University Army ROTC made to wear red high heels to “raise awareness” about rape

The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) is a college-based program for training commissioned officers of the United States Armed Forces.

Two days ago, an Arizona State University ROTC cadet posted this on the U.S. Army sub-page of the popular Reddit.com website:

Reddit ROTC red heelsThe message claims that “tomorrow morning” (April 21, 2015), the poster’s “entire ROTC battalion” will be forced to “walk a mile” dressed in ACU (Army combat uniform) and red high heels “to promote awareness for sexual abuse on campus.”

Juan Leon of IJReview followed up the Reddit message with tweets by Temple University’s Army ROTC of male cadets wearing red high heels:

Temple U Army ROTC red high heelsTemple U Army ROTC red high heels1

Here are more images of cadets wearing red high heels on Temple University Army ROTC’s Facebook page:

Temple U Army ROTC red high heels2Temple U Army ROTC red high heels3

I conducted a search for “walk a mile in her shoes” on the official homepage of the United States Army and found these:

1. On Sept. 22, 2012, on the U.S. military base Rose Barracks in Vilseck, Germany, 200 soldiers wore red high heels in an international men’s march against domestic violence and sexual assault known locally as “Dudes in Heels.” The event in 2012 was the second annual Army Community Service Family Advocacy Program sponsored event.

red high heels Rose Barracks, Vilseck Germany

2. On April 26, 2014, soldiers U.S. Army Alaska’s SHARP team participated as volunteers in a “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event in Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska.

While the participation of U.S. soldiers in the 2012 and 2014 “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” marches appeared to be voluntary, Douglas Ernst of The Washington Times points out that ROTC cadets are being forced to participate:

Army ROTC cadets are complaining on message boards that they were pressured to walk in high heels on Monday [April 21, 2015] for an Arizona State University [ASU] campus event designed to raise awareness of sexual violence against women” and that although “The Army openly encouraged participating in April’s ‘Walk A Mile in Her Shoes’ events in 2014,” the event was “mandatory” for ROTC candidates at ASU.

Is it any wonder why the U.S. Army is plagued with low morale.

See also:

H/t CODA’s M.S.

~StMA

U.S. Army commander says Russia is “real threat” as Patriot missiles are deployed to Poland

Lt. Gen. Ben HodgesJustin Huggler reports for The Telegraph, April 18, 2015, that Lt. Gen. Frederick “Ben” Hodges, Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, warns that NATO must remain united in the face of a “real threat” from Russia:

It’s not an assumption. There is a Russian threat. You’ve got the Russian ambassador threatening that Denmark will be a nuclear target if it participates in any missile defense program. And when you look at the unsafe way Russian aircraft are flying without transponders in proximity to civilian aircraft, that’s not professional conduct.”

Gen. Hodges spoke to the Telegraph on the sidelines of a military debriefing after an exercise to move live Patriot missiles 750 miles across Europe by road and deploy them on the outskirts of Warsaw. The sight of a US military convoy crossing the German-Polish border more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War made international headlines and brought traffic to a standstill as people posed for selfies beside the troops.

map of Baltic StatesPointing to recent Russian decisions to move Iskandar ballistic missiles to its Kaliningrad enclave, between Lithuania and Poland, and long-range nuclear-capable bombers to Crimea, Gen. Hodges said the intention of the highly visible deployment of Patriot missiles to Poland was to send a signal:

“That’s exactly what it was about, reassuring our allies. I don’t think a military confrontation is inevitable. But you have to be militarily ready in order to enable effective diplomacy. The best insurance we have against a showdown is that NATO stands together.”

Danish F-16sSince taking over command of the US army in Europe last year, Gen. Hodges has found himself on the front line of an increasingly nervous stand-off with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Eastern European countries are looking to NATO, and the US in particular, for reassurance that they will not be left to face Russian aggression alone.

A year after the Obama administration pulled its last battle tank out of Europe, the US is sending hundreds of tanks and heavy fighting vehicles back to the continent, and Gen. Hodges is in the middle of talks over where to position them. He has also assumed command at a time when many Western European countries are cutting their military budgets, and relying ever more on the US for their defense. “I think the question for each country to ask is: are they security consumers or security providers?” Gen Hodges said. “Do they bring capabilities the alliance needs?”

