How realistic is regime change in Iran? How and when Can it happen?

 

How realistic is regime change in Iran? How and when Can it happen?

Released by the Stand Up America US Foundation

 

November 15, 2018

 

By

MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

 

 

We have a President and Secretary of State, Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo who are committed to regime change in Tehran, Iran, sooner rather than later!

If any of the preconditions for regime change are in place, is the time right in the near future? To this, the answer is yes, if, a realistic strategy and foreign policy are developed. And it will certainly require a well-organized and funded coalition that can draw from all supporters inside and outside of Iran for a new, free democratic Iran.

Without underestimating the power in the hands of the mullahs, the truth is that Iran today is passing through “the deepest crisis the nation has experienced in decades” and is further isolating the country from its neighbors and other nations. A new future must come into being for the younger generations as well as the older generations of Iranians. Policies since the late 70s have produced nothing but grief for much of Iran’s population. A number of protests took place recently in Iran that received almost no attention anywhere other than inside the country itself. These events occurred in peripheral cities that suffer from rising unemployment, lack of infrastructure, increases in the cost of living, extreme climatic conditions, and air pollution. These cities are marginalized in Iran’s public discourse, which is reflected in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with the needs of the residents – most of whom are classified as “ethnic minorities”. In those residents’ eyes, government policy is negligent and inattentive to their distress. Large-scale violent demonstrations took place recently in the Iranian city of Kazerun, which is under the jurisdiction of the Fars Province. They were the collective response of residents to the publication of a plan for a new administrative division of Fars that intends to remove two densely populated areas from the jurisdiction of the Kazerun municipality and grant them independent status (a sub-province called Koh-Chenar). Underlying the protests is the plight of many residents of the province who have long suffered from difficult working and living conditions. The administrative partition proposal served as a spark that ignited flames of frustration over government neglect.

In addition, the fall in the value of the Iranian currency—despite rising oil revenues—and the massive increase in the rate of unemployment over the past decade signal an economic crisis already heralded by double-digit inflation. In some cases, the government has been unable to pay its employees—including over 600,000 teachers—on time. We understand that there is a great transfer of money out of Iran, much of it coming to the US and other countries. Money laundering in South America has been validated. So, the question is, “What is happening in Iran? At the start of the new Iranian year, it was having difficulty financing over half of its projects, forcing hundreds of private contractors into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, fear of an international crisis over the nuclear issue, and the possibility of new sanctions imposed by the U.S. have put a damper on the Iranian economy.

Pompeo left open the possibility of a new deal, but one based on 12 conditions—including a full halt to all uranium enrichment, withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria, and an end to support for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq—that the current regime would never support. The idea may seem to be that the U.S. will simply continue to ramp up the pressure until the regime capitulates. Any plan must not follow, and be close to, the neoconservative impulses of the George W. Bush administration people. Or for that manner, follow any of the Obama failed policies that had no specific strategy to assist the Iranian people in their quest for freedom and democracy.

Pompeo argued that recent economic protests in Iran are evidence of public anger at a regime that “reaps a harvest of suffering and death in the Middle East at the expense of its own people.”

In a brief question-and-answer postlude with Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James, Pompeo came even closer to calling for an uprising, saying, “At the end of the day, the Iranian people will decide the timeline. At the end of the day, the Iranian people will get to make a choice about their leadership. If they make the decision quickly, that would be wonderful. If they choose not to do so, we will stay hard at this until we achieve the outcomes that I set forward today.” Given that there’s almost no chance of Iran meeting the Trump administration’s conditions, the hope seems to be that the Iranian people will take matters into their own hands. This is an enormously risky strategy. Many Iranians who are highly critical of their government’s policies are also resistant to foreign interference in their domestic politics. The regime already depicts anti-government demonstrations as American-inspired regime-change efforts. Pompeo just endorsed that depiction.

Why does the Islamic Republic behave as it does? The answer is that, as the spearhead of a revolutionary cause, it can do no other. The Islamic Republic is unlike any of the regimes in its environment, or indeed anywhere in the world. Either it will become like them—i.e., a nation-state—or it will force them to become like itself. As a normal nation-state, Iran would have few major problems with its neighbors or with others. As the embodiment of the Islamic Revolution, it is genetically programmed to clash not only with those of its neighbors who do not wish to emulate its political system but also with other powers as Iran continues as a threat to regional stability and world peace.

As the Islamic Republic continues to behave as it does it will be impossible for others, including the United States, to consider it a partner, let alone a friend or ally. This does not exclude talks, or even periods of relative détente, as happened with the USSR during the cold war. But just as the Soviet Union remained an enemy of the free world right up to the end, so the Islamic Republic will remain an enemy until it once more becomes a responsible nation-state.

How, then, should one deal with Iran in its current phase? There are several options. The most obvious is to do nothing. Among the attractions of this option is that, at least theoretically, it would deny the Islamic Republic the chance to cast itself as the grand defender of Islam against the depredations of the “infidel” camp led by the United States. It would also allow internal tensions in Iran to come to the forefront.

A robust and coordinated American posture on the economic, diplomatic, political, and moral fronts is creating forceful pressure on the current leadership and inspire new courage in its opponents, this coalition being an example. There is no denying that the mechanics of regime change are a delicate and often highly chancy matter and that the historical record offers examples of failure as well as of success. But there is also no denying that the game is worth the candle. Accelerating the collapse and replacement of this aberrant tyranny, a curse to the Iranian people and to the world, will strike a blow against anti-Western and anti-democratic forces all over the globe, safeguard America’s strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond, and add another radiant page to the Almanac of American support for the cause of freedom.

