Doc's Talk: Match Iran policy with the security threat

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Match Iran policy with the security threat

Paul E. Vallely and Fred Gedrich

The U.S. recently labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terror group. Many Americans would like to know more about them. They should, because the IRGC and the Iranian regime have been engaged in a one-sided war against the U.S. for 28 years.

Ayatollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideals of his Shiite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign opponents, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism, influence, and terrorism to neighboring states.

The group operates independently from Iran’s regular military – reporting directly to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei – and currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special Army, Air Force, Navy and intelligence units.

The IRGC exports the revolution through its notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force. The force is comprised of about 20,000 highly-trained personnel specializing in guerrilla war, armed insurgency, and terrorism in places like Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.

IRGC members participated in seizing the American Embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and millennia of diplomatic protocols. Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to bomb U.S. embassies and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, residences in Saudi Arabia, and orchestrated the kidnapping and murdering of American captives. They now manufacture and supply lethal roadside bombs to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan which kill and maim American troops.

In addition to having a powerful security apparatus, IRGC exerts tremendous political and economic clout. Former and current group members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, 80 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayor-ships and council seats. Past and present members also include Iran’s President Ahamdinejad, ambassador to Iraq Kazemi-Qomi, and Supreme National Security Council Secretary Larijani. IRGC is also a business conglomerate that controls over 500 companies active in a wide range of industries - from nuclear power to banking, life insurance to holiday resorts and shopping centers.

IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy. Their main tactical bases for Iraq operations are located in the Fajr and Nasr garrisons in Khuzistan and Azerbaijan provinces – and the principal terrorist training facility is located in Northern Tehran’s Imam Ali Garrison. Lethal roadside bombs (explosively formed projectiles) are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.

It’s highly unlikely the designation of IRGC as a terror group will make much of a difference. The best the U.S. can expect is that some foreign businesses may decide to curtail current business arrangements with the group. Since 1984 the U.S. has imposed congressionally mandated economic and export penalties on American firms doing business with Iran’s terrorist regime. The net result: French, German, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese businesses simply supplanted U.S. businesses as Iranian trading partners and by 2006, Iran’s annual trade blossomed to $110 billion.

If the U.S. truly seeks to achieve greater Middle East peace and stability it should incorporate military measures into the current Iranian policy and covertly encourage all Iranian opposition and resistance groups – including the MEK which the U.S. unjustly labeled a terror group during the Clinton Administration in a failed rapprochement attempt – and dissidents to increase activities to peaceably change the government.

Accordingly, President Bush should:

One, inform Iran that it must stop (1) developing its nuclear program immediately and verifiably; (2) providing ordnance and training to Iraqi Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army, Badr organization and others; (3) supporting foreign terror groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and (4) providing sanctuary to al Qaeda leaders and operatives. If Iran refuses, the consequences will be limited and selective military air strikes on nuclear facilities and anything supporting them; roadside bomb factories, and IRGC and Quds Force headquarters and facilities in Iran.

Two, assure Iranian opposition and resistance groups and dissidents the U.S. is committed to regime change. Iran is rife with disenchantment and dissent and unfortunately severe repression – as illustrated by the regime during recent months arresting more than one million people and hanging and stoning several hundred of them to death. In all, there were some 4,800 anti-government demonstrations and protest acts since during the past year, among them student demonstrations, workers protests, and riots to protest gasoline rationing. Any significant diminishment of IRGC capabilities, through selective U.S. air strikes, and a concurrent popular uprising among Iran’s 65 million citizens could possibly lead to the downfall of the regime.

Three, obtain approval from the U.S. Congress to use military force in Iran or, if circumstances demand, use existing constitutional war power authorities to neutralize the security threat.

Most Americans realize the IRGC and current Iranian regime pose a clear and present danger to U.S. security interests in Iraq and elsewhere and would likely view the action as long overdue. A Zogby Poll (released on October 29, 2007) reported that 52 percent of surveyed Americans support a military strike on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

Many Americans are dismayed that the U.S. has never adequately responded to Iran’s repeated “acts of war” against U.S. troops, citizens and interests. They also understand that all diplomatic initiatives and rapprochement attempts dating back to President Carter have not curbed the appetite of Iran’s Islamic terror masters. They would likely approve a tough U.S. policy on Iran if it leaves the Iranian thugs with a much-needed bloody nose.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired, is the” Stand Up America” Project Chairman and Iran Policy Committee member. Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk