Museveni na Kayumba Nyamwasa balimo kwirebera mu ndorerwamo

Museveni na Kayumba Nyamwasa balimo kwirebera mu ndorerwamo

  April 17,2024 ibiro ntaramakuru byo mu ijuru (Heaven News Media Agency) biratangaza Amakuru akurikira. Mu ijoro ryakeye Kampala muri Uganda bakoranye inama na Kayumba Nyamwasa, bamubwira ko adakwiye gutaha amanitse amaboko More »

The Destruction of Iran’s Terrorist Hub in Damascus Was Entirely Justified

The Destruction of Iran’s Terrorist Hub in Damascus Was Entirely Justified

The bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria was not, as the Iranians claim, simply an attack on a blameless diplomatic mission. It was a carefully targeted strike on the headquarters More »

European Union: Testing Election Ahead

European Union: Testing Election Ahead

Instead of moving towards a European super-state or a federal outfit, the EU’s current trajectory seems to be back to the nation-state model. The coming European Parliament elections will show whether that More »

Uhoraho Uwiteka Imana Nyiringabo agiye guhana abanyamadini (religious) b’America na South Korea (religious)

Uhoraho Uwiteka Imana Nyiringabo agiye guhana abanyamadini (religious) b’America na South Korea (religious)

  Ibiro ntaramakuru byo mu ijuru (Heaven News Media Agency) biratangaza ko urwego rwa magigiri (internal security services) rwitwa DMI, rukorera imbere mu gihugu, rwahaye (mission) magigiri Kato Nicholas, kuyobora igitero cyo More »

Israel: Standing Alone Against Multifaceted Threats, Thanks to the Biden Administration

Israel: Standing Alone Against Multifaceted Threats, Thanks to the Biden Administration

Israel is currently facing a multi-front war for its survival, with Qatar, Iran and Iran’s proxies, which are encircling Israel, leading the charge. If the Biden administration abandons Israel now, it would More »

 

What Does It Mean to Be French? by Yves Mamou

  • Criticism of Islam, usually brought by white, “far right” French people, is certainly taboo. But hate speech against “kuffars” is also a public issue, brought by many French Muslims who often, it seems, introduce themselves as permanent “victims.”

  • Because many regard their ethnic groups as permanent victims, they may well see themselves as belonging to a community of victims, to be exonerated from individual responsibility for whatever they say or do.
  • A large part of the youths from the suburbs, most of whom are from Arab or African descent, seem to be divorced from the traditional perception of what it means to be French in France.
  • Like Black M or Benzema, many, it seems, do not want to be part of France as individuals, but as members of a group that, they claim, is always discriminated against: Arabs or Muslims. In a certain way, a silent secession is taking place in France — an ethnic and religious secession.

There is a “French Question” question today about identity that the French have in common with the Germans and British: What does it mean to be French?

Two recent controversies illustrate the way the question of French identity has become a topic of public interest.

The first is connected to the commemoration of the centenary of the Battle of Verdun (in the First World War); the second is connected to France’s national soccer team.

Verdun, in 2016, remains the symbol of a bygone era, when European countries were fighting one another. In Verdun, more than 700,000 French and German soldiers were killed. Today, for the Germans and the French, Verdun has become the symbol of reconciliation between two nations and a justification for constructing a new political area, the European Union.

The basic reason for setting up the EU was to have no more wars among Europeans. This special 2016 commemoration of the Battle of Verdun was also a political message to Great Britain: Europe needs you, stay with us, do not “Brexit” (Britain exiting the EU).

But the French government, less than one year away from a presidential election, added a third message to this commemoration: The socialist president, François Hollande, dreamed of closing this day of silence, remembrance and speeches for peace with a huge party for the young. At the end of the centenary, the rap singer Black M (M for “Mesrine”, a famous outlaw of the eighties) was supposed to brighten the podium at Verdun.

As soon as the presence of Black M was known, disturbing information surfaced in the social media networks: especially “right wing” ones. Black M is certainly a “people’s artist,” popular among the young, especially in the suburbs — but he sings with a French rap group, Sexion d’Assaut, whose name is almost exactly the same as the French translation (“Section d’Assaut“) of Sturmabteilung, Hitler’s pre-1934 Nazi militia (better known as “the SA”).

In one song, Sorry, Black M calls France a nation of “kuffars,” a pejorative Arabic term for “unbelievers and infidels.” In another song, It Humbled, Black M sings: “I think it’s high time the fags died. Cut off their d**ks.” In yet another song, Black M tells the young people to “get a Smith and Wesson” and “shoot the school.” And in a very recent song, Black M sings about “the Yids who have a lot of fun going shopping.”

The choice of Black M to perform at the Verdun commemoration sparked a controversy. Marine Le Pen, Leader of the Front National (FN), the populist anti-mass-migration party, declared that Black M “has no place in an official commemoration of a battle in which so many French families have been wounded.”

Florian Philippot, a vice president on the FN and an advisor to Le Pen, said the choice of the rap singer was like “spitting on a war memorial.”

Many people from the “left” were also uneasy with the choice of Black M. Elisabeth Levy, the editor of the news magazine, Causeur, said, “This idea of inviting Black M to Verdun was shocking far beyond the right and the extreme right: all my friends from the left are against it. They think the idea is totally insane.”

In a classic scenario, the political “left” has counterattacked by denouncing the “racism” of the “far right” party. The association SOS Racisme wrote: “In this controversy, yesterday the danger was in black. Tomorrow it will be Arabic. The day after tomorrow it will be a Muslim, and in one of the following days, a Roma.”

The mayor of Verdun defended himself by saying that the choice of Black M had been imposed by “the state” and that everybody understood that it had been the choice of the president himself.

The final blow for the concert came fast: the French state commission for centennial commemorations decided not to pay its share of €67,000 out of a total budget for the concert of €150,000.

The following day, the city announced that the concert had been cancelled. The mayor blamed “racism” and “hate.”

Minister of Culture Audrey Azoulay denounced the move:An unbridled voice, in the name of a nauseating and uninhibited moral order, caused the cancellation of a concert.”

Immediately after the Verdun Controversy, the Benzema controversy erupted. At the end of May, it became official that Karim Benzema, a French soccer star of Algerian descent, would not be part of the national soccer team in the UEFA Euro 2016 championship. For most of the population in France, the reason for this exclusion lies in a sex-tape extortion scandal in which Benzema is apparently involved, targeting his colleague, Mathieu Valbuena. But on May 26, Eric Cantona, the former star of the Manchester United soccer team, in an interview with The Guardian, accused the French team’s coach, Didier Deschamps, of having “left out French players on racial grounds.”

“Benzema is a great player. Ben Arfa is a great player. But Deschamps, he has a really French name. Maybe he is the only one in France to have a truly French name. Nobody in his family mixed with anybody, you know. Like the Mormons in America.

“So I’m not surprised he [Deschamps] used the situation of Benzema not to take him. Especially after Valls [France’s Prime Minister] said he should not play for France. And Ben Arfa is maybe the best player in France today. But they have the same origin. I am allowed to think about that.”

The interviewer from The Guardian repeated the question. Was Cantona “really suggesting that Deschamps had been guilty of discriminating against Benzema?”

Cantona replied:

“Maybe no, but maybe yes. Why not? One thing is for sure — Benzema and Ben Arfa are two of the best players in France and will not play in the European Championship. And for sure Benzema and Ben Arfa are of north African origin. So, the debate is open.”

A lawyer for Deschamps said he would sue Cantona for his comments.

On May 30, Jamel Debbouze, a very popular comedian and humorist, wrote in France Football,

“Two important guests are missing. How can we not include these two extraordinary soccer players?… These boys [Benzema and Ben Arfa] represent so much, especially in the suburbs. It is so disappointing having no representatives ‘of ours’ in France’s soccer team….”

By “ours,” Debbouze means the Arab and Muslim youths of the suburbs.