In recent years, while Western countries have been cutting their defense budgets, Russia has been spending heavily on modernizing its military.
Gen. Hodges said the recent involvement of Russian forces in fighting in eastern Ukraine has shown that they have made huge advances, particularly in electronic warfare: “We’re not interested in a fair fight with anyone. We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don’t think that we’ve fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don’t want them to close that gap.”

But he doesn’t think this is the start of a new Cold War:

“That was a different situation, with gigantic forces and large numbers of nuclear weapons. The only thing that is similar now is that Russia and NATO have different views about what the security environment in Europe should be. I don’t think it’s the same as the Cold War. We did very specific things then that are no longer relevant. We don’t need 300,000 soldiers in Europe. Nobody can afford that any more. We want to see Russia back in the international community and cooperating against Islamic terrorism and on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That’s different from the Cold War. I’m sure they’re not going to line up Russian tanks and go rolling into another country. They don’t want a military confrontation with NATO. Our alliance is the most successful alliance in history and it has a lot of capability.”

Gen Hodges has an easy manner with the men under his command, making jokes and asking the opinions of the most junior privates, as well as senior officers. He has combat experience as a brigade commander in Iraq, but in his current role he has to deal with different challenges.

Hodges believes Russia will not risk an open attack on a NATO member for fear the alliance will invoke Article V of its treaty, under which an attack on one member is an attack on all. Instead, the danger is that Russia will seek to put pressure on NATO members on its borders through other means, such as information, economic pressure, and border violations. He points to the large Russian-speaking populations in the Baltic countries, and the economic power Russia has as a major consumer of eastern European agricultural produce, as possible avenues Russian president Vladimir Putin may try to exploit.

But Hodges is confident that NATO will remain united in the face of Russian aggression:

“If President Putin’s objective is to fracture the alliance, then he’s going about it the wrong way. At the Wales summit there was a unity of the alliance I have not seen before, and it came about because of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its use of force to change the borders of a sovereign country, Ukraine. It was a direct response to Russia’s behaviour in Crimea.”

Is Gen. Hodges not aware that last December, Hungary, which joined NATO in 1997, accused the United States of instigating a new Cold War against Russia and declared Hungary will not participate?

Pointing to recent moves by traditionally neutral Sweden and Finland to cooperate more closely on defense with NATO members Norway, Denmark and Iceland, Hodges observes:

“Nobody’s trying to join Russia. There’s no country scurrying to get under Russia’s protective umbrella. Why do so many countries want to join the EU or NATO? It’s about values. They want security and prosperity. Russia wants to make it difficult for countries that were affiliated with the USSR or the Warsaw Pact to join the West. The way they see it they’re entitled to a role, to a sphere of influence. I think the position of the West is that this idea of a sphere of influence is not applicable in the 21st century. In the 21st century countries have the right to decide for themselves what is right for them and what kind of country they want to be. They’ve made the European choice. That’s what this is all about.”

Since taking up his command, Gen Hodges has been outspoken over the Russian threat in a way that is rare for a serving general. Admitting that “I understand my role” as carrying out, not making, policy for the U.S. or the NATO alliance, Hodges nevertheless has chosen to speak out because he fears Russia is going unchallenged in the information war:

“We talk about DIME: diplomacy, information, military and economy. An important aspect of how Russia operates is how they use information. They use information the way they use infantry and missiles. They’re not burdened by the truth. Most of the independent media has left Russia and a large percentage is government-owned or -dominated. They don’t have to worry about congressional or parliamentary oversight. There’s a constant bombardment of information.”

In his last interview before his death on Monday, Günter Grass, the Nobel-winning German author, said he feared that humanity was “sleepwalking” towards another World War. But Gen. Hodges disagrees:

“I think we were sleepwalking a few years ago when we thought Russia wanted to be a part of the international community. They were with us in Bosnia. We actually have a mechanism for them to cooperate with NATO. But I think we’re wide-awake now.”

