RUTHFULLY YOURS

There have been wild reports that the United States is considering a “bloody nose” preemptive attack of some sort on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Such rumors are unlikely to prove true. Preemptive attacks usually are based on the idea that things will so worsen that hitting first is the only chance to decapitate a regime before it can do greater damage.

But in the struggle between Pyongyang and Washington, who really has gotten the upper hand?

With its false happy face in the current Winter Olympics, North Korea thinks it is winning the war of nerves. Yet its new nuclear missile strategy is pretty transparent. It wants to separate South Korea’s strategic interests from those of the United States, with boasts—backed by occasional missile nuclear tests—that it can take out West Coast cities.

Pyongyang could then warn its new frenemy, Seoul, that the United States would never risk its own homeland to keep protecting South Korea. Thus it would supposedly be wiser for Koreans themselves, in the spirit of Olympic brotherhood, to settle their own differences. A failed but nuclear North Korea ultimately would dictate the terms of the relationship to a successful but non-nuclear South Korea.

North Korea might even insincerely offer to dismantle some of its nuclear assets if the United States would just pull out its forces from the demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel. This strategy would also send the message to the United States that it should have little interest risking a nuclear exchange over a distant and largely internal Korean matter.

Environmental activist Kavous Seyed Emami, a dual Canadian-Iranian citizen, became the latest victim of Iran’s government last week when he died in Evin Prison under suspicious circumstances. An ailing American may be next on the regime’s death list.

The 63-year-old Seyed Emami was a founder of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation, which works to preserve wildlife in Iran. The foundation’s website says it’s funded by “individuals as well as companies with a sense of social responsibility,” and that it works with “commercial ventures,” other conservation groups and Iran’s “hard-working officials in charge of our natural resources at the Department of Environment.” Not exactly foes of the regime.

Yet Seyed Emami and several colleagues, including Iranian-American board member Morad Tahbaz, were detained in January on espionage charges after anti-regime protests roiled the country. The government says Seyed Emami committed suicide by hanging, which is what the regime claimed about Sina Ghanbari, a young protestor who died in Evin prison in January. Odd how prisoners keep killing themselves in authoritarian dungeons.

In 1969, Winston Churchill’s biographer Martin Gilbert interviewed Edward Lewis Spears, a longtime friend of Gilbert’s subject. “Even Winston had a fault,” Spears reflected to Gilbert. “He was too fond of Jews.” If, as one British wag put it, an anti-Semite is one who hates the Jews more than is strictly necessary, Churchill was believed to admire the Jews more than elite British society deemed strictly necessary. With attention now being paid to Churchill’s legacy as portrayed in the film Darkest Hour, I thought it worth exploring the little-known role that Churchill’s fondness for the Jewish people played at a critical period in the history of Western civilization.

The film highlights three addresses delivered by Churchill upon becoming prime minister in the spring of 1940, with the Nazis bestriding most of Europe. Of the three, his two speeches before Parliament—the one that promised “blood, toil, tears, and sweat,” the other that “we shall fight on the beaches”—are more famous. The most important disquisition, however, may have been the radio remarks delivered on May 19, as they were the first words spoken by Churchill to the British people as leader of His Majesty’s Government. Britain faced, he said, “the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history.”

The Nazis had thus far destroyed every adversary that they had faced, leaving in their wake a “group of shattered states and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians—upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall.” Noting that he was speaking on a celebratory day in the Christian calendar, Churchill then concluded with an apparent scriptural citation—a rare rhetorical choice for him—as inspiration to his country at the most perilous moment in its history.

Today is Trinity Sunday. Centuries ago words were written to be a call and a spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice: “Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be.”

Thus ended Churchill’s first radio address as prime minister to the British people, which has come to be known as the “Be Ye Men of Valour” speech. That evening, Anthony Eden told Churchill: “You have never done anything as good or as great. Thank you, and thank God for you.” The scriptural conclusion was a stunning success, stiffening the British spine and capturing the English imagination. But where in the Bible is the verse with which Churchill concluded and for which his speech is named?