But the risk in the do-nothing option is clear. Interpreting it yet another sign of weakness on the part of its adversaries, the Islamic Republic may hasten its program to “export the revolution” around the Middle East and, more importantly, develop a credible arsenal of nuclear weapons. The result would be an even bigger challenge to the regional balance of power and to the world.

An alternative to the do-nothing option is the one favored, today as yesterday, by the apostles of dialogue: namely, to reach an accommodation with the Islamic Republic on its terms, in the hope that this will somehow, in time, help to modify its behavior. What matters, they say, is to engage the Islamic Republic as a partner in an international arrangement that, over an unspecified period, will end up imposing restraints on its overall behavior.

The risk here is equally obvious. Having won an initial concession from the “infidels,” the leadership would instantly and reflexively demand more. After all, dreams of conquering the world in the name of Islam, just as Hitler aimed to do in the name of the Aryan master race and the USSR in the name of Communism.

Proponents of “dialogue” like to cite the “Nixon in China” moment as a model for dealing with the Islamic Republic. But they forget two facts. The first is that, during Nixon’s presidency, the initiative for normalizing relations came not from the United States but from China, which was then trying to recast itself as a nation-state among nation-states. The Islamic Republic is not in that position, or anywhere near it. In fact, precisely because it bases its legitimacy as a revolutionary power on the teachings of Islam, something it does not fully control in doctrinal terms, it cannot abandon its revolutionary pretensions as easily as did the Maoists in Beijing, who “owned” their own ideology and could alter it at will.

There remains another option: regime change. The very mention of this term drives some people up the wall, inspiring images of an American invasion, a native insurgency, suicide bombers, and worse. But military intervention and pre-emptive war are not the only means of achieving regime change. Covert, information warfare or as I like to call it, strategic Psychological operations and intelligence operations will be critical.

What matters is to be intellectually clear about the issue at hand. The U.S. and the Middle East will not be safe if Iran, a key country in a region of vital importance to the world economy and to international stability, remains the embodiment of the Khomeini’s cause. Nor can the U.S. allow the Khomeini’s movement, itself a version of global Islamism, to achieve further political or diplomatic gains at the expense of the Western democracies.

The most immediate action by Tehran would be to strengthen the mullahs and demoralize all those inside Iran who have a different vision of their country’s future and an active desire to bring it about. In 1937 and 1938, many professional army officers in Germany, realizing that Hitler was leading their nation to disaster, had begun to discuss possible ways of getting rid of him. But the Munich “peace” accords negotiated by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain handed Hitler a diplomatic triumph and, with it, a degree of international legitimacy that, from then on, any would-be putschists could hardly ignore.

In the Middle East, this story has been repeated many times. The West helped Gamal Abdel Nasser transform the Suez fiasco into a political triumph, thereby encouraging an even bigger and, for Egypt, more disastrous, the war in 1967. The 1991 ceasefire that allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Baghdad, interpreted by him as a signal of American weakness, emboldened him quickly to eliminate his domestic opponents and to begin preparations for a bigger war against the “infidel.” After the first al-Qaeda attack on New York’s World Trade Center in 1993, President Clinton dispatched a string of envoys to Afghanistan to strike a bargain with Mullah Muhammad Omar and the Taliban. Not only, to quote the Taliban foreign minister, was this seen as “a sign of weakness by the Crusader-Zionists,” and one that immensely enhanced the prestige of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but it discouraged the anti-Taliban forces, many of whom concluded there was no point in fighting a foe backed by the world’s only superpower. That is the effect that reaching an accommodation with the regime will have on Iran’s own democrats and reformers. And it will have the same weakening effect on the growing democratic movement elsewhere in the Middle East. Some signs of this are already visible. For example, the fragile consensus belatedly formed around the idea of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians is under pressure from a new “one-state” formula propagated by the “defiance front” led by Iran and including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Libya, and Sudan. In Lebanon, Hezbollah and its allies have been encouraged by Tehran to pursue a systematic bullying of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. In Syria, the pro-reform camp has been defeated, and the Baathist regime, a vicious menace, has entered into an unprecedented dependence on Tehran. Even major powers like Russia, China, France, and Germany calibrate their relations with the Islamic Republic with reference to how they suspect Washington will, or will not, be acting.

By contrast, in opting for regime change, the U.S. would send a strong signal to the democratic movement inside Iran, as well as throughout the Middle East, that the Bush Doctrine remains intact and that the movement is doomed. Such a policy would also encourage Iran’s neighbors, and other powers concerned about aggressive Khomeini’s, to resist the political and diplomatic demarches of the Islamic Republic without fear of being caught out by a surprise deal between Tehran and Washington.

At home in the United States, a policy and strategy of regime change vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic would have the immense advantage of moral and political clarity. If backed by the requisite political will, it could open the way for a truly bipartisan approach toward dealing with a regime now identified as the United States’ most determined and potentially dangerous adversary in the region. For it is hard to imagine a democratic and pro-Western the Middle East being built without Iran, the largest piece in any emerging jigsaw puzzle.

Abroad, a U.S. policy of regime change would give heart to all those rightly worried by the alliance that Ahmadinejad was trying to build with thugs and lunatics like North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and the Castro brothers in Cuba. Even today, Tehran is the ideological capital of international terrorism, with more than 60 groups from all continents gathering there each February for a global terror-fest. A triumphant Iran, armed with nuclear weapons, would only boost the international terrorist movement, thus further undermining the security of the United States and its allies. That alone is a powerful argument for regime change.

The short answer to the question is yes. Without underestimating the power still held by the mullahs over the Iranian people, let alone their ability to wreak devastating havoc in places near and far, several factors suggest that like other revolutionary regimes before them, their condition is more fragile than may at first appear.