See also:

~StMA

U.S. Army plagued with low morale: pessimistic, unhappy, distrustful and unfit

tired soldier

Gregg Zoraya reports for USA Today, April 16, 2015, that data obtained by USA Today show that, despite a 6-year $287 million campaign to boost  morale, U.S. Army soldiers are unhappy in their jobs and pessimistic about their future in the military.

The data come from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.

Twelve months of internal data through early 2015 obtained by USA Today  show startlingly negative findings, including:

  • More than half of some 770,000 soldiers (52% or 403,564 soldiers) are pessimistic about their future in the military, agreeing with statements such as “I rarely count on good things happening to me.”
  • 48% or about 370,000 soldiers are unhappy in their jobs, have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs, and would have chosen another if they had it to do over again. Only 28% felt good about what they do.
  • More than half reported poor nutrition and sleep. Only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.
  • Two-thirds were borderline or worse for an area called “catastrophic thinking,” where poor scores mean the soldier has trouble adapting to change or dwells on the worst possible things happening.
  • Nearly 40% or about 300,000 soldiers didn’t trust their immediate supervisor or fellow soldiers in their unit or didn’t feel respected or valued. Only 32% felt good about about bosses and peers.
  • In physical fitness, less than 40% were in good shape, 28% were borderline, and 33% did poorly.

In contrast to their pessimism and dissatisfaction about the Army, 53% or more than 400,000 soldiers said they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their marriage, personal relationship or family. About 240,000 expressed dissatisfaction.

Retired vice admiral Norb Ryan, head of the Military Officers Association of America, and Joyce Raezer, executive of the National Military Family Association, said the results are not surprising. Fourteen years of war and recent decisions to downsize or cut funding for the military have left morale low, they said.

A recent survey by the Military Times and a Navy Retention Study also show troops increasingly unhappy. (See Survey finds U.S. military plagued with low morale,” Dec. 16, 2014.)

The Army offered contradictory responses to the findings obtained by USA Today:

  • Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data, initially disavowed the results. “I’ve sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can’t figure out how your numbers came about,” she said in an interview in March. But when USA Today provided her the supporting Army documents this week, her office acknowledged the data but said the formulas used to produce them were obsolete. “We stand by our previous responses,” it said in a statement.
  • Then the Army calculated new findings but lowered the threshold for a score to be a positive result, insisting that “We continue to refine our methologies and threshold values to get the most accurate results possible.” As a consequence, for example, only 9% of 704,000 now score poorly in optimism.

In other words, the Obama administration doesn’t like their own data on how U.S. soldiers are faring, so the solution is to change the measuring tool so as to produce concoct “better” results.

The Army’s positive psychology program, known officially as Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness, to make soldiers more resilient has been controversial since its inception in 2009. A blue-ribbon panel of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine concluded last year that there is little or no evidence the program prevents mental illness, and that there had been no effort to test its efficacy before the Army embraced it. The panel cited research arguing that, in fact, the program could be harmful if it leaves soldiers with a false sense of resiliency.

The Army disputed the findings, pushing ahead with its positive psychology program that now costs more than $50 million a year.

US Army moraleSee also:

World-renown Islamic university teaches it’s okay for Muslims to cannibalize Jews and Christians

Egypt Independent is the sister English-language publication of Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt’s flagship independent daily newspaper. Founded in 2009 as a news website, Egypt Independent launched a weekly print edition in 2011.

According to an article in Egypt Independent, April 14, 2015, religious jurisprudence textbooks at Al-Azhar University teach students that Muslims are allowed to eat the dead flesh of Jews and Christians.

Al-Azhar University and mosque in Cairo, Egypt

_____________________

Note: Al-Azhar University is Egypt’s oldest degree-granting university, renowned as “Sunni Islam’s most prestigious university.” Founded in 970 or 972 as a center of Islamic learning, Al-Azhar was one of the first universities in the world and is today the chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world. Its mission is to propagate Islam and Islamic culture. To this end, the university’s Islamic scholars render edicts (fatwas) on disputes submitted to them from all over the Sunni Islamic world regarding proper conduct for Muslim individuals and societies. Al-Azhar also trains Egyptian government-appointed preachers in proselytization. As of 1996, over 4000 teaching institutes in Egypt were affiliated with the University.

