Money quote(s):
"What we now know is that the Iranian used-car salesman from Texas who was apparently the prime broker in the plot was actually trying to arrange not only the murder by explosives of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington DC restaurant, but attacks on American and Israeli embassies possible in simultaneous strikes. Not only was this used-car dealer traveling between Texas, Mexico and Iran, but was prepared to deliver $1.5 million dollars to the DEA informant posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel. It is not known with certainty, but it seems we may have intercepted this plot for no reason other than that the Iranians blundered—by pure chance—into one of our assets rather than the Mexican killers he sought. If so, this is truly one of the most remarkable cases of serendipity on record." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Let's just get it out in the open that CAA is very much against the use of explosives in Washington DC restaurants.
"In its 30-year history of attacking the West, the Quds Force went out of its way never to be caught with a smoking gun in hand. It always used well-vetted proxies, invariably Muslim believers devoted to Khomeini’s revolution. And when the operation was particularly sensitive, they gave the job to Lebanon’s militant Shi’ite Hizballah, organization the Iranians themselves had founded and which has an unsurpassed record in political murder. Hizballah has cells all over the world, including in the United States. But the point of it all was that if caught — and they were, more than once — Iran still enjoyed plausible deniability, a commodity in this business worth its weight in gold. So, if this plot was genuine, why didn’t the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?" " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
A couple of possibilities, just to throw them out there, occur to me. The first, obviously (given how the writer leads you by the hand) is the possibility that this plot was meant to be blown. Which would take you to the next question: why?
Another possibility is that the plot was being arranged by some other, less professional, player in the sandbox of Iranian assassination operations.
"(T)he Revolutionary Guards have somehow gone rogue and are conducting, dangerous, provocative operations on their own, outside of the knowledge and control of the Iranian leadership. Another possibility is that the democratic Iranian opposition is trying to frame the Mullacracy in an attempt to bring the United States into a direct conflict that might unseat the hardliners, allowing democracy to flourish."
The "democratic Iranian opposition"? Hmm, who could that be?
Seriously, the Iranian opposition most qualified (as in experienced) in covert operations isn't all that democratic a bunch.
And the actual Iranian democrats, stipulating that they survived their almost revolution a couple years ago, might very well be sufficiently un-versed in this sort of thing, in other words they might-could be just about this amateurish. It's an interesting thought to consider.
"I am endlessly fascinated to discover that most Americans seem unable to truly understand that the peoples of other nations are so utterly different than Americans, so actually alien in the truest sense of the word."
What did the guy in Full Metal Jacket say? Ah yes:
"because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out"
"Americans tend to think of religion only within the American framework of separation of church and state and tolerance for the faiths of others. Americans may think adherents of some faiths to be a bit odd--holy Mormon underwear, people going to church on Saturday, eating only fish on Fridays—but they are generally accepting of that, and the fact that Americans are free to change religions and churches as often as they change their socks. Many Americans take their faith seriously, but the idea of killing in its name is—alien, as alien as the idea of being ruled by ministers, mutilating the genitals of their wives and daughters, killing their wives and daughters for violating family honor, killing friends, even family members who leave the faith, or killing anyone not of the faith for that reason alone."
This is something the pre-Founding Fathers brought with them from Europe, the psychic baggage of the Thirty Year's War, where European Christians did most of these things themselves, to one another, decade after decade. With the result that our Founding Fathers and Framers deliberately established a political framework and a civic secular culture inoculated against it.
"In a very real way, we are dealing with medieval thinking, a mindset that sees the world in black and white terms. There are the strong and the weak, the elect and infidels. There is, above all, the Dar al-Islam—the realm or land under Islamic control—and the Dar al-Harb—the realm of war or chaos, the land of the infidels where Islam is not in control. In the Dar al-Islam, Sharia—Islamic law—reigns supreme. It is a medieval code of conduct and justice administered by Imams, essentially Islamic ministers, who have absolute power over life and death. In Islam, there are no individual freedoms, not separation of church and state. The church is the state and individuals live—or die—at its whim."
Okay, while I get what Mr. McDaniels is saying, I have to lay down a few observations and reservations.
First, the myth of monolithic Islam. Not that there isn't considerable common ground between the various threads of Islam, even those that quite often occupy themselves with trying to kill one another, when it comes to opposing, attacking, invading, defeating, or otherwise troubling the infidel West.
Islam is even less monolithic than Communism was, and for many of the same reasons.
This is not to downplay or dispute that the things Mr. McDaniels describes here; they're true enough in plenty enough places.
But, for instance, the "Imams" mentioned are a feature of Shi'a Islam, not one of the more numerous Sunni muslims.
"Winston Churchill observed that individual Muslims may have "splendid qualities," and indeed, most Muslims wish only to live in peace with their neighbors. However, it must be clearly understood that these Muslim are not, in fact, following the dictates of their faith. It is those who war against the Dar al-Harb who are being true to the letter and intent of their religion. And if there are only ten million such Muslims in the world—and there are surely that many—who are determined to follow the clear dictates of their faith to the letter, it's not hard to see the depth of our problem." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
This cuts to the heart of the problem. Too much of their holy book reads like it could have come from Charles Manson, had he been born an arab. So it's part of their "operating system" and their "reality tunnel."
