RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Trump has had a busy few days of Asia diplomacy, including his first post-inauguration phone call with China’s Xi Jinping on Thursday, a White House summit with Japan’s Shinzo Abe on Friday and 27 holes of golf with Mr. Abe on Saturday, followed by a joint press conference on North Korea’s latest missile launch. Unlike some of his earlier encounters with foreign leaders, this round demonstrated sobriety, careful planning and respect for allies.

The news out of the Xi call is that Mr. Trump affirmed the longstanding U.S. “One China policy” concerning Taiwan, which he previously said would be “under negotiation” with Beijing along with trade and other issues. Some of our friends in the media have portrayed this as evidence that the U.S. President is a “paper tiger,” citing Chinese officials who say Mr. Xi refused to speak with Mr. Trump until he softened his stance. But the substance of Mr. Trump’s shift isn’t surprising or dramatic.

Rather than embrace Beijing’s “One China principle,” which insists that Taiwan is part of China, Mr. Trump only endorsed the U.S. policy of acknowledging a Beijing-Taipei disagreement over Taiwan’s status, reserving U.S. judgment on the issue and calling for the peaceful settlement of disputes with the consent of Taiwan’s people. As has been true for decades, this amounts to little more than agreeing to disagree. It certainly doesn’t stop the U.S. from supporting Taiwan with means other than official recognition as an independent state.

Nor does it stop Mr. Trump from building on his December phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen by boosting economic, diplomatic and military ties with the island. On the contrary, by signaling that he won’t risk a destabilizing clash with Beijing over a matter as sensitive as Taiwan’s independence, Mr. Trump will now be able to secure more support for a cautious but still expanded Taiwan agenda from leaders in Taipei, Tokyo and other friendly capitals.

Which brings us to Mr. Trump’s strikingly friendly summit with Mr. Abe, a display surely not lost on Chinese leaders who rightly identify the Japanese Prime Minister as a devoted opponent of their ambitions to dominate Asia. “We have a very, very good bond—very, very good chemistry,” Mr. Trump gushed at a joint press conference. “When I greeted him at the car, I shook hands, but I grabbed him and hugged him because that’s the way we feel.” This is a turnaround from Mr. Trump’s campaign-trail criticisms of Japan as a freeloading ally.

“We’re committed to the security of Japan,” Mr. Trump declared. He also echoed his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, in reaffirming that the U.S.-Japan security treaty covers the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands that China has swarmed with civilian and paramilitary ships in recent years. On trade, a potential sore point with Mr. Trump even in the best of circumstances, the two leaders punted to a bilateral working group to be led by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso.

North Korea helped underscore the stakes of U.S.-Japan cooperation Saturday by shooting a Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, its first test on Mr. Trump’s watch. Though not the intercontinental missile launch Pyongyang has promised, this was a reminder that its nuclear program is advancing on many fronts. Mr. Trump, fresh off the golf course and a candlelight dinner with Mr. Abe and their wives, offered a brief statement: “The United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%.” Hear, hear.

Media tittle-tattle about President Trump’s telephone calls with foreign counterparts received new fuel last week after details leaked of a conversation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The usual anonymous sources alleged that when Mr. Putin raised the 2010 New Start arms-control treaty, Mr. Trump asked his aides what it covered—and then, once briefed, declared it to be one of those bad Obama deals he planned to renegotiate.

If so, Mr. Trump got the treaty right. From America’s perspective, New Start is an execrable deal, a product of Cold War nostrums about reducing nuclear tensions. Arms-control treaties, properly conceived and drafted, should look like George W. Bush’s 2002 Treaty of Moscow: short (three pages), with broad exit ramps and sunset provisions.

Although President Obama had considerable help from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this diplomatic failure, Russia was hardly blameless. Moscow subsequently exploited the treaty’s weaknesses to rebuild and modernize its arsenal of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, while Mr. Obama stood idly by. Republican senators opposed New Start’s ratification, 26-13 (three of them didn’t vote), as did 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Mr. Trump’s remarks are therefore squarely in the party’s mainstream.

Not so, however, are some of Mr. Trump’s comments—or at least the inferences drawn from them—on Mr. Putin’s political and military adventurism in Europe. Many Republicans worry that, rather than strengthening the international economic sanctions imposed on Russia for its belligerent incursions into eastern Ukraine and its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Mr. Trump may reduce or rescind sanctions entirely.

This apparent difference is no small matter. Legislation to codify the existing sanctions is pending in Congress. It has overwhelming—most analysts think veto-proof—bipartisan support. Commentators wonder whether the remarkable Republican solidarity on Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominations might be shattered if Russia policy is the first area in which the new administration faces off with the Republican congressional majorities.

The sanctions on Russia for its interference in Ukraine are already under assault in Europe: Germany, France and others appear close to succumbing to their apparently hard-wired inclination to sacrifice geostrategic imperatives for economic ones. Elections across the Continent this year may produce results even more favorable to Moscow (possibly, in part, because of Russian meddling). By contrast, the Baltic republics and other NATO members in Eastern and Central Europe are alarmed that Russia’s adventurism would increase if its Ukraine aggression were brushed aside and sanctions lifted.

Yet amid the breathless press accounts about Mr. Trump’s purported fancy for Mr. Putin, one thing is clear: The Trump administration’s policy toward, and even its strategic assessment of, Russia is still under construction. Most important, if the substance of Mr. Trump’s comments on New Start was accurately reported, it shows him resisting items on Mr. Putin’s wish list, and not for the first time.

Mr. Trump has, for example, unequivocally opposed Mr. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. On Feb. 1, National Security Adviser Mike Flynn put Iran “on notice” that the deal was on life support. New U.S. sanctions against Iran underlined the point. The White House is reportedly considering listing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, which should have been done decades ago. Such a move would have a significant political and economic effect on Moscow’s military-industrial complex, particularly Rosoboronexport, its international arms-sales agency.

Washington should be also push back against Russia’s inserting itself militarily and politically into the Middle East by using the Syria conflict as a wedge. While Ukraine may seem an unrelated issue, it is not. Moscow’s diplomatic efforts to “solve” the Syrian conflict are in substantial part an effort to “help” Europe with the Syrian refugee problem, providing yet another inducement to wobbly Europeans to roll back sanctions. Any perceived American weakness on the sanctions would embolden Russian efforts to further penetrate the Middle East, increasing the dangerous, destabilizing effects of Moscow’s tacit alliance with Iran. CONTINUE AT SITE

It had been reported prior to 2015 that the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami front groups would use the Liberal Party of Canada as a vehicle for political entryism.

The article also noted the roles of ISNA Canada and ICNA Canada in these efforts. A number of Canadian Members of Parliament have Islamist connections, advocate for sharia law or, in the case of Cabinet Minister Maryam Monsef, states that “Sharia fascinates me :)”

President Trump may be meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada shortly. The two leaders worked across from each other on the world’s longest undefended border.

The January 29, 2017 shooting at a Quebec City mosque in which six people were killed may prove to be “interesting” as it plays on USA/Canada relations. There is emerging information to show that the mosque may have been targeted as a “Muslim Brotherhood mosque.” This includes a July 2016 article (i.e. seven months before the attack) by the Journal de Quebec which stated that a pamphlet had been circulated in the neighbourhood claiming it was a Muslim Brotherhood mosque. Three weeks prior to the pamphlet being distributed, a pig’s head had been left at the doorway of the mosque. Three incidents around one mosque suggests a pattern of activity and escalation by an individual or group that has grievances with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not yet clear if terrorism charges will be laid in addition to charges of first degree murder.

South of here, a series of reports suggest that President Trump may use executive authority to list the Muslim Brotherhood and some of its front groups in the USA as terrorist entities. Senator Cruz (R-TX) has a bill in the US Congress that would have the effect of listing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity along its front groups CAIR USA, ISNA and the North American Islamic Trust.
Trudeau and the Islamist Front Groups

Prior to the Canadian election of November 2015, it had been reported that the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami front groups would use the Liberal Party of Canada as a vehicle for political Entryism. The article also noted the roles of ISNA Canada and ICNA Canada in these efforts. A number of Canadian Members of Parliament have Islamist connections, advocate for sharia law or, in the case of Cabinet Minister Maryam Monsef states that “Sharia fascinates me :)”

In December of 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau sent a video message to the “Reviving the Islamic Spirit” conference in which he stressed “our shared beliefs.” This, despite the fact the conference is sponsored by and has been attended by a virtual who-is-who list of Muslim Brotherhood front group members over several years. The same conference also featured Linda Sarsour who is currently leading a number of US demonstrations against President Trump and has ties to a variety of Islamist groups. Many members of her family have a long history with HAMAS – another Muslim Brotherhood spin-off organization. Prime Minister Trudeau had also appeared as a member of Parliament at the Reviving the Islamic Spirit Conference in 2012.

Member of Parliament Justin Trudeau also gave a speech at the ISNA mosque in Mississauga, albeit in 2013 before the ISNA had the charity status for its “Development Fund” revoked for funding terrorism. The ultimate destination of the funding was the south Asian based Jamaat-e-Islami , the same group noted above as being involved in the Liberal Party. The ISNA in turn has welcomed the election of Prime Minister Trudeau.

If one requires any evidence that the United States is a fading power, the recent events in the South China Sea offer ample evidence. Two Chinese fighter jets intercepted U.S. military reconnaissance aircraft and, to add to the humiliation rebuked the Obama administration for any surveillance near China. The incident took place in international airspace on what has been described as a “routine U.S. patrol.” This latest encounter comes on the heels of another interception in which Chinese jets mimicked an all-out attack on a U.S. naval vessel that sailed close to a disputed reef. These are merely two recent war like actions by the Chinese in a series of interception since 2014.

China now claims most of the South China Sea through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei all have claims of one kind or another in the Chinese created perimeter and all of these nations depend on the U.S. to enforce those claims. Washington has accused Beijing of militarizing the region, but China responds with a shrug suggesting that there are diplomatic channels available for the resolution of disputes.

The weakness of U.S. naval forces in the Pacific and the China Sea is apparent. New naval vessels – desperately needed to relieve the demands on the existing force – are not in production and with sequestration, are not likely to be in production. There are an insufficient number of Aegis equipped ships to provide an acceptable level of sea-based protection. And after several incidents in which there hasn’t been a military response, Chinese officials believe the U.S. has acquiesced in their regional domination.

Moreover, and quite tellingly, the nations that have claims on islands in the South China Sea, have either dropped their protests or softened their language. There is the growing realization the U.S. is not prepared to protect island claims or even protect freedom of the seas.

The president elect of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, explained, “America would never die for us. If America cared, if would have sent its aircraft carriers and missile frigates the moment China started reclaiming land in contested territory, but no such thing happened… America is afraid to go to war. We’re better off making friends with China.” This is a sentiment resonating throughout the continent.

Chinese sorties against the U.S. are not a casus belli, even as they have increased regional tension and have exposed the U.S. as an ill-prepared protector of Asian allies. Having eviscerated national naval strength, there isn’t much the U.S. can do except express our dismay at the U.N. and in bilateral talks.

The Chinese installation of DF-21 “carrier killer” surface to ship missile, and its current iteration, has a range of 2500 miles. Of significant concern is the Russian air defense, the S-500 anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems that are likely to neutralize the effectiveness of the F-35 stealth fighter before it becomes operational, which the Chinese claim to have acquired. These technical breakthroughs give the U.S. Navy pause; while not dispositive they are factors that militate against activism.

After declaring that “Iran is on notice” for a recent ballistic-missile test and for missile attacks against a Saudi ship by Houthi rebels, and then announcing new U.S. sanctions against Iran on Friday, the Trump administration met with predicable criticism from Democrats and the foreign-policy establishment, who objected that the president was provoking Iran and risking war by threatening the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA).

In fact, it was President Obama’s Iran policy that made the Middle East much less stable, as his appeasement of Iran and “leading from behind” approach emboldened Tehran and did little to stop it from pursuing nuclear weapons and building ballistic missiles to carry them. The Obama administration did absolutely nothing in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and its backing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Even worse, Obama officials during the nuclear talks gave Iran a green light to expand its role in Iraq and Syria. It’s no accident that Iran sent ground troops into Syria shortly after the JCPOA was announced.

The Obama administration claimed that the JCPOA would lead to an improvement in Iranian behavior and in U.S.–Iran relations. This did not happen. Iran has conducted at least a dozen ballistic-missile tests over the past two years. Some of these missiles had the words “Israel must be wiped off the map” written on the sides. Iran captured ten U.S. sailors and held them at gunpoint on the day of President Obama’s last State of the Union address. There has been a sharp increase in Iran’s harassing and threatening ships in the Persian Gulf, including U.S. Navy vessels. Houthi rebels, probably with Iranian assistance, fired anti-ship missiles at American and United Arab Emirates ships in the Red Sea last fall. Iran also has taken more American citizens and green-card holders prisoner since the JCPOA was announced and after five U.S. prisoners were released in January 2016.

Trump’s initial moves on Iran mark the beginning of an effort to reverse Obama’s disastrous Iran policy. The administration, actually addressing the threats Iran poses to global security, is holding Iran accountable for its actions and reasserting American power.

It’s no secret that no one believed President Obama when he said “all options are on the table,” drew red lines, or issued ultimatums after belligerent acts by Iran, North Korea, ISIS, the Syrian army, and Russia. The world knew that the use of American military power was never on the table for Obama and that his words were just empty rhetoric. They knew that Obama would never back up his red lines and ultimatums. While the Obama administration sometimes responded to rogue state actions with sanctions, they were usually weak and in every case ignored.

The Trump administration’s recent warning to Iran indicates that all options really are on the table when it comes to America’s responding to actions by rogue states and actors that endanger our security and the security of our friends and allies. The sanctions imposed today against 13 individuals and twelve companies involved in Iran’s missile program are long overdue and make clear that America will not look the other way while Tehran develops nuclear-weapons delivery systems.