_____________________

From the Egypt Independent article, “Al-Azhar textbook: Eating dead Jews,
Christians, infidels ‘halal’ if necessary“:

Religious jurisprudence textbooks for Al-Azhar students address, among other things, the issue of eating dead human beings, quoting Mansour bin Yunus al-Bahuti, a scholar of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence who died 500 years ago, as saying that eating dead Jews, Christians and non-believers is halal (permissible by Islam) if it is a necessity, but non-Muslims are not to eat dead Muslims, even out of necessity.

Another textbook quotes Imam al-Sherbini of the Shafi school of jurisprudence as saying that dead prophets of any religion should not be eaten. And when he was told that prophets do not die and that they lie alive praying in their graves according to the Hadith, he said that he meant if they were found dead before they were buried.

He also clarified that the meat of dead Jews, Christians and infidels should be eaten raw, not cooked or grilled.

Other Al-Azhar textbooks say that eating dead Jews, Christians and non-believers can be allowed not only out of necessity, but also as a punishment for heresy.

In the book “Persuasion in Resolving the Words of Abi Shoga” that takes after the Shafi school of jurisprudence, the author says a Muslim warrior may kill and eat infidel men, women and children if they were not warriors themselves. 

But bin Abdel Salam recommends eating warrior adults and leaving warrior children for their economic value as slaves. 

[…] In the chapter about what is permissible to eat, the book “Al-Sharh al Saghir” for Ahmed Dardir, which explains the Maliki school of jurisprudence. […] says a Muslim may eat a dead human being out of necessity, but not eat pork or wild game that was hunted by a non-believer.

In the video below (beg. at the 1:26 mark mark), an Egyptian scholar is interviewed about the Al-Azhar textbooks that teach cannibalism and holds in his hands an example.

The scholar identifies the textbook as:

Al-Azhar al-Sharif (honorable al-Azhar), Azhari Colleges Section, Central Administration for Books, Libraries & Teaching Aide for 3rd year high-school.

The interviewer points out that it’s not just Jews and Christians who can be cannibalized; Muslims who don’t pray can also be killed and eaten:

The book that is being taught to general high-school students mentions that who doesn’t pray can be grilled and then eaten. Killing him, then grilling him, then eating him…. This means that this is fertile ground for the establishment of committees for Promotion of Virtue & Prevention of Vice that’ll carry out this stuff.

_____________________

Note: By “committees for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” the interviewer was referring to Islamic religious police. In Saudi Arabia, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), informally referred to as Haia, is a government agency of Mutaween (religious police) who enforces Sharia Law.

_____________________

The scholar adds, pointing to and reading from the textbook:

Also listen to this: “He can kill the married adulterer, the fighter, whoever gave up praying, and whoever has a punishment on him, even if the Imam did not give his permission for the killing.” Take note. Those are allowing people to go kill other people.

Walid and Theodore Shoebat point out that Egypt also has its CPVPV — “an Islamic mafia” who “roam the streets assaulting, or even killing, those whom they speculate to be apostates.”

_____________________

Note: Walid Shoebat, born in Bethlehem of an American mother and a Palestinian Arabic father, used to be a member of the PLA involved in terror activities, until he converted to Christianity (Catholicism) in 1994. In 1978, Shoebat’s parents sent him to the United States to study at Chicago’s Loop College where he was recruited for Jihad by the Islamic Association of Palestine. Theodore Shoebat is Walid’s son and a Christian activist.

_____________________

The Shoebats observe that not only is the CPVPV in Egypt’s new constitution, but that —

“the constitution also mandates that any Islamic edict coming from the government must first go through Al-Azhar university scholars. This means that the okay for cannibalism will be observed in Egypt…. While many people see Islam as a morally conservative religion, akin to Christianity and Judaism, they don’t understand that Islam is Satanic, and of no different spirit than any other pagan religion.”

In 2009, Al-Azhar University co-hosted President Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University, “A New Beginning,” which empowered the Muslim Brotherhood.