"In waging war, Americans generally abstain from striking the first blow, are incredibly cautious about harming non-combatants, even risking and losing American lives rather than accidently killing innocents. Americans even avoid unnecessarily destroying property. For Americans, there are specific laws regulating the conduct of soldiers. None of this is true for Muslims waging Jihad—holy war aimed at establishing a global Dar al-Islam. They kill indiscriminately, ignore the international laws of war, use innocents as human shields, and commit inhuman atrocities as common practice." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Sayin this is not precisely true takes understatement to the level of criminality.
There is a well-develeped and defined set of rules, laws if you will, governing the waging of war by and within Islam. It is not the same, has not the same basis, neither has it evolved with either the same considerations nor in the same directions as was we in our Western conceit have done with our "international laws of war." From a Western perspective, much of what it condones or even requires amounts to war crimes themselves.
"In the pursuit of Jihad, Islam encourages and allows Muslims to lie to infidels. However, it requires Muslims to give infidels a chance to convert to Islam. If they do not, they may be slaughtered at will. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens America and Israel and suggests conversion to Islam, he is not doing this because he has a sincere religious concern for the souls of Americans and Israelis, but because he is adhering to Islamic rules for war.
Americans make the mistake of hearing what they think is yet another preacher trying to convert them and think ignoring them will have no consequences just as it does in America. They fail to realize that when they don't immediately convert to Islam, the safeties have just been released on Muslim weapons." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
This has considerable historical basis and is part of the Islamic laws of warfare. Infidels must first be allowed to submit peacefully to Islam; if they decline, then harsher measures may lawfully follow.
"Jihadists recognize no international laws, no "international norms," no treaties, no diplomatic protocols. There is only the struggle to conquer the world, and apart from the Islamic rules for waging war, they observe no restraints, even killing other Muslims, which the Koran forbids." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
See my above. Jihadists do recognize international laws and "norms."
They just don't happen to be the same ones recognized by the West.
"One of the most dangerous misconceptions Americans have is confusing the political realities of America with those of other nations, particularly Islamic nations. "We can't attack Iran," our State Department says. "It's only the leaders of Iran that are bad. The people love us. There are many factions. There are moderates. Why, the leaders of Iran may not even know what is being done in their name!" Idiocy.
Doubtless many Japanese in 1941 had no desire for war. Many Germans were likewise peaceful people, but nations are responsible for actions done in their name, using their resources--$1.5 million and more in this case--pursuing their stated national goals. All of these factors are clearly present in the thankfully foiled plot." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
It wasn't the first Iranian act which could constitute casus belli for the U.S., and it surely won't be the last.
The thing is, acts of war are in the eye of the beholder.
"Islamic nations, particularly rogue states like Iran—unquestionably the foremost terrorist nation on the planet—do not brook internal opposition. There is no democracy, no debate, no effective political opposition. Iron-fisted rule extends from the top down. And while it is true that millions of young Iranians think well of the United States and would welcome having the heel of the Islamic boot lifted from their collective necks, this is a tactical, not a strategic concern.
It is not as though we are contemplating turning all of Iran, or even its major populations centers, into a sheet of glowing, radioactive glass. Alone in the world we possess the military means to strike with amazing precision, severely limiting collateral damage. Our assets could, with a few days of overwhelming strikes, severely damage, even obliterate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and wage war."
&
"But Iran would be angry with us! Iran would strike out at us! Iran has been doing just that since 1979. Not only have its agents been caught on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have captured its munitions, specifically designed and manufactured to kill American soldiers. There is no doubt that Iran is arming and training our enemies, enemies that have killed Americans and the citizens of our allies. Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been actively pursuing that war on multiple fronts.
Yet, Iran has exercised some restraint. Its leaders understand that in a conventional military conflict with the United States, it wouldn't last a week. But they also understand that we are tied down in two conflicts. It works with China, North Korea, Syria, any nation opposed to America, to keep us occupied, to limit our ability and willingness to respond."
It is well to remember that Iranians, even "crazy" (by our standards) Iranian mullahs are Persians.
Persia is one of the oldest continuing civilizations in the world, certainly one of the oldest which was (and remains) the dominant culture within a multiethnic empire.
Islam is a major cultural overlay upon Persian culture, but it is only the top, latest layer.
Persians were civilized when most Westerners ancestors were, to put it plainly, not yet civilized. Politics, including international power politics, is something they were waging against not just the Romans, but the Greeks before them.
"Would Iran conduct an attack against Americans that would cause hundreds, even thousands of deaths? Of course it would. Iran has been killing hundreds, even thousands of Americans for years. But iran has never done anything so brazen before! You mean like seizing hundreds of American diplomats hostage and keeping them for more than a year? You mean like killing hundreds of Americans through proxies and by providing purpose-built weapons to them? But this hasn't been Iran's modus operandi—their method of operation—in the past!
Even if that were true—and it isn't--it is now." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Nothing about this plot crosses any bright new lines for Iran. Assassinations of diplomats? Check. Operating in the U.S.? Check.
So check your preconceptions.
"Americans must now be careful in interpreting the clear words and actions of one of our most deadly and determined enemies. They say: "we will kill you all," over and over again. If we don't take them at their clear words, if we don't understand their mindset, millions of Americans and Israelis could die of a cultural misunderstanding."
10/16
