The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.
From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."
We need to appreciate that Iran and its puppets appear to view the White House as apparently dedicated -- like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" in 1938 -- to a policy of diplomatic "conflict resolution" appeasement, which undoubtedly will not work any better now than it did then.
In the end, because of Israel's robust defense technology, Iran's recent
drone and ballistic missile attack on Israel's urban centers was little
more than a potentially deadly fireworks show. Pictured: A battery of
the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system near Jerusalem on April 15,
2024. (Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images)
In the end, because of Israel's robust defense technology, Iran's
recent drone and ballistic missile attack on Israel's urban centers was
little more than a potentially deadly fireworks show, reportedly
choreographed by the United States, in coordination with Iran,
"so that no one will be hurt and war with Israel will be avoided" --
apparently not with Israel. Make no mistake, though. Iran is capable and
willing to engage in a far more strategic display of power in the
Middle East.
American and British military assets were also in play, blunting the
Iranian missile offensive and demonstrating solidarity with our ally at a
time when self-described "progressive"
forces here and around the world have been siding with the terrorist
group Hamas, and seeking to delegitimize the State of Israel. These
ostensibly pro-Palestinian collaborators – it sounds better than
"supporting Hamas terrorists" even if it does nothing to help
Palestinians rid themselves of their corrupt leaders or have a better
life -- were either mute or quietly celebratory after the October 7th
Hamas attack that massacred, raped and desecrated Israelis. What they,
and one suspects Hamas, did not quite anticipate was an Israeli response
that reminded the world that the days of Jews suffering in silence from
organized murder are over.
Much the way German civilians in the ruins of the Third Reich began
to realize that Hitler may not have been such a good thing, there seem
to be many Palestinians, who may even have voted for Hamas, with its
agenda of eliminating Israel from the map, but are now having second
thoughts (here, here, here, here and here).
Hamas, however, is little more than a tool of the Iranians, who have made no pretense about seeking to dominate the Middle East as their seemingly presumed historic right.
While the drone attacks were evidently a deliberate sky show, the
Iranians are perfectly capable of blocking the strategic Strait of
Hormuz, as they have already threatened.
As a reminder, the Strait provides the only viable sea passage from the
Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is considered among the world's most
strategically important waterways for international commerce. Iran
could, for instance, place mines in these waters and let their allies, the Houthis, take the fall.
Were this to occur, the White House and the Western democracies would
need to respond with unprecedented speed, force, and resolution and
finally confront Iran with the same intensity as the Israelis responded
to Hamas's October 7 murder rampage. Whether this would be an assault on
Iran's key export facilities; oil; global economic sanctions that shut
down the flow of hard currency to Tehran, with secondary sanctions for
countries that continue to do business with Iran; or a calculated
cyberattack that would upend their society, the Iranians might start to
contemplate what would happen if the Western democracies were "off the
leash."
If Hamas's murders sought to disrupt the diplomatic rapprochement
between Israel and neighboring Arab nations, they not only failed, but
also failed to consider an Israeli response that would end the world as
they knew it.
We need to appreciate that Iran and its puppets appear to view the
White House as apparently dedicated -- like British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time"
in 1938 -- to a policy of diplomatic "conflict resolution" appeasement,
which undoubtedly will not work any better now than it did then.
"Talking" and "meetings" just enable the adversary to buy time to
strengthen its military -- in this instance, that means Iran finalizing
its nuclear weapons.
America's adversaries -- such as Communist China, Russia and Iran and
North Korea – seem to believe that Western democracies are in a
historic retreat and that the time is ripe for their own ascendancy
through violence, intimidation, and with third party proxies to do their
bidding. History reminds us time and again that the only effective
defense against the forces of darkness is strong, determined leadership –
along with a strong modernized military – like US President Ronald
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, "Star Wars."
It not only deterred Russian aggression but brought down the Soviet
Empire. This policy should remind our enemies that the US is capable of
anything, anywhere, at any time. Cross us at your peril. Now if only
many in Washington, DC understood history.
Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.
Western leaders hope promised actions will dissuade Israel from attacking the Islamic Republic.
An Iranian flag over a missile, April 2022. Credit: Mohasseyn/Shutterstock.
Western countries, fearing Israeli
military retaliation against Iran following its April 14 attack, have
ramped up threats of economic reprisals against the Islamic Republic,
announcing sanctions on the country’s missile and drone programs.
On Thursday, European Council President
Charles Michel was the latest leader to declare sanctions on Iran’s
missile and drone program. “It’s a clear signal that we want to send. We
need to isolate Iran,” Michel said, after a meeting of European Union
leaders in Brussels.
He said details would be forthcoming in the next few days.
Michel’s announcement came shortly after
the foreign ministers of the U.K. and Germany, David Cameron and
Annalena Baerbock, visited Israel on Wednesday to urge restraint in its
response to Iran’s assault.
After the meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said, “They also have all kinds of suggestions and advice. I appreciate
those, but I want to make it clear: We will make our own decisions, and
the State of Israel will do everything necessary to defend itself.”
On Tuesday, U.S. officials also announced new sanctions.
“In the coming days, the United States
will impose new sanctions targeting Iran, including its missile and
drone program as well as new sanctions against entities supporting the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s Defense Ministry,”
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday.
“We anticipate that our allies and partners will soon be following with their own sanctions,” he added.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said
on Tuesday, “Treasury will not hesitate to work with our allies to use
our sanctions authority to continue disrupting the Iranian regime’s
malign and destabilizing activity.”
She said that the U.S. may impose more
sanctions on Iran’s ability to export oil. “Clearly, Iran is continuing
to export some oil. There may be more that we could do. I don’t want to
preview our actual sanctions activities, but certainly that remains in
focus as a possible area that we could address,” Yellen said.
The Biden administration has until now
loosened sanctions on Iran. It has waived sanctions allowing Russian,
Chinese and European companies to carry out work at Iranian nuclear
sites. It has allowed Iraq to pay for Iranian electricity by
transferring hard currency to accounts in third countries.
Since Biden became president, Iran has
enjoyed a surge in oil revenue by an additional $32 billion-$35 billion,
according to a February 2023 assessment by the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies.
Iran perceived Israel as vulnerable as the Biden administration appeared to have pulled back from its ally.
Iranian military missiles, long-range, short-range
and satellite missiles on display at a military museum in Tehran.
Credit: saeediex/Shutterstock.
On April 14, Iran for the first time broke with its longstanding policy of attacking Israel only by proxy. The question is, why?
Analysts offer a variety of explanations,
but all agree that Iran’s perception that the United States had
distanced itself from Israel was a key driver.
While Iranian proxies in Yemen, Lebanon,
Iraq and Syria did participate in Saturday night’s attack, the vast
majority of the more than 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic
missiles launched at Israel came straight from Iranian territory.
“This is a very strange event. Iranian
strategy is to send someone else to get killed,” said Eyal Pinko, a
researcher and lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, who served for years in
Israeli intelligence services.