See also:

~StMA

Blowback: ISIS leaders are former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army

Here’s an unintended consequence of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which overthrew Saddam Hussein and his Baath party from power:

Most of the senior leaders of the murderous Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) are former members of Hussein’s army.

Islamic State leadersLiz Sly writes for The Washington Post, April 4, 2015, that even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi military officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.

They have brought to the organization the military expertise and some of the agendas of the former Baathists, as well as the smuggling networks developed to avoid sanctions in the 1990s and which now facilitate the Islamic State’s illicit oil trading.

Abu Hamza (not his real name), who had fled to Turkey last summer after growing disillusioned with the Islamic State, said, “All the decision makers are Iraqi, and most of them are former Iraqi officers. The Iraqi officers are in command, and they make the tactics and the battle plans. But the Iraqis themselves don’t fight. They put the foreign fighters on the front lines.”

Islamic State's senior leadersHassan Hassan, a Dubai-based analyst and co-author of the book ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, said the raw cruelty of Hussein’s Baathist regime, the disbandment of the Iraqi army after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the subsequent insurgency and the marginalization of Sunni Iraqis by the Shiite-dominated government all are intertwined with the Islamic State’s ascent. “A lot of people think of the Islamic State as a terrorist group, and it’s not useful,” Hassan said. “It is a terrorist group, but it is more than that. It is a homegrown Iraqi insurgency, and it is organic to Iraq.”

The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — but also allowed to keep their guns.

National Defense University senior fellow Col. Joel Rayburn, who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, Iraq After America, said the U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the Islamic State, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame. while the U.S. military always knew that the former Baathist officers had joined other insurgent groups and were giving tactical support to the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, the precursor to the Islamic State, American officials didn’t anticipate that they would become not only adjuncts to al-Qaeda, but core members of the jihadist group. “We might have been able to come up with ways to head off the fusion, the completion of the Iraqization process,” Rayburn said. The former officers were probably not reconcilable, “but it was the labeling of them as irrelevant that was the mistake.

Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, the former officers became more than relevant. They were instrumental in the group’s rebirth from the defeats inflicted on insurgents by the U.S. military, which is now back in Iraq bombing many of the same men it had already fought twice before.

Bremer’s de-Baathification was further exacerbated by a new round of de-Baathification launched after U.S. troops left in 2011 by then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who set about firing even those officers who had been rehabilitated by the U.S. military.

Among them was Brig. Gen. Hassan Dulaimi, a former intelligence officer in the old Iraqi army who was recruited back into service by U.S. troops in 2006, as a police commander in Ramadi, the capital of the long restive province of Anbar. Within months of the American departure, however, Dulaimi was dismissed, losing his salary and his pension, along with 124 other officers who had served alongside the Americans.

The crisis of ISIS didn’t happen by chance,” Dulaimi said in an interview in Baghdad. “It was the result of an accumulation of problems created by the Americans and the [Iraqi] government.

Dulaimi cited the case of a close friend, a former intelligence officer in Baghdad who was fired in 2003 and struggled for many years to make a living. He now serves as the Islamic State’s wali, or leader, in the Anbar town of Hit. Dulaimi recalls: “I last saw him in 2009. He complained that he was very poor. He is an old friend, so I gave him some money. He was fixable. If someone had given him a job and a salary, he wouldn’t have joined the Islamic State. There are hundreds, thousands like him. The people in charge of military operations in the Islamic State were the best officers in the former Iraqi army, and that is why the Islamic State beats us in intelligence and on the battlefield.

Islamic State's notable officialsThe Islamic State’s seizure of territory was also smoothed by the Maliki government’s broader persecution of the Sunni minority, which intensified after U.S. troops withdrew and left many ordinary Sunnis willing to welcome the extremists as an alternative to the often brutal Iraqi security forces.

But it was the influx of Baathist officers into the ranks of the Islamic State itself that propelled its fresh military victories. By 2013, Baghdadi had surrounded himself with former officers, who oversaw the Islamic State’s expansion in Syria and drove the offensives in Iraq.

See also:

~StMA

U.S. deploys 290 paratroopers to Ukraine flashpoint

The Ukraine flashpoint between the U.S. and Russia is heating up.

