Tag: Terror
Robert Spencer on Islamic Supremacism, U.S. Middle East Policy, Defeating Jihad
In Big Ideas with Ben Weingarten Podcast, Defense, Foreign Policy, National Security, Podcast
Robert Spencer (@jihadwatchRS) is the director of the invaluable counterjihadist website, Jihad Watch, and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of eighteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.
Mr. Spencer's work sits at the nexus of a number of seminal issues, from national security and foreign policy, to identity politics and free speech, and theology and political philosophy. The battle being waged by Islamic supremacism against the West implicates all of these matters, and Mr. Spencer's insights make him uniquely qualified to discuss them.
U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell on Iran Sanctions Snapback, U.S. Energy Competition with Russia in the EU, Chancellor Merkel
In Big Ideas with Ben Weingarten Podcast, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government, National Security, Podcast
Richard Grenell is the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, and the longest serving UN spokesman and political appointee in American history, where he served from 2001 to 2008.
Amb Grenell occupies one of the most critical positions in American diplomacy in Berlin, not only because Germany represents the EU's largest economy and has disproportionate influence on the continent, but because of its pivotal role with respect to both Iran's efforts to evade U.S. snapback sanctions, and Russia's efforts to provide energy to and thus leverage over European nations.
Iran Deal Wasn't the Alternative to War — it was Essential to Iran's Ongoing War
In Defense, Foreign Policy, Media, National Security, Politics
The Iran Deal Wasn't An 'Alternative To War,' It Was A Continuation Of War
In the wake of the decision by the Trump administration to pull out of the Obama administration non-treaty known as "Iran Deal," two narratives emerged from the hysterical Iran Deal echo chamber:
1) Iran Deal was the alternative to war;
2) Consequently, jettisoning it was the path to war, part of a "neocon" plot for another invasion, occupation and nation-building effort
Both elements of this narrative are patently false, as I argue in a new piece in The Federalist.
In fact, Iran Deal can best be thought of as the recapitalization effort for a war the Khomeinist regime in Tehran has been waging against all who refuse to submit to its totalitarian Islamic revolutionary rule since 1979.
This recapitalization effort in tandem with a Swiss cheese verification regime provided the funding and veneer of moderation under which Iran rapidly accelerated and expanded its Shia Crescent and malign operations globally.
Stated differently: We in the West bankrolled Iran's worldwide march. The only thing the verification regime confirmed was the delusion of our purported leaders.
Exiting the deal represents the first step towards stopping Iran's march, and thwarting its imperialist efforts. It is about stopping the flow of cash to jihadists and indicating a resolve to cease with the appeasement and reassert ourselves in the face of their goose-stepping.
The idea floated by the Iran Deal's ardent defenders — many of whom shamefully raised the dual loyalty canard to try to browbeat American Jews into supporting the deal originally — that Israel's defensive attacks on Iranian military assets in Syria immediately following the U.S. decision to pull out of the deal indicates a concerted plan for some long-sought war could not be more wrong.
Israel's efforts are about defending its sovereignty against a metastasizing threat to its existence aided, abetted and enabled by the Iran Deal-istas.
Iran is not Iraq. It's a once relatively pro-Western, secular, liberal, modern nation that has been hijacked by jihadists. In order to ensure America's national interests, and those of our allies are served, there is no need for invasion, occupation and re-casting of a Sharia dictatorship as a Jeffersonian democracy. Rather what is needed is a concerted set of actions to bring down the jihadist regime through means peaceful and militant, overt and covert, enabling the Iranian people to end the Islamic revolution. Ideological warfare, as Michael Ledeen has convincingly argued, must play a significant role.
A fish rots from the head, one of the many reasons why Iran Deal wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. But the necessity for regime change does not necessitate Iraq 2.0.
The Iran Deal echo chamber is, per usual, attacking straw men.
John Bolton Rattles the Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber
In Defense, Foreign Policy, National Security
In The Federalist, I write that Ambassador John Bolton's appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) is rattling the Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber.
Indeed, attacks on the former ambassador have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.
One of the largely overlooked but truly revelatory areas of criticism concern Bolton's positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.
Bolton has been castigated in a flurry of articles as an "Islamophobe" for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists.
"Islamophobe" is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The "tell" is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.
As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been re-activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.
In The Federalist I expose this smear campaign — a campaign led by a Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber that previously proved successful in apparently dissuading the Trump administration from designating the Brotherhood a terrorist organization — and suggest that the administration should not concede one inch to the Brotherhood and its backers in the national security and foreign policy establishment. Further, I suggest that the specious and slanderous slurs leveled at Bolton precisely because of his keen understanding of the Islamic supremacist threat reflects all the better on his appointment as NSA.
Listen to the London Center 'Grand Strategy Podcast' on National Security and Foreign Affairs
In Defense, Foreign Policy, Government, History, National Security, Podcast, Politics
Believing firmly that there is a lack of rich audio content on national security and foreign affairs, London Center for Policy Research President Herb London and I decided to launch the "London Center Grand Strategy Podcast."
Each biweekly podcast features vigorous discussion on vital issues of American national interest, covering critical events around the globe with an eye towards threats and opportunities, and a grounding in history and political philosophy.
In our latest episode, Episode 3, which you can find at top of this post, we discuss the appointment of John Bolton as national security advisor, what Kim Jong-un really means by "denuclearization," comprehensive efforts to counter China, the importance of information warfare, the expulsion of Russian agents from the West and much more.
If you like what you hear, please consider subscribing on iTunes (you can also subscribe at Google Play and Stitcher or grab the RSS at Libsyn).
If you really like what you hear, please give us a five-star rating and kindly write us a review.
Our first two episodes are below:
Three Swamp Myths Trump's National Security Strategy Exposes
In Foreign Policy, National Security
For The Federalist I explore three key national security and foreign policy myths the Trump administration's new National Security Strategy exposes — and seeks to overturn.
In challenging these myths, the administration also challenges the progressive Wilsonian internationalist worldview that underlies them, which is essential because flawed premises lead to failed policies.
If we are to imbue our policies with the Jeanne Kirkpatrickian core of the Trump administration's strategy of "principled realism," we will truly have a safer, more secure and more prosperous America.
I've summarized my piece in a Twitter thread unraveled below.
Why are Trump's most ardent critics found in the NatSec & foreign policy space — in particular Obama admin officials and holdovers in the bureaucracies? Precisely bc his agenda drives a spike through the heart of their worldview, social status, livelihood https://t.co/DtmUQMofW9 https://t.co/xPvfaJOmCA
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) January 27, 2018
My In-Depth Interview with John Yoo on the Future of War, North Korea, Iran, Free Speech and More (Video)
In Books, Foreign Policy, Government, History, National Security
For the first episode of Encounter Books' new "Close Encounters" video interview series, I spoke with former Bush administration Justice Department official and bogeyman laureate for the Left, John Yoo, on his new book Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons Change the Rules for War.
During the interview we discuss the future of warfare given tremendous technological advances in the way of robotics, autonomous vehicles and cyberweapons, how the rules of war help terrorists, Yoo's views on dealing with Iran Deal and North Korea, how America is losing the "War on Terror," the state of free speech on our college campuses, and much more.
The Social Media Giants' High-Tech Lynching of Counterjihadists
Apropos PragerU's lawsuit against Google/YouTube on grounds of discrimination against and censorship of conservative speech, I recently prepared a comprehensive analysis, kindly published by the Gatestone Institute, on the ongoing war on counterjihadist speech by the social media giants.
In the piece, I extensively document the egregious efforts by Big Tech to snuff out and chill any content dissenting from the prevailing progressive orthodoxy regarding Islamic supremacism, while conversely aiding jihadists both directly and indirectly.
It is simply breathtaking both the kinds of messages social media companies will block, and the lengths to which the companies are willing to go to censor ideas they do not like on phony "hate speech" grounds. Absent pressure from the marketplace, i.e. all of us who use these services, things are going to get far worse.
Read the whole thing here.
13 Interviews that Will Make You Smarter on U.S. National Security & Foreign Policy
In Books, Defense, Foreign Policy, Government, National Security, Podcast, Politics
Over the last five years I've had the privilege to interview some of the savviest thinkers on American national security and foreign policy.
These discussions have covered critical subjects ranging from the global jihadist movement, to Iran, Russia and China, strategic disinformation and EMPs.
Below are what I think are some of the most insightful and thought-provoking of these conversations on such live and all-too-relevant topics.
1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heretic
2) Andrew Bostom, Iran's Final Solution for Israel: The Legacy of Jihad and Shi'ite Islamic Jew-Hatred in Iran
3) Victoria Coates, Special Assistant to the President & Senior Director for International Negotiations, NSC for the Trump Administration, David's Sling [Transcript]
My Latest at The Federalist: Iran Deal Shills Sell the Mullahs the Rope with Which to Hang Us
In Defense, Economy, Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics
The Iran Deal echo chamber has been ratcheting up its rhetoric in the days around the Trump administration's deal decertification announcement, seeking to protect the non-treaty at all costs.
Among the most honest and simultaneously sordid rationales for defending the deal, especially by leaders of the EU, is this: The JCPOA means big business for the West. As long as the money is good for the major corporations trading with Iran (who contribute to the politicians' campaigns), who cares if the commerce is materially supporting the world's leading state sponsor of jihad.
I explore this shameful episode in the history of the West in a new piece at The Federalist, detailing how the West is indeed selling out to a jihadist regime whose economy is expressly dedicated by Iran's constitution itself to spreading its pernicious Islamic revolution.
Here's a taste:
Now we understand why then-Secretary of State John Kerry was at pains to push Western entities to trade with Iran. Sec. Kerry served as Iran's lobbyist-in-chief because he knew deeper economic integration between the West and Iran would make it that much more difficult politically to unwind the culmination of his life's work undermining U.S. interests. Left unspoken is that such dalliances with Iran inextricably intertwine the West with those who directly threaten and undermine us.
Providing the world's leading state sponsor of jihad with billions of dollars in cash, and trading it essential goods and services, merely bolster its malicious activities.