Prior to any discussion on what to do about Venezuela, a consensus about what led to this crisis needs to be reached. The role of Iran is critical in such a conversation.

As in the Syria conflict, Iran’s primary role is preparing the Venezuelan battlefield through a range of operations in irregular warfare, using non-state actors and surrogates to gain influence over the population.

Strong evidence suggest that Venezuela used its immigration agency to provide Venezuelan identities and documents to several hundred, if not thousands, of Middle Easterners. Without proper vetting and verification measures in place, and a high degree of counterintelligence support, our regional allies will not know if Venezuelan refugees spilling across borders are legitimate refugees or members of a transregional clandestine network between Latin America and the Middle East.

Any intervention in Venezuela — military, humanitarian or otherwise — will not work unless it is aimed at removing the external influences, especially Iran, Russia and China, that have turned Venezuela into the Syria of the Western Hemisphere.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just completed, by most accounts, a successful visit to Latin America. He began his five-nation tour by invoking the Monroe Doctrine and suggesting the Venezuelan military could manage a “peaceful transition” from the authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro. This reminded several regional observers of President Trump’s suggestion last year of a possible “military option” for Venezuela, hinting at possible U.S. or multilateral intervention to stop the country’s collapse.

An armed action or military intervention in Venezuela by any nation in the Western Hemisphere, including Venezuela’s own military, must take into account the role of Iran, Russia and China in the crisis. Russia and China were prominently mentioned by Tillerson during his visit to the region; Iran, however, was notably absent from his remarks.

Prior to any discussion on what to do about Venezuela, a consensus about what led to this crisis needs be reached. The role of Iran is critical in such a conversation.

Why, yes these people are fully rational. And we should absolutely trust them to use nuclear weapons responsibly. Unless the atomic lizards get to them first.

Western spies used lizards which can ‘attract atomic waves’ to spy on Iran’s nuclear programme, the former chief-of-staff of the nation’s armed forces has claimed.

Hassan Firuzabadi, senior military advisor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he did not know the details of the cases, but that the West had often used tourists, scientists and environmentalists to spy on Iran.

Firuzabadi was responding to questions from local media on the recent arrest of environmentalists.

‘Several years ago, some individuals came to Iran to collect aid for Palestine,’ he said.

‘We were suspicious of the route they chose. In their possessions were a variety of reptile desert species like lizards.

‘We found out that their skin attracts atomic waves and that they were nuclear spies who wanted to find out where inside the Islamic republic of Iran we have uranium mines and where we are engaged in atomic activities,’ he added.

I wonder if these ray reflecting lizards have the same rays as the ones that radiate from women’s hair so that they must wear hijabs?

But Islamists sure are paranoid about animals spying on them?

Last month, Hamas claimed that it had captured an Israeli “spy dolphin” off the coast of Gaza after it was caught engaging in “suspicious movements”. I’m not sure what those are, but then I’m not a meth-smoking Koran-reading Islamic Supremacist terrorist leader trying to find another press release to email off to Al Jazeera.

February 1st was the fifth World Hijab Day. Hijab is the Muslim headscarf that the media continually mischaracterize as merely a symbol of modesty in Islam. World Hijab Day was founded by New York activist Nazma Khanin in 2013 and is now celebrated in 140 countries. The stated goal is to foster religious tolerance and understanding by encouraging women of all religions to wear and experience hijab for one day. Put on a pretty head scarf and you too can enter a popular victim class. If you are really lucky you may be harassed and enjoy the full discrimination experience. Ironically, many of the same feminists who wore pussy hats at the Women’s March put on head scarves to stand in solidarity with their Muslim sisters. One month these feminist fashionistas are dressing up like giant vaginas and the next month celebrating their modesty. It would be much less confusing if these women would stop using headwear to symbolize their political positions. It makes you worry what else is in their clothes closet.