One sign is the loss of regime legitimacy. The Islamic Republic owed its initial legitimacy to the revolution of 1979. Since then, successive Khomeini’s administrations have systematically dismantled the vast, multiform coalition that made the revolution possible. The Khomeini’s have massacred their former leftist allies, driven their nationalist partners into exile, and purged even many Islamists from positions of power, leaving their own base fractured and attenuated.

The regime’s early legitimacy also derived from referendums and elections held regularly since 1979. In the past two decades, however, each new election has been more “arranged” than the last, while the authoritarian habit of approving candidates in advance has become a routine part of the exercise. Many Iranians saw in the 2009 presidential election, in which Ahmadinejad was declared a surprise winner, as the last straw: credited with just 12 percent of the electorate’s vote in the first round, he ended up being named the winner in the second round with an incredible 60 percent of the vote.

Still another source of the regime’s legitimacy was its message of “social justice” and its promise to improve the life of the poor. This, too, has been subverted by reality. Today, more than 40 percent of Iran’s 70 million people live below the poverty line, compared with 27 percent before the Khomeini’s seized power. In 1977, Iran’s GDP per head per annum was the same as Spain’s. Today, Spain’s GDP is four times higher than Iran’s in real dollar terms. As the gap between rich and poor has widened to an unprecedented degree, the corruption of the ruling mullahs and their ostentatious way of life have made a mockery of slogans like “Islamic solidarity.”

A second sign is the presence of a major split within the ruling establishment itself. The list of former Khomeini’s who have distanced themselves from today’s regime reads like a who’s who of the original revolutionary elite. It includes former “student” leaders who raided the U.S. embassy in 1979, former commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and dozens of former cabinet ministers and members of the Islamic Majlis (parliament). Most have adopted a passive stance vis-à-vis the regime, but a surprising number have clearly switched sides, becoming active dissidents and thereby risking imprisonment, exile, or even death. Any decline in the regime’s international stature could deepen this split within the establishment, helping to isolate the most hardline Khomeini’s.

A third harbinger is that the regime’s coercive forces have become increasingly reluctant to defend it against the people. Since 2002, the regular army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the professional police have refused to crush workers’ strikes, student demonstrations, and other manifestations of anti-regime protest. In many instances, the mullahs have been forced to deploy other, often unofficial, means, including the so-called Ansar Hezbollah (“Supporters of the Party of God”) and the Based Butadiene (“Mobilization of the Dispossessed”).

A fourth sign is the emergence of alternative sources of moral authority in Iranian society. Even in religious matters, more and more Iranians look for guidance to non-official or even anti-official mullahs, including the clergy in Iraq. (Admittedly, this is partly since the present “Supreme Guide,” Ali Khamenei, is a mid-ranking mullah who would never be accepted by senior Shiite clergy as a first among equals.)

As for non-religious matters, there was a time when the regime enjoyed the support of the overwhelming majority of Iran’s “creators of culture.” Today, not a single prominent Iranian poet, writer, filmmaker, composer, or artist endorses the Khomeinis; most have become dissidents whose work is either censored or banned. Opposition intellectuals, clerics, trade-union leaders, feminists, and students are emerging as new sources of moral authority.

Finally, there are at least the outlines, although no more than the outlines, of a strategic, political alternative. Like nature, society abhors a vacuum. In the case of Iran, that vacuum cannot be filled by the dozen or so groups in exile, although each could have a role in shaping a broad national alternative. What is still needed is an internal political opposition that can act as the nucleus of a future government.

Unfortunately, such a nucleus cannot be created so long as the fear exists that the U.S. and its allies might reach an accommodation with the regime and leave Iranian dissidents in the lurch. And that fear has roots. In the years 1999-2000, President Khatami succeeded in splitting the opposition by boasting of the terms of his forthcoming “grand bargain” with President Clinton. His message was ingeniously twofold: the deal would help solve the nation’s economic problems and open the way for less repressive measures in social life and culture, but it would include a stipulation that America would never help opponents of the Khomeini’s regime. Although, as we have seen, the “grand bargain” itself came to naught, the message and its implications have hardly been forgotten.

With a clear compass, the litmus test for any policy toward Iran will likewise be clear: does this activity, program, or initiative help or hinder regime change? Under that general guideline, any number of specific policies can be envisioned, some of them already in place. For instance, the adoption of a regime-change strategy does not preclude American participation in diplomatic initiatives focused on issues, such as the current efforts to engage the Islamic Republic in the matter of its nuclear ambitions. But the crucial criterion is that the process must not be allowed to become a substitute for policy. In the hope of winning concessions from the mullahs, Germany, France, and the UK, the three EU partners in the talks, have chosen to ignore the question of the sanctions already envisaged under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty for the regime’s repeated violations of its provisions; the U.S., by contrast, can and should press for their application.

Above all, the United States should be, as the President stated in his address to the UN, resolutely on the side of the Iranian people. Programmatically, two things are needed here: assuring Iranians in no uncertain terms that the U.S. will never endorse or grant legitimacy to the current despotic regime, and helping to expose the Islamic Republic’s repressive policies, human-rights violations, rampant corruption, and wanton subsidization of some of the worst terror groups on the face of the earth. Funding Iranian opposition groups, if needed, is one way to accomplish this. More important and ultimately perhaps more effective is for the U.S. to use its immense bully pulpit to publicize the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom.

A more robust and coordinated American posture on the economic, diplomatic, political, and moral fronts would create forceful pressure on the current leadership and inspire new courage in its opponents. There is no denying that the mechanics of regime change are a delicate and often highly chancy matter and that the historical record offers examples of failure as well as of success. But there is also no denying that the game is worth the candle. Accelerating the collapse and replacement of this aberrant tyranny, a curse to the Iranian people and to the world, will strike a blow against anti-Western and anti-democratic forces all over the globe, safeguard America’s strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond, and add another radiant page to the Almanac of American support for the cause of freedom.