Iran’s pretext for the attack was retaliation for the April 1 assassination
of one of its generals, a targeted killing attributed to Israel.
However, Pinko told JNS, “Iranian generals have been killed before. It
doesn’t explain the change in doctrine.”
According to Pinko, “Iran perceived Israel
as weak on several fronts, foremost among which is that it saw a
significant decline in U.S. support.”
He noted the Biden administration’s growing criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas, culminating in America’s failure to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, told
JNS that there’s “no doubt” that Iran concluded that it could attack
Israel directly without fear of U.S. reprisal.
“It’s the number one reason,” he said.
“Iran calculated accurately that there would be huge American pressure
on Israel not to respond.”
In other words, he said, U.S. deterrence
against Iran has ” if not collapsed, certainly significantly diminished.
Biden told Iran, ‘If you’re thinking about attacking, don’t,’ and Iran
did.”
The U.S. administration believes in
“deterrence-by-denial,” he said. “Meaning if we can deny the enemy the
ability to penetrate our airspace and harm our citizens through the
technological wizardry of our air defenses, then that is sufficient.
It’s very much the Biden administration’s policy and philosophy.”
“Iran was counting on it [American
intervention],” agreed Sharona Zablodovsky, a member of Forum Dvorah, an
Israeli women’s group comprising experts in foreign affairs and
national security. “The U.S. wants mediation. And mediation doesn’t work
in this region.”
The fact that U.S. elections are coming up
also played a role in Iranian thinking, she said. “Iran has oil and
basically controls the price of fuel at the end of the day. It knows
that Biden would never let Israel attack Iran’s oil fields in an
election year.”
Iran also felt emboldened to attack directly because it perceived Israel as internally divided given that anti-government protests
have flared up again after subsiding following the Oct. 7 attack,
itself universally perceived as an astonishing sign of Israeli
vulnerability. “In Iranian eyes, internal conflict equals weakness,” she
said.
Zablodovsky stressed another, somewhat
surprising factor, behind Iran’s direct attack—Iranian Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s age, (he turns 85 on Friday) and poor health.
“It might sound a little crazy, but he’s
been working on destroying Israel [for] over 40 years now. He wants to
see his life’s project manifested. How many years does he have—two,
three, maybe four? Personally, I think he feels like he’s nearing the
end of his days. And here he has been given an opportunity to attack
Israel,” she said.
However, according to Zablodovsky Iran
miscalculated, as its direct attack opens it to an Israeli
counterattack. Pinko agreed, saying Iran didn’t figure on Jordan, the
United States and the United Kingdom actively coming to Israel’s
defense. They misread the pressure on Israel by Western powers, he said.
All three analysts agree that the attack
was more a flexing of muscles, a demonstration of Iranian capabilities,
than an all-out attack. Turkish, Jordanian and Iraqi officials say Iran
gave warning of the attack. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were also warned by Iran and shared that intelligence with the United States, The Wall Street Journal reported.
“If they wanted to produce overwhelming
damage, they would have done it without telegraphing their punch. They
would have done it without warning the United States,” FDD’s Dubowitz
said.
Nonetheless, he said, Iran had hoped for
greater success. “One shouldn’t assume that this was the Iranians
throwing a soft punch. They threw a pretty hard punch. They were
obviously disappointed to see that their ballistic and cruise missiles
weren’t able to kill more Israelis.”
While U.S. pressure will likely result in a
more scaled-down Israeli retaliation than might otherwise have taken
place, Israel absolutely must respond to the attack, said Dubowitz.
“The U.S. is putting huge pressure on the
Israelis not to respond, offering all kinds of goodies if they don’t,
but Israel lives in a tough neighborhood and any sign of weakness will
be an invitation to further provocation,” he added.
“Is Israel going to use this opportunity
to go after key nuclear assets? Obviously, Iran’s nuclear program is
galloping ahead. There will need to be action and this would seem to be
an opportune time,” he argued.
Zablodovsky agreed that Israel has no option other than to attack.
“The rules of the West, while I appreciate
them, don’t apply here. This is not a democratic region. It goes by
different codes. You don’t turn the other cheek. If you don’t hit back,
they will hit you harder,” she said, adding that if Israel strikes
Iran’s missile factories it will slow down any future attack.
Pinko differed, opposing an attack on the
grounds that it could lead to a global conflagration, noting Russia had
deployed at least one warship to the Mediterranean following the Iranian
attack. Israel will likely confine itself to a covert counter strike,
such as a cyberattack, if that, he said.
By unleashing war in the Middle East and targeting Israel, Iran may soon learn that Israel, or America, or both might retaliate for a half-century of its terrorist aggression.
The theocracy of Iran has been the world’s arch-embassy attacker over the last half century.
So it has zero credibility in crying foul over Israel’s April 1
attacks on its “consulate” in Damascus and the killing of Iran’s kingpin
terrorists of the Revolutionary Guard Corps there.
Remember, the world was first introduced to the Iranian ayatollahs by
their violent takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1980.
Iranian surrogates next bombed the American embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks in 1983.
In fact, Iran has attacked US and Israeli diplomatic posts off-and-on
for decades, most recently in 2023, when Iran helped plan an attack on
the US embassy in Baghdad.
For this reason and several others, Iran’s justification for sending
170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles into Israel
on the grounds that Israel had bombed an Iranian diplomatic post is
completely ridiculous.
One, Iran has never honored diplomatic immunity. Instead, it
habitually attacks and kills embassy personnel and blows up diplomatic
facilities across the world.
Two, on April 1, the Israelis attacked a pseudo-“consulate” in
Damascus which was hosting grandees of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps as they planned terrorist attacks on Israel.
Without Iran, the Middle East might have had a chance to use its
enormous oil and natural gas wealth to lift its 500 million people out
of poverty rather than to be mired in constant tribal and religious
anti-Israeli, anti-American, and anti-Western terrorism.
During the Iraq War, Iran’s Shiite terrorists and its massive
supplies of deadly shaped-charge explosive devices killed hundreds of
Americans. It routinely hijacks container ships in the Straits of Hormuz
and stages near collisions with American ships and planes.
How does Iran get away with nonstop anti-Western terrorism, its
constant harassment of Persian Gulf maritime traffic, its efforts to
subvert Sunni moderate regimes, and its serial hostage-taking?
The theocrats operate on three general principles.
One, Iran is careful never to attack a major power directly.
Until this week, it had never sent missiles and drones into Israel.
Its economy is one-dimensionally dependent on oil exports. And its
paranoid government distrusts its own people, who have no access to free
elections.
So Iranian strategy over the last few decades has relied on
surrogates—especially expendable Arab Shia terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon,
Syria, and Yemen, along with the Sunni Arabs of Hamas—to do its dirty
work of killing Israelis and Americans.
It loudly egged all of them on and then cowardly denied responsibility once it feared Israeli or American retaliation.
Two, it has fooled Western governments and especially left-wing
American administrations by posing as a persecuted victim. Iran claims
it is the champion of aggrieved Shiite Arab and Persian minorities,
unfairly exploited by Israel, moderate Arab regimes, and rich Sunni Gulf
monarchies.
Three, Iran hopes its pseudo-diplomatic outreach to left-wing Western
governments, coupled with its lunatic existential threats and
unleashing terrorist attacks on its enemies, can coax or bully the West
into granting it concessions—especially time to acquire a dozen or so
nuclear weapons.
Yet for all its loud, creepy threats, Iran is incredibly weak and vulnerable.
Israel and its allies shot down almost all its recent nocturnal
missile and drone barrages. Lots of other missiles reportedly blew up on
liftoff in Iran or crashed in transit.
Before the Biden appeasement of Iran, the Trump administration had
isolated and nearly bankrupted Tehran and its proxies. Its Revolutionary
Guard terrorist planners proved to be easy targets once they operated
outside Iran.
Iran’s only hope is to get a bomb and, with it, nuclear deterrence to
prevent retaliation when it increases its terrorist surrogate attacks
on Israel, the West, and international commerce.
Yet now Iran may have jumped the shark by attacking the Israeli
homeland for the first time. It is learning that it has almost no
sympathetic allies.
Does even the Lebanese Hezbollah really want to take revenge against
Israel on behalf of Persian Iran, only to see its Shia neighborhoods in
Lebanon reduced to rubble?
Do all the pro-Hamas protestors on American campuses and in the
streets really want to show Americans they celebrate Iranian attacks and
a potential Iranian war against the United States?
Does Iran really believe 99 percent of any future Israel barrage
against Iranian targets would fail to hit targets in the fashion that
its own recent launches failed?
Does Iran really believe that its sheer incompetence in attacking
Israel warrants them a pardon—as if they should be excused for trying,
but not succeeding, to kill thousands of Jews?
In sum, by unleashing a terrorist war in the Middle East and
targeting the Israeli homeland, Iran may wake up soon and learn Israel,
or America, or both might retaliate for a half-century of its terrorist
aggression—and mostly to the indifference or even the delight of most of
the world.
The Ambler Access Road project would open up mining opportunities in Alaska that would supply critical minerals used in solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicle batteries. The Biden administration is expected to deny approval of the road, increasing our reliance on China.
The Biden administration is
expected this week to deny approval of an Alaskan road that would
provide access to potential mining opportunities in a very remote region
of the state.
The Ambler Access Road project is a proposed 211-mile gravel road
that would connect a mining district in west-central Alaska to the
Dalton Highway that runs through the middle of the state. The operations
in the mining district could provide a steady domestic supply of
copper, zinc, lead, gold, silver and cobalt, which are strategic
elements needed for manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels,
transmission lines, and electric vehicle batteries.
Former President Donald Trump had approved the permit to build the
road in 2020, but after Biden was elected, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland ordered a new analysis, arguing that the Trump-era studies had been inadequate.
In a bipartisan effort, Alaska’s Congressional delegation supports
the project. In December, Republican Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa
Murkowski, along with the state’s Democratic Representative Mary Sattler
Peltola, sent a letter to Haaland urging the analysis be conducted quickly and the road project re-approved.
The delegates noted in the letter that the Interior Department
voluntarily pursued the review of the Trump administration’s
environmental impact statement for the road on the same day Biden held a
summit stressing the need for critical minerals.
“It is remarkable that during these dangerous times, the Biden
Administration continues to focus on sanctioning Alaska and Alaskans
while lifting sanctions on terrorist regimes like Iran,” Sullivan said
in a statement emailed to Just The News.
China dominates global critical mineral supply chains,
accounting for approximately 60% of world-wide production and 85% of
processing capacity. Transitioning off of fossil fuels, which is the
goal of Biden’s climate mandates, would leave the U.S. dependent on
China for energy, unless the U.S. develops its own mines and processing
facilities.
There are some other sources of minerals in the world, such as the
cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where human rights
investigations discovered widespread use of children in dangerous and
toxic conditions. New Jersey Republican Chris Smith introduced
legislation this week to block cobalt extracted or processed using child
labor from entering the U.S. market, Fox News reported,
While the president has been providing funding
to develop domestic supplies of these minerals to grant the U.S. more
independence from these problematic sources, he’s also sided with
environmentalists’ objections to mines that would as a result choke off
that supply.
In January, Biden issued a 20-year moratorium
on 225,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Minnesota that had the
potential for 180 million tons of ore, yielding nickel, copper and
cobalt. In March 2023, the Biden administration banned access to nearly 514,000 acres of public lands that had potential mining opportunities. The Biden administration also blocked a gold and copper project in Alaska’s Bristol Bay known as Pebble Mine.
The denial of the Ambler Access Road project is only the latest in a
string of decisions that appear at odds with the Biden administration’s
climate agenda.
“The Ambler decision is lawless, but that’s par for the course. It
will only increase our dependency on China for critical minerals. This
is yet another major decision harming Alaskans, harming our national
security, and appeasing foreign dictators and the President’s most
radical, far-left supporters,” Sullivan said.
Gravest threat
These supporters, many of whom claim that climate change poses a serious threat, aggressively opposed the Ambler project.
Rick Whitbeck, Alaska state director for Power The Future, told Just The News
that the project enjoys bipartisan support and would deliver jobs to
nearby communities, tax revenues to local state and federal governments,
in addition to developing a domestic supply of needed minerals.
“Once again, the Biden Administration is proving that they view
Alaska as less important than Africa, Russia or China. Why else would
they continue to target our state and thwart responsible resource
development?” Whitbeck said.
Other environmental groups opposed the project as well. Outdoor apparel retailer Patagonia, in its comments
on the project’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS), said it
would “jeopardize one of the last great intact ecosystems in the U.S.”
“We are experiencing a rapidly warming planet, with 2023 being the
hottest year on record. Industry proponents claim the mines would
procure minerals needed for electrification and national security, but
the data does not show large enough deposits of minerals to meaningfully
boost the green energy buildout,” the clothing maker said.
In its comments on the draft EIS, the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks argued that the project would have “significant impacts across a broad region” that are “contrary to the public interest.”
Tough go
David Hammond, a mineral economist with decades of experience as a mining consultant, told Just The News that the road is about the only way the minerals in the area could be developed. Hammond has been a long-time consultant to NANA,
a corporation owned by 15,000 Iñpiat Alaska Native peoples who live in
the area. Hammond has been to the Ambler district, which is reached via a
small unpaved airstrip.
To access the area from the west via Kotzebue Sound, he said, a road
would have to be built up the Kobuk River, which would be a difficult
option. “That's a tough go. That's got some bad terrain, and it's got
wetlands,” he said. So without the road, the resource won’t be
developed.
As far as the potential of the resource, he said that there are
“highly prospective mineral deposits,” meaning that it's in the first
phase of investigating what minerals are there.
“But I think they look promising,” Hammond said. One thing that might
have generated so much opposition to the road project from
environmentalists, Hammond said, may not be the road itself but that it
may open up the area to a lot more development.
Native perspectives
NANA didn’t return requests for comment, but according to the company’s website,
it doesn’t take a firm position for or against the project. It is
continuing to evaluate its potential positive and negative impacts.
NANA, according to the website, is committed to protecting and advancing
the Iñpiat way of life, which requires balancing tradition with
responsible economic development.
“Undeveloped resources in our region could maintain a sustainable
economy, improve regional connectivity and lower the cost of living for
generations into the future,” Nana states.
In an opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News
in December, Fred Sun, tribal president and chair of the Native Village
of Shungnak, and Johnetta Hroner, tribal president of the Native
Village of Kobuk — both members of NANA — said that Alaskan Natives
have multiple perspectives on the project. The tribal presidents, for
their own perspective, expressed support for the road and criticized
Haaland for ordering a new analysis, which further delayed it.
“We believe responsible development on and near these lands can
provide benefits to our people. The project has the potential to provide
jobs, allow road access to deliver fuel and other supplies which are
currently flown in at great expense to our people, and fund essential
government services in our extremely remote region of the Arctic,” they
said.
Biden has set the nation on a course to get a large share of its
electricity from wind and solar, and the Inflation Reduction Act could
end up costing taxpayers as much as $1.2 trillion
to achieve that goal. Unless domestic mines supply those minerals, much
of that money will go to the Chinese or the Democratic Republic of
Congo.
“The winners of this decision on the Ambler Access Road project will
be the Chinese Communist Party and warlords in Africa, who use child and
slave labor to enrich their regimes with no environmental oversight.
When is enough enough?” Whitbeck said.
A two-state solution would weaken Israel and open it up to isolation and condemnation. Israel cannot allow itself to be neutered.
Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah,March 2024(photo credit: REUTERS/MOHAMAD TOROKMAN)
Many of us have been unable to understand the obsessive focus that
the Biden administration, along with the leaders of many Western
European countries, has on the “two-state solution.”
After all, Oslo, the process that was intended to result in such an outcome, was a spectacular and destructive disaster.
Over the years, subsequent attempts were made to forge an agreement, and none of those even got to first base.
Even after October 7, talk of a two-state solution remains.
Especially
in the wake of the monstrous October 7 attacks, one would have
logically concluded that, with an ideological/religious permanent animus
that certainly has genocidal trappings, a two-state construct would be far from anyone’s thinking.
Of course, this is completely wrong. The two-state solution has returned as a mantra that has been embraced and advanced.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets PA head Mahmoud Abbas in
Ramallah, in February. The US mistakenly thinks that giving Palestinian
leaders a vision for the future of two states will do away with the
Palestinian desire to eliminate Israel, says the writer. (credit: Mark
Schiefelbein/Reuters)
Something has happened,
which, counter-intuitively, shines some light on the two-state
rationale. And that something was the April 14 attack by Iran. The
attack was historic both for its ending the charade that Iran was not
involved in attacking Israel and also for the magnitude of that attack.
What
might be of the most enduring interest, however, is the involvement and
reactions of the US government. There seems to have been broad based
awareness of the imminence of the attack. Some of that can, of course,
be attributed to good old-fashioned intelligence.
But
recent reports have circulated that Iran shared their plans with the
Turks and possibly the Saudis and that these were then communicated,
indeed, were intended to be communicated to the Americans.
What
is also alleged – by Reuters on April 14 – is that America green-lit
the attack so long as it was “within limits.” What the definition of
“within limits” was is unknown. But there seems to be more than just a
sense that choreography was at work here: “Iran informed Turkey in advance
of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source
told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran
via Ankara that any action it took had to be ‘within certain limits.’”
Now
that is not meant to diminish the magnitude and scope of the Israeli
achievement in blocking and intercepting the Iranian attack. But if the
timing and possibly the scope of the attack was known, then there was
the opportunity to plan for it.
The
question is why would America tacitly or overtly agree to an Iranian
attack, and then play a significant role in countering it? The
distressing answer seems to be that this action is part of an
increasingly clear picture of how the US envisions the region, including
the role of Israel in the region.
The
kneejerk reaction by America for Israel to “take the win” and not to
respond to Iran is consistent with the American insistence on Israel’s
not entering Rafah in Gaza, and the willingness to constantly criticize
aggressive Israeli incursions. And of course, the insistence on massive
“humanitarian” aid to Gaza, even with the realization that Hamas will
control the destiny of that aid.
In
sum, it is hard to conclude that America does not want Israel to win.
For us to prevail here is disruptive to the Obama/Biden regional
perspective that the best way to enable the US to decouple from the
region is to empower Iran, but also to have the Sunni states as a
counterweight that prevents Iran from becoming a hegemon.
However,
in this view, Iran must be allowed to project power, and much of that
power is reflected in their proxies’ attacks on Israel. The Biden
administration does not seek the destruction of Israel, but rather its
constraint. Israel should be in a perennial defensive posture, and its
defensive efforts should be supported. So there is aid for air defense
systems and an air force that can play a protective and defensive role.
Of
course, wars are never won by playing defense. Wars are won by
overwhelming the enemy. But for Israel to overwhelm a Hamas or a
Hezbollah threatens to raise the stakes in the region, forcing Iran’s
active involvement, and possibly triggering Sunni counter efforts.
Israel has allowed itself to be neutered.
Thus
it is that Israel, despite the existential ramifications of its
fighting, must be constrained in order to maintain an uneasy status quo
standoff. It's a micro version of the Cold War, so to speak.
Understanding this perspective allows for a clearer realization of the
importance of the two-state solution. Do the Americans really believe
that the Palestinians will bury the hatchet, accept Israel as a
sovereign neighbor, and live in peace, however cold?
I doubt it. But a sovereign Palestine serves to further constrain Israel,
creating yet another front that can force Israel into a perennial
defensive posture. Of course, if Palestine is sovereign, Israeli
incursions become invasions, subject to the inevitable condemnation,
sanction, and isolation that would ensue.
Of course, America would help provide more Iron Dome batteries, but this would be like wrapping one’s chains in soft fabric.
Israel
has allowed itself to be neutered. Unless we are willing to incur the
inevitable wrath of the US and Europe by asserting our national
requisites and needs, we will be increasingly constrained in our ability
to project our sovereignty.
The
replacement of a south Lebanon security belt with a northern Israel no
man’s land is an example of this constraint. The inability to totally
degrade Hamas is another.
But
these will pale in significance to the existential nightmare that a
Palestinian state would represent. It is, therefore, critically
important that we see this insistence as a piece of the American
worldview, which is to render us dependent – and disabled and
disempowered to be an effective offensive force.
It
is a nightmarish scenario, one that demands clear-eyed and determined
leadership, political and military, to reverse. It will require us to
wean ourselves from the ties that bind and choke.
Israel
has shown itself to be a heroic, amazing military power. That power
must be allowed to assert itself in ways that will free us of constant
looming threats. We must allow ourselves to win.
The writer is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu and a director of the Israel Independence Fund.
