Tuesday, January 7, 2020

With a small step and a big one, Iran just escalated against America

Current Time 0:01
Loaded: 25.35%
Duration 1:11
US soldier deployments continue amid Iran strife
Escalating its response to the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran took two new steps against America on Sunday.
At the lower end, Iranian-directed militias launched rockets against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. These attacks indicate Iran's desire to keep the United States off-balance as it prepares for more significant retaliation. Soleimani was a near-unique theological-political-military figure for the Iranian regime, matched only by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Some suggest Iran will retaliate with more rocket attacks or via a cyber strike, but I believe Iran's response will almost certainly come in a more noticeable fashion. These rockets are just a warm-up.
More concerning was Iran's announcement that it would cease to observe any limits on its enrichment of uranium, the precursor material to a nuclear warhead. This means that Iran has effectively shredded the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama.
Iran will blame the Trump administration for the agreement's collapse, but it reflects a reality that has been emerging for months now. Namely, Iran's dissatisfaction with European efforts to salvage that agreement. U.S. sanctions reintroduced following President Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the agreement have imposed greatly damaged the Iranian economy, weakening the regime's ability to export its revolution and to placate its increasingly restivepopulation. This announcement is a desperate Iranian effort to see the Europeans corral President Trump into a more conciliatory approach toward them.
So, how should Trump address these new concerns?
Well, on the rocket issue, the best answer is to do nothing. As long as American citizens are not seriously wounded or killed, U.S. interests are best served by allowing the Iranians to fire off a few rockets and vent. That might not seem palatable to many Americans, but we must remember the political context here.
Current Time 0:06
Loaded: 70.82%
Duration 0:48
Inside the Magazine: December 17
Consider, for example, that the Iraqi parliament voted on Sunday to call on the government to order all U.S. military forces out of Iraq. That unwelcome development plays to Iran's control over Iraqi politics, and the furthering of sectarian divisions that led to ISIS 2013 rise to power. The U.S. has a key interest in maintaining positive influence in Baghdad. Acting prudently, the Shia nationalist Iraqi political blocs might yet remain apart from Tehran.
The nuclear issue is obviously more complicated. Yet, with Britain and France having warned Iran that they would reimpose sanctions should it take the step it has just taken, the international community might now unify in demanding Tehran return to the negotiating table to reach an improved, long-term nuclear proliferation accord. That would involve restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program (designed to carry nuclear warheads onto faraway targets) and a more credible inspections regime.
Regardless, the basic takeaway from this weekend is to buckle up. A lot of uncertainty and risk waits in the weeks ahead.
Opinion
 
Beltway Confidential
 
Iran
 
Qassem Soleimani
 
Terrorism
 
Iraq
 
Foreign Policy
Hugo Gurdon

Washington Examiner's

Hugo Gurdon, as seen on CNN

You've seen him on national TV - now get access to the latest columns from Editorial Director Hugo Gurdon!
SUBSCRIBE TODAY WATCH VIDEO
at



‘Your Turn Is Over!’ McConnell Rejects Pelosi’s Attempt To Dictate Terms Of Senate Trial

Chris Donaldson
 
Posted January 7, 2020 in Politics , Source: foxnews, pluralist, dailywire


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is sick and tired of Nancy Pelosi's cynical attempts to dictate the rules in the upper chamber of Congress over impeachment.
In remarks delivered in the Senate , the Kentucky Republican blasted Pelosi's power play as a "fantasy" and a "non-starter" in slamming the door on her perception of having influence outside of the House.

According to McConnell - Your turn is OVER! 
McConnell blasted Pelosi's sitting on the two articles of impeachment that Democrats celebrated before Christmas and sent a clear message that if and when she performs her constitutional duty, that the adults will assume control of the process.
McConnell added - they've done enough damage.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking from the chamber’s floor Friday, rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to shape a pending impeachment trial as “fantasy”—leaving the process at a standstill as lawmakers return from the holiday recess.
“Their turn is over. They’ve done enough damage. It’s the Senate’s turn now to render sober judgment,” McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor.
But he stressed that the chamber cannot hold a trial unless and until the House of Representatives transmits the two articles of impeachment adopted last month, accusing President Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress pertaining to his dealings with Ukraine. Pelosi, D-Calif., has held onto them in a bid to seek favorable terms for a trial, including the involvement of certain Democrat-sought witnesses.
McConnell called Pelosi’s effort to “hand-design” the proceedings in the Senate a “non-starter” and a “fantasy.”
This comes after weeks of having his character attacked by an unscrupulous and vicious media and signals that the new year will be marked by intensifying tensions between the two leaders.
McConnell also put the Speaker and Senate Democrats on blast via Twitter with a series of missives making it clear that the Senate will continue doing its own work regardless of Pelosi's hostage taking.
With pressure mounting on Pelosi to do her constitutional duty and submit the articles along with her party's obscene reaction to President Trump's takedown of Iran's top terrorist general, it is time for Madame Speaker to put up or shut up. 

at

Steven Emerson, Executive DirectorJanuary 7, 2020

Pakistani Blasphemy Case Exposes Islamist Free Speech Hypocrisy

by Steven Emerson
January 7, 2020

Their countries wanted them dead because of their ideas.
You've probably heard of one – Jamal Khashoggi. His 2018 murder inside a Saudi Arabian consulate in Turkey sparked international outrage and front page headlines. Khashoggi was a Washington Post columnist, and his brutal killing at the hands of Saudi government agents naturally sparked anger and a vociferous defense of free speech rights.
You may not have heard about a more recent case involving another man. Junaid Hafeez was sentenced to death in Pakistan last month after being convicted of blasphemy. Hafeez is an English literature professor. He is accused of advocating for secularism and insulting Islam and its prophet Muhammad, including on a Facebook group called "So Called Liberals of Pakistan."
While his plight has attracted media attention, the New York Times and Washington Post mostly have run wire service stories. Less than a month later, the case has all-but disappeared in Western media.
But if Khashoggi's death at the hands of a state caused outrage, Hafeez's death sentence should, too.
Unfortunately, many of the people who vowed to defend free thought and free expression after Khashoggi's murder have been absent in defending Hafeez.

