Patriot missiles being removed from Turkey were hacked, given ‘unexplained orders’

Leave a comment

This is from Liberty UnYielding.

How many more of our defense systems have been hacked?


There are several weird elements in the missile defense drama suddenly being played out in Turkey.  Alert readers won’t be surprised that two of those weird elements are Russia and Iran.

Seemingly out of the blue, Germany announced this past weekend that the German contingent of two Patriot missile batteries, deployed to Turkey as a defensive measure in January 2013 – against the threat of Syrian Scuds – would be withdrawn ahead of schedule.

Within hours, the U.S. had made the same announcement about the American Patriot missiles that were deployed to Turkey at the same time.  The German and American contingents represent four of the five NATO Patriot batteries now in Turkey (the fifth is from Spain).  The four units will be gone by the end of 2015.

The New York Times puts the abruptness of this move down to the delicacy of recent negotiations over U.S. use of air bases in Turkey for the fight against Islamic State.  The NYTarticle – apparently conveying information supplied on background from the Obama administration – suggests that it would have jeopardized the priority of base access if the Turks had been told earlier, during negotiations, that the Patriot missiles were to be pulled out, at the behest of the Pentagon, due to the lack of a threat from Syria.

Instead, the U.S. kept the Patriot withdrawal a secret until the Turks had agreed to a base access proposal.  Says NYT:

Four American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a diplomatic issue, said Sunday that Turkish officials were livid when told two weeks ago that the United States was withdrawing the Patriots.

So the Obama administration continues to win friends and influence people.

Here are the main weird elements in this tale.

But wait – there is a threat from Syria

It’s not true that there has been little to no threat demonstrated from Syria.  In fact, on 25 March 2015, a Scud missile was fired from Syria into southern Turkey.  Its impact was in Reyhanli, in coastal Hatay Province.

Defense News writer Burak Ege Bekdil (apparently a Turk) wondered at the time why one of the NATO Patriot systems didn’t intercept the Scud.  It’s a fair question:  although we don’t know exactly where the German Patriots were positioned in the neighboring border province of Gaziantep, Gaziantep is where they were at the time.*

Map 1.  (Map courtesy University of Texas  online map library)

No intercept is ever guaranteed, and there may have been legitimate reasons relating to geometry or system capabilities why neither German unit was able to shoot down the Scud.  There could have been a number of reasons.  We don’t know, and I stress that we don’t have the information to draw conclusions.

But in light of this actual instance of a Scud being fired into Turkey, only a few months ago, it’s quite uncharacteristic of the Pentagon to decide – as the NYT’s sources indicate – that the threat from Syria is too low to justify keeping our Patriots in southern Turkey.  The Pentagon is far more likely, if left to its own devices, to keep this threat reflected as active and on the books for years afterward.

The reason given for pulling out the Patriots – that they need upgrading and maintenance, and in a world of multiple threats there are higher priorities – comes off as a limp excuse for a really peculiar security decision.  Seriously: there’s somewhere else on the planet where we have a treaty ally bordering a live, hot civil war in which at least one of the belligerents can launch ballistic missiles – in fact, already has – and even missiles with chemical warheads?

As we’ll see, you don’t want to forget that Germany announced the decision first, this weekend, and it was a German unit that was closest to the Scud fired into Hatay Province.

Russia, paranoid

Russia has been suspicious about the NATO Patriot deployments to Turkey from the beginning.  Russia’s theory – echoed by some in the West – is that the Patriots were put in Turkey not to protect Turkey against Syria but to protect the NATO missile defense radar in Malatya Province against, well, Russia (and perhaps Iran).

NATO deployed the X-band AN/TPY-2 radar to Turkey in late 2011, with the system going operational in January 2012.  By late 2014, expanded participation for Turkey in the NATO missile defense shield was looking like a “go,” in spite of earlier reservations in Ankara about data-sharing with Israel and the use of NATO assets for Israel’s defense.

(In late July 2015, Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed to do an about-face, poking NATO in the eye and resurrecting the prospect of contracting for missile defense systems with China – a move that now looks more explicable in light of the U.S. decision about the Patriots in Turkey.  Turkey probably had a good idea, through intelligence, that it might be coming.)

I do not think that NATO put the Patriots in Turkey to protect the radar in Malatya.  The Russian theory merely reflects Moscow’s fear that everything America does is a sneaky attempt to thwart Russia’s strategic deterrent.  (Russia’s concern is that the NATO radar in Turkey can assist intercepts of Russian missiles as well as Iranian ones.)

In any case, even though there’s actually been a threat to the radar – more below – the Patriots aren’t the best defense against the nature of the threat, which almost certainly won’t be ballistic missiles, and is very unlikely to be manned attack aircraft.  The Patriots aren’t particularly well positioned to defend the radar from those threats (although they aren’t point-defense systems, and aren’t best deployed next to specific targets that need defending).  Given where an airborne threat to the Malatya radar would come from, it would make sense to put the Patriots further east in Turkey, if defending the radar against potential, if unlikely, threats were the objective.

The Russians are all a-jitter this summer over NATO missile defense plans, in part because of the standoff over Ukraine, and the military posturing by both sides in eastern Europe, but also in part because of the implication Russia reads into the JCPOA with Iran.

I wrote about this after the terms of the JCPOA were first unveiled.  The Russians have interpreted Obama’s policy change on missile defense in 2009 to mean that an Iranian threat has been the sole justification for having a NATO missile defense for Europe.  Now that a thousand flowers are blooming and peace with Iran is at hand, Russia’s foreign ministry has been flogging the theme that NATO can box up all the silly missile defense parts and send them off to be melted down for scrap.

Sergei Lavrov was quoted on 5 August, in fact, accusing Obama of lying because the U.S. isn’t seizing the opportunity afforded by the JCPOA to begin dismantling NATO missile defenses.

Iran, annoyed

Iran hates both the Malatya radar and the NATO Patriots in Turkey.  Tehran reacted with fury when the Patriots were introduced in 2013.  In 2011, as preparations were being made to set up the NATO radar in Malatya (where the Kurecik district is located), Iran threatened to attack the radar if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s specific threat to “bomb” the radar may not have been particularly realistic, if aerial bombardment was what the mullahs had in mind.  But a Turkish intelligence report in 2014 outlined the efforts of an alleged Iran-backed “terror” network inside Turkey, which hadconducted surveillance of the radar site in preparation for attacking it.

To adjust our thinking properly about the Iranian element in this, we must keep a couple of things in mind.  One, the NATO radar and the NATO Patriots are both relevant to the problem of missile defense against a Scud coming from Syria.  The radar was not installed with that threat in mind, but it is useful to the problem, nevertheless.  Iran cares about the credibility of the Assad regime’s missile threat, wanting to preserve it as part of keeping the regime itself credible.

But on a bigger stage, and in the longer term, the NATO radar and the NATO Patriots are also both relevant to the defense of the Middle East against missiles launched from Iran.  The Patriots deployed to Turkey wouldn’t be able to intercept Russian ICBMs, but there are scenarios in which they (or upgraded versions of them) could intercept intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) launched from Iran.

There has been no indication that the Patriots in Turkey were deployed with the threat of missiles launched from Iran in mind.  But their presence has been directly relevant to Iranian thinking about the strategic use of ballistic missiles – and hence infuriating.

Their presence also seems to portend a future complication for Iran’s calculations in that regard.  What if the NATO Patriots did move further east in Turkey?  Where else might NATO suddenly put them for local tactical defense, as opposed to the alliance’s theater-level defense shield?

Iran has been at least as motivated as Russia to maneuver against the missile defense developments unfolding slowly – even a bit haphazardly – in Turkey.

Patriots, hacked

With all of this in mind, consider an event reported in a German professional journal, which seems to have taken place earlier this year.  On an unnamed date in the recent past, a German Patriot system in Turkey was “hacked” by unknown cyber intruders, and the system in fact “carried out ‘unexplained’ orders.”  (H/t: Breitbart)

The article at the cites a specialty-media report – from a “civil service” journal calledBehoerden Spiegel – on 7 July 2015.  Although the Local has a link to the report, the website gives time-out errors when one tries to access it from the U.S.  (Here’s the Wikipedia entry for the journal; it’s legit.)

The reference to “unexplained orders” indicates that some element of the missile system was under the control of hackers for at least a brief period, and that it actually did something unexpected, or tried to.  The report on the event in Behoerden Spiegel seems to have characterized this categorically as a cyber-intrusion.  If the Local’s summary is accurate, the original report wasn’t tentative about that.  It moved on expeditiously to discussing how the breach could have been accomplished.

The magazine speculates about two weak spots in the missile system which could be exploited by hackers.

One such weakness is the Sensor-Shooter-Interoperability (SSI) which exchanges real time information between the missile launcher and its control system.

The second exposed point is a computer chip which controls the guidance of the weapon.

Attackers might have gained access in two different ways, one that takes over the operating of the missile system and one that steals data from it.

