Iran sends two battalions to aid Maliki government against Sunni jihadists

Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

As I wrote here today: “Iraq’s Shi’ite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has vowed to retake the city, blaming its fall on a ‘conspiracy’ and adding: ‘Today, the important thing is that we are working to solve the situation. We are making preparations and we are regrouping the armed forces that are in charge of clearing Ninevah from those terrorists.’  Maliki may indeed be able to clear the region of the Sunni jihadists, for behind him stands the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which also backs the Alawite Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. But it is unlikely that they will be able to achieve total victory, for Sunni jihadists from all over the world have flocked to Syria in order to fight against Assad, and Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting the Sunni jihadists in Iraq.”

And now we have this: “An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group’s Sunni fighters to march toward the ‘filth-ridden’ Karbala and ‘the city of polytheism’ Najaf, where they would ‘settle their differences’ with Mr. Maliki. That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran’s view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rival sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.”

“Iran Deploys Forces to Fight al Qaeda-Inspired Militants in Iraq,” by Farnaz Fassihi, Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2014:

BEIRUT, Lebanon—Iran deployed Revolutionary Guard forces to fight in Iraq, helping government troops there wrest back control of most of the city of Tikrit from militants, Iranian security sources said.

Two battalions of the Quds Forces, the overseas branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps that has long operated in Iraq, came to the aid of the besieged, Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, they said.

Combined Iraqi-Iranian forces retook control of 85% of Tikrit, the birthplace of former dictator Saddam Hussein, according to Iraqi and Iranian security sources.

They were helping guard the capital Baghdad and the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, which have been threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda offshoot. The Sunni militant group’s lightning offensive has thrown Iraq into its worse turmoil since the sectarian fighting that followed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Shiite Iran has also positioned troops along its border with Iraq and promised to bomb rebel forces if they come within 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, of Iran’s border, according to an Iranian army general.

In addition, Iran was considering the transfer to Iraq of Iranian troops fighting for the regime in Syria if the initial deployments fail to turn the tide of battle in favor of Mr. Maliki’s government.

The Iraqi government has signaled to the U.S. it would allow airstrikes against insurgents and asked Washington to speed the delivery of promised weapons.

That raises the prospect of both the U.S. and Iran lending support to Mr. Maliki against ISIS insurgents, who are seeking to create a caliphate encompassing Iraqi and Syrian territory.

Gen. Qasem Sulaimani, the commander of the Quds Forces and one of the region’s most powerful military figures, traveled to Baghdad this week to help manage the swelling crisis, said a member of the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.

Qassimm al-Araji, an Iraqi Shiite lawmaker who heads the Badr Brigade bloc in parliament, posted a picture with Mr. Sulaimani holding hands in a room in Baghdad on his social-networking site with the caption, “Haj Qasem is here,” Iranian news sites affiliated with the IRGC reported on Wednesday. “Haj Qasem” is Mr. Sulaimani’s nom de guerre.

At stake for Iran in the current tumult in Iraq isn’t only the survival of an Shiite political ally in Baghdad, but the safety of Karbala and Najaf, which along with Mecca and Medina are considered sacred to Shiites world-wide.

An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group’s Sunni fighters to march toward the “filth-ridden” Karbala and “the city of polytheism” Najaf, where they would “settle their differences” with Mr. Maliki.

That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran’s view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rival sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“Until now we haven’t received any requests for help from Iraq. Iraq’s army is certainly capable in handling this,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afgham said Wednesday.

Despite those assuring comments, measures by the Iranian government in the past day indicated that an air of crisis had enveloped Tehran. Iran’s army and border guards have been placed under full alert along the country’s long border with Iraq, Iranian media reported.

Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani cut short a religious celebration on Thursday and said he had to attend an emergency meeting of the country’s National Security Council about events in Iraq.

“We, as the Islamic Republic of Iran, will not tolerate this violence and terrorism….We will fight and battle violence and extremism and terrorism in the region and the world,” he said in a speech.

Iran’s chief of police, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, said the National Security Council would consider intervening in Iraq to “protect Shiite shrines and cities.”…

This is How You Lose a War

Mark Davis / Townhall Columnist

The names of the towns tug me back a decade to when we were on the road to liberating them. Fallujah. Mosul. Tikrit. We learned how to pronounce them as our nation learned what was necessary to rescue them from the hands of terrorists.