"We will deliver our promise that we will remain steadfast. We will remain true to his martyrdom," former Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish said at the 2018 MAS-Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) convention. "We will remain true to his cause. And we will advance the goal and the purpose of the rule of law, human rights, democracy, and the ability for people all over the world – including the Arab world – to live free, to voice their word, to say, that is, what they wish to say without fear for punishment or fear for their lives."
A few months earlier, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad made a similar pledge at his organization's annual fundraising banquet.

"To me it is personal; to all of us it is personal," he said. "I would like you to know that this heroic writer is a martyr on behalf of all of us. Don't just think about Jamal. Think about the many people who are in jail today who the prosecutor asked for their death sentence because they write as they see and they try to reform their communities to be better. Jamal Khashoggi was the voice of all these people and he died for it."
Awad even suggested naming the street in front of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Jamal Khashoggi Way."
Both men promised to defend people's rights to speak their minds. Neither has said a word about Hafeez or that blasphemy laws can carry the death penalty as we start the year 2020.
What can explain these disparate responses? The victims' beliefs.
Khashoggi was an Islamist who opposed the Saudi Arabian government. Hafeez allegedly said the Quran "is not the Holy Book and the same is just a myth" written by Muhammad himself.
Hafeez, a Fulbright Scholar who spent two years studying at Jackson State University in Mississippi, also is accused of opening talks by saying, "In the name of Allah Almighty, who is always absent, without any leave, whose omnipotent absence is always taken for his omnipotent presence." The traditional Muslim opening statement says, "In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful."
He was charged after students affiliated with the Islamist group Jamiat-e-Talaba complained. Jamiat is the student branch of Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, the leading South Asian Sunni revivalist movement.
"It is the most serious case because the Holy Prophet Muhammand (PBUH) was not only the Prophet sent for Muslims but for the whole mankind, the Qur'an is a Holy Book and source of guidance and salvation for the whole mankind," Judge Kashif Qayyum wrote in his order finding Hafeez guilty. "Accused has not only committed a heinous offence against the whole humanity but also tried to create mischief in the society."
It is not difficult to believe that Hafeez's comments might offend believing Muslims. A Twitter hashtag, #HangBlasphemerJunaidHafeez, has been posted thousands of times.



But a true commitment to religious freedom and to free thought and free speech includes defending those ideas with which you vehemently disagree. Thus far, American Islamists have failed to deliver on their promises.
A group of United Nations human rights experts issued a statement Dec. 27 calling Hafeez's conviction "a travesty of justice" with "no basis in either law or evidence."
His six years in solitary confinement before being convicted "may well amount to torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," the statement said. The signatories include UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and on torture and other cruel punishment.
Pakistan is among 13 countries with blasphemy laws carrying a death sentence. Its law, known as Section 295-C, was enacted in 1986. It often has been abused by people in personal disputes or to target religious minorities. An estimated 65 people accused of blasphemy died in mob violence and other extrajudicial killing.
In 2011, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was gunned down by one of his own bodyguards. Taseer criticized the blasphemy law and defended Asia Bibi, a Christian woman accused of blasphemy. Bibi spent eight years on death row before her conviction was overturned earlier this year and she was able to leave Pakistan for Canada. Taseer's bodyguard-turned-assassin, Mumtaz Qadri, now is hailed as a hero in Pakistan, with his grave turned into a shrine.
History repeated itself in Hafeez's case. His original attorney, Rashid Rehman, was gunned downafter being subjected to death threats during a court proceeding. According to media reports, the threats even came from prosecutors, who told him, "You will not come to court next time because you will not exist any more (sic)." He complained to the court but no action was taken.
This oppression against free thinkers is not isolated to Pakistan. Saudi Arabia continues to hold writer Raif Badawi, who endured 50 lashes, for "criticising Islam through electronic means." Malaysian atheists have been targeted for arrest and "re-education." In Bangladesh, secular blogger Avijit Roy – an American citizen – was among 39 people hacked to death by radical Islamists who were offended by their views.
But Pakistan is more than 95 percent Muslim and led by an Islamist-friendly government. While Saudi Arabian money has helped underwrite much of the world's conservative Sunni education, it does not enjoy support from Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Western organizations like MAS and CAIR.
Each death, each blasphemy allegation, is a human and civil rights violation. We can't say that things would change if American Islamists applied the same outrage they had for Khashoggi's murder to Hafeez's case, or Badawi's. But the blatant Islamist hypocrisy on human rights reveals CAIR and other Islamist groups are not "civil rights" groups as they are described in the New York Times and other mainstream media, but are front groups for radical Islam.
The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.  

at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *