Facebook Feed

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

The Iranian octopus predator at the US’ backyard

(More data available here and here)

Iran’s Ayatollahs – a clear and present danger to the US

The Saudi ArabNews reported that “the presence of Hezbollah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Latin America is considered important by Iran, since it provides a base from which it could strike against American targets…  Iran has infiltrated not only Argentina, but also Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname and Colombia…. In Foz do Iguacu, Brazil there is the largest Muslim community in the Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil Tri Border Area. Iran is able to infiltrate and manipulate that community…. Iran’s agents are potentially able to enter the US through legitimate border crossings, or among convoys of illegal immigrants….. Meanwhile Hezbollah continues its efforts to expand its terrorist activities [in Latin America]….

“[The Iranian proxy] Houthi militants transport weapons from Brazil to Yemen….  Hezbollah is involved in the illegal arms trade in Brazil, maintaining contacts with Brazil’s PCC (the most powerful criminal organization in Latin America)…. Brazil’s Forjas Taurus, the largest arms manufacturer in Latin America, is involved in sales of weapons to [pro-Iran] Yemeni arms dealer….”

According to the British E-International Relations, “Iran may well be the most important, and at the same time the most complex and the most volatile, of all the foreign policy problems with which the US must deal…. Iran continues to infiltrate [the US’] backyard….

“Iran’s foreign policy toward Latin America can be seen not only as antagonistic toward the U.S. and its national security interests. It fulfills Iran’s attempt to establish a greater presence in the US’ own backyard….

“Iran’s Latin American partners are part of the so-called ‘Pink Tide’ that came to power between the years of 1998 and 2009…. Despite the fact that the “Pink Tide” did not have a clear-cut ideology, they were united in opposition to Washington….”

Iran’s Ayatollahs leverage the “Pink Tide” to hit the US

The “Pink Tide” has been a left-leaning, pro-Iran wave among Latin American countries, moving away from the US. Some are anti-US. Recently, it has gained momentum in Mexico (2018), Argentina (2019), Bolivia (2020), Chile, Honduras and Peru (2021) and Colombia (2022), joining Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, which have been anti-US and strategically-aligned with Iran. Argentina has leaned leftward, while former pro-Iran Brazilian President, Lula da Silva, is comfortably leading the polls for the October, 2022 presidential election.

On May 29, 2022, the first-ever left-leaning, pro-Iran and pro-Venezuela President (Gustavo Petro) was elected in Colombia – the third most populous Latin American country – which was the closest ally of the US in the battle against drug cartels, terror organizations and Venezuela anti-US conduct.

Florida International University’s Western Hemisphere Security Analysis Center reported that Iran’s Ayatollahs have bolstered their ties with Latin American countries, which are endowed with nuclear weapon-related natural resources, such as the significant uranium deposits in Guyana along the border with Venezuela.  A 2010 Guyana-Iran accord includes initiatives to map Guyana’s mineral resources, mostly uranium.

E-International Relations adds that “Venezuela helps Iran develop nuclear technology, obtain uranium, evade UN sanctions, smuggle arms and munitions and carry out a host of other shadowy deals…. Bolivia and Iran have signed a series of cooperation agreements, making Iran a partner in the mining and exploitation of Bolivia’s lithium, a key strategic mineral with application for nuclear weapons [and ballistic] development…. Iran appears to be eyeing Ecuador’s uranium deposits…. Iran has supported terrorist organizations operating in Latin America, such as [the Shiite] Hezbollah and the Sunni Hamas. Both have been operating in the Tri-Border Area, featuring Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, Puerto Iguazu in Argentina, and Foz do Iguaçu in Brazil…. Iran is developing its own cyber security capabilities with the intent to use them to launch [anti-US] Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, launching attacks of malicious code, electronic warfare, debilitation of communications and advanced exploitation [hostile] techniques. In fact, most DoS attacks are carried out in conjunction with transnational organized crime organizations for the purpose of extortion. The Iranian government is investing heavily in cyber capabilities and may well turn to their proxies (the Bolivarian Revolution nations) as an [anti-US] force multiplier….”

According to the UK-based IranWire, Iran’s close ties with Peru reflect Tehran’s awareness that Peru sits on uranium reserves, and is located at the Chile-Peru-Bolivia Tri-Border-Area, which has been lawless for decades, and has therefore attracted terror organizations, drug and human traffickers, money launderers and arms dealers.

“As in Venezuela and Bolivia, there exists a convergence in Peru between Iranian cells and longer-standing revolutionary socialist groups – a fertile ground for proselytization to Shiite Islam.  Therefore, in 2012, the Ayatollahs and Hezbollah established in Peru the Islamic Center of Peru, Inkarri Islam, which has served as an intelligence, recruitment, indoctrination and proselytization center. The leader of the center has been Edwar Husain Quiroga Vargas, a Shiite Muslim convert, who is one of Peru’s President Pedro Castillo’s closest activists.

Iran’s Al Mustafa International University, a religious seminar based in Iran’s city of Qom that opened its doors in 2007 with the specific mission of proselytizing the non-Shiite, non-Muslim world and catering to converts in their native language…. Al Mustafa is one of Iran’s main vectors to export its revolutionary brand of Shiite Islam.

The bottom line

*Since February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini seized control of Iran, the US has employed the diplomatic/negotiation option in its dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran, waiving the regime-change and military options.

*Since February 1979, Iran’s Ayatollahs have leveraged the diplomatic option, dramatically intensifying their anti-US activities in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America all the way to the US-Mexico border.

*Since February 1979, Iran’s Ayatollahs have viewed Latin America – the soft underbelly of the US – as a top priority, bolstering strategic cooperation with all anti-US governments, leading drug cartels, money launderers and terror organizations

*Since February 1979, the diplomatic option has yielded to the Ayatollahs billions of dollars, which have bolstered Iran as an epicenter of global anti-US subversion, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and proliferation of ballistic missiles and other lethal systems.

*While the US has approached Tehran diplomatically, the Ayatollahs have re-entrenched their lethal presence at the backyard of the US.

*As expected when dealing with a rogue, apocalyptic and anti-US regime – which is driven by a 1,400 year old fanatic vision to bring the “apostate” Sunnis and the “infidel” West to submission – the diplomatic/negotiation option has advanced the fortunes of Iran’s Ayatollahs, while severely undermining the national and homeland security of the US.

*The enhancement of US interests is preconditioned upon the triumph of reality-driven Iran policy over wishful-thinking, which requires the suspension of the self-destruct diplomatic option, while featuring  credible regime-change and military options.

Support Appreciated











The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb