Does Iran Pose A Terrorist Threat To The United States

Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton are beating the drums of war against Iran. They call Iran a "bad actor" and a supporter of terrorism. They would have you believe that the danger posed to the United States from terrorism is due to Iranian influence and support. Is that true?

Let's look at all the times Iranian or Iranian-backed terrorists have attacked the United States. Consider this from The New Republic:

For the past twenty years or so, the annual reports of the National Counterterrorism Center have attributed the vast majority of the Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since 2001 to “Sunni extremists”—jihadists inspired by the anti-imperialist Salafist theology of Saudi Arabia. ISIS and other fundamentalist militias fall under this category of Sunni extremism, often funded by wealthy Persian Gulf Arabs. They hate the heretical—as they see them—Shia Muslims of Iran almost as much as they hate the “Crusaders and Jews” of Washington and Tel Aviv. The fanatics behind the attacks of 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, and San Bernardino were all Sunni extremists. None of the terrorists involved in those bloody attacks was Iranian. . . .

The idea that Tehran was Terror Central originated in 1979 when Iranians held 52 American diplomats hostage for some 400 days. When Iran then used covert operatives and proxy forces to wage war on Western targets after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration depicted Iran as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The charge stuck, even as Iran’s revolutionary fervor cooled and factions within the government pursued better relations with Washington.

Since 9/11, however, Iran’s attacks on Western targets have dwindled while the violence of non-state anti-Iranian terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS has gone global. Read the NCTC reports of the last 20 years, and you will see Iranian/Shiite terrorism is not even a category in U.S. counterterrorism reporting. By any objective measure, it is a much smaller threat to Americans and the world than either Sunni terrorism or white nationalist terrorism.

Looking for specifics, I emailed a couple of experts and asked for their take on the State Department claim. Which Americans were killed by Iran? When?

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA station chief, replied by email, “The best case is in Iraq after 2003 when IRGC supported Iraqis [who] killed US troops.” Bruce Hoffman, counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University, told me via email that the State Department was probably referring “to the intense fighting in Sadr City in Baghdad in 2008 between IRGC and U.S. military forces.”

If so, however, that wouldn’t exactly qualify as terrorism. In Sadr City, the IRGC forces attacked uniformed U.S. military forces that had invaded Iraq on a false pretense—hardly the same as blowing up a civilian airliner or shooting up a rock concert.

Hoffman also emphasized that the IRGC was involved in terror attacks against Americans in the 20th century, which is both indisputably true and a long time ago.

“The IRGC had a role in training Hezbollah and providing logistical assistance for the US embassy bombings in Beirut in 1983 and 1984 and the US Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport also in 1983,” Hoffman wrote. “They were also likely involved in the kidnappings, torture and deaths of CIA Station Chief William Buckley in 1985, of USMC Col William Higgins in 1989.”. . .

The last terror attack on Americans, plausibly linked to Iran or its proxies, was theKhobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel. That happened 22 years ago.

Does this add tup to a substantial terror threat from Iran? Note that no attack on U.S. citizens by Iranian-backed terrorists has occurred anywhere for the last 22 years. And no Iranian-backed terrorist attack has ever happened on U.S. soil (except for the 1979 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 40 years ago). Iranian-backed terrorists have never attacked the Continental United States.

Iranians are Shiite muslims. All attacks in the U.S. by muslims have been by Sunni muslims. Iran has fought against the Sunni muslim terrorist groups (like ISIS in Iraq and al-Queda in Yemen).

Don't let Trump and his henchmen convince you that the terrorist attacks in the U.S. have anything to do with Iran. They do not! Using terrorism as an excuse to go to war with Iran is nothing more than an outrageous lie!

U.S. Should End It's Double Standard On Iran/Saudi Arabia

Iran and Saudi Arabia are probably the two most powerful muslim nations in the Middle East, and they hate each other. That's because each is pushing to make its own muslim brand the dominant one in the region. The Saudis want the Sunni branch of islam to be dominant, while the Iranians want the Shiite branch to be dominant. In other words, they are engaged in what could be called a religious war -- and that war has engulfed all of the Middle East nations.

In what I believe to be a huge mistake, the United States has chosen sides in this religious conflict. It has cast its lot with the Sunnis and against the Shiites (even though the Sunnis are the ones that funded the al-Queda and ISIS terrorists).