We don’t know enough about any of this to draw firm conclusions.  But we do know who would be especially motivated to mess with the NATO Patriots – not just gather data on them, but make them do things – and who would have the best ability to use a cyber-attack to do that.

Russia would top the list.  Iran is not to be dismissed, especially if Iranian agents have been creeping around Turkey conducting surveillance of NATO missile defense sites.

Although the Breitbart author mentions jihadists (meaning Salafis), and there is no reason to dismiss them entirely, I don’t consider them the most likely culprits.  Hacking into a Patriot battery is of much more interest to Russia than it is to ISIS or al-Qaeda or al-Nusra.  It’s certainly not a stretch to imagine Russian and Iranian intel services working together to bring this one off.

It would be an unjustified leap, meanwhile, to infer that the hacking of the German Patriot system was connected to the failure to intercept the Syrian Scud on 25 March.  Perhaps it was, but we don’t have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.  A careful analyst must caution against assuming too much.

But the facts we do have are still quite interesting.  The most discouraging fact, in light of all the others, is that the Obama administration is racing Germany out the door with its Patriot missiles.  Everything about the situation argues instead for keeping the Patriot presence in Turkey on the table as a key security policy issue for the U.S. and NATO.

If a hacking incident has revealed an IT weakness in the Patriot, that certainly needs to be fixed.  If the Patriots in Turkey are positioned sub-optimally, or oriented in a way that lags the real threat, that should be addressed as well.  But these things can be done without leaving the impression that Russia and Iran just might have succeeded in scaring us out of Turkey with our Patriots.

As always, with the Obama administration, the battle for credibility was lost in the failure of policy communication.  Instead of making direct, affirmative statements about U.S. policy, the administration conveys coy signals through anonymous disclosures to the media.  Very often, as it has done here, the administration cobbles together ridiculous “bureaucrat-ate-my-homework” excuses for what it has done, and tries to pass them off as stern drivers of policy – as if the president can’t tell a reluctant, penny-pinching Pentagon to suck it up and keep Patriot missiles in Turkey.


* The NATO Patriots are deployed in the provinces of Adana, Kahraman-Maras and Gaziantep, as seen on Map 1.  It’s a good question why they were placed as they have been.  The deployment areas can be viewed as clustered to counter a missile threat that would presumably arise from western Syria; e.g., from territory held by the Assad regime near Aleppo.  Why it would have taken five or six Patriot units to cover this relatively small area is still an interesting question.  (The original deployment included two units from the Netherlands, as opposed to the one unit from Spain in the current order of battle.)

Turkish demographics may offer one clue to the clustering effect.  The map below shows how intensely ethnic Kurds are concentrated in the provinces further east along Turkey’s southern border.  Whatever the threat from the south, Turkey would be less likely to want the NATO Patriots to be deployed into Kurdish-majority provinces.

Map 2. (Wikipedia)



In blow to Obama, Saudi king and other leaders to skip Gulf summit

Leave a comment

This is from The Time of Israel.

The Saudis and everyone else know Obamas deal with Iran is a fatal mistake for many people.


Only two heads of state will attend high-level meeting meant to assuage Arab fears over nuclear deal with Iran

Newly crowned Saudi King Salman has refused an invitation to attend a landmark summit hosted by President Barack Obama, amid angst over US-Iran nuclear negotiations.

Obama had invited six Gulf kings, emirs and sultans to the presidential retreat at Camp David, seeking to shore up wavering trust while Washington negotiates with regional power Tehran.
Obama’s plans now lie in tatters, with only two heads of state slated to attend the Thursday meeting.

Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington said Sunday that newly-named Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef would instead lead the Saudi delegation to the meeting.

The king’s youthful son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who is tipped as a possible future successor and who has driven recent military operations in Yemen — will also attend.

Even before becoming king, Salman was rumored to be suffering from dementia, and his son and the now crown price have played oversized roles in Saudi foreign policy.

As late as Friday, US officials said they had expected Salman to come to Washington, before learning of the change in plan.

“This is not in response to any substantive issue,” insisted one senior US administration official.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Salman would miss the meeting “due to the timing of the summit, the scheduled humanitarian ceasefire in Yemen and the opening of the King Salman Center for Humanitarian Aid,” according to the embassy statement.

Obama had planned to meet the king one-on-one a day before the gathering.

Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa will also miss the meeting, officials indicated Sunday, with the crown prince coming instead.

That means Obama will likely meet only the leaders of Kuwait and Qatar, despite the prestigious invitation.