[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]
Don’t miss this new video by Victor Davis
Hanson—a final warning to America under the dangerous ‘leadership’ of
Joe Biden. Hanson lays out why America stands at a precipice.
1 in 5 Dems and 4 out of 10 independents think the justice system is rigged against Trump.
The media is pushing this AP poll
as evidence that the trials have demonstrated Trump’s ineligibility for
office. The numbers aren’t great, but they’re worse for the system.
Much as the Left trashed the credibility of the media to get
Republicans, they’ve now trashed the credibility of the justice system
to get Trump.
Only 31% of the public is very confident that state prosecutors in
New York are treating Trump fairly. Another 22% are middling while 44%
are not at all confident.
Even 17% of Dems are skeptical, among Independents, 44% to 47% are
skeptical. The numbers get worse for state prosecutors in Georgia and
worse still for federal prosecutors.
Forget Republicans where confidence levels remain low, they’ve
managed to get to the point where a fifth of Democrats and four out of
ten independents think the justice system is rigged against Trump.
The AP, which spends all day attacking Trump and anyone to the left
of Mao, thinks this is a win. It’s not. The media can and will
constantly generate attacks on Trump, but what the poll numbers really
show is that the Left is destroying public trust in every institution
under its control for extremely short-term goals.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is
an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.
It was an attitude of pusillanimous appeasement by UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Nazi Germany in 1938, with the Munich Agreement, that directly resulted in Hitler's unrestrained march on neighbouring countries, thus inaugurating WW2. In like mode, US President Joe Biden's acolytes now appease Iran's Ayatollahs, an approach that commenced under President Barack Obama. Once again, the consequences for the West and the world at large will be horrendous.
Not only are Jews under threat, but Christians and all "unbelievers" in the radical jihadist agenda as well.
Although an "ostrich" mentality towards these genocidal
objectives prevails among Western decision-makers, the reality is quite
different: The driving ideology behind Hamas's murderous intent is
exemplified by the "Doomsday Clock" located in Palestine Square, Tehran,
Iran. Inaugurated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2017, the
clock counts down the time towards Israel's anticipated destruction in
2040, sixteen years from now. Iran's barrage of missiles and drones
launched at Israel on April 13, 2024, was presumably another step toward
fulfilling that destructive intent.
Even though Iran remains essentially responsible for the actions
of its agents, it has yet to suffer any consequences despite its direct
attack on Israel on April 13-14. All the while, taking full advantage of
US appeasement and unencumbered by meaningful sanctions, Iran races
ahead with development of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of
eliminating Israel and, thereafter Jordan and ultimately the "Great
Satan," the United States from the world map.
On April 1, 2024, Abolfazl Bazargan, an Iranian international
relations expert, made it clear, with a straight face, that "...for the
purpose of bringing about peace - you have to create nuclear deterrence,
even if only one (bomb)." Peace, however, seems to mean "after jihad
has obliterated all opposition and established an Islamic Caliphate."
This objective is couched in rational terms to appease West powers, the
sympathetic world leaders, who might be persuaded that it is fair and
right that Iran possess a nuclear weapon just as Israel, the US, UK,
North Korea, and other nations possess such weapons. The underlying
jihadist ideology of world hegemony is concealed under a veneer of
rationalism, social justice, victimhood, and fairness.
"It's a belief that goes a long way in explaining the
dehumanization of the Jews: It's much easier to brutalize and slaughter,
the way Hamas did on October 7, if you think that Jews are apes and
pigs. In our rational Western way of thinking, all of this is
unfathomable." — Idit Bar, expert on Islamism, Times of Israel, February
2, 2024.
Refusing to directly confront Iran as the source of Middle
Eastern terror -- and instead rely on diplomatic "conflict resolution"
that enables Iran to buy time -- amounts to a form of appeasement. At
this time, preparation for war is the best deterrence, especially in the
current circumstances of a misguided faith in "talking."
It was an attitude of pusillanimous appeasement by UK Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain of Nazi Germany in 1938, with the Munich
Agreement, that directly resulted in Hitler's unrestrained march on
neighbouring countries, thus inaugurating WW2. In like mode, US
President Joe Biden's acolytes now appease Iran's Ayatollahs, an
approach that commenced under President Barack Obama. Once again, the
consequences for the West and the world at large will be horrendous.
Abolfazl Bazargan, an Iranian international relations
expert, recently said on Iran's Ofagh TV that "...for the purpose of
bringing about peace - you have to create nuclear deterrence, even if
only one (bomb)." Peace, however, seems to mean "after jihad has
obliterated all opposition and established an Islamic Caliphate." (Image
source: MEMRI)
On February 9, 2024, Imam Sheikh Abdul Salam Zoud at the Masjid
As-Sunnah Lakemba in Sydney, Australia, made the following live-streamed
pronouncement:
"There is no solution other than Jihad which continues
until Judgement Day. The Prophet Muhammad, the Righteous Caliphs – none
of them conquered the world by peaceful means. They conquered it through
Jihad. The goal of Jihad for the sake of Allah is not to kill people
and take over their lands. Rather, the goal of Jihad is to remove
obstacles before the spreading and rule of Islam."
The Imam's statement might come across as a bit disingenuous.
Although it appears to publicly eschew the elimination of unbelievers (infidels)
– meaning those who do not embrace jihad, including Jews, Christians,
and devotees of all other religions – he explains that "conquering the
world" is not possible other than through jihad. He describes this
action as "removing obstacles," a euphemism for the destruction of those
opposed to establishment of a global Islamist Caliphate, a 'nizam Islami'
(Islamic order), ruled through totalitarian Sharia law. This even
includes the distant nations of Australia and New Zealand, where radical
Islamists wish to share their gift of Allah, by force if necessary,
with the entire planet.
The exposure of jihadists' far-reaching desires is evident from the October 10th, 2023, unruly Sydney Harbour demonstration
in favour of the jihadist group, Hamas, during which Israel – and Jews –
were vilified, threatened with death and destruction, without recourse
of any kind. The demonstration is reflected the Imam's conviction,
above, that, "these people only understand the language of force." For
extremists, religion appears to be much of their motivating factor as
the Imam went on to explain:
"This is the purpose of fighting and waging Jihad against
the enemies of Islam – to fend off their evil from the religion of
Islam, and to defend Allah's religion, which was created to reign
supreme over all other religions..."
This wish by many Islamists for the global supremacy of their
religion through holy war could not have been made much clearer. Denial
of reality by political and social leaders will, without doubt, result
in increased turmoil to that already experienced by societies in France,
the UK, Germany, Sweden, and other European nations, not to overlook
the USA. In this mode, and given the generally pleasant, easy-going, but
sometimes lackadaisical attitude of those far away in the southern
reaches of the lower hemisphere, a major awakening is also required. Not
only are Jews under threat, but Christians and all "unbelievers" in the
radical jihadist agenda as well.