Benzema himself rushed through the open door. On June 1, he declared, in the Spanish sports newspaper Marca, that he did not believe Deschamps is a racist, but that France’s coach had “bowed to the pressure of a racist part of France.” Benzema added that the political arena in France, where the anti-immigrant Front National has been gaining ground during the past five years, played against him.

This controversy targeted French audiences, but reverberated throughout Europe. British and Spanish newspapers were involved — both countries that have large Muslim communities and where soccer is popular.

In France, a poll published on June 6 by Le Parisien revealed that 95% of the population think that Benzema was not included in France’s national team because of his “personal behavior.” Only 4% think his absence was due to “his [ethnic] origins.” The mere 1% expressing “no opinion” signifies the public importance of soccer in France. When it is question of soccer, everybody is concerned.

Two recent controversies, one involving the French rap singer Black M (left) and the other involving French soccer star Karim Benzema (right), illustrate the way the question of French identity has become a topic of public interest.

Much may be inferred from these controversies.

  • Issues relating to ethnic Arabs and Islam situation are now daily controversies in France.
  • Criticism of Islam, usually brought by white, “far right” French people, is certainly taboo. But hate speech against “kuffars” is also a public issue, brought by many French Muslims who often, it seems, introduce themselves as permanent “victims.” Black M and Benzema are examples of Arabs or Muslims who do not want to be judged on their individual acts (anti-French and homophobic songs, for Black M) or illegal behavior (the sex-tape extortion scandal, for Benzema), but only on the grounds of the minority group to which they belong. And because many regard their ethnic groups as permanent victims, they may well see themselves as belonging to a community of victims, to be exonerated from individual responsibility for whatever they say or do.
  • A large part of the “left” apparently thinks the same way.
  • A large part of the youths from the suburbs, most of whom are from Arab or African descent, seem to be divorced from the traditional perception of what it means to be French in France. Like Black M or Benzema, many, it seems, do not want to be part of France as individuals, but as members of a group that, they claim, is always discriminated against: Arabs or Muslims. In a certain way, a silent secession is taking place in France — an ethnic and religious secession.
  • The polls reveal a growing fear of Islam in France. And the more the anti-Islamist sentiment grows among the non-Muslims, the more French Muslims feel victimized and discriminated against. Black M might possibly not even think that in his songs he is spreading “hate speech.” He appears instead to think that he has been the victim of native French “hate speech.”
  • There is a new division in French politics: a struggle between so-called racists and antiracists is replacing the traditional contest between right and left.

What good can come from this situation? We shall find out.

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

What Do Palestinians Think about the Holocaust?

Have you ever wondered what the average Palestinian knows or thinks about the Holocaust? The answers provided in this video are shocking.


Canadian-Israeli filmmaker Cory Gil-Shuster set out last summer, during Operation Protective Edge, to find out what the Palestinians on the street have to say about the Holocaust.

The answers from our Palestinians neighbors presented in the video below are very interesting, to put it mildly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJzclHiQIY

What Do Palestinian Terrorists Want? by Bassam Tawil

  • Palestinian terrorists are not driven by poverty and deprivation, as many have long argued. Instead, they are driven by hatred for Jews — because of what their leaders, media and mosques are telling them.


  • These young people took advantage of their status as permanent residents of Israel to set out and murder Jews. Their Israeli ID cards allow them to travel freely inside Israel. They were also entitled to the social welfare benefits and free healthcare granted to all Israeli citizens.

  • Muhannad Halabi wanted to murder Jews because he had been brainwashed by our leaders and media, and was driven by hatred — he was not living in misery and deprivation. The family’s house in the village of Surda, on the outskirts of Ramallah, looks as if it came out of a movie filmed in San Diego.

  • This conflict is not about Islamic holy sites or Jerusalem. Murdering a Jewish couple in front of their four children has nothing to do with the Aqsa Mosque or “occupation.”

  • For the terrorists, all Jews are “settlers” and Israel is one big settlement. This is not an intifada — it is just another killing-spree aimed at terrorizing the Jews and forcing them out of this part of the world. It already succeeded in the rest of the Middle East and is now being done there to the Christians as well.

  • The current wave of terrorism is just another phase in our dream to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The terrorists and their supporters are not struggling against a checkpoint or a wall. They want to see Israel destroyed, Jews slaughtered, and the streets of Israel running with Jewish blood.

During the past few days, I had occasion to visit the homes of some of the Palestinian men and women involved in the ongoing wave of terrorism against Israelis — the violence that some are calling an “intifada,” or uprising.

What I saw — what you or anyone could see during these visits — was that none of these Palestinians had suffered harsh lives. Their living conditions were anything but miserable. In fact, these murderers had been leading comfortable lives, with unlimited access to education and work.

Four of the terrorists came from Jerusalem and, as permanent residents who had not applied for citizenship, held Israeli ID cards. They enjoyed all the rights of an Israeli citizen, except for voting for the Knesset — but it is not as if the Arabs of Jerusalem are killing and dying because they want to vote in Israeli parliamentary elections.

These young people took advantage of their status as permanent residents of Israel to set out and murder Jews. They all had Israeli ID cards that allowed them to travel freely inside Israel, and even own and drive vehicles with Israeli license plates. They were also entitled to the social welfare benefits and free healthcare granted to all Israeli citizens, regardless of their faith, color or ethnicity.

None of the young Palestinians involved in the recent terror attacks lived a mud house, a tent, or even a rented apartment. They all lived in houses owned by their families, and had unlimited access to the internet. They all carried smartphones that allowed them to share their views on Facebook and Twitter and, among other things, to engage in wanton incitement against Israel and Jews.

At the home of Muhannad Halabi, for example, the Palestinian who murdered two Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem last week, you would discover that his father is a businessman who deals in air-conditioning systems and has his own business in Ramallah. The family’s house, in the village of Surda on the northern outskirts of Ramallah, looks as if it came out of a movie filmed in San Diego.

Muhannad Halabi, his relatives said, was a spoiled boy who had gotten everything he asked for. He had been studying law at Al-Quds University near Jerusalem, and was able to commute freely between Ramallah and the campus. But the good life Muhannad had did not prevent him from joining Islamic Jihad and murdering two Jews. He wanted to murder Jews because he had been brainwashed by our leaders and media, and was driven by hatred — he was not living in misery and deprivation.

The case of Shuruq Dweyat, an 18-year-old female student from the Tsur Baher village in Jerusalem, is not really different from that of Muhannad Halabi. She is now receiving treatment in an Israeli hospital, free of charge, after being shot and seriously wounded by the Jew she tried to murder inside the Old City of Jerusalem. She was studying history and geography at Bethlehem University, to which she travelled four times a week from her home, without facing any obstacles or being stopped by Israeli soldiers.

Photos Shuruq posted on social media show a happy woman who never stopped smiling andposing for “selfies.” She has her own smartphone. Her family, like those of all the other terrorists, own their own house and lead an extremely comfortable life. The Israeli ID card Shuruq holds allows her to go to any place inside Israel at any time. She chose to take advantage of this privilege to try to murder a random Jew in the street. The reason? She, too, was apparently driven by hatred, anti-Semitism and bigotry. She, too, was the victim of a massive propaganda machine that ceaselessly demonizes Israel and Jews.

If you had met 19-year-old Fadi Alloun, you would have seen possibly the most handsome man in Jerusalem. Fadi, who came from Issawiyeh in Jerusalem, had also been enjoying a good life under Israel’s administration. He too had an Israeli ID card and was able to travel freely throughout the country. His family told me that he had loved going to shopping malls in Israel to buy clothes from chain stores such as Zara, Renuar, Castro. With his snazzy clothes and sunglasses, he looked like more like an Italian fashion model than your average terrorist. He, too, had unlimited access to the Internet and his family owned their own house.

Fadi’s good life in Israel, however, did not prevent him from setting out to stab the first Jew he met on the street. This happened last week, when Fadi stabbed a 15-year-old Jew just outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Fadi was shot and killed by Israeli policemen who rushed to the scene of the attack. Fadi did not set out to murder Jews because he had a harsh life. Nor was he driven by misery or poverty. He had almost everything to which he aspired, and his family were well-off. The life Fadi had, in fact, was much better than the lives of many of his fellow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As an Israeli resident, Fadi was able to go anywhere he wanted in Israel and had free access to restaurants, shopping malls and gyms.