The White House had hoped the meeting would assuage deep unease over Iran talks, which Gulf states see as a Faustian bargain, and Obama’s perceived disengagement from the region.

Gulf officials had been pressing for the United States to supply advanced weapons like F-35 stealth fighters as well as a written security guarantee in the face of a threat from Iran.

“I think we are looking for some form of security guarantee, given the behavior of Iran in the region, given the rise of the extremist threat,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to the United States.

“In the past, we have survived with a gentleman’s agreement with the United States about security. I think today, we need something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”

“I don’t believe there’s a single country (in the council) that doesn’t think a defense shield for the region is a bad idea,” Otaiba said. “The challenge is how do you turn on a regional defense system when different countries are purchasing different equipment and at different paces? How do you link it? How do you get the radars to talk to each other?”

A high-level Saudi official told The Associated Press in Riyadh that his country wants a defense system and military cooperation similar to what the US affords Israel.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to disclose details of the Saudis’ wish list at the summit, said they also want access to high-tech military equipment, missiles, planes and satellites, as well as more technology and training cooperation with the US.

The Iran nuclear deal — which could be agreed to in June — would curb Tehran’s nuclear program in return for unfreezing sanctions and funds worth more than $100 billion.

Gulf states fear that money could be used to by arms and further support Shiite proxy groups in the region.

A US official said a key part of the meetings would be to support a common Gulf defense infrastructure.

“This focus on mutual security extends to various areas -– counterterrorism, maritime security, cybersecurity and ballistic missile defense,” the official said.

Washington and the Gulf nations are also expected to discuss conflicts across the Middle East including in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Yemen in chaos
The Obama administration has privately pressed Saudi Arabia to ease an imprecise air campaign on Yemen that appears to have had a limited military impact but caused humanitarian suffering.

More than 1,400 people have been killed since late March in the conflict, according to the United Nations.

Aid agencies have called for an immediate ceasefire in a statement signed by 17 organizations.

Salman said the Saudi-led air war was launched on Yemen to foil a plot by a “sectarian group” to undermine Middle East security.

He said the campaign prevented Yemen from becoming a “theater of terrorism.”

Officials also pointed out that missiles capable of reaching Saudi Arabia fell under the control of Iran-backed Huthi rebels.

After more than six weeks of Saudi-led air strikes, Yemeni rebels said they would respond “positively” to ceasefire efforts and their allies accepted a US-backed truce plan.

Riyadh has offered a five-day humanitarian truce from Tuesday evening. The country said its ceasefire offer is conditional on the rebels reciprocating and not exploiting it for military advantage.

But on Sunday, Saudi artillery responded to rocket fire from Yemen that wounded four women inside the country.

Obama Cabinet Official: ‘Most’ of the Relief Money to Iran Won’t Fund Terrorism

1 Comment

This is from the Independent Journal Review.




It seems Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is stupider than he looks.

I did not think anyone could be stupider than Jack Lew looks.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew acknowledged that large sums of money will be given to Iran as part of the sanctions relief, adding that “most” of it won’t directly fund terrorist operations in the Middle East.

Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s 30th Anniversary Gala last week, Lew alluded to the sanctions relief process and state-funded terrorism concerns, saying:

“Many Americans, and many of our closest allies, are understandably concerned that Iran will use the money it receives as a result of sanctions relief to fund terrorism and support destabilizing proxies throughout the Middle East.”

Lew continued, adding that the Obama administration shares those concerns. He also insisted that the administration will maintain sanctions that specifically address “these [terrorist] activities.” Lew assured the attendees that “most” of the relief money given to Iran will not fund terrorism:

“But it’s important to note that the connection between nuclear sanctions relief and Iran’s other malign activities is complicated, and most of the money Iran receives from sanctions relief will not be used to support those activities.”

During Lew’s remarks, he said that Iran will be under “enormous pressure” to improve its domestic economy, adding that funding terrorism is a “relatively small” part of Iran’s budget.

However, not everyone’s buying Lew’s statement. Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, spoke to Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin about the effort to give Iran relief money. Dubowitz said that:

“when you give bad people bad money, they use it for bad things.”

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry voiced his dissatisfaction with the “hysteria” over the nuclear deal with Iran. Kerry insisted that inspectors will have access “every single day.”



Leave a comment

Hat Tip Firebird@SHE’S RIGHT.

Firebird is spot on.


Congratulations on your huge electoral victory.

You have approximately two years ahead during which time you should not count on the United States for military support.  Hopefully after the 2016 elections here, there will be a president in the White House that will again treat Israel as an ally and not a burr under his saddle.  (As an aside, congratulations on making Obama piss his pannies.)  You also cannot count on Obama’s administration to have your back in the United Nations.