Iraq was not the source of 9/11, but under the leadership of President Bush, we had chosen to take the war to the most hostile regime in the part of the world that wanted to kill us. Saddam Hussein had slaughtered his own people in addition to launching attacks on U.S. forces in violation of the U.N. agreements following his ejection from Kuwait at our hands. It was a thoroughly appropriate first theater for what would become known as The War on Terror.

Well, write its epitaph. War on Terror, 2003-2014. We are done. We have lost. Iraq is falling before our eyes this week as al Qaeda monsters snatch the cities we shed blood to help. Next door in Afghanistan, the Taliban dances in celebration of America’s retreat. Deserter Bowe Bergdahl will not come home a hero, but his kindred spirits will, the five blood-soaked terrorists we released to garner his freedom.

This is what it feels like to lose. This is what it looks like. This is what it smells like. Its stench should repel every American.

Even among our war-weary citizens, who eventually became the majority, this must be sickening.

Even among those who opposed the war from its start, surely their pacifism or Bush hatred or military ambivalence does not stand in the way of a natural human instinct of disillusionment as our nation slinks away from the war zone as our enemies cheer.

President Obama, who fooled some for a while with head fakes like the Afghan surge and a grudging willingness to keep Guantanamo open during his first term, has shown us his soul. He is withdrawing our troops from a war where real progress was under way, in terms of a glimmer of hope for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan— a future guided by stability, honest elections and self-determination for the people.

It would have taken a long time. We needed a President to exert leadership in its purest form— leading a hesitant nation to do the right thing by supporting the war that kept us free from further 9/11s for more than a decade.

Instead, we have a commander-in-chief driven to end the war, but not to win it. And as if that’s not bad enough, he believes his wily charms can snow a nation into thinking he has been a wartime hero:

The day before 9/11’s tenth anniversary, Obama told us: “There should be no doubt— today, America is stronger, and al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.”

In January 2012: “We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s leadership.”

And September 2012: “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.” So were four Americans murdered in Benghazi days earlier, necessitating a colossal change of subject with an election mere weeks away.

But two years earlier, Vice President Biden sat down with Larry King on CNN to predict vast glories for the administration’s “handling” of a war that was making progress when they inherited it: “I am very optimistic about Iraq, and it’s going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

Good call, Joe.

It is years of bad calls that have led to this sad moment, with defeat at hand. And while it is easy to hang this loss around the Obama White House, some of the blame is shouldered by every American failing to maintain focus and will through the most challenging war we have ever fought.

Other wars have had far higher death tolls, but there was a certain clarity to the mission of World War II— beat Hitler and Imperial Japan— and even Vietnam— chase communism from Southeast Asia.

How do you “win” a war on terror? There was never going to be a surrender ceremony aboard an aircraft carrier, with terrorists signing a document assuring a cease-fire. All we could ever hope for is slow, generational change, with Iraq and Afghanistan realizing after a lengthy U.S. presence that we were there to train their own military forces and establish a landscape to permit elections leading to a future far more stable than the cauldrons of violence that had been their fate seemingly forever.

A tall order? Of course. Haven’t we all heard the cries of futility? “Those people don’t know what freedom is and they don’t want it.” “Violence is all they’ve known, they’ll never stop killing each other.”

Those are not unreasonable stances. But they are a give-up, an admission that our only lot is to accept that these Godforsaken wildernesses will always be a breeding ground for terror, and all we can do is hope it does not reach us. “Let them kill each other, and leave us out of it,” goes a common refrain of frustration, wholly ignorant of what will happen if we ever actually do that. Sure, Islamist factions will bludgeon each other, but without any beacon of civilization in their midst, terrorist hordes will take plenty of time-outs to engage in their favored pursuits: killing Americans, Israelis and any Muslims trying to wrestle the faith toward less murderous behaviors.

The terrorist agenda is not limited to armed commandeering of various nations to establish a compliant global caliphate. It also includes the violent eradication of Israel and the slaughter of as many Americans as can be found, over there and over here.

Of all the things that made 9/11 possible, the foremost was our failure to recognize that war had long been declared against us. After a few years of vigilance, followed by growing fatigue and then wholesale disinterest in seriously fighting terror, the American people have twice elected the President who has given us exactly what we asked for: surrender.

So here it is. How will it work out for us as we see Baghdad fall? How will it feel as we see the forces of evil overrun the turf our sons and daughters fought for and died on? What will fill the remaining years of a presidency that has kept its promise to end a war that is in no way ending in terms of the enemy’s aggressions toward us?

As he prepares to welcome home his favored soldier, that traitorous snake Bowe Bergdahl, President Obama fashioned a quote Wednesday that should be replayed over TV footage of the guttings and beheadings that surely await Iraqis, Afghans and who knows how many Israelis and Americans now that we are quitters: “The world is less violent than it has ever been, it is healthier than it has ever been, it is more tolerant than it has ever been.”

Ah, yes, always the tolerance. The man is nothing if not tolerant. Tolerant of illegal immigrants, tolerant of those seeking to change the definition of marriage, tolerant of any one of a number of assaults on the Constitution.

But the tolerance of America’s most dangerous enemies— evidenced by our current surrender and the piecemeal release of terrorists from Gitmo— this is a tolerance likely to carry a death toll.

How many Americans will die because we did not have the stomach to sufficiently battle our enemy?

And by “we,” I mean the collective American public. Because if we had maintained the spine to stay on a war footing with an enemy that will never tire of killing us, we would never have chosen a leader who has brought us to this tragic defeat.

Amnesty Lite Is Still Amnesty

Thomas Sowell  / Townhall Columnist

Not since a 42-to-1 underdog named Buster Douglas knocked out undefeated heavyweight champion Mike Tyson in 1990 has there been an upset like economics professor Dave Brat defeating House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary in Virginia.

You couldn't write a script like this for a movie and have it be believable. Congressman Eric Cantor, with all kinds of name recognition, and outspending his opponent by 5 million dollars to $100,000, lost 55 percent to 45 percent against somebody that virtually nobody ever heard of before. Polls, incidentally, had predicted that Cantor would defeat Brat 62 percent to 28 percent.

To add a touch of absolute fantasy to the story, Dave Brat's Democratic opponent this fall is another professor at the same Randolph-Macon College where Professor Brat teaches.

Who would believe that in a movie?

In the end, all of this will be just a curious footnote to what this election means to the Republican Party and -- more important -- to the country at large.

To those in the media who see everything as just a contest -- a "horse race," as they say -- between different individuals and factions, this is being reported as a victory of the Tea Party over the Republican establishment.

One of the encouraging things about Professor Brat is that he apparently does not see it that way. He says that he is for the same principles as other Republicans, but that he believes in putting those principles into practice.

Unlike those Republicans on either the establishment side or the Tea Party side who are preoccupied with their internal party battles, Dave Brat is focused on the issues confronting this country at a crucial juncture in history and with the immediate task of defeating the Democrats in this fall's election.

If this primary election defeat puts an end to cocky talk by Republican establishment leaders about crushing their Tea Party rivals, there may be some hope that they can spare some time to deal with the serious issues facing this country, rather than their own ego indulgences.

A key issue in this campaign was amnesty for illegal immigrants. Apparently the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives -- which is to say, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor -- thinks that amnesty is not amnesty if you call it "immigration reform" and toss in some fig-leaf requirements before the amnesty kicks in.

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed almost entirely in terms of what can be done to help those who have broken the law. Some want to help a little and some want to help a lot. But amnesty lite is still amnesty.

Some people seem to think that amnesty is not amnesty if you throw in requirements for citizenship. Amnesty is not some esoteric concept. It means that you are not going to be punished for breaking the law -- and that simply brings laws into contempt. Denying citizenship is not a punishment because crossing the border illegally does not entitle you to citizenship. Providing a legal status short of citizenship is not punishment either.

There is no requirement for either amnesty or for citizenship that President Obama cannot ignore or dilute unilaterally, as he has ignored or diluted existing immigration laws, as well as other laws.

Barack Obama is the biggest reason to pass no immigration "reform" laws until after he is gone.

It doesn't matter what immigration policies you believe in if you don't control your borders -- and the vast numbers of minors flooding across our borders today show that the Obama administration has no intention of controlling the borders. They are more concerned with controlling the border guards and ordering them not to take pictures that show the public what is happening.

If you are serious about controlling the borders, then you pass laws to control the borders first. Some years later, after you can see whether the border has been controlled or not -- you can start discussing what our national immigration laws should be.

Otherwise, "comprehensive" immigration reform means granting some form of amnesty up front and promising to control the border later. How many more times are we going to fall for that bait and switch fraud?

How Mexico Defeated GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor

by Wayne Allyn Root / Personal Liberty Digest

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. U.S. Congress Majority Leader Eric Cantor just lost in perhaps the biggest upset in the history of politics in his country. In D.C. they don’t understand what just happened. Well, I’ll tell you what happened.

I’ve written about the plight of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He’s being falsely imprisoned by our “friend” and neighbor, Mexico. He’s been mistreated, beaten and, some would say, tortured. Isn’t it time President Barack Obama did something? Isn’t it time for GOP leaders to demand action?

What does this have to do with Cantor’s stunning defeat? Everything. The people who represent us in Washington, D.C., are off the grid. They are tone-deaf. They don’t care about what “we the people” care about. Cantor probably doesn’t even know about our hero Marine stuck in a Mexican prison.

And that’s the problem. Our leaders are out of touch with the people — and with reality.

Separate from the plight of our hero Marine in Mexico, we have an invasion going on right now on the Mexican border.

Our borders are no longer enforced. Thousands of illegals are pouring over the border, and they aren’t even bothering to hide from police or Border Patrol. They are walking into America in plain sight and searching for police. They are thrilled to surrender to authorities because they have all heard the news: Obama has created de facto amnesty.

Obama and Holder are ignoring the law of this country. They have spread the word: “Bring your children, cross the border, we’ll feed you, house you, and we’ll provide you with civil rights lawyers at taxpayer expense. And you can stay indefinitely.”

So they’re coming by the thousands — from Mexico and Central America. They are young, poor and uneducated. They will cost billions of dollars to house; to feed; to provide entitlements, healthcare and public education for; and, in many cases, in the cost of police, courts and prison. America is already bankrupt and more than $17 trillion in debt. This is the tipping point. 

And it’s no mistake, accident or coincidence. Obama never has to face voters again. He is out of control. He is hell-bent on the destruction of America — and the Republican Party — in his remaining time in office.

Yet moderate, establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., say nothing. Cantor said nothing. This is a purposeful plan by Obama to overwhelm the system — to flood America with poor, dependent illegal immigrants. This is how you flood the country with future Democratic voters. Keep in mind where the government is dumping them: Arizona and Texas.

This is a purposeful plan to punish GOP Governors and turn red States into blue States.

This is an invasion. This is criminal. The President refuses to secure the border. He refuses to send back criminals. He empties our prisons to purposely dump illegal immigrant felons back on the streets (36,000 last month, to be exact).

He spends your taxpayer money on lawyers for illegals. He gives them sanctuary against the laws of America. He spends your taxpayer money to run advertising campaigns in Mexico to tell illegals in America they should request food stamps.

Op-ed: 

Who does Chuck Hagel think he's kidding
By: Diane Sori

"The law is the law. The way you challenge constitutionality is you go to court and you figure out whether or not the courts say it's constitutional or not. And until the courts rule on that, it is the law." - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in his opening statement to the committee investigating the Bergdahl exchange

Simply stated...Chuck Hagel is a LIAR. And his LIES started the minute he opened his mouth during Wednesday's House Armed Services Committee hearing on Obama's 'five-for-one' prisoner exchange. Saying that he and Obama would NEVER do anything to jeopardize the U.S. or those fighting overseas, you just know Hagel must have been gagging on those words even as he was spewing them out...choked on them as he tried to defend Barack HUSSEIN Obama's decision to move forward with this exchange without Congressional approval.

Negotiating with terrorists...with the Taliban...an unprecedented move by an American president who ignores the fact that now the go-ahead has been given to other terrorist groups...including al-Qaeda...to up their use of kidnapping of our troops and civilian personnel to get what they want.

And Hagel had the audacity to say to lawmakers that the decision was kept secret from Congress because Obama felt that leaks could have negated the deal or increased risks to Bergdahl before the exchange took place. Calling the exchange a “military operation” that had been tenuous at best, Hagel went on to say that this was all part of the “dirty business” of war.

Conducting the 'dirty business' of war is one thing, but 'aiding and abetting' the enemy during a time of war is quite another...and doing so knowingly puts this exchange even higher up on the ladder whose top rung is treason.

And while Hagel finally admitted that the ultimate decision for this exchange rested on the shoulders of Barack HUSSEIN Obama...it became obvious that Hagel was NOT going to take the fall for Obama. And Hagel was also forced to admit that Obama could have done a better job of keeping Congress informed that the exchange was going down, but giving the excuse that it had to be done in secret because this was an "extraordinary situation" that combined both 'time-sensitive' concerns over Bergdahl's health and safety, and that last-minute arrangements over where to pick up Bergdahl coupled with fears the Taliban may have been negotiating in bad faith...colored the entire deal.

More LIES as Bergdahl actually looked healthier...as in heavier...at the time of the exchange than he did when he walked away from his base camp.

And so Hagel kept trying to justify why five jihadis with American blood on their hands were traded for one American traitor. Carefully crafting his words to NOT only protect his boss but to try and rescue his boss from the ire of the American people...as well as to cover his own participation in this nasty deal...Hagel kept twisting facts to suit Obama's end. NOT wavering from his insistence that this administration did NOT negotiate with terrorists because in the actual deal Washington only took part in "indirect negotiations" with the Taliban as they dealt directly with Qatari officials, and that it was the Qataris who were the ones talking to the Afghan Taliban...a group he claimed was NOT a U.S. designated terrorist organization...Hagel grew nervous as the questions from the committee members continued on.

And nervous he should be as the Taliban were indeed once on the U.S. terrorist list...put there by George W. Bush in 2002 and obviously removed from that list by Barack HUSSEIN Obama soon after assuming the presidency...Hagel had to know that his LIES would soon trip him up.

Continuing on, Hagel claimed...at least he tried to claim...that the five released were "enemy belligerents" who had NOT been implicated in any attacks against the U.S., but Hagel, former military himself, should know better than most that if you attack U.S. military personnel you have indeed attacked the U.S. itself. And it's been proven that weapons given three years earlier by Obama and crew to rebel forces in Libya have found their way into the hands of the Taliban who then use them to attack American troops. And guess what country made the delivery of those weapons? None other than Qatar, the very same country that helped broker the now called 'GITMO 5' prisoner exchange with the Obama White House.

And Hagel had the audacity to say that Qatar promised to keep the former GITMO detainees inside the country for a year and that they committed to what he and Obama called "sufficient security measures," hence it was decided that the risks were NOT too great.

Yeah right...like Qatar will keep an eye on them...bet they have NO idea where they are even as I write this...and Obama and Hagel knew this would be the case and released them anyway.

And Hagel adding into his bloviations that "if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril" was comical at best for what pray tell would Obama do...drone them...I really don't think so.

Finally claiming that a "logistical agreement" was reached a mere four days before the exchange, and that only then did Obama make a final decision to go with the deal, Hagel also said that officials only learned about the general area for the handover of Bergdahl a day in advance, and that they were given the exact location just an hour before it went down.

I really do NOT think so as logistics on our end would have to be worked out including back-up protection for those going in just in case this was a Taliban set-up.

And while Hagal's testimony charmed the die-hard kool-ade drinkers in attendance ...including those in the media...some Democrats have put their glasses down long enough to do the right thing as the House Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan 33-13 vote, voted to add a provision to a $570 billion defense spending bill that barred money for any future transfer of GITMO detainees to anywhere. And this provision also withholds other monies from the Defense Department until Hagel assures those in Congress that the notification rules will be followed.

Like that will ever happen with this administration.

So as Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon (R-Calif.), the committee's chairman, opened the hearings delving into the Bergdahl exchange, two things remain clear even for those who still hang on to every word of the media anointed 'savior' of us all...first, this deal made with the enemy...with the Taliban...is, as McKeon said, "deeply troubling" due to its "unprecedented negotiations with terrorists." And second, NO matter how Hagel tries to temper it down or to spin it, this deal is paramount to treason...period.

And the penalty for treason is...google it and you'll see.

**************************************************************
 

As many of you know my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOT partner and friend, Craig Andresen, is in facebook jail until June 26th, so I have been posting his articles for him. Please click this link: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/06/12/friday-fume-126/ to go directly to Craig's blog 'The National Patriot' to read his newest article. 

*************************************************** 

REMINDER!!!

As we continue to work towards forcing this regime to answer to 'We the People' for high crimes and misdemeanors, we ask that you SIGN AND SHARE OUR PETITION BY CLICKING HERE... https://www.change.org/petitions/sen-ted-cruz-impeach-and-arrest-barack-hussein-obama-on-the-grounds-of-aiding-and-abetting-the-enemy-as-per-18-u-s-code-2339a

All we need is 100,000 signatures to force this regime to address our concerns!!!