Fadi Alloun, possibly the most handsome man in Jerusalem, stabbed a random 15-year-old Jew in the street last week. Police shot and killed Alloun moments after the attack.

The other young men and women who have carried out the current wave of terror attacks were also leading good lives; some had jobs inside Israel, in part thanks to their Israeli ID cards. Those who came from the West Bank were able to bypass checkpoints and the security barrier, just as thousands of other Palestinian laborers do, who cross into Israel every day in search of work and better lives.

To be honest, I envied these terrorists because of the comfortable lives they had. The furniture in their homes is far better than my furniture. Still, their luxuries did not stop them from setting out to murder Jews.

What does all this mean? It shows that the Palestinian terrorists are not driven by poverty and deprivation, as many have long been arguing. Palestinian terrorists are driven by hatred for Jews because of what their leaders, media and mosques are telling them: that the Jews are the enemy and that they have no right to be in this part of the world.

It also shows that this conflict is not about Islamic holy sites or Jerusalem, but about murdering Jews whenever possible. Murdering two Jews inside the Old City of Jerusalem or a Jewish couple in front of their four children has nothing to do with the Aqsa Mosque or “occupation.” It is simply about the desire to murder as many Jews as one can. The terrorists did not draw any distinction between a Jew living in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, Tel Aviv or Afula [northern Israel]. For the terrorists and their sponsors, all Jews are “settlers” and Israel is one big settlement that needs to be eliminated.

Our conflict with Israel is not about “occupation” or Jerusalem or holy sites or borders. Nor is it about poverty and poor living conditions or walls and fences and checkpoints. This conflict is really about Israel’s very existence in this part of the world. The current wave of terrorism is just another phase in our dream to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. This is not an intifada. It is just another killing-spree aimed at terrorizing the Jews and forcing them to leave this part of the world. It already succeeded in the rest of the Middle East, and is now being done to the Christians as well.

The terrorists and their supporters are not struggling against a checkpoint or a wall. They want to see Israel destroyed, Jews slaughtered, and the streets of Israel running with Jewish blood.

