recapturing of Jerusalem on “the threshold of the Coming.” It is unclear if “move” means a physical action by Ahmadinejad or if it means his coming to power in 2005. If it is the latter, then the regime believes the Mahdi is to appear by the end of this year.

Also mentioned is military commander called Yamani, who is to form the army of the Mahdi that will march to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The film teaches that this is the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. These three prophesied Islamic leaders are to wage a war against the “Antichrist” and “the imposters,” which are said to be the United States, Israel and their allies, including Arab leaders. The current uprisings in the Arab world are viewed as the fulfillment of prophecy and confirmation that they are to wage this final war against the enemies of Islam.

The film states that the invasion of Iraq was foretold, as Imam Ali said that “they [the enemies of Islam] will conquer Iraq and through bloodshed create divisions in tribes” and “at that time, be ready for the reappearance of the last messiah, Imam Mahdi.” The Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion in Yemen is referred to as a “holy revolution” and the removal of Egyptian President Mubarak are also End Times events.

It also preaches that the death of Saudi King Abdullah will be a major sign that the destruction of Israel and arrival of the Mahdi are imminent. The film almost immediately states, “Whoever guarantees the death of King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, I will guarantee the imminent reappearance of the Mahdi,” a not-so-subtle call for his assassination. The film later refers to his “uncertain condition,” as he is ill and 86 years old and his demise is not far off. Once it happens, it will be seen as a green light by the Iranian regime.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is addressed as being “in accordance with the Hadith.” The Brotherhood may be Sunni, but this film states that Iran is theologically-required to ally with it. The ties between Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are not the result of converging interests but of religious commandment. The film says that according to Islamic prophecy, revolutions will happen in the Arab world that rid it of foreign influence and result in a united front to “reconquer Palestine.” As stated, it is taught that Ahmadinejad will accomplish this. If the film reflects the private views of the Iranian leadership, then it is clear the regime believes it is now on the precipice of leading a coalition to destroy Israel.

Iran’s support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons must be viewed in this context. Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, widely believed to be a close spiritual guide to Ahmadinejad, has written of the need to make “special weapons” of the kind only a few countries possess, a likely reference to nuclear weapons. In February 2006, a follower of Mesbah-Yazdi that is a cleric in Qom said that “for the first time…the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to Sharia” and it is “only natural” for Iran to acquire them. In October 2010, the website belonging to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security published an article by an advisor to the Defense Minister that said Iran must be prepared for nuclear war. “[I]f the United States launches an unconventional attack, Iran needs to respond with a nuclear strategy,” it said.

Luckily, a top seminary in Qom rejected the comparison of Ahmadinejad to Shoeib-Ebne Saleh after a clip of the documentary was aired on Islamic Republic of Iran Voice and Vision. However, the religious beliefs of the Iranian regime are not contingent upon popular approval, and Reza Kahlili told FrontPage that a portion of the complete video is devoted to showing clerical support for its message.

“For about 10 minutes, the video lists the names of clerics, including very influential ones like Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi and former Revolutionary Guards chief commander Seyed Yahya Safavi, who affirm their belief that Khamenei is Seyed Khorasani. This isn’t propaganda, the regime really believes it,” Kahlili said.

The documentary produced by the Iranian government confirms that it believes a final grand war against Islam’s enemies, which will culminate in the destruction of Israel, is not something to be avoided, but something to be sought. Recent events are being interpreted by the Iranian regime as prophetic fulfillments confirming that this war is near and its duty is to lead it. This is not a belief system that the West can accommodate.

This article was originally published here.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, the National Security Adviser for the Christian Action Network and an analyst with Wikistrat. He can be contacted at [email protected]