The devastating attack on innocent civilians, particularly young
girls, women, children, and babies, in Israel on October 7, 2023,
brought international attention to jihad and the Islamist plan of
seeking an "end of days" Caliphate. Although an "ostrich" mentality
towards thesegenocidalobjectives
prevails among Western decision-makers, the reality is quite different:
The driving ideology behind Hamas's murderous intent is exemplified by
the "Doomsday Clock"
located in Palestine Square, Tehran, Iran. Inaugurated by Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2017, the clock counts down the time
towards Israel's anticipated destruction in 2040, sixteen years from
now. Iran's barrage of missiles and drones launched at Israel on April
13, 2024, was presumably another step toward fulfilling that destructive
intent.
Iran, as well as its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and
terror proxies of Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
others -- are actors in the frontline of the intended annihilation of
the Jewish people first, then all other unbelievers. Even though Iran
remains essentially responsible for the actions of its agents, it has
yet to suffer any consequences despite its direct attack on Israel on
April 13-14. All the while, taking full advantage of US appeasement and
unencumbered by meaningful sanctions, Iran races ahead with development
of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of eliminating Israel and,
thereafter Jordan and ultimately the "Great Satan," the United States from the world map.
On April 1, 2024, Abolfazl Bazargan, an Iranian international relations expert, made it clear,
with a straight face, that "...for the purpose of bringing about peace -
you have to create nuclear deterrence, even if only one (bomb)." Peace,
however, seems to mean "after jihad has obliterated all opposition and
established an Islamic Caliphate." This objective is couched in rational
terms to appease West powers, the sympathetic world leaders, who might
be persuaded that it is fair and right that Iran possess a nuclear
weapon just as Israel, the US, UK, North Korea, and other nations
possess such weapons. The underlying jihadist ideology of world hegemony
is concealed under a veneer of rationalism, social justice, victimhood,
and fairness.
There has been a serious escalation in Iran's nuclear weapons program, according to a February 2024, report
from Washington's Institute for Science and International Security. The
Institute monitors Iranian progress in this field through a virtual
"Iran Threat Geiger Counter," which presently indicates a level
described as "Extreme Danger." This category is explained as a "national
security threat typically posed by a combination of hostile intentions
and capabilities." Revealingly, the former head of the Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, Ali-Akbar Salehi, admitted
on February 11, 2024, that "Iran has crossed all scientific and
technological thresholds necessary for producing a nuclear bomb."
Added to the concern of all nations is the exposure
by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on February 26, 2024,
that Iran is in the process of constructing a nuclear facility hitherto
unknown to the West. Such secretive actions are usually accompanied by
reprehensible motives.
In the interim, the West watches, seditiously lacking the will to
act. Perhaps they plan, as then US President Barack Obama did, that any
nuclear breakout at least would not happen "on my watch."
Iran has long displayed its malevolent intent against "enemies of
Islam" -- in particular the "Little Satan," Israel, and the "Great
Satan," the United States. Iran's influential solicitations reach
Russia, supplying it with lethal weapons and adding greatly to the
possibility of a defeated Ukraine, a country bordering much of Europe.
Even so, Western nations, these reputed bastions of a fine civilization,
remain largely paralysed by fear, lack of serious preparation, and
indecision over the calamity about to descend upon them.
Generally overlooked is the importance of examining the historical
background of jihadist animus and its destructive aims against Western
nations, particularly Israel and the US. Hamas's Charter of 1988 reflects
Islamist theory for the last 1,400 years, and states that Muslims alone
are permitted to occupy and rule all of "Palestine." Hence, all
infidels, non-believers, have no right of occupation and are to be
expelled. The charter (Articles 7-15), reveals the apocalyptic endgame of Islamism, paraphrased by James Turner Johnson as follows:
"The goal of eliminating the Zionist entity and all who
support it requires the death of all Jews and when this is accomplished
the end of history, the final Day of Judgement, will arrive then the
whole earth shall be Muslim for eternity."
The charter's dictates are visible for all to see, along with the
multi-front assault by Iran's proxies on Israel, US forces in Iraq and
Syria, and global shipping traversing the Red Sea area. The current
conflagration between Israel and Hamas over Gaza is therefore only one
step amongst many leading towards a comprehensive global war for
creation of an Islamist Caliphate, regulated by Sharia law. Followers of
the Islamic State (ISIS) aim towards a Caliphate their own way, as do other extremist groups like Al-Qaeda.
On April 3, 2024, analyst Ayelet Savyon proposed
that Iran's grand plan was to bring "down the regime in Jordan and to
attack Israel from the east while Israel is kept busy by Iran-backed
resistance forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza." The purpose, she
explained, is to frustrate the "Saudi-American project of normalization
with Israel," after the expulsion of US forces from Iraq and the
"undermining of the Saudi kingdom and Egyptian regime." This strategy,
emphasizes Savyon, is how "Iran actualizes its vision of the Islamic
revolution," which in turn will establish the Caliphate. While Israeli
forces engage malevolent actors in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, it is
clear that the next imminent step is jihadist domination of Jordan.
With its substantial Palestinian population, Jordon is particularly
susceptible to a hard-line Islamic revolution.
It is significant to note that Hamas, and disparate fundamentalist
players, emanate from ideological influence of the covert Muslim
Brotherhood movement – a multi-faceted entity like the multi-headed Hydra,
the mythical beast of Heraclean fame. Founded in Egypt in 1928, and
today enjoying support of Qatar, Iran, and Turkey -- but banned in
pro-Western Muslim States such as the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and
Egypt, where it is classified as a terror organization -- the
Brotherhood's ultimate agenda is the creation of a paradisical Caliphate
under Sharia law.
The Brotherhood reportedly believe
that the Caliph himself, regarded as a messianic religious-political
figure and disciplic successor to the prophet Mohammed, will be supreme
ruler of the entire Muslim world. It is from these teachings that Hamas
draws its ideological underpinnings, not to minimise the allure of
money, influence and power. There may even be -- if there is not a fight
to the finish -- a convergence of Sunni and Shiite jihadist ideology
for the purposes of establishing the Caliphate, upon demise of the
enemies of Islam. This event, albeit remote, looks possible from
Sunni-Shiite cooperation as evident in Shiite Iran's support for both
Sunni Hamas and Shiite Hezbollah, jointly seeking eradication of Israel
and the US, as do all splinter terror groups whatever their affiliation.
The jihadist movements, therefore, claim to have as their core reason
for being that of a religious purpose whereby Islam is the sole true
faith – one that is destined to dominate the world. It follows that those who dispute this view are regarded as infidels, worthy of death. Of particular focus are the Jews, described
in an April 2002 sermon by the highest ranking cleric in the Sunni
Muslim world, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, as "the enemies
of Allah... the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the
violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and
the offspring of apes and pigs."
Tantawi was simply repeating certain verses from the Quran (2:65;
5:60; 7:166). Prominent Shiite clerics hold the same opinion. Quranic
commentators apply this description to Christians as well as Jews. For
well over 1,000 years, Islamic clerics have taught this worldview to
countless generations of students and, as a consequence, it has long
been ingrained in the Muslim psyche.