What About the Cultural Imbalance? by Nonie Darwish

If we do not demand equal cultural access, such a cultural imbalance will result in one side absorbing the values of the other, while keeping the Islamic nation “pure” and free of any outside influence. This one-sided cultural tyranny is forcing us, the American citizen, into tolerating intolerance while never expecting anything more aligned to Western values from the Muslim world. As soon as Muslims form a small community inside a Western nation, they immediately deny access to any kind of Biblical preaching or education inside their community, but at the same time apparently feel entitled to demand access to preach the Koran in American prisons and spread Islamic culture and values in American schools. If Muslims finance Islamic Studies departments on American campuses and teach Islam in our public schools, the same rights must be awarded to Americans. It is true there are a few American schools in the Middle East, such as the American University in Cairo, but these schools are forbidden from having departments of Biblical Studies. If Muslim governments and citizens have full access to build mosques in America, America must insist on having the same access in their countries. That is not the fault of Muslim countries, so much as it is the fault of Western “multiculturalism,” which expects nothing and is adhered to only by Western nations. If such one-sided access of Islam into the West continues, while other religions in Muslim communities and countries are considered by them illegal “hate crimes,” Western culture and the values of free will and religious freedom will atrophy and die. Islamists are counting on Western inertia to win. Similar to the often-mentioned trade imbalance, there is a large imbalance Western nations and Muslim nations that is hardly ever mentioned: the cultural imbalance. Muslims have access to build mosques in the West, yet give no access to the West to build churches or synagogues in Muslim countries. Muslim governments finance “Islamic Studies” and “Middle East Studies” departments in almost all major American universities, but will not allow Christian Studies or Judaic Studies departments at any university in the Muslim world. They freely preach Islam everywhere and consider it their right. But not one Muslim country legally permits Christian missionary work, and those few missionaries who dare to try are harshly punished, imprisoned or killed. As soon as Muslims form a small community inside a Western nation, they immediately deny access to any kind of Biblical preaching or education inside their community, but at the same time apparently feel entitled to demand access to preach the Koran in American prisons and spread Islamic culture and values in American schools. Evangelical ministers have often been expelled from Arab and Islamic communities. This happened at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan. The city of Dearborn had to apologize for arresting several Christian missionaries who were peacefully preaching to Muslims at the Dearborn Arab International Festival in 2010. Dearborn police arrest a Christian for the “crime” of peacefully preaching to Muslims at the Dearborn Arab International Festival, in 2010. It was also reported by the Telegraph that two Christian ministers in the UK were ordered by a “community support officer” to “stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.” The local Muslims threatened to beat the pastors, and accused them of committing a “hate crime” against Muslims by preaching the gospel — while Muslim preachers are preaching Islam and building mosques all over the world. If such one-sided access of Islam into the West continues, while access to other religions in Muslim communities and countries is considered by them an illegal “hate crime,” Western culture and the values of free will and religious freedom will atrophy and die. Western values will be the loser in this equation. Islamists are counting on Western inertia to win. If Muslim governments and citizens have full access to build mosques in America, America must insist that it has the same access in Muslim countries. The fault is not with the Muslim countries so much as it is the fault of Western “multiculturalism,” which expects nothing and is adhered to only by Western nations. If Muslim countries have the right to proselytize in America, then Americans must insist on having the right to do the same in Muslim countries. If Muslims finance Islamic Studies departments on American campuses and teach Islam in our public schools, then the same rights must be awarded to Americans. It is true there are a few American schools in the Middle East, such as the American University in Cairo, but these schools are forbidden from having departments of Biblical Studies. The Coptic Christians of Egypt have no access to any services from the Egyptian government to study the Bible. While every school in Egypt teaches Islam and the Koran, Egyptian Christians are left to play instead of being provided with equivalent religious studies. If we do not demand equal cultural access, American Christians and Jews who live in majority Muslim neighborhoods could one day be forbidden from studying the Bible. Such a cultural imbalance will result in one side absorbing the values of the other while keeping the Islamic nation “pure” and free of any outside influence. This one-sided cultural tyranny is forcing us, the American citizen, into tolerating intolerance while never expecting anything more aligned to Western values from the Muslim world. For many decades, America has set itself as the light of freedom to the world, an example for the world to emulate. Our politicians and media allowed the signing of agreements to lift up other nations at the expense of the American worker in the hope that the world would eventually reciprocate. But reciprocation in kind, as planned by the do-gooders in the West, was not given. As Donald Trump said, we give them the money and the jobs and they give us the drugs and unemployment. Trump’s statement struck a nerve among the suffering and hard-working American middle class. No other American politician in recent history has said such a long-awaited comforting statement to the American people, even after 9/11. It is also time to treat US citizens, culture and values as number one again. Culture matters, and it is time to acknowledge the importance of values, sovereign law, and Western freedoms. The multiculturalists have for too long trampled over American pride, traditional values and Judeo-Christian ethics. The damage done to American national pride and dignity has been profound. The American and European public has been suffering in silence for too long and getting the short end of the stick from those who were elected to look after their own citizens first. It is time for Western politicians and leaders, from the left and right, to treat their citizens as number one again inside their own countries. Nonie Darwish, a Middle East Expert born and raised in Egypt, is the author of the upcoming book: “Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

What About Iran’s “JCPOA”? by Lawrence A. Franklin

  • The self-appointed P5+1, elected by no one but themselves, should be embarrassed to find that they have made a deal with no one but themselves.


  • The media’s emphasis on the JCPOA has sadly neglected any in-depth coverage of Iran’s own comprehensive plan of action, which seems to consist of developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and related systems to deliver them.

  • The IAEA cannot even confirm with certainty that Iran does not already possess a nuclear bomb, and yet is not expected to challenge Tehran’s assertion that it ceased nuclear weapons development more than a decade ago.