This makes no sense. It destroys the U.S. goals by showing the world it is not a neutral power in that region. The U.S. should not be taking sides, especially since neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran reflects the values that Americans cherish. The U.S. would be much better served by changing its policy to one that is truly neutral.

The following is part of an excellent op-ed on this subject by Jason Rezaian in The Washington Post:

U.S. sanctions on Iran are scheduled to go back into effect on Nov. 4. On that day, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) will breathe a massive sigh of relief.

After weeks of international backlash over the murder of my colleague Jamal Khashoggi, MBS will read Trump’s punitive measures against Iran as a green light for him to once again do as he pleases.

But that doesn’t have to be the case.

For years, Saudi Arabia has gotten away with funding terrorism and extremism, suppressing the rights of its people and silencing its critics, often by killing them. These are all activities for which the United States rightfully punishes Iran. But it allows the Saudis to do the same things without reproach.

It is time for that double standard to end.

The butchering of Khashoggi and Riyadh’s attempts to cover it up offer a necessary moment of clarity. They remind us that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is purely transactional, not one based on common values. . . .

Our alliance with Saudi Arabia is based solely on oil, weapons and money.

This is precisely why Saudi Arabia has spent decades and many millions of dollarscultivating its foothold in Washington. Its strength is its ability to wine and dine influencers, underwrite the pet projects of powerful Americans in and out of office, and organize large-scale PR campaigns (including online disinformation).

Unfortunately, as a result, the Washington consensus on security in the Middle East has been hijacked by Saudi Arabia and its backers, whose primary argument is that the kingdom is needed to counter the threat of Iran. . . .

Like Saudi Arabia, Iran has massive oil and gas reserves. But it has many other advantages that the Saudis do not. It has a highly educated population, including many women. It actually produces and exports goods besides energy, including agriculture and cars. It has a political system that, though incredibly narrow in scope and repressive in practice, encourages popular participation.

Any rational thinker would conclude that Iran is a much better long-term partner than Saudi Arabia — as long as Iran is compelled to abandon its most destructive behavior.

The nuclear deal presupposed that Iran would become, if not a partner, at least a more constructive rival. And there was reason to believe this would happen. The United States and Iran cooperated to fight both the Taliban and, later, the Islamic State — both, it should be noted, Saudi-funded terrorist enterprises that undermine global security.

None of the world leaders involved in the Iran nuclear negotiations considered the agreement to be a miraculous panacea to our disputes with Iran. They saw it as an opening, a test worth taking in part because the relationship with Saudi Arabia was becoming untenable.

A rebalancing has long been in order, and that happens only if we can craft a working relationship with Iran. . . .

We desperately need to put an end to the era of unchecked extremism in the Middle East, which has its roots in Tehran and Riyadh. We should adopt a realistic and rational approach, free of double standards, that holds both capitals accountable for the chaos they sow, while incentivizing them to act like responsible global powers.

Terrorism In New York City (Don't Let Trump Lie About It)

(Photo of New York City terrorist is from CNN.)

Sadly, New York City has been the site of a new terrorist attack. A man (evidently a muslim fundamentalist) rented a pickup and drove down a bike path -- killing 8 people and wounding another 15.

As expected, Trump is already trying to make some political hay out of the tragedy. He tweeted that these terrorists cannot be allowed to come to this country. I assume he was talking about his effort to ban muslims from certain countries from entering the United States. The problem is that his silly (and bigoted) ban would not have prevented anyone entering from this terrorists country of origin. He was from Uzbekistan -- which is NOT on any list that Trump has submitted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump also, in the next few days, tried to use this attack as an excuse to get sanctions applied against Iran. He has repeatedly said that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism (inferring that they support the terrorists attacking Western countries). That is simply not true.

Iran is a shiite nation. They do support some groups (like Hezbollah, which acts in the Middle East). But they don't support the main terrorist groups attacking Western countries. Those groups are ISIS and al-Queda, and both are sunni fundamentalist groups. Members of either ISIS or al-Queda would not last long in Iran -- and in fact, Iran has troops helping Iraq (another shiite government) fight against ISIS.

Iran is not a friend of the United States (which is understandable since the U.S. overthrew their legal democratic government decades ago and installed a dictator - the Shah). But they are NOT the supporters of terrorism in the West. Most of that support comes from sunni countries -- like Saudi Arabia (which is supposed to be our friend).

Don't let Trump demagogue the issue and lie to you -- about his muslim ban, or about Iran.