A few days later Macy’s announced a new clothing line for Muslim women making them the first major department store in the U.S. to sell hijabs. This is part of a new trend called Haute Hijab to glamorize and normalize the covering of women. In an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Sonia Ossorio, President of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women, said that hijab was a symbol of empowerment and resistance against Donald Trump. Her statement was in reference to women who never wore hijab before who decided to wear it in protest of the travel ban. While deluded Western feminists are embracing the most recognizable symbol of institutional oppression, women in Iran are risking their lives waving and burning their head coverings in protest against the state-mandated law.

Sonia Ossorio and other so-called feminists interpret the wearing of hijab from their own cultural perspective as if all women wear it of their own free will. They do not understand that one of the fundamental reasons that women must be covered is that modesty is intrinsically intertwined with Islamic concepts of purity, honor and shame. These feminist fashionistas do not realize that no matter how pretty the hijab head scarf, it is essentially a prison uniform. It is used as a shaming mechanism to make women think their own bodies are the cause of male sexual urges, that they are a dirty impure unclean gender who must be hidden, cloistered, secluded and segregated so they do not entice or contaminate the community of men.

Who is Kim Yo Jong ? “ Kim Jong Un’s sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics,” declared a CNN.com headline. This princess of Pyongyang received a royal welcome from South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in. He seated her in his VIP box, near Vice President Mike Pence, for the opening ceremony. He hosted her for lunch at the presidential Blue House, where she delivered him an invitation for a summit with Mr. Kim. The resulting Reuters headline: “North Korea heading for diplomacy gold medal at the Olympics.”

Missing from most of the media coverage was any detail about Ms. Kim’s day job in Pyongyang. In North Korea this kid sister has served under Big Brother as a deputy director of the powerful and omnipresent Propaganda and Agitation Department. She has apparently racked up a record so stellar that last year the U.S. Treasury blacklisted her as a top North Korean official tied to “notorious abuses of human rights.” Mr. Kim gave her an alternate seat on his politburo.

In blacklisting Ms. Kim, the Treasury specified that her department “controls all media in the country, which the government uses to control the public.” That’s an understatement. The Propaganda and Agitation Department’s mission is to control not only media but minds—to indoctrinate all North Koreans, at all levels, in the absolute supremacy of Kim Jong Un and his Workers’ Party. CONTINUE AT SITE

Recently, the Turks complained about the January 31, 2017 Washington placement of Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, on a terror watch blacklist. Ankara has supported Hamas substantially for years now, especially since the increasingly dictatorial Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) gained ascendency in the second decade of this century.

Increasingly, with the turmoil and chaos in adjacent Syria and Iraq, the Turks appear to have visions of at least partially recreating the borders of the former Ottoman Turkish Empire. Absent Washington and Moscow’s involvement, this might already have been a done deal by now, with the centuries old rivalry between the Ottomans and Iran’s Safavid and Qajar Shahs over the region at play. Of course, Russia’s involvement here is also nothing new—both in pre-Soviet and post-Soviet days. Moscow was non-discriminatory when expanding its own imperial borders via those of the other two players.

While the AKP claims that it’s not really “Islamist,” Erdogan & Co. certainly have an affinity for at least some militant, fundamentalist Islamist groups—including ISIS and Hamas. It’s no accident that the border has been fluid for ISIS fighters moving between Turkey and Syria.

Since I began by relaying Ankara’s support for a group dedicated to the slaughter of Jews and their sole, resurrected, minuscule nation (note: geographically, thirty-eight Israels fit into Turkey; Israel’s population is about 1/11 its size with about the same 20% mix of Arabs to Jews as Turkey’s 20-25% Kurds to Turks), from here onwards my concern will not be about such things as why or how modern Turkey transformed from Mustafa Kemal’s (“Ataturk”) post-World War I’s secular state to one closely aligned with religiously-motivated extremist groups. Instead, I will concentrate on a comparison between what Ankara faces regarding its own real or perceived threats and how Israel has handled what is, in reality, a far worse situation.