  • Although the U.S. also cannot be certain of Iran’s intentions, it would be advisable to assume that Iran means what it says: “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Iran is cheating already — or is it? Iran has not signed anything, so presumably it cannot be cheating on something it never agreed to – as predicted on these pages half a year ago. The self-appointed P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany), elected by no one but themselves, should be embarrassed to find that they have made a deal with no one but themselves.

The lavishly touted and lavishly dangerous “Iran Deal” not only paves the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons, as it was planning, anyway; it also rewards Iran’s repeated violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty — which it did sign — with up to $150 billion. With a punishment like that, we should all start violating commitments.

Iran’s recent missile tests have, been undermining the rationale of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the P5+1 signed with itself. If Iran is concerned that its missile tests might have violated multiple UN Resolutions, a paltry detail such as that clearly has not bothered anyone before, so why should it bother anyone now?

The media’s emphasis on the JCPOA has sadly neglected any in-depth coverage of Iran’s own comprehensive plan of action, which seems to consist of developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and related systems to deliver them.

While Western diplomats were congratulating themselves on their JCPOA arrangement, Iran sent a “slap-in-the-face” signal to the Free World by launching an Emad [“Pillar”] ballistic missile on October 10. On December 8, State Department spokesperson John Kirby indirectlyacknowledged the launch of a second ballistic missile, fired on November 21. Kirby was quick to point out that test was not a violation of the JCPOA.

The launches are violations, however, of UN Security Council Resolution #2231, which bans ballistic missile tests by Iran. Although these tests do not defy the letter of the JCPOA, they do defy the spirit of it. Even though the initial missile test was denounced by the U.S. and allied UN representatives, no action has so far been taken against Iran. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, did condemn the October test and probably will also condemn the second test. But if this is outrage, that may be the extent of it.

What seems clear is that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), which controls the ballistic missile program, is attempting to goad the West into additional punitive action against the Islamic Republic. Such response would serve to strengthen the hardline opposition to the JCPOA in Iran. Further, if the United States does nothing but issue condemnatory rhetoric, it will be interpreted by the regime as additional confirmation that the U.S. desires a nuclear agreement at virtually any cost.

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), after its investigation into the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s past nuclear weapons development activities, was forced, thanks to Tehran’s lack of cooperation and transparency to deliver an inconclusive initial report on December 2[1].

The Iranian regime’s officials, such as Deputy Foreign Minister Sayed Abbas Araghchi, have demanded the immediate lifting of the 12 UN Resolutions against Iran when the IAEA Board of Governors votes on the final PMD report on December 15.

The IAEA cannot therefore confirm with certainty that Iran does not already possess a nuclear bomb, or whether or not Tehran is presumably still pursuing one. The IAEA Board of Governors is, nevertheless, not expected to challenge Tehran’s assertion that it ceased any such activities more than a decade ago.

Iran currently has several types of ballistic missiles in varying stages of development. The range of these missiles extends from the regional to the intercontinental — with a version of one missile capable of reaching the continental United States. The most touted operational system is the Shahab (“Meteor”) program, with several follow-on versions. The Shahab system has benefited by seemingly close cooperation with North Korea’s ballistic missile program, Russian nuclear weapons engineers who were unemployed after the Soviet Union imploded, and China’s direct and indirect technical assistance.

The principal threat to regional states, particularly to Israel, is that one does not know what one does not know — in this instance, the stage of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs.

Action by the U.S. Congress to inquire why the public disclosure of Iranian ballistic missile tests is being disseminated in dribs and drabs is long overdue, especially as America’s technical intelligence collection methods provide immediate and certain knowledge of such tests.

Although the U.S. also cannot be certain of Iran’s intentions, it would be advisable to assume that Iran means what it says: “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” If one assumes that these statements, made by a regime that stones women to death, are not mere propaganda, but ideological commitments, the time to demonstrate the Free World’s resolve by way of strategic military exercises on Iran’s borders is long overdue.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Skip to toolbar