In February 2024, an expert on Islamism, Idit Bar, noted:
"Israelis often underestimate the religious sentiment in
Muslim societies. Mainstream Israeli society is Western-oriented,
rationalistic, and generally not religious, so for us, it's hard to
understand.
"Many Muslims are driven by a messianic ideology, an apocalyptic
vision that Israel will eventually be vanquished by Islam. Many believe
it's imminent — think of the clock in a Tehran square counting down the
days to Israel's destruction.
"We Israelis find that ludicrous, but for many Muslims it's a
certainty. The same goes for the belief that Jews are the descendants of
'apes and pigs,' based on a curse that Allah pronounced against them
according to three Quranic verses.
"It's a belief that goes a long way in explaining the dehumanization
of the Jews: It's much easier to brutalize and slaughter, the way Hamas
did on October 7, if you think that Jews are apes and pigs. In our
rational Western way of thinking, all of this is unfathomable."
Rationality, as history indicates, is not relevant when confronting fanatical religious fervour. In his seminal text of 1996, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington wrote :
"So long as Islam remains Islam (which it will) and the
West remains the West (which is more dubious), this fundamental conflict
between two great civilizations and ways of life will continue to
define their relations in the future even as it has defined them for the
past fourteen centuries."
Here, Huntington emphasized a deep cultural and religious identity
chasm as the basic cause of discord. This is ironically exacerbated by a
commonality between them, between the Judeo-Christian and Islamist
faith systems in their understanding of time as linear and finite,
leading inexorably to an apocalyptic event at the "end of days." In both
instances the advance of a messianic age is dependent upon certain
factors. In radical Islam, it is the establishment of the Caliphate,
which can only occur upon the eradication of Jews and Christians from
the region. For Christians and Jews, the advent
of "the time of Jacob's troubles" is heralded by the very same "storm
of the Lord." In both faiths, the long-awaited apocalyptic process has
been inaugurated, whether this is fully grasped or not. This agenda is
no secret, as Iran quite openly "depicts
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a religious one – Islam vs Judaism –
and thus presents its particular aim of eliminating Israel as
pan-Islamic."
As Israel battles for survival against Islamist radicals on many
fronts, leaders of the US, the world's guarantor of liberty and
democracy, play political games with providing Israel urgently needed
military support, thereby emboldening Israel's adversaries and
compromising its war effort. To add to Israel's woes, the US seeks to
micro-manage its war strategy while ignoring the reality taking place
daily on the battlefield. It was the British political commentator
Douglas Murray who, in October 2023, suggested:
"Israel seems to be the only country in the world never
allowed to win a conflict. It is allowed to fight a conflict to a draw,
but rarely to a win. Which is one reason why the wars keep occurring."
Refusing to directly confront Iran as the source of Middle Eastern
terror amounts to a form of appeasement. It was an attitude of
pusillanimous appeasement by UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of
Nazi Germany in 1938, with the Munich Agreement,
that directly resulted in Hitler's unrestrained march on neighbouring
countries, thus inaugurating WW2. In like mode, US President Joe Biden's
acolytes now appease Iran's Ayatollahs, an approach that commenced
under President Barack Obama. Once again, the consequences for the West
and the world at large will be horrendous.
Israel is "burning" and the West itself will soon experience great
internal mayhem from the millions of radical Islamists in its midst. The
US can expect vehement instances of jihad from the myriad of
Palestinian supporters residing there. An article in the Wall Street Journal of February 2, 2024, headed,
"Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihadist Capital," observed that "Imams
and politicians in the Michigan city side with Hamas against Israel,
and with Iran against America." With Dearborn's Muslim Mayor leading the
way, thousands of activists marched in support of terrorists of Hamas,
Hezbollah, and Iran while chanting "America is a terrorist state" and
"from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." Iran's strategy in
planting covert agents within US borders has been ominously successful.
The same conclusion applies even more so to Europe, Scandinavia, and
the UK, with frequent mass protests on the same basis. In an interview
on February 4, 2024, Douglas Murray commented
on the opposition by Islamist fanatics to his anticipated appearance at
a London venue – which was cancelled after threats to staff, and
relocated -- by lamenting:
"I don't recognise Britain anymore. It's filled with
Islamists parading around the streets, praising terrorists and with
cowards in all positions of public life. When a threat is enough to
cause such fear amongst staff members that they refuse to show up for
work, we all have a very big problem."
Iran and Russia, together with China and North Korea, comprise an
axis of evil insofar as the West is concerned. These pretenders seek a
new world order, one reflecting their revolutionary and totalitarian
ideals. To bring that about, the US as foremost global power needs to be
weakened. This view might explain the hostility against the West's
allies, such as Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. Australia and New Zealand
are likewise considered part of the Western alliance and will not escape
involvement despite their remoteness from the Middle East. In the
result, a multi-front war scenario can be anticipated -- but one which
Western powers might be unable to successfully contain due to their
present state of unpreparedness. Iran, with its underlying agenda of a
Sharia Caliphate, is the instigator of world revolution, commencing in
the Middle East. In the interim, Iran, in the conflagration of world
discord, appears to be racing toward its nuclear opportunity for world
domination.
As the possibility of another world war rapidly escalates, coupled to
internal social unrest, the prognosis for peace deteriorates. Refusing
to directly confront Iran as the source of Middle Eastern terror -- and
instead rely on diplomatic "conflict resolution" that enables Iran to
buy time -- amounts to a form of appeasement. At this time, preparation
for war is the best deterrence, especially in the current circumstances
of a misguided faith in "talking." It was described
in an earlier context by Winston Churchill, referring to the pivotal
1940 Battle of Britain: "The odds were great, our margins small; the
stakes infinite."
Finally, the sombre statement
on January 14, 2024, by President Isaac Herzog of Israel, as
representative of the liberal democratic order in the Middle East,
captures the dangerous situation ahead for all Western nations,
especially the canary-in-the-coalmine, Israel:
"Despite the challenges ahead, I have no doubt that we
will emerge from the shadows of this conflict stronger and more
determined than ever. Together, as one nation, we will overcome the
darkness, rise from the ashes, rebuild, replant, sow, affix mezuzahs on
homes, turn each and every hell into a paradise, as we have always
done... The spirit of the people of Israel will always overcome. This
time too, our spirit will prevail."
Leaders of all Western nations, extending from Norway and Canada in
the north to New Zealand and Australia in the south, need to emulate
Israel's resolve for the sake of their peace-loving citizens, for the
sake of their liberal democratic values and freedoms, and the future of
their nations.
Nils A. Haug is an author and columnist. A lawyer by
profession, he is member of the International Bar Association, the
National Association of Scholars, the Academy of Philosophy and Letters.
Retired from law, his particular field of interest is political theory
interconnected with current events. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology
(Apologetics). Dr. Haug is author of 'Politics, Law, and Disorder in the
Garden of Eden – the Quest for Identity'; and 'Enemies of the Innocent –
Life, Truth, and Meaning in a Dark Age.' His work has appeared in First
Things Journal, The American Mind, Quadrant, Minding the Campus,
Gatestone Institute, Jewish News Syndicate, Israel Hayom, and others.
