RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

“Regarding the issue of production of ballistic missiles for hitting moving targets, I should say that we are among a handful of countries that have gained the knowhow (in this field)”. – Iranian Brigadier General Salami, January 29, 2017.

Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East.

“Iran has received Soviet designed Scud-B missiles and it has adapted the design into two independently-built versions; the Shahab 1 and Shahab 2.” – Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2014

Helpfully, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has put Iran “on notice.”

Right after the executive order from the White House to put a hold on issuing visas to seven countries including Iran, Tehran has test-fired a ballistic missile. The U.S. intelligence community was able to detect Iran’s launch. Iran conducted the launch at a well-known location near the capital, Tehran.

Iran has confirmed firing a ballistic missile. This ballistic missile’s launch would constitute Iran’s ninth test-firing of ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), reached between P5+1 and Iran.

Intriguingly, on the same day that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) test-fired a ballistic missile, Iran’s state media outlet Tasnim News Agency quoted IRGC Brigadier General Hossein Salami who bragged about Iran’s ballistic capabilities and achievements. General Salami boasted that Iran is among few countries that can produce ballistic missiles and strike moving targets. Speaking to reporters in Tehran on Sunday, Brigadier General Salami pointed out:

“Our enemies have stood against us with complex and special tactics and techniques…In order to confront them, we need to take the initiative and employ special methods, techniques and tactics…Regarding the issue of production of ballistic missiles for hitting moving targets, I should say that we are among a handful of countries that have gained the knowhow (in this field)”.

Iran is breaching the UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Security Council resolution 2231 (section 3 of Annex B) “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” In addition, the United Nations Security Council resolution 1929, states:

“Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities.”

Russia, which enjoys close ties with Tehran, is siding with Iranian leaders arguing that Tehran has not violated the UN resolution because Tehran’s ballistic missile is not “capable of delivering nuclear weapons”. Moscow is playing with words.

Putin’s Russia is determined to demilitarize NATO in Eastern Europe, end Western economic sanctions, allow the permanent amputation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity including the Crimea, secure Bashar Assad’s rule over all of Syria, and in general establish Moscow in world affairs on a plane of “equal status with Washington”.

This last goal is not going to be acceptable to any US president. It would give Russia a veto on U.S. activity abroad and a free hand in its self-proclaimed sphere of influence. Moreover, it would divide NATO, demoralize the EU, and almost certainly encourage further Russian aggression.

Energy policy is the key. A smart, aggressive, and self-interested energy policy makes America stronger and the world safer.

The US and Europe should agree to hold a major NATO summit in advance of a Trump-Putin sit-down. This move would demonstrate renewed NATO strength and resolve.

The proposed American conventional modernization must embrace the entire zone from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It must be coordinated by the U.S. with its allies. It is thus hoped that by doing so, the conventional modernization will help check Russia’s nuclear threats.

Realistically, the US-Russia rivalry will remain in place — but a “strong and nationalist United States,” writes Victor Davis Hanson, can be a diplomatic, military and economic “hinge” upon which U.S. efforts to “discourage” Putin from doing things unwise can succeed.

The rivalry between the United States and Russia is entering a new era with the election of Donald Trump. While Trump has made no secret of his desire for better relations between the two nations, he has also called for a more muscular and efficient US military.

The new President seeks to modernize the US nuclear deterrent, expand effective missile defenses, and significantly increase conventional military capability, while reforming and revitalizing NATO.

These plans will no doubt rub up against Mr. Putin’s objectives. Putin’s Russia is determined to demilitarize NATO in Eastern Europe, end Western economic sanctions, allow the permanent amputation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity including the Crimea, secure Bashar Assad’s rule over all of Syria, and in general establish Moscow in world affairs on a plane of “equal status with Washington”.