IPC Publishing is proud to announce the release of “Islamist Movements Protégées of the Ayatollahs.”

IPC Publishing is proud to announce the release of “Islamist Movements Protégées of the Ayatollahs.” See:

http://amzn.to/23upHJL

This study makes 5 contributions for policymakers.

First, Islamic State is like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Each advocates a world without frontiers, oppresses dissidents, and lacks popular support.

Second, the study updates a prior book, “Arab Rebels,” in light of creation of Islamic State as descendants of the Iranian regime. With the 1979 Revolution in Iran, these protégées received oxygen and rose as al Qaeda and Islamic State; Iran’s narrative of a borderless caliphate compares favorably with the storyline of Islamic State, which is also a world without frontiers.

Third, this work shows that the Iranian resistance is the ideological antithesis of Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran is misogynist, flouts the rule of law, and oppresses minorities; the resistance treats women and men equally, practices rule of law, and adheres to majority rule in word and deed.

Fourth, “Islamist Movements” provides a point of departure for national and international parliaments to hold hearings to identify the enemy as militant Islam in its state form (Iran) and nonstate version (Islamic State).

Fifth, a Ten-Point plan for bringing democracy to Iran poses a threat to the survival of the clerical regime. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, including its main unit, People’s Mujahedeen of Iran/Mujahedeen-e- Khalq, chart a political process toward a free Iran.

The press and the president: Sins of commission and omission

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots…who randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” — Barack ObamaVox.com Interview Jan. 2015.

Team Obama’s tendency to not use words that describe killings in sectarian ways gets it in trouble. Feb. 10, the  White House: “There were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.” State Department: “I remember the victims specifically there were not all victims of one background or one nationality.”

Just cite the Department’s remarks the day following the Jan. 9 attack on the supermarket: “We condemn in the strongest terms ‎yesterday’s cowardly anti-Semitic assault against the innocent people in the kosher supermarket,” State told The Jerusalem Post. The attack confirmed fears of France’s Jewish community because there were several preceding assaults on Jewish institutions.

The White House and State used Twitter feeds to clarify. White House: “Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS [President of the United States] didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.” State: “We have always been clear that the attack on the kosher grocery store was an anti-Semitic attack that took the lives of innocent people.”

Washington Post journalist, Jennifer Rubin, calls “appalling” the denial of “Jew-hatred” as a motivation for assault on the kosher market. Neither Rubin’s critique nor mine suggests the Obama administration is anti-Semitic. But clumsy wording to the press raises questions about its difficulties speaking clearly about the threat of violent Jihadism.

To continue reading please go to: http://bit.ly/1Eppgm3

Washington’s Third Option Against a Nuclear Iran

Being a nuclear threshold state and a rouge regime is toxic.Iran is a threshold state and rogue regime. Its 1979 Revolution says resist compromises in the national interest. No need to choose between bombing Iran and a nuclear-armed Iran: Seek soft revolution via coalition that rejects clerical rule.

Jay Solomon and Carol Lee, two widely respected reporters of The Wall Street Journal, wrote last week on Iran as both a nuclear threshold state and a rogue regime. On Feb. 13, Solomon and Lee said that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sent a new letter to President Obama.

That letter was in response to one sent by President Barack Obama in October 2014 that linked progress in the nuclear talks with cooperation between Washington and Tehran against the Islamic State (also called ISIS). According to these journalists, an unnamed Iranian diplomat informed them that Obama had sent a letter that raised the possibility of what I would call an American-Iranian entente cordiale to counter the Islamic if a nuclear deal is secured. Khamenei was supposedly “respectful” but noncommittal on the Obama offer to cooperate against the Islamic State.

Congressional pushback against a bad deal in the bilateral nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington plus expected failure of the multilateral Geneva talks could invigorate Hill pressure on the administration for reversion to the prior international consensus of zero right to enrich uranium gas on Iranian soil and zero breakout time before Tehran can dash for the bomb before inspectors can detect its moves. During July 2014, moreover, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed that allowing Iran to have “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East,” a signal that she favored the zero-enrichment option.

There also is growing support for tough measures against Iran in general. They include: ballistic missile constraints and zero collusion of Washington with Tehran in the fight against the Islamic State. Anticipate the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under the leadership of Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to hold hearings that put the heat on Team Obama for tying the nuclear talks to an informal alignment with Iran against ISIS.

To continue reading please go to:atfp.co/19pbupT 

Reactions to the new global agreements Minsk in Ukraine

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on Russian TV Arabic on 12 February 2015.He talk about  Sanctions + US military Trainers to Ukraine=Sanctions v Iran + PMOI NCRIUS Iran_Policy.