Until such time as we have an adult in the White House, I would suggest you look around your area and form a coalition with:

  • Saudia Arabia…. they have no large military presence but they can buy and sell most nations of the world.  They fear and hate ISIS and IRAN
  • Egypt….has a true leader with balls who sees ISIS and IRAN as enemies of his country
  • Jordan…. Jordan has a true leader with balls who sees ISIS and IRAN as enemies of his country
Form a mutual defense coalition with these countries who share the same issues and keep Israel safe.

20 Reasons It Will Be Great To Replace Obama With a Republican in 2016

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.


1) It’ll finally give Obama a chance to pursue his real passion, golf.

2) And it will also give Joe Biden a chance to pursue his lifelong passion: chasing squirrels.

3) Al Sharpton will have to start paying his taxes again.

4) We’ll finally have someone in office who doesn’t think it’s a good thing when more Americans end up out of jobs and on the dole.

5) Forcing public school kids to eat kale and tofu dogs will suddenly drop way down the priority scale for the President of the United States.

6) The day after a Republican takes office, Obama’s promise to release billions to Iran in return for its vague promise to “sort of” stop building nuclear weapons as long as we don’t verify it won’t be good enough anymore.

7) Issues like the deficit, stopping ISIS and securing the border will be treated as more important than whom Obama’s taking his next selfie with, how often he can sneak out for a smoke and when he goes on his next vacation.

8) Since Obama has set the precedent, a Republican President will be able to unilaterally change Obamacare at will. Maybe he could limit the law to members of Congress, their staffs and union members while leaving the rest of us alone.

9) Even if Ben Carson were to somehow win, the lame excuse for every failure of the President won’t be “racism.”

10) We’ll have a President in office who’s hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood, illegal aliens and Iran instead of Christians, gun owners and the troops.

11) Democrats will be able to start railing against high deficit spending again for the first time in 8 years.

12) For the first time in 8 years, Israel will have someone on its side in office instead of someone who wants to make it easier for terrorists to murder Israelis.

13) “It’s good for the country” would no longer take a backseat to “We think it might help us in the next election.”

14) After Obama’s out of office, we can’t impeach him, but we may at least be able to find out what really happened in Benghazi, the Fast and Furious Scandal, the IRS Scandal, Solyndra and the NSA’s snooping on phone calls.

15) For the first time in 8 years we’ll have a President who doesn’t claim that he learned about almost every major scandal in his administration from watching TV.

16) Maybe with a Republican in office, we can invent a time machine to take us back and fix all the damage the worst President in history caused over the previous 8 years.

17) We’ll finally have a President who considers ISIS, nukes in Iran and the deficit to be bigger threats than global warming, people who want to adhere to the Constitution, and Rush Limbaugh.

18) We’d have a President who cares what happens to soldiers who aren’t gay, atheists or deserters for the first time in 8 years.

19) Election night 2016 will produce the biggest one night spike in MSNBC’s history as conservatives all over America tune into the network to hear the teary explanations of how the Republicans stole the election.

20) When Hillary goes down to defeat in 2016, she won’t have to worry about running for President anymore; so she’ll finally be able to divorce Bill, free her flying monkeys and fly off into the sunset on her broomstick.

Iranian Woman Fights Off a Rapist, But She’s the One Who Receives the Unimaginably Horrific Sentence

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

Attention Hillary Clinton and the DemocRat Party, this is what the war on women truly looks like.



In Iran, a woman has received the worst possible sentence after stabbing a man who tried to rape her.

On Saturday, 27-year-old Reyhaneh Jabbari was hung at dawn for what Iranian officials concluded was “premeditated murder.” Amnesty International said the sentence is another “bloody stain” on Iran’s human rights record.

The event that led to Jabbari’s execution took place in 2007. A man approached Jabbari in a cafe who happened to be an Iranian intelligence agent. He told her that he wanted to discuss business with her at his office.

However, when Jabbari arrived the man had no intention to talk business. He tried to drug and rape her. Fearing for her life, Jabbari grabbed a pocketknife and stabbed the man.

What any American court would likely dismiss as self-defense, an Iranian court declared cold-blooded murder.

Before her hanging, Jabbari was given a chance to make one last call to her mother Sholeh, who spent years trying to secure her daughter’s release. Here are some of Jabbari’s final words:

The world allowed me to live for 19 years. That ominous night it was I that should have been killed. My body would have been thrown in some corner of the city, and after a few days, the police would have taken you to the coroner’s office to identify my body and there you would also learn that I had been raped as well. The murderer would have never been found since we don’t have their wealth and their power.