Trump Is Misleading Americans About Islamic Terrorism

This week, terrorists struck two locations in Tehran, Iran. Donald Trump said he was sympathetic to the victims of the attack, and then turned around and accused Iran of having complicity in the attacks on their own country. He said:

"We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."

Understandably, the Iranians were upset with Trump. His statement infers that Iran supports the group that attacked Tehran (ISIS). It's just a continuation of his claims that Iran supports the terrorists that are attacking Western nations. None of that is true.

Iran does offer support to a couple of groups defined as terrorists -- the Houthi in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon (and Palestine). Those are shiite muslim groups, and Iran is a shiite muslim state. But those are not the groups that attacked Iran, and they are not the groups responsible for attacks in Europe and the United States.

The groups mainly responsible for attacking Europe and the United States are sunni muslim groups -- ISIS and al-Queda. They get no support from Iran. Their support comes mainly from a country that Trump calls a "friend" -- Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of wahhabism (the extreme fundamentalist sect of sunni muslim thought that gave rise to the sunni terrorists like al-Queda and ISIS), and Saudi money has gone to both these terrorist groups.

Trump seems to want to lump all islamic fundamentalists into a single group of terrorists that hate the West. That is far too simple. It shows he is either lying and misleading Americans, or he doesn't understand the truth -- that the trouble in the Middle East is basically a religious civil war being fought between shiite and sunni muslims. He seems to have sided with the sunnis without understanding that they are where ISIS and al-Queda have originated. He also seems not to understand that ISIS was created when an American president (Bush) overthrew the secular government in Iraq and installed a shiite muslim government in its place (which caused sunnis to rebel against that government and the shiite government in Syria by creating ISIS).

Blaming Iran for terrorism in the West is ignoring the reality of what is happening. It would make more sense to blame Saudi Arabia. But Trump doesn't want to do that, because they have too much oil that we want and have plenty of money to spend on U.S. weapons. In effect, Trump has taken the side of the sunnis in the religious civil war -- the same side that is attacking the Western nations.

U.S. Bombing Of Syria Has Begun - Is It A Good Idea?

We learned yesterday that the United States has begun bombing ISIS targets in Syria -- using both cruise missiles and bombs from planes. And politicians from both parties have jumped on the bandwagon to support the bombings -- along with the mainstream media, who beat the war drums all day long. I'm not so sure this is an event to be celebrated, or even approved.

Don't get me wrong. I don't feel sorry for ISIS. They are a brutal and frightening group, and if they all died today I would shed no tears for them. But I do have some questions about this new war effort.

I am a little comforted by the fact that a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain) took part in the bombing, but I question just how committed they are to fighting ISIS. Are they going to continue the bombing, or is this just short-term cover for the United States (which is carrying the bulk of the loan)? Are they willing to put soldiers on the ground to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq? We can wound ISIS and its allies, perhaps seriously, through bombing -- but it will take ground troops to defeat them.

I'm not even sure the four Arab nations who joined in the bombing have the troops necessary to do the job. They are rich nations, but have small populations. I doubt any ground effort can even be conducted without the participation of much larger populated Arab countries like Turkey and Egypt -- and so far, neither has expressed a willingness to participate.

I keep hearing from both politicians and the media about the great danger ISIS poses for the United States. That is silly, and those saying it should be ashamed of themselves. The military arm of ISIS poses no danger at all to the United States. They are not going to invade this country (or any of its possessions). The only threat they pose is a terrorist threat -- and completely wiping out the military arm of ISIS will not eliminate the terrorist threat (which can be posed by a few individuals who hold no territory at all).

I still wonder if we even have a dog in this fight. Even though the government and the media completely ignore it, this is basically a religious war between two factions of muslims (Sunnis and Shiites). If ISIS and its Sunni allies win, they are certainly not going to be an ally of the United States. And if the Shiites win, it means that Assad will control Syria and Iran will largely control Iraq. And neither of those is likely to be a U.S. ally either.

The truth is that we have no real ally in this religious war. And although the United States is a secular nation, most of the muslim world views us as a christian nation. And too many Arabs on the street are going to view this as just one more christian crusade against the muslim world. The only thing we are assured of doing in this conflict is to create more enemies for this country.

And don't think this is going to be a quick war. One Pentagon official, talking about the bombing, said we should be thinking of the timeline in years -- not days or weeks. Our government has just started another endless war -- and one we cannot win.