Democrats accuse GOP of "setting a dangerous precedent that if Congress doesn't like what you publish you'll be hauled in" as a tool to "prove their conspiratorial narrative."
The editor-in-chief of a major science publisher gave congressional
Republicans at a hearing Tuesday afternoon limited ammunition in their
efforts to characterize federal officials as unduly influencing COVID-19
origins research, supplementing the ongoing release of communications
that suggest the feds have something to hide.
Holden Thorp, who oversees news, research and opinion for the Science
family of journals, repeatedly told the Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus Pandemic that he and his peers fell short by failing to
better explain to the public that science is a "work in progress" and
that scientists are "opinionated" but should change their minds "when we
see new data."
Thorp seemed most embarrassed when panel Chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, asked him to account for his tweet mocking the GOP's evidence for the lab-leak theory as "a mediocre episode of Homeland," the Showtime thriller, in the subcommittee's first origins hearing 13 months ago.
Thorp apologized for the "flippant" remark on the platform now known
as X. "I've gotten off Twitter and I highly recommend that, because in
addition to making my life better I don't have to take my blood pressure
medicine anymore," he said.
"Rather than journals being a wealth of information and opinions
about the novel virus, of which we knew so little, they helped establish
a party line that literally put a chilling effect on scientific
research" on COVID origins and scientific communication, Wenstrup said.
Communications released by the subcommittee show Nature leaned on the authors of the "Proximal Origins" paper, covertly shaped
by then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins and
then-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director
Anthony Fauci, to completely rule out the plausibility of lab-leak as a condition of publishing it, which they did.
The Lancet published a 2020 letter denouncing "conspiracy theories" that SARS-CoV-2 "does not have a natural origin" without disclosing for 16 months that signatory Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance
passed through U.S. funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a
suspected leak source whose research could make viruses more dangerous.
Wenstrup on Tuesday also subpoenaed former Fauci adviser David
Morens for COVID-related communications from his personal email, which previous messages show he used to communicate with COVID researchers to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.
Morens also agreed to testify at a hearing on an unspecified date, Wenstrup said.
🚨BREAKING🚨@COVIDSelect announces a subpoena to compel Dr. David Morens — a top advisor to Dr. Fauci — to hand-over COVID-19 documents in his personal email.
This follows recently CONFIRMED whistleblower allegations that Dr. Morens used his Gmail to hide COVID-19 information. pic.twitter.com/XoCCFAJxY8
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) April 16, 2024
Subcommittee Democrats continued their longstanding practice of
dismissing the validity of the origins inquiry, which has now conducted
transcribed interviews with more than a dozen officials, as a waste of
time and taxpayer resources that will likely never nail down COVID's
origins as natural or leaked.
The subcommittee's top Democrat, Raul Ruiz of California, repeatedly
used the word "conspiratorial" to describe the inquiry. He said they had
yet to find "any evidence that directly implicated" Fauci or Collins in
a coverup or collusion with journals, while reaffirming that Farrar
convened the group of scientists who wrote Proximal Origin.
Republicans have "no alternative" to lab-leak because their theory
about Fauci and Collins "suppress[ing] the truth" depends on it, Ruiz
said, asking the GOP to stop "manufactur[ing] distrust in our nation's
institutions by amplifying harmful and often outright false information
about public health."
He accused GOP members of "setting a dangerous precedent that if
Congress doesn't like what you publish you'll be hauled in" as a tool to
"prove their conspiratorial narrative."
The communications revealed by the inquiry are "completely
unsurprising," said North Carolina Democratic Rep. Deborah Ross. Fauci
and Collins were "doing their jobs" by communicating with science
journals and "it would be unreasonable to suggest that they should have
paused their scholarly inquiries during a time of great scientific
uncertainty."
Thorp distinguished Science's open-mindedness relative to Nature and The Lancet by its decision to publish a May 2021 letter led by virus researcher Jesse Bloom, who exposed NIH deleting viral sequences at the request of a Chinese researcher. It called for a "thorough investigation of a lab origin" and "turned the tide in the discussion of COVID origins," Thorp said.
He emphasized that Science required the authors of two
papers arguing for natural COVID to state their evidence "support[s] but
do[es] not conclusively prove the theory of natural origin" as a
condition of publishing.
Prior to peer review, the authors' preprints went much further and got a "front page spread in New York Times" where one author said it was "extraordinarily clear" they prove the wet-market theory, Wenstrup noted.
Thorp often passed the buck for his regretted decisions to his obligation to write opinion pieces for Science every other week as well as his earlier focus "on things that could get us out of the pandemic" rather than look back.
🚨🚨🚨@ScienceMagazine AGREES that EcoHealth Alliance may have misled the U.S. government about its highly controversial DEFUSE proposal — which some believe created a blueprint for COVID-19. WATCH 📺👇 pic.twitter.com/QIs8aUVjYs
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) April 16, 2024
He thought the experiments "hardly posed a threat" because DARPA
rejected the proposal, but now understands how others can see the
proposal as "circumstantial evidence" for lab-leak. Thorp emphasized he
was "critical" of how Collins and Daszak "handled the revealing of that
proposal."
While he didn't know that "Daszak may have had other plans" because
the subcommittee only recently revealed them – possibly referring to EcoHealth's 2018 funding pitch
to more than a dozen federal agencies – Thorp said those viruses
"weren't closed enough to COVID" to create the pandemic's SARS-CoV-2.
Both natural origin and lab-leak are "still plausible" and in need of
further research, and it is "very unfortunate" that some colleagues
have endured threats for their COVID research, Thorp told Ruiz.
GOP-led COVID inquiries uncovered "clear collusion,
non-conspiratorial, between certain stakeholders and government
entities," Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, said in a
not-so-subtle rejoinder to Ruiz. She cited American Federation of
Teachers' influence on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention school
reopening guidance and dismissing "infection-acquired immunity" as a
reality.
"Trust suffers because of censorship. Because of a lack of debate within the scientific community." @RepMMM defends scientists and lawmakers who had the courage to challenge the government’s preferred narrative about the origin of COVID-19. pic.twitter.com/rYe2iBkkR6
— Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (@COVIDSelect) April 16, 2024
"I am proud of the work" the subcommittee has done, Miller-Meeks
said. "We are talking about this topic today because people dared to
question the narrative that was being proposed," just as when dissidents
challenged the narrative that "type A personality" causes peptic
ulcers.
She got Thorp to admit that while the feds never asked him to
"publish or not publish certain articles," he does "from time to time"
tell governments "around the world" that a pending Science opinion article might prompt questions for them.
Wenstrup closed the hearing by urging Democrats to read the majority's staff reports, which show Proximal Origins co-author Kristian Andersen saying Fauci among others "prompted" the paper's drafting. "I didn't make that up! It's not a lie!" Wenstrup exclaimed.