You taught me that one comes to this world to gain an experience and learn a lesson and with each birth a responsibility is put on one’s shoulder. I learned that sometimes one has to fight.

But I was charged with being indifferent in face of a crime. You see, I didn’t even kill the mosquitoes and I threw away the cockroaches by taking them by their antennas. Now I have become a premeditated murderer.

Dear soft-hearted Sholeh, in the other world it is you and me who are the accusers and others who are the accused. Let’s see what God wants. I wanted to embrace you until I die. I love you.

Jabbari’s heartbreaking story reminds us of what a real ‘war on women’ looks like. May she “Rest in Peace.”


Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

I have been hearing these inbred hyenas howling

the same tune about wiping out Israel for years.

Israel is still alive and well as Israel has God fighting

for them and will survive.

Zechariah 14:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

An influential Iranian cleric has warned President Obama not to include Israel in any nuclear negotiations because the Jewish state must be destroyed.

“What is visible is that Obama has agreed to include the fake Zionist regime (Israel) in future negotiations,” said Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts.

However, we firmly believe [Israel] must be wiped off the face of the earth and we don’t recognize [its existence].” Khatami said according to IRNA, the official news agency of the Islamic Republic.

The Assembly of Experts is responsible for appointing the regime’s supreme leader.

After the six-month interim deal was reached last weekend, Obama asked in a telephone call to Benjamin Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister “take a breather” in his vocal denunciation of the agreement. In return, the two agreed that Israel would send a delegation, headed by Israeli National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen, to Washington to discuss strategy for a permanent agreement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Friday that all further discussions will have to leave out Israel, IRNA reported, because Iran would not attend a meeting with a state that is headquartered in Jerusalem.

“We consider the Zionist regime as the biggest danger to the region and the world,” Zarif said.

Khatami said America cannot be trusted and that it’s obvious it wants to break its promises made at the Geneva meeting.

“Already, when the ink of the Geneva agreement is not yet dry, the lie is reflected on websites that Iran does not have (uranium) enrichment rights,” he said.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry strongly objected to a White House press release on the terms of last weekend’s Geneva agreement.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva, and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-5+1 world powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,”  Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said Tuesday.

Shortly after the Geneva agreement was reached last Sunday, the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader claimed victory.

“I thank God … the new government … was able to legitimize the Iranian nation’s nuclear program on the international stage,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, “and take the initial step in a way that the nuclear rights and the enrichment rights of the Iranian nation are acknowledged by world powers where before they had tried to deny them. (The agreement will) open the way for future big strides in technical and economic progress.”

Early Sunday, Iran and the 5+1 world powers – the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany – reached agreement in Geneva over its illicit nuclear program.

Under the agreement, Iran, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, is limited to enriching uranium at the 5 percent level for six months, will convert its highly enriched uranium of 20 percent to harmless oxide and will allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be limited to only agreed-on facilities.

On Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment process “will never witness the stop of enrichment in Iran and that enrichment is our red line.”

“The most important fact is that there will be no new sanctions. This means that the sanctions regime has been broken,” Rouhani said.

Khamenei, as negotiations resumed last week, told thousands of Basij militia forces that the Iranian strategy was an “artistic maneuver and the use of different tactics (would be used) to reach different goals and ideals” of the Islamic regime. Stalling tactics for more than a decade have allowed Iran to greatly enhance its nuclear capability to the point it could become nuclear-armed within weeks.

Khamenei called Israel a “rabid dog,” “unclean,” “illegitimate” and “a bastard.”

“The Zionist regime is destined to destruction because this miserable regime was imposed (on the Middle East) based upon force, and no imposed phenomenon can last,” he told the Basij forces.

Basij commanders in return issued a statement Wednesday: “The everlasting covenant with the supreme leader will continue for the full elimination of arrogant powers (America) and the destruction of the Zionist regime. We ask God the same way that had Muslims through the renewed alliance with the Prophet (Muhammad) enter Masjid al-Haram (the grand mosque in Mecca upon the conquest of Mecca by Muhammad), this renewed alliance (with the supreme leader) also prepares the dignified and victorious believers into Al-Aqsa Mosque (the third holiest site in Islam in Jerusalem).”



Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

We were attacked on December 7,1941 because  failed

to recognize our enemies.

We were attacked again on September 11,2001 because

we failed to recognize our enemies.