The regime is dying and no resuscitation is possible so it will be up to the Iranian people to make this happen. You need to be active….All of you need to unite!

 

    “Water eventually finds it’s path”
     – Persian Proverb

STOP! CHILDREN’S FUTURE AT RISK, COMMON SENSE REQUIRED

 

Released and Distributed by Stand-Up America US Foundation

October 30, 2018

Look at the purposeful, political, illegal, alien invasion of the United States that is bringing once eradicated diseases back into our schools and communities, massive gang crime that is killing young Americans in schools and on the streets, drunken driver deaths, housing benefits, food stamps and free medical, plus social security benefits given to the illegal alien invaders all by too many politicians in our US Congress, both the House and Senate. Worse is the fraudulent voting by illegals that has changed the outcome of some elections that American voting citizens desired, that in turn greatly affected needed laws NOT written in the US congress. The American public voted decisively to have a border wall built on the US Mexican Border in 2006. Is a specific political party aided by a very few misguided political elites from the other party responsible for this failing, costly, deadly, culture changing American nightmare that has been growing since President Reagan departed the White House? Congress, where is the wall?

Think about what Obama Care deceit, deception and medical destruction has done to the Medical Profession and overall Health Care for America! And to top it off Obama Care was retained by one angry Senator who cast the deciding vote to continue this exploding, corrupt, costly medical nightmare at great negative expense to taxpayers. Congress, why this failure?

Look straight up into the sky and see the many different chemical trails being sprayed from high flying jet aircraft, lingering, slowly expanding and spreading out to become thin white clouds that can gradually dispense particles of metallic aluminum, aluminum oxide, barium titanate, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, black carbon or other chemicals that can greatly affect human medical problems. What is the reason for this, that the public is not being told? Is it for weather modification, seeding the clouds for rain, controlling climates, reflecting the sun heat to cool the planet, to form a Space Fence that can deter UFO’s and ET’s, or covertly reduce the planets rapidly expanding over population? Congress, who’s been making these hidden decisions?

What about the very possible treason and lies to the American people with four great Americans being killed at Benghazi along with American war fighting weapons being filtered into opposition Muslim Brotherhood attempts to establish a Caliphate from Iran to Morocco. War on Terrorism was declared by President G.W.Bush soon after the 9/11 attack. Is the US still at a declared war footing and therefore can treason against US citizens still apply as may have happened at Benghazi? Congress?

There apparently was a fraudulent attempt to keep the present POTUS from being elected in 2016 and further attempts to have him impeached by a political opposition still reverberate within the Halls of Congress. Violence by masked political opposition rages on the city streets in some cities in the United States and Congress has made no move to quell these masked criminal’s, some who are reportedly paid for their baseless activities. Who is responsible for these crazed actions against American citizens and elected plus appointed politicians?  Congress get busy.

Facts; The United States of America is a Republic; its citizens are Sovereigns and are superior to the US Government. The Constitution of the United States is a charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed, the sovereigns, who exercise their rights through their elected US Representatives and Senators with the citizens vote being the final Key in expressing ones will, preference or choice of Congressional leadership, for establishing the Rule of Law, providing National Security, repelling invasions and writing needed Laws, all for the well being of US citizens.  Further it is the Constitutional Responsibility of The elected President to execute the office of the President by administering the Laws of the land as written by the US Congress however he cannot act for greater good when no laws are written giving him the authority needed.

Therefore, very basically and factually, it is the U S citizen voters who are  responsible for the well being, safety, security and  National Defense of all America within the Continental Limits of The United States of America, by their vote choice of a Congress to support the President.

So, why is this Nation and the American children’s future in such a disarray and jeopardy in the year 2018?  After all,  America now has a President, the first president since Ronald Reagan departed the White House, who is standing foremost on the US Governments front lines and fighting daily for the people and this Nation to bring peace and prosperity for all.  Yet there has  never before been witnessed a political opposition creating deception, disruption, discord, violence and pure evil within this one of a kind Constitutional Republic on Planet Earth, The United States of America. Have the voters bottle necked America with a congressional failure?

Why? Very simple, because far too many citizen voters, sovereigns all, have allowed fatal and pure evil flaws of failed leadership at the Legislative Branch of US Government to nearly overturn the United States of America by an illegal alien invasion. Voters who have through lack of attention to national detail, a lack of wisdom, far too many who have a blank America First mindset and who blindly follow the elite political party politicians who do whatever it takes to steal the power to rule, then want to confiscate far too many taxes from wages, salaries and retirement incomes and immorally use all the fraudulent illegal alien votes they can muster via the corrupt Clinton Motor Voter Registration system. That, in and of itself, is nothing more than political party voting in place of using enough common sense to vote for your country. All by countless citizens who are uninformed or misinformed and unable to address matters and issues that critically affect their nation and their own households. It’s American citizen voters who have sat back while answers are available on the internet, at libraries and research facilities while stupidly voting for a political party rather than vote for the good and well being for their own country and their children’s future. Political Party over Country? Why O Why this nonsense?

It is  congress with a self-serving  politically purposeful illegal alien invasion of decades when the majority voters want a security wall built on the US/Mexican border that no one can climb over undetected; it is congress who is not stopping the secret chemical spraying of the earth’s atmosphere; it is congress who can assemble a group of politicians who WILL develop an affordable health care system for the less fortunate American citizens plus affordable medical insurance for all others; it is congress who can stop skyrocketing medicine costs; it is congress who can eliminate the unholy, dastardly, destructive un-necessary  interest on the National Debt; it is congress who can legislate cheap Zero Point energy for all humanity; it is congress who can give the President the tools (laws) to do what America must have for its people. The sovereigns who are supposed to be superior to government, but too many have been stuck on stupid for far too long because they have voted for partisan political party corruption rather than vote for their own government, their children’s, and even their own secure and free future.