The US government has announced that Washington welcomes new agreements on resolving the crisis in Ukraine Minsk.

To watch the complete interview please go to: http://bit.ly/1A7kQiM 

Jordan vs. ISIS; Int’l media review; Chinese Internet stars

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on CCTV Beijing Japan-Jordan from Washington on 05 February 2015.He talk about US v ISIS HostageTaking: Reach Out to Moderate Muslims in CampLiberty + PMOI out of Iraq v Iran iran_policy NCRIUS 

To watch the complete interview please go to:http://bit.ly/1zoGcUU 

Ameirca’s Forum | Raymond Tanter, President of the American Committee on Human Rights

Scroll down to January 30, 2015 to locate a video in which Tanter explains the complexities of American relations among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, is under attack by Taliban groups while supporting other Taliban in Afghanistan, Washington has no choice but to continue its alignment with Islamabad.

To watch the complete interview please go to: http://nws.mx/1zSTY8Z

Observations approval of US involvement in the coup, Ukraine Obama: Lavrov

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on Russian TV on 02 February 2015.He talk about Obama Yes to Ukraine Protests; No 4 Year 2009 Iran Protests by PMOI CampLiberty NCRIUS Iran_Policy.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced that US President Barack Obama, first recognizes the contribution of Washington in the “transfer of power” in Ukraine which demonstrates the involvement coup.

To watch the complete interview please go to: http://bit.ly/1LNDSkq 

United States budget

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on CCTV Beijing US Defense Budget Obama Yes to Ukraine. Protest No for 2209 Iran PMOI Protest CampLiberty Iran_Policy.

To watch the complete interview please go to:http://bit.ly/1LKuZYP 

ISIL hostage crisis; International media review; South Korean cool

Professor Raymond Tanter appeared on CCTV Beijing Japan-Jordan from Washington on 29 January 2015.He talk about Hostages Like Holding #PMOI Hostages #CampLiberty #Iraq 4 #Iran @Iran_Policy @NCRIUS.

To watch the complete interview please go to: http://bit.ly/1zsetWP 

The Rising Insurgency for Sanctions Against Iran

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

-Otto von Bismarck

Bismarck’s statement is eerily familiar with the legislative process described below. Stay with me while I dive deeply into the process as a first step in making the case why this moment is such a big deal.

The draft Kirk-Menendez bill was published Friday, Jan. 23, and introduced in the Senate on Jan. 27. Officially it is the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015 but dubbed for names of its main sponsors — Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ). It is a diplomatic insurance policy imposing conditional sanctions against the risk that Tehran fails to negotiate in good faith by June 30, 2015.

A strong supporter of Kirk-Menendez is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). During Q&A at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Iran on Jan. 27, 2015, he said, “We don’t just sit around shooting the breeze [on Capitol Hill]: We vote.” At issue is when such a vote might occur. Corker was ready to move the bill to a series of procedures and vote as soon as possible but realized he needs to hold the Democrats in the coalition; so there is a short delay.

Still, there is little consensus on a timetable between the Congress and the Executive branch. Senators like Corker consider March 24 as the date there should be a deal, to be worked on by technical experts until the official signing by June 30. But consider the words of Deputy Secretary of StateTony Blinken on Jan. 27 and State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki at a briefing on the same day; both stated by “end of March” for the political agreement (and then June 30 to complete technical details).

Politico‘s Burgess Everett has looked into legislative mechanics. On Thursday, Jan. 29, the bill is to proceed for “markup,” (congressional committees debate, amend, and rewrite proposed legislation) in the Banking Committee. Everett considered a letter Democrats in the Senate sent to the president as vindication against an immediate vote sought by Republicans; but my take is that it is also a statement of the bipartisan consensus in support of Kirk-Menendez. The bill was officially introduced with 16 original cosponsors — nine Republicans and seven Democrats. Now add three more Democrats who are not signatories but cosponsored the bill in the preceding congress. According to Kristina Wong in The Hill, there would be somewhere between 62 and 65 Senators in support, close to 67 needed for an override of a presidential veto — 52 Republicans, 13 Democrats.

Now to the big deal: An 18 to 4 vote in the Senate Banking Committee reflected bipartisanship for a tougher diplomacy toward Iran. Despite a two-week full court press by the administration to peel away Democrats, a bipartisan consensus held and is even stronger on Capitol Hill. It may portend a bullet-proof margin for the Kirk-Menendez conditional sanctions on Iran.

So, the president may not have enough votes in the Senate to sustain a threatened veto contained in his State of the Union address: “New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; making it harder to maintain sanctions; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. And that’s why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.”

To continue reading please go to: atfp.co/1JRcZtV