McCain's No Foreign Policy Expert

For weeks now, I've been hearing the mainstream media rave on about how McCain's strength in the coming election is his foreign policy experience and expertise. Somehow they've looked at his military experience, his many years in the Senate and a few trips to Iraq, and decided he must be an expert in foriegn policy. But after watching him make several foreign policy blunders, I have serious doubts.

Take for instance his statements on his recent trip to Iraq. McCain told newsmen that Iran was supplying arms and aid to al-Queda. Even after being corrected by his buddy Joe Lieberman, McCain made the same mistake later. At the time, it was just labeled as a misstatement or a "senior moment".

But this was a mistake that someone who really understood what was going on in Iraq should not have made. There is no way that Iran would ever help al-Queda. That is because Iran is ruled by Shiites, and al-Queda is composed of Sunnis. The Shiites and the Sunnis do not get along at all. Iran may have been helping some Shiite insurgency groups in Iraq, but they would not arm their enemies -- the Sunnis.

On Monday, he again made a serious mistake on the campaign trail. He told a group that he was worried about Russia cutting off oil exports to Czechoslovakia because they had signed an agreement with us. Yesterday, he made the same mistake again.

Evidently, he doesn't know that the country of Czechoslovakia has not existed for at least 15 years. In January of 1993, that country split into two separate countries -- Slovakia and the Czech Republic. It was the Czech Republic with whom the United States recently signed a missle defense agreement.

I don't know whether McCain was having another "senior moment" or whether he just doesn't understand how the world has changed, but either way it shows us that he just doesn't have the foreign police expertise that Republicans and the mainstream media are claiming he has.

Saddam's Execution Changes Nothing

Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed yesterday by the current puppet government in Iraq. I am not sorry to see him go. He was a criminal responsible for the deaths of many innocent people.

Bush called the execution a "milestone" in history. If so, then it was a small milestone. The Saddam era was already over. It ended the day he was pulled from his hiding place, a hole in the ground, by U.S. troops. That is why his execution will change nothing in Iraq.

The current civil war in Iraq was not about Saddam. It is about who gets to control Iraq once we leave. The current government will not exercise control over Iraq after our soldiers leave. They cannot even control the country with our help.

Control will fall to one of two groups -- the Shiites [backed by Iran] or the Sunnis [backed by Saudi Arabia]. For a short time after the fall of Saddam's government, it was us against the insurgents. But that time has long passed.

It is now a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, with our soldiers in the middle and hated by both sides. The only thing our troops are accomplishing is to prolong the civil war.

It is time to bring our troops home -- immediately.

Saudi Arabia Sending Millions To Iraqi Insurgents

Have we already chosen a side in the Iraqi civil war? It certainly looks like it, when you consider our government's different treatment for those countries funding the factions fighting in Iraq.

The Bush administration is coming down hard on countries like Iran and Syria, saying they are funding the Iraqi Shiite factions. Bush accuses these countries of trying to foment violence between Shiites and Sunnis, in the hope of helping to establish a Shiite government in Iraq.

But are we coming down as hard on the countries that fund the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? Not at all.

The Iraq Study Group tells us that millions of dollars are being given to Sunni insurgents by sources in Saudi Arabia. The money is given to Sunni clerics, who then funnel the money to the Iraqi insurgents. The Study Group says large boxes of money are being smuggled into Iraq by truckers and bus drivers from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi government denies that this is happening, but isn't that what we would expect them to say? Just last week, Nawaf Obaid, who headed a security group close to the Saudi government, said Saudi Arabia would use its money and oil to support Sunnis and thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq. Obaid was fired for letting the cat out of the bag, but that doesn't alter the truth of his statement.

But the Bush administration is doing nothing to punish the Saudis for supporting the insurgents who are killing our American soldiers. That is because the Bush family has many friends and business associates in the Saudi royal family. Remember, the Saudis were allowed to fly out of America immediately after the 9/11 disaster. The Bush administration allowed them to fly even though everyone else, including American citizens, were grounded.

If Bush is going to allow the Saudis to fund one side in the Iraqi civil war, and cannot keep the Iranians from funding the other side, he needs to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. They are stuck in the middle with no friends on either side.

But Bush will not withdraw our troops, because it would involve his having to admit he made a mistake [something his personality will not allow him to do]. Bush started this whole mess, but don't hold your breath waiting for him to fix it.