Now we are in the same boat in 2013 because the Obama

Regime does not recognize our enemies.

I am amused by those “how to” articles written by people who are “experts” at tasks such as applying a patch to a bicycle tire or making a holiday wreath from twigs. What they don’t tell you is that they became experts by doing it wrong several times first. They can tell you what not to do on any number of subjects. Nevertheless, here is a “how to” you are not likely to find advice on; How to Define an Enemy (I know because I looked).

According to an enemy is a “Person who is hostile to and wishes or tries to harm another” (n).

You would think there is no other way to define an enemy but leave it up to us Americans. Okay so we had some help. The Academia of several overly-esteemed educational institutions in our nation have been influenced by various renowned “thinkers” from history and have passed this erudition on to unsuspecting pupils with fervor.

As Americans were are relentlessly in search of the blue pill of ignorance, which is why we have gobbled up these and other little chestnuts of wisdom:

  • The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. – Sun Tzu
  • In the practice of tolerance, one’s enemy is the best teacher. – Dali Lama
  • If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. – Nelson Mandela
  • One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. – Gerald Seymour

The truth is that the word enemy exists for a purpose. Sorry. It is a real word in the real world, deal with it.

It is fear that causes a person to want to interchange the definitions of the words enemy and friend. Fear in the face of an enemy is a legitimate reaction, it really is. However, it is also only half of a reaction. It is a thought process that has been derailed by overwhelming emotions, causing bravery to fail. Courage is the second half of the equation. Courage is summoned by the subconscious when necessary. For example, I typed in “woman shoots attacker” in a web browser and received 69 results.

In one instance a Muncie Indiana woman managed to shoot her attacker with his own gun, seriously wounding him. The man was shot in the torso, leg, arm and head by his intended victim and she was able to grab the man’s handgun while he tried to tie her up. The woman had a choice; let her fear rule her actions or overcome her fear and act.

Courage according to is the; “Quality of being brave: the ability to face danger, difficulty, uncertainty, or pain without being overcome by fear or being deflected from a chosen course of action.” Ultimately what I am aiming toward here is to help change fear to courage so I will write on.

You can run but you can’t hide.

You can wax Gandhi all you want about enemies of America and American ideals but the reality is they exist. The enemy found us unawares, asleep as it were, on December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. Sadly, and I mean that, there are people who deny these events ever happened. Some do not believe the Holocaust ever happened, for them “reality” is what they want to believe.

If you believe current political and social theorists, an enemy is nothing more than a construct of the mind. An enemy is just an concept, like the enemy within. This “definition” makes sense to those who spend their days avoiding real life by participating in the circles of academia which are not grounded in reality.

No, an enemy is someone who wishes to do harm to another. There is no room for long-winded political notions here. Theorizing and contriving about 911 is a luxury that only survivors partake in. Americas enemies aren’t contestants on a foreign television version of Jeopardy. They are real people who want to kill you and the only reason you are alive to object is because you didn’t die on December 7th or September 11th etc.

I know, let’s ask those which some of our nations leaders refuse to call the “enemy”.  “The Iranian regime is not interested in a diplomatic solution with the United States. Sustained enmity with America is a defining, inextricable pillar of the Islamic Republic. Any shift in this paradigm will irreparably destabilize the regime.” Who said that? Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that. The only way to prove that quote didn’t happen is to ask Mahmoud yourself.

The chant “Death to America” has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979. We also know that the Muslim Brotherhood has a documented plan for the destruction of America from within through a process called Civilization Jihad, the methodical infiltration of Islam in virtually every area of our society and branches of government.

There are 109 verses in the Quran that dictate hate, murder, and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam. Also of note are the following facts:

  • Muslim terrorists have murdered some 270 million people in the 1400 year history of Islam.
  • Muslims terrorists have committed over 19,000 deadly terror attacks around the world since 9/11.
  • Muslims terrorists are given permission to lie about Islam’s ultimate intentions as long as the lie furthers the cause of Islam. According to the Quran, the term for this permission is ‘taqiyya’.  (Source anonymous)

Here is the red pill of reality; there are some who don’t need to know you to consider you the enemy. They don’t want to get to know you. No discussion is necessary. No public discourse is needed, no debate or tolerance laden blogs. There are some who want to kill you! This is how you define an enemy!




Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Peace.

The more things change in The Middle East the more they

stay the same.

Obama will still bow to the Saudis.

The Iranians wil always hate Ameria.


The Middle East has changed dramatically over the past several years–and yet it has not changed at all. In all the drama over the Arab Spring, the Iranian “détente,” the Syrian civil war, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and all the rest, there are still several constants.