When voting American citizens begin voting for their country, via US Congress, our President will then have the necessary laws, via a responsible Congress, both House and Senate, to enforce and make America for American citizens secure, safe, prosperous and great again. Our President’s first order of business can and will be to expeditiously build that wall on the US and Mexican border. Because unlike a majority of voters who have tried to get the message across to congress in 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016, a huge caravan of cowards, criminals and drug dealers are marching from the southern Mexican Border headed toward the United States for jobs and crime rather than stay and fight the despotic politicians who steal their money in their own country of birth. America’s forefathers fought for America in the Revolution with very little support and won freedom, safety, security. Those in Central America can do the very same. The marching illegal alien invasion caravan that can finally destroy America and its culture for future generations, if not stopped at the 2018 ballot box by American voters (who must get to know the facts), spells doom plus the evil political demise of the greatest country on planet earth.

It is now the urgent responsibility of every American citizen voter to help save this nation’s future and no one else but the American citizen voter can be held responsible for the outcome. Voters must move correctly with no room for error at the 2018 ballot box, while the Nation has a President who will preserve this great Republic. Ignore the falsehoods that the failed elite’s have spewed into formative childlike minds causing unfounded evil about the President. Get to know the FACT’S. These opposition elites do not want any President tipping over their tax payer funded piggy bank so as to spend those hard labor earned tax dollars as they so choose. This President gets things done for the well being of Americans in spite of the endless evil back stabbing.  But he can’t continue on the same productive path without a cooperative and larger number of representatives of the sovreigns in Congress to help him after the midterm 2018 elections.

By MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret) and BG Charles Jones, USAF (Ret)

 

Supporting Information:

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

 

 

The Cure for Radical Islam Is Nationalism

 

The Cure for Radical Islam Is Nationalism

By Lawrence Sellin, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.)

For too long, many presumed experts have attempted to solve the problem of radical Islam by dissecting religious texts or recommending the support of so-called “moderate” Islamic factions.

It is a fool’s errand.

The problem with radical Islam, like other forms of political extremism, is that it is hegemonistic and totalitarian. In a world where democratic institutions remain fragile, national security options are often imperfect and contesting monolithic threats short of war may be best executed by navigating or leveraging inherent geopolitical strata and fractures.

The single, most relevant impediment to radical Islam is ethnic and cultural nationalism.

Tribal, ethnic, cultural and linguistic characteristics are primordial, traditionally hereditary and often the default forms of social identification that predate organized religion. It is only when religious practices were incorporated into those forms of identity that religion became a significant factor or sometimes a substitute for traditional identity.

That is, when religion goes beyond individual or group spiritual beliefs and begins to have not just social, but also political influence, it reaches, or is promoted as, a form of hereditary identification.

Nevertheless, tribal, ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity remain fault lines even in societies where Islam is the dominant religion. Kurdish nationalism in regions where radical Islam is an ever-present menace is an example most familiar to Americans.

Nowhere, however, are fault lines more consequential for U.S. policy than in Pakistan, the Yugoslavia of South Asia.

Yugoslavia was established in the aftermath of World War I as a pan-Slavic solution to the political volatility many blamed for the outbreak of the war. It was cobbled together as a federation of six republics with borders drawn along ethnic and historical lines, most of which were remnants of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Ethnic separatism eventually overcame the presumed unifying concept of pan-Slavism and Yugoslavia did not survive the century in which it was created.

Likewise, Pakistan is an artificial state created by the British during the partition of India, based on the ideology of Islam and composed of ethnic groups that never interacted in any significant way. Pakistan’s Sunni “Islamization” program, begun by President Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988), which involved the proliferation of Islamic schools “madrasas” and the promotion of Islamic law “Sharia,” was specifically designed to create national unity by suppressing ethnic separatism and religious diversity. As a result, radical Islamic groups, including the Taliban, have proliferated in Pakistan, becoming increasingly more extreme.

Traditionally secular and tolerant, Pakistan’s southwest province of Balochistan has been the home of a festering ethnic insurgency since 1948, when it was deprived of independence and forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. Despite its mineral wealth, the Baloch have been intentionally kept underdeveloped by the Pakistan government, and have been subjected to extensive Islamization, oppression and alleged extrajudicial killings by the Pakistani military.

As a result of both official neglect and intent, the Pakistani province of Balochistan now possesses all the elements of instability, including political corruption, criminal gangs, drug trafficking, a plethora of Islamic extremist groups and an extensive Taliban infrastructure along its common border with Afghanistan.

A secular and independent Balochistan would drive a stake into the heart of radical Islam and change the strategic dynamics in a region, where U.S. influence is rapidly shrinking.

The Pashtun Tahafuz (Protection) Movement (PTM) is a campaign for Pashtun human rights based in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the Balochistan provinces of Pakistan. The Pakistani government views the PTM as an ethnic separatist movement and has made efforts to suppress it. Those efforts include alleged government-inspired attacks conducted by the Taliban on the PTM and the incorporation of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.

The latter was ostensibly designed to dilute the influence of the PTM as a substrate for ethnic self-determination and the potential for the PTM to loosen the Taliban’s grip on the Pashtuns, both of which might interfere with Pakistan’s plans for Afghanistan, and, indirectly, China’s regional ambitions.

How does ethnic and cultural nationalism translate into strategic options for the United States?

Other than a “presence,” the U.S. has little negotiating leverage in Afghanistan, even for a graceful exit.

There are simple explanations for why the U.S. has not succeeded in Afghanistan after 17 years. Afghanistan is a landlocked country and Pakistan does not share the same aspirations for Afghanistan as the United States. Pakistan has stymied U.S. efforts in Afghanistan by controlling the operational tempo through its support of the Taliban and Haqqani network and by maintaining a stranglehold on the supply of our troops.

Blackmail largely restrains the United States from attacking insurgent safe havens in Pakistan because, by doing so, there is a risk that further destabilization of Pakistan would allow terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons. So the stalemate continues and the Pentagon’s fallback strategy — more counterinsurgency and nation building — remains the status quo.

Changing the geopolitical dynamics of the Afghanistan conflict by exploiting ethnic nationalism could provide both short-term leverage in peace negotiations and long-term strategic influence.

It doesn’t take a strategic genius to conclude that Balochistan is a regional center of gravity.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the majority of which runs through Balochistan, is the linchpin of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a collection of infrastructure projects and a transportation route that connects China to the Pakistani ports of Gwadar and Karachi on the Arabian Sea. Without the CPEC, the Belt and Road Initiative — China’s blueprint for global domination — is dead in the water.

You get to the Taliban through Pakistan and you get to Pakistan through China. Ethnic separatism is Pakistan’s pressure point, but it is China that will ultimately feel the pain.

Article

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, an IT command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa.

A nything Can Happen: The Pentagon Report has A Ring II it.

Not from the C.I.A. (means Central Intelligence Agency) Report…Not from the N.S.A. (means National Security Agency) Report…not from Obama (the thing that was never vetted by the F.B.I. with SSN: 042-68-4425 and documents signed by Pelosi and McAuliffe)…not from Hillary Clinton’s and John Kerry’s State Department for a reason, but a report from the Pentagon fore a reason.

What is the D.O.J. and the F.B.I. covering up?

 

Breaking News!

Our Counter-Intelligence System IS broken because it was sabotaged. SUA has primary source intel showing how America and our Intelligence Apparatus have been hijacked, held hostage and extorted by the Deep State for years.

Go figure.

FILE PHOTO: The Pentagon in Washington, U.S., is seen from aboard Air Force One, March 29, 2018. (III 2 9 11 ) REUTERS/Yuri Gripass/File Photo…&…U…=. Empowering Sustainable Decisions.

Pentagon report accuses China of trying to undermine US defense industry

By Joshua Berlinger and Ryan Browne

10/5/2018

(CNN)The Pentagon released a report Friday accusing China of seeking to undermine the US military’s industrial base, the latest in a series of US jabs at Beijing.

“China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to US national security,” the report said.
“China’s trade dominance and its willingness to use trade as a weapon of soft power increases the risks America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base faces in relying on a strategic competitor for critical goods, services, and commodities,” the report adds.
The study, mandated by US President Donald Trump last year in an executive order, identified nearly 300 “vulnerabilities” that could affect the supply of critical materials and other supplies essential to support the United States military.

One of the most pressing concerns is Beijing’s control over the supply of critical technologies and materials, which could pose a significant risk to US industries that are vital to national security, the report said.

“China’s aggressive industrial policies have already eliminated some capabilities with critical defense functions, including solar cells for military use, flat-panel aircraft displays, and the processing of rare earth elements,” the report says, adding “China’s actions seriously threaten other capabilities, including machine tools; the production and processing of advanced materials like biomaterials, ceramics, and composites; and the production of printed circuit boards and semiconductors.”
China controls the vast majority of the world’s rare earths materials that are used to produce high-tech defense equipment. The US did not mine any rare earths domestically in 2017, instead importing an estimated $150 million, according to the United States Geological Survey.

Analysts in Washington have long warned that Beijing could exploit the US military and defense manufacturers’ reliance on China, which from 2013 to 2016, accounted for 78% of all rare earth imports into the US.

“Diversifying away from complete dependency on sources of supply in politically unstable countries who may cut off US access” is one of the report’s central recommendations.

“A core threat to the American industrial base comes from China,” White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times discussing the year-long study.

“The broader goal, as the report makes clear, is to ‘diversify away from complete dependency on sources of supply in politically unstable countries who may cut off US access,'” he added.

The Trump administration plans to address supply bottlenecks and potential failure points using the same strategy employed during the Cold War and World War II — pumping millions of dollars into US companies that produce items critical to the US military, like high-performance aluminum, steel, tungsten and carbon fibers.

The funds will “address critical bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and mitigate single points-of-failure,” according to the report.

Defense officials said that one such investment will include a $250 million increase for small and medium manufacturers in the submarine supply chain.

The commitments fall in line with President Trump’s campaign promise to invest more in domestic manufacturing jobs and rely less on trade with China.

The report comes amid a rapidly deteriorating relationship between the United States and China, fueled in part by the ongoing trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

Beijing and Washington have also sparred recently over the status of Taiwan and China’s growing military presence in the South China Sea, where it has militarized and occupied artificial islands in violation of international law.

A senior official in the Trump administration said Thursday the White House has chosen to embrace a much more assertive public approach in dealing with China.

The strategy was evident Thursday when US Vice President Mike Pence accused China of using trade and its military to undermine the US political system and exploit American businesses.

“As we speak, Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests,” Pence said in his speech to the Hudson Institute.

China’s Foreign Ministry denied any wrongdoing and called the allegations “nothing but speaking on hearsay evidence, confusing right and wrong and creating something out of thin air.”

The news came as Bloomberg News published a bombshell report alleging the Chinese military hid tiny microchips in computer motherboards sold to major US companies such as Amazon and Apple.

That technology allowed hackers to access any network that included the altered equipment, according to Bloomberg. Apple and Amazon have both denied the report.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment on Friday, which is a public holiday in the country.

Article

 

A

The Fifth Column Sabotage Against The USA and Our Critical Infrastructure

 

The Fifth Column Sabotage Against The USA and Our Critical Infrastructure

By Tom Marin and Paul Vallely, MG U.S. Army (ret.)
July 2011

The Development and Execution of Joint Operations (both Civilian and Military) to respond to dynamic threats against the United States has now reached a point of criticality. Over the course of the last several years, some Americans are gradually waking up to the fact that our “essence of being” as a nation and as individuals is under a constant state of attack and this attack has been implemented methodically and slowly over time by enemies who despise our way of life. What is occurring to our great country is so heinous that it patronizes each one of us, who we are, our heritage and what we stand for as a nation.

During World War II, America, The Sleeping Giant, as quoted by the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, woke up; and The Greatest Generation as noted by Tom Brokaw, stood up and went off to fight “The Total Collective Effort of Evil” in their time.

Evil has many forms, and simply stated, it is a word to describe the acts of omission or acts of commission to inflict wanton harm or destruction or, according Wiktionary, a deliberate violation of some accepted moral code of behavior, i.e. a fiduciary obligation. Evil, as defined by The Free Dictionary, is that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: as in a leader’s power to do both good and/or evil. Americans responded by waging “total war” against evil perpetrated by German Nazism and Japanese Militaristic Imperialism in which the goals were to subjugate free people and farm resources under a new order of fascism.

The numbers alone reflect the concentrated, focused effort by Americans: 16,596,639 served; 416,837 were killed or missing; and over 683,846 were wounded. For me, the only way to adequately explain this focused and united American effort is to quote Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. This quote by Burke, an Irish philosopher, captures “the American essence of being” for all our generations, throughout our American history, except maybe for one, the current one…

Right now, we are living in confusing and turbulent times in which the safety and security of our country is at risk. The critical event of the sabotage that occurred on 9-11 is one of many in a timeline of numerous acts of sabotage and terror by people who want to change our way of life and subjugate our citizens to their way of “order and control”. War and sabotage have been utilized as tools throughout history to affect change and to subjugate people.

Our current operating environment is one in which our critical infrastructure and citizenry has been severely weakened due to entangling alliances, which our first American President, George Washington, specifically warned against, deceptive and defective policies enacted by negligent Congressional representation, and the so-called “business practices” of corporate America and Wall Street.

The citizens of America now find themselves in a borderless environment, in more ways than one, an unsafe environment down to the household level, and being “directed” by a bureaucratic entity that has evolved into something that is nothing more than just another “enterprise” that serves itself rather than the citizens that fund it. Current events reported in the news clearly show that our critical infrastructure has been severely compromised. These events combined with the extensive loss of jobs, homes, retirement savings, and the mortgaging of our future to foreign entities have developed into a “perfect storm” of new potential threats that can be implemented and coordinated in multiple stages to take away what is left of our American identity.

Before we review a potential strategy to respond to these emerging threats, we must remember to toast them and say “Thank You!!!” to the enablers and active participants in creating this perfect storm. As we toast and give thanks to these great Americans, we must reassure them of our resolve and that we remember and will hold them accountable for selling US all out and betraying the fiduciary trust we bestowed upon them in the positions they have held and misused their positions in committing negligent acts in order that they could aggrandize themselves at the expense of our entire nation, The United States of America.

So here we are.

We now know how we got here and the situational environment for the United States of America is not good. Our critical infrastructure sectors have been compromised and weakened, our borders are wide open, narcoterrorism is on the rise, and law enforcement and emergency services resources are stretched thin and are impacted from curtailed funding. Furthermore, our military is stretched thin around the world. All of our enemies are aware of this and are lining up and have been for a very long time as the noose tightens and our options from being held hostage are consistently being reduced due to lack of commitment to the American way of life by the elitists in Washington.

It is time for us to prioritize our threats from within our own borders and at our southern border and implement flexible strategies for preparation, response, and mitigation and annihilation of threats. Based on the lack of action demonstrated by the federal government in securing our borders and allowing the drug cartels to have open highways into our country, and inadequate response to disasters such as the BP Oil incident, I believe that it is time for our military, or retired military, to assist as special advisors to train up each states national guard, state Defense Force, and public safety and emergency response personnel so that each state can immediately engage a well coordinated response to any threat or critical event.

We must know our enemy and be aware that they have implemented this approach themselves as they have hired mercenaries, implemented political factions, and even sent members to serve in the military to acquire special operations training. State and Local resources need to be trained in specialized counter insurgency techniques that can adapt and complement law enforcement investigations such as in the area of C4iISR and in Command and Control of critical events. Colonel John Vann, one of the early counter insurgency experts, once stated in a briefing after the Tet Offensive, “It’s about the rice”. As far as our southern border is concerned, it is about the drugs.

Narco-terrorism is linked as a tool for our enemies to assist in destroying us from within as part of the master plan to destroy the American way of life. Also, terrorists have numerous options for low level operations from within our own borders. Due to our open borders, the risk is extremely high for numerous events to take place to overwhelm our resources and system much like what has already been done to our critical infrastructure and fabric.

We also must be aware that our enemies have a new economic blueprint for America, giving away our resources. It is about energy and our property, both physical and intellectual. Also, there will be a new code of law to be utilized to supervise and administer our new non-American world. It is about the United Nations not the United States of America. We must counter each tactical goal and disrupt and demolish the master plan – The New Total Collective Effort of Evil that has been perpetrated against us over a long period of time.

In his article Threat Assessments – Joint Strike Force Combat Operations, Paul Vallely, retired U.S. Army Major General, concluded that “our military must be very creative and be able to adapt, improvise, and be ahead of the curve of future thinking in regards to threats to our national security”. Also, in his recent testimony before the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology at the United States House of Representatives, James Carafano, PhD, noted that DHS Science and Technology Directorate had “limited success in partnering with other federal agencies and international partners” and also demonstrated “the inability to manage complex programs.”

Finally, DHS S+T also demonstrated a “lack of response to customer needs and that the Directorate’s portfolios do not adequately reflect their requirements and are not sufficiently responsive to operational needs.” In addition to the above conclusions by both parties, the situational environment has dramatically changed since the War on Terror began when the American Embassy, United States soil, in Iran was invaded and taken over. This initial act, which may be distant in our minds, was a clear message by our enemies, Muslim extremists, that there will be no borders.

To further understand this, one only needs to see where Shiite and Sunni populations reside and you can see how borders literally bleed away. Also, the historical timeline of critical events have clearly proven that our enemies are consistently maintaining their operational plan. We must now also accept the fact that the enemy is not only at the gate, but thanks to the current administration’s lack of enforcement of existing American Laws to protect Libyan, I mean American citizens, there is no gate.

I would also like to note that I sarcastically disagree with one of Dr. Carafano’s conclusions in regards to DHS in that the agency “failed to convert technologies for use by non-federal customers.” Based on my own personal experience, our national telecommunications infrastructure, our telecommunications and information technology, the intellectual property of businesses, the Defense Industrial Base, and individuals has actually been “successfully converted”, mirrored, imprinted, and stolen by non-federal customers: our “good trading partner, China, and the People Liberations Army military – industrial apparatus.

This was achieved by the lack of compliance, enforcement and accountability to laws of the United States in regard to protecting our citizens, strategic assets and our critical infrastructure. The current situation: “Welcome to the great wide open” both in public cyber, net centric, “cloud” operations and our physical national identity.

 

So what do we do from here?

 

  1. – Have a plan for “Total National Security and The Preservation and Protection of our American Identity.”
  • Economic;
  • Social;
  • Education;
  • Law, Civics…amasses Civil and State Judicial talent and power.

(Our current administration’s design is to do the exact opposite of protecting our borders and national identity – and is actually giving away “our secret sauce”) Implement each component of the plan in the shortest amount of time and with the least cost in human and financial capital.

Focus on State Government (Governor, Attorney Generals, and State legislatures) for local level implementation and utilize Congressional Representatives as evangelists of the plan. Everything happens at the last mile. The U.S. government is the people residing within 50 states. If the Congressional Evangelist is not focused on the plan, it should be immediately identified and noted and constantly addressed by the state government and state watchdog groups and local media. (always keep score)

  • Design the plan to be dynamic in achieving both tactical and strategic goals that lead to the accomplishment of the end game
  • Identify resources available to achieve both tactical and strategic goals.
  1. – Implement the plan with a total commitment to National Security and The
  • Preservation and Protection of our American Identity;
  • National identity: infrastructure, borders, heritage;
  • State identity: infrastructure, borders and heritage;
  • Protect American citizens civil rights;
  • Ownership by all.
  1. – Work The Plan
  • Be willing to adapt new tactical strategies without changing the strategic mission;
  • Commit to meeting all objectives and milestones;
  • Transparency: Constantly identify all issues, hard stops, road blocks and impasses and the reasons why objectives are not being met and bring them out immediately for the preservation of resources and meeting the plan’s objectives.
  1. – Utilize full accountability and compliance enforcement using existing laws and be willing to immediately enact new laws at the state level to immediately assist in meeting the plan’s objectives.
  1. – Maintain the Plan in an ongoing dynamic manner that always has America first.


Safety First: Protecting the physical component for Homeland Security

Revise US Military Security Strategy to Joint Strike Force Operations using MG Vallely’s “Lilly Pad” strategy.

  • Special Operations personnel or retired military personnel and professional emergency operations specialists will train state National Guard, State Defense Forces, and law enforcement in coordinated operations.
  • Implement State Virtual Command and Control and Emergency Operations Centers that are securely linked to military Virtual Command and Control Operation Centers (Lilly Pads)
  • Coordinate Special Operations Resources and Virtual Command and Control in order to prevent , mitigate, and respond to a critical event and also to coordinate a criminal law enforcement strike against criminal and terrorist activities within each state’s borders.
  • In order for the dual Lilly Pad implementation to be effective in either a reactive response or criminal law enforcement action, a trusted resource should be utilized to effectively communicate updated intelligence data and incidence response information from the dynamic, ever-changing operating environment of critical event management and planning. We should look to history to identify and utilize an effective “hopper”. In World War II, the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard were successfully utilized to protect our homeland as the rest of our military went overseas. The combined effort of these joint forces successfully achieved our nation’s goals for homeland defense by effectively communicating intelligence data and incident reports to the military, law enforcement and to international intelligence directorates. Based on the gaps in coordination and communication both in the working operational environment and technological environment, I believe we should implement a similar methodology.
  • The US Navy and US Coast Guard already successfully operate in their environments.
  • Port Security and Drug Interdiction functions mirror law enforcement;
  • There is an established level of trust;
  • The Navy and Coast Guard’s image throughout our history from a civilians perspective, whether it is correct or not, is one that operates outside the parameters of those established in the basement of The DoD establishment at the Pentagon.

This is the type of forward strategic planning and operations that our National Security leaders should be implementing.

Tom Marin and Paul E. Vallely (Chairman Stand Up America).

Article

What is already in place and is going to be implemented.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
– Edmund Burke

Article

a