More than 10 days after the AFP first reported that the Obama administration will be deploying 290 paratroopers to Ukraine to train its national guard soldiers, the story finally is getting traction, carried by other news media like NewsMax, MoneyMorning, and China Post.

Beginning April 20 in three waves of training, each lasting eight weeks, 290 paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Italy, will train 900 Ukrainian national guard troops in the town of Yavoriv in the government-controlled western region of Lviv, near the Polish border.

Yavoriv, Ukraine

At the end of the training, the U.S. and Ukraine will conduct joint war games.

U.S. Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said the paratroopers will train six Ukrainian national guard companies “with a focus on internal security and territorial defense, and that “While we continue to believe that there is no military resolution to this crisis, Ukraine has the right to defend itself.” The training assistance “is part of our ongoing efforts to help sustain Ukraine’s defense and internal security operations. The program is also designed to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capability and capacity and assist in its defense reform.”

The National Guard of Ukraine is made up of reservists, and was reformed in 2014 to bring volunteers and militia under government control following the Maidan protests that brought down the pro-Russian government of Victor Yanukovych.

Russian president Vladimir Putin had already accused the U.S. of fuelling the Maidan protests. Given that, U.S. paratroopers’ training of Ukrainian national guards is sure to provoke anger in Moscow. A shaky ceasefire is currently in place in Ukraine, but skirmishes continue on a daily basis.

The U.S. counters that Russia has supplied Ukrainian separatists with weapons and troops during a near year-long conflict that has claimed more than 6,000 lives, but Putin has always denied the claims.

The United States provides some military aid to Ukraine, though it stops short of delivering the lethal weapons asked for by Kiev. The latest aid consists of more than $75 million worth of armored and unarmored Humvees, unarmed Raven drones, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and other “non-lethal defensive” equipment. Congress recently voted to urge President Barack Obama to provide “lethal” aid to Kiev.

Sporadic fighting is ongoing in pro-Russian, separatist-held eastern Ukraine, despite a ceasefire agreement signed last month.

See also “U.S. arms Latvia against Russia with 120 armored units.”

~StMA

Iran is a terror threat to the Middle East, Latin America & USA

Iranian and Western officials are in Lausanne, Switzerland rushing to reach a nuclear framework agreement by an end-of-month deadline, which means today.

It doesn’t help that an Iranian defector, a journalist who was a close media aide to Iran’s president and was present at the nuclear talks, said on television after his defection that the U.S. negotiation team is an advocate (“speaks for”) for Iran at the negotiation table.

And so it is with good reason that on March 29, 2015, in Jerusalem, newly reelected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned against the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. More ominously, Netanyahu said that “Iran is maneuvering from the south to take over the entire Middle East.” Referring to the unrest in Yemen, Netanyahu said that “While [world powers] convene to sign this deal, Iran’s proxies in Yemen are conquering large swaths of land in an effort to overtake the Bab al-Mandab straits, so that they can change the balance of power in shipping oil.”

Bab al-Mandah straitsNetanyahu’s assertion is corroborated by none other than Qassem Suleimani, Iranian military mastermind and head of the foreign arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, who recently was quoted by Business Insider as proclaiming:

We are witnessing the export of the Islamic Revolution throughout the [Middle East] region. From Bahrain and Iraq to Syria, Yemen and North Africa.”

Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explains what Suleimani meant: “When he talks about exporting the Islamic Revolution, Suleimani is referring to a very specific template. It’s the template that the Khomeinist revolutionaries first set up in Lebanon 36 years ago by cloning the various instruments that were burgeoning in Iran as the Islamic revolutionary regime consolidated its power.”

Iran's arc of influenceIran and its proxies are well positioned in several Middle Eastern countries.

But it’s not just the Middle East.

Iran is also a terror threat to the Western hemisphere — to Latin America and to the United States.

Alberto Nisman

Alberto Nisman

Alberto Nisman was an Argentine lawyer and federal prosecutor, noted for being the chief investigator of the worst terrorist attack in Argentina’s history — the 1994 car bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires, AMIA, which killed 85 people.

On January 19, 2015, Nisman was found shot in the head in his locked apartment in Buenos Aires.

According to Linette Lopez of the Business Insider, March 20, 2015, Nisman had been zeroing in on Iran’s terror threat to Latin America before he was murdered. Testimonies from journalists and government officials say that Nisman was working to blow the lid off the entire workings of Iran’s terrorist organization in Latin America.

On March 18, 2015, in a written statement titled “Brazil as an operational hub for Iran and Islamic Terrorism,” Brazilian investigative journalist Leonardo Coutinho told the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs what he found from years of work looking into Iran’s penetration of Brazil, as well as Nisman’s tireless work. Coutinho said:

“Official investigations carried out by Argentine, American, and Brazilian authorities have revealed how Brazil figures into the intricate network set up to ‘export Iran’s Islamic Revolution’ to the West, by both establishing legitimacy and regional support while simultaneously organizing and planning terrorist attacks. Despite the fact that Brazil has never been the target of one of these terrorist attacks, the country plays the role of a safe haven for Islamic extremist groups….”

Coutinho noted that Nisman’s 502-page dictum on the 1994 Buenos Aires terrorist attack “not only describes the operations of the network responsible for this terrorist attack, it also names those who carried it out. Consequently, the document lists twelve people in Brazil with ties to [Iran’s Lebanese proxy and a terrorist organization] Hezbollah, who reside or resided in Brazil. Seven of these operatives had either direct or indirect participation in the AMIA bombing.” In other words, Hezbollah and top government officials in Iran had orchestrated the AMIA attack.

Before he was murdered, Nisman identified Iranian mullah Mohsen Rabbani as an architect of the AMIA attack and the leader of Iran’s cell in Latin America. (Rabbani was a contact of Abdul Kadir, a former Guyana politician who is now serving a sentence of life in prison in the US for plotting to attack New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007. Kadir was prosecuted, with some assistance from Nisman, by none other than US attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch.)

Although Nisman’s investigation had been lauded by none other than Brazil’s president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentine administration eventually cast Nisman’s findings on AMIA, Iran, and Hezbollah aside.

Reportedly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, had ensured that Iranian and Hezbollah agents were furnished with passports and flights that would allow them to move freely around South America and to Iran. From there, it was a matter of fund-raising for Iran’s agents — co-opting drug cartels, and sometimes hiding in remote, lawless parts of Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, and other countries that lack the infrastructural, legal, and economic resources to root out Iran’s agents of terror.

At the same March 18 House committee hearing, Peru’s former vice interior minister testified that “Iran and Hezbollah, two forces hostile to US interests, have made significant inroads in Peru, almost without detection, in part because of our weak institutions, prevalent criminal enterprise, and various stateless areas. These elements are particularly weak in the southern mountainous region of my country.”

But Iran is a terror threat not just to South America, but also to North America — the United States.

The Iranian regime has forged an alliance with the New Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam against their “common enemy” — the United States of America.

Louis Farrakhan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Malik Shabazz

Louis Farrakhan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Malik Shabazz

Benny Johnson reports for The Blaze that on May 19, 2012 on Black Panther Radio, National Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz described a secretive meeting between himself, Louis Farrakhan, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and fifty Imams.

The meeting, according to Shabazz, took place on September 27, 2010 in New York city during Ahmadinejad’s controversial visit to the UN. The details of the meeting have never been publicly revealed, but in new audio uncovered by The Blaze, Shabazz details the nature of the meeting and the scary, ‘Beast’ axis that was formed durring the meeting.

As The Blaze has reported, Farrakhan had warned whites that “their end has come” and encouraged Barack Obama to convert to Islam. For their part, the New Black Panthers have been fomenting racial hatred, threatening to hang whites. Ahmadinejad, then president of a country on the verge of attaining nuclear warfare capabilities, repeatedly had called for the destruction of Israel and America. All three are linked by their sharp opposition to western society and their deep Islamist roots, a connection not to be taken lightly given the rise of radical Islam throughout the world.

Below are some quotes by New Black Panthers leader Malik Shabazz from the radio interview:

“Anything I do is for revolution for black people, no matter what it is. Now, them ‘Johnny Come Lazy’ Facebook critics…I can reference Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad and kill all you n***as, pardon the language. Ah, well no don’t pardon the language, only on the kill part….”

Note: Khalid Abdul Muhammad (born Harold Moore Jr.; January 12, 1948 – February 17, 2001) was a black activist who came to prominence as the National Assistant to Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (NOI). In 1983, Farrakhan renamed him Khalid after the Islamic general Khalid ibn al-Walid, a follower of the prophet Muhammad, calling him the Sword of Allah. In 1993, Moore/Muhammad was censured by both Houses of Congress and removed from his position in the NOI by Farrakhan for a racially inflammatory speech at Kean College, in which Moore/Muhammad referred to Jews as bloodsuckers, called the Pope a “no-good cracker,” and advocated the murder of any and all white South Africans who would not leave the country after a warning period of 24 hours. Moore/Muhammad then became the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party until his death in 2001.

“Now, I can’t get in to the inner science or inter-political dynamics of necessarily what is the objective of that meeting; that wouldn’t be wise. But I can say that my teacher [referring to Shabazz mentor Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad], who was hard on the Arabs, he used to call them the rusty, dusty, camel-stink, camel-breath stinky Arab sometimes. But I also do know that this is the man that went to Libya over and over again on behalf of Minister Louis Farrakhan. I know this is [the] man who at the time of the Million Man March was trying to get to Libya again. I know this is the man that in the year 2000 took a hundred of us deep to the Israeli Embassy on behalf of the Palestinians. I’m talking about Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad. What would you think about him paroling on the Israeli embassy with a hundred New Black Panthers for the Arabs?”

“Some of these negroes have got nationalism twisted to a point where they have narrowed the nationalism, narrowed the nationalism to the point where international struggle against a common enemy is not possible, thereby strengthening the enemy who decides to divide the non-white against a common enemy.”

“Yes, the Arab was involved in slavery, and in this case, this is the Persians, ah hell they probably was involved in some too. But let’s keep it real, the African was involved in slavery, too. If you want to go all, if you want to walk that line of talk, well hell you’d have to cut yourselves off from half of Africa…this is our family, we love them, but in our [program] we say Africa owes us reparations, too.”

“Is it the Arab or slave trade of however many centuries ago, vs. alliances that are possible right now with people who got solid track records of being against this beast?”

“Now, let me finish on this question about Mahmud Ahmadinejad, his excellency, I see it, the president of Iran. I want to be clear with you all that I stand on solid ideological ground, and anybody that disagrees just don’t know what they hell they’re talking about because they don’t study.”

“What I’m doing and what I did in meeting with the President Ahmadinejad is exactly what Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad would have done. It is exactly, if he would’ve got the call like I got the call, the honorable Kwame Ture, was what he would have done in a heartbeat. It is exactly what Huey P. Newton or Eldridge Cleaver would have done in a heartbeat. It is exactly what Minister Malcom X…would have done in a heartbeat. Minister Louis Farrakhan was there, he speaks for himself.”

“Understand the dynamics and the politics of world revolution, and understand what’s most important when you decide what meetings that you will have to attend. Like I’m gon’ say no. They call me and ask me to go to the meeting.”

“I’m a Muslim, first of all I’m a Muslim I go anywhere in the Muslim world. I don’t put Islam and Muslim alliances over black people — I don’t put nothing over black people — but hell if I go and talk to somebody about perhaps bringing natural gas and oil and other reparations into the black nation, and other things – unmentionable — what does a negro have to say about it? He ain’t even dreamed of doing some of what we’ve encountered in that hotel.”

“I spoke strong in that meeting. There [were] fifty Imams in the meeting; I’m the only representative of a secular, or a non-religious organization. I’m sitting all the way nearly in the, at the big table in the back with these translator headphones on and everything, and Minister Farrakhan is sitting in the first seat in the front.

“You know, there is no greater enemy than the white man. You know, uh, again we have to learn because it’s just as many Arabs who hate this white man as we do. So, am I not to ally myself, alliance myself with this Arab in fighting this white man?

See also:

~StMA