If you’ve missed the last three years or so of news, a brief glance at today’s headlines reveals all you need to know about what’s going on in the region, and how little positive difference the President Barack Obama’s policies seem to have made in five years.

1. Iran still hates America. Despite the election of “moderate” Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s president (a move partly engineered by hard-liners to fool gullible western leaders), the regime hates the U.S. as much as it ever did.  The country just held its largest anti-American rally “in years”, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards declared that it willnever drop its “Death to America” slogan (popular in parliament, too), and the country’s ailing tyrant, Ayatollah Ali Khameneisaid that nuclear negotiators had no mandate for compromise with the U.S.

2. The Arab world still hates Israel. No, it’s not the core of regional conflict, as the Arab Spring made clear. But even the most “enlightened” countries still hate Israel with self-destructive passion. Tunisia, seen as the most successful of the new democracies (despite recent unrest), was recently disqualified from the Davis Cup tennis tournament for telling its number one player “not to play against an Israeli.” Saudi Arabia may be forging an alliance of convenience with Israel against Iran behind the scenes. Otherwise, little has changed.

3. Obama’s no great friend of Israel, either. The Obama administration and its supporters like to point to increased security cooperation with Israel. Yet the administration is doing all it can to thwart an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. is spying on Israel. Meanwhile, Obama is pushing pro-Israel groups like AIPAC not to lobby for new Iran sanctions, after pushing them to lobby for an attack on Syria. (AIPAC now says it will not be deterred–we’ll see.)

4. The Western left is as clueless as ever. Glenn Greenwald, the man who brought Snowden’s leaks to the world, is soon returning to the U.S. for the first time since the NSA scandal–to address the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical group that often supports Islamist extremism. Greenwald, a gay rights advocate, shows little interest in CAIR’s position on gay issues. What attracts him to the group is its anti-Israel fanaticism and its opposition to U.S. security policies. (They like him for the same reasons.)

5. The only people (barely) serious are the Israelis. While Palestinian peace negotiators are publicly trying to decide whether to quit, Israel is quietly taking care of business, hitting a Syrian military facility last week that could have transferred advanced weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israel Defense Force is observing the fourth anniversary of its interception of the largest-ever weapons shipment from Iran to Hezbollah, sending a clear message. Whatever happens next, we’ll find out after it’s over.


Muslim with dual Iran/U.S. citizenship charged with trying to buy surface-to-air missiles for Iran

Leave a comment

This is from Jihad Watch.

Maybe it is time to follow FDR’s idea about internment camps.

Round these ragheads up and lock them up.


Now that the Iranians have reformed and are all peaceful, benign, friendly moderates, surely the charges against Reza Olangian should be dropped, no?

“U.S. charges man with seeking to buy missiles for Iran,” by Jonathan Stempel forReuters, October 25:

(Reuters) – U.S. prosecutors brought criminal charges on Friday against a man they said tried to acquire surface-to-air missiles that he planned to smuggle into Iran in a threat to U.S. national security.Reza Olangian, a dual citizen of the United States and Iran, was charged with four counts, including trying to acquire and transfer anti-aircraft missiles, violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and two conspiracy counts.

The defendant was arrested at an airport in Tallinn, Estonia, on October 10, 2012, and extradited to the United States on March 26, 2013, according to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in New York, who announced the charges.

It was not immediately clear whether Olangian had a lawyer for his defense. A spokeswoman for Bharara’s office had no immediate comment.

Prosecutors said Olangian, also known as Raymond Avancian, dealt over several months last year with an undercover official working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, who he believed was a weapons and aircraft broker, to arrange for goods to be acquired and illegally sent to the Iranian government.

They said this followed Olangian’s failed effort in 2007 to obtain about 100 missiles for Iran.

Prosecutors said evidence against Olangian included emails and recorded conversations in which he expressed interest in obtaining at least 200 missiles, as well as equipment such as Bell 412 helicopters.

According to the complaint, Olangian intended for the goods to enter Iran by land from Afghanistan or another neighboring country, and in an August 28, 2012, email to the undercover official provided initial payment details.

“I want to be at the exchange location for no MISHAPS,” the email said, according to the complaint.

Olangian faces up to life in prison if convicted.

“After having been thwarted in his first attempt, Reza Olangian seized on a second opportunity to help arm the Iranian military with surface-to-air missiles and airline parts in violation of international trade sanctions and other laws,” Bharara said in a statement. “Olangian struck out.”…


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: