Paris Terror Attacks

My thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Paris this evening as they endure the on-going terror attacks that are taking place in the City of Light.

It seems like only yesterday we were following the terror attack at Charlie Hebdo and yet it will pale in comparison to what is now happening.

One of the central themes in my books is that of global terrorism. In fact, I wrote specifically about the threat France is facing in Queen's Gambit. It is something that I have experienced first-hand, as a member of the NYPD’s Intelligence Division, doing dignitary protection and threat assessments, and later as a 9/11 first responder.  While the threat is currently being played out in France, make no mistake that the entire world is a target.

We must begin to take the threat seriously.  This is not the time to be politically correct; worried more about the words we are using to describe the threat facing us, than we are of the actual threat.

I pray for the citizens of France and the thin blue line that is standing in the breach; the last line of defense between the wolves at the door and the sheep they are sworn to protect.

It is a shame that the only time we truly seem to appreciate the men and women of law enforcement is when we run past them, as they are running towards the threat!

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

The Good, the Bad & the Ugly – The Iran Nuclear Deal

For the purpose of full disclosure, I am not a politician or foreign policy expert, although I might have once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I am just one of you, just maybe a slight bit more knowledgeable since I served in an intelligence unit for five years, but maybe that is a good thing. It seems that the more politicians and experts are involved in a subject, the less positive the outcome.

Take for instance this new ‘deal’, somberly referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran over their nuclear program. To be sure, there are many who are applauding this as a foreign policy success story. In fact, I have actually looked at the deal and I can honestly say that it is a good deal.

Some of you might have just fallen off your chair at that last comment, so I’ll give you a moment to get your wits about you and perhaps get a cup of coffee or something stronger.

The idea that President Obama has achieved something that the world once thought impossible, an end to the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb, might seem a bit much for some to accept. I caution however, that while that would be truly historic, and provide the President with a much needed legacy, as the idiom goes: ‘the devil is in the details’.

The deal assumes a radical assumption that somehow Iran will act in good faith, rather than an assumption of bad faith. It goes against the known history of the past, in favor of a future one, that at best, remains cloaked in uncertainty.

So what is ‘Good’ about this deal? Well, quite frankly, if you are the Iranians, everything…… I haven’t seen a deal this one-sided since the Dutch bought the island of Manhattan for $24.

Note: For those of you who are for this Iranian deal and will come unglued about the above statement - Okay, yes, I know that’s a myth. I’m a native New Yorker. I know that the Dutch actually traded iron kettles, axes, knives, and cloth for the Island. I know that the Canarsee Tribe didn’t actually own the island, so the Dutch got taken and then had to pay the Wappinger Tribe when it was discovered that they actually owned the land….. sheesh, allow me at least some literary sarcasm.

Getting back to the point, this deal is truly one sided. Iran agrees to ‘shelve’ components of their program from 8-15 years. Pardon me, but wasn’t Iran a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The fact that they have been working toward a nuclear weapon, in violation of their agreement, kind of makes me believe they can’t be completely trusted. So we are already starting off this agreement knowing that the Iranians have a history of not following through on their agreements. With this in mind, I can’t understand how we wouldn’t proceed under the ‘assume bad faith’ doctrine.

So how did the feckless diplomats handle this? Well, according to the administration we have 24/7 monitoring of the Iranian facilities, the so-called ‘anytime, anywhere’ verification. This would go a long way toward keeping the Iranians honest, but apparently 24/7 doesn’t actually mean 24/7. You see, it applies only to the ‘known’ facilities. The secret ones, which apparently fall under the category of ‘known secret’ and those that may, as of yet, be ‘unknown’ have a different process:

If IAEA inspectors have concerns that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities, at any non-declared sites, they may request access to ‘verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the agreement’, by informing Iran of the basis for their concerns. Iran may admit the inspectors to such site or propose alternatives to inspection that might satisfy the IAEA's concerns. If such an agreement cannot be reached, a process running to a maximum of twenty-four days is triggered. Under this process, Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to reach an agreement, the Joint Commission (including all eight parties) would have one week in which to consider the intelligence which initiated the IAEA request. A majority of the Commission (at least five of the eight members) could then inform Iran of the action that it would be required to take within three more days. The majority rule provision (the United States and its European allies: Britain, France, Germany and the EU, could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them. If Iran did not comply with the decision within three days, sanctions would be automatically re-imposed under the snapback provision.

As a result of the above, the breakout time, the time in which it would be possible for Iran to make enough material for a single nuclear weapon, should Iran abandon the agreement, will allegedly increase from two to three months to one year; this would be in place for ten years.

Seriously? Think about this for a moment. We are entering an agreement with a country that has a history of not following their agreements. We can conduct 24/7 verification of all their ‘known’ facilities, but if we actually find out about a secret one, then we have this rube goldberg-esque process to get them to comply. Yeah, nothing can possibly go wrong with that scenario.

So what is ‘Bad’? Well, if the above didn’t give you the warm fuzzies, consider this. No one is addressing the fact that this agreement does nothing to curtail the Iranians from actually getting the bomb, it just slows it down. To me that sounds a bit sketchy. It would be like negotiating with the school bully, who is threating to kill you, for a fifteen year reprieve.

On top of that, the agreement calls for lifting sanctions and returning upward of one hundred and fifty billion dollars to the Iranian government. Who, if you weren’t already aware of this, is the biggest sponsor of state supported terrorism, a fact that was never even discussed within the framework of the agreement. So I guess they curtail their overt nuclear program, but can continue their reign of terror without any problems along with a healthy dose of new financing. Now where do you think the bulk of this money will go? I’m not a betting man, but I would think that a large chunk will go toward sowing the seeds of terrorism through its surrogates: Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as through its own Qods Force, which has been actively involved in Iraq, where an estimated 1,100 US troops were killed by groups trained and equipped by the Qods, not to mention Syria, the rest of the Middle East, Afghanistan and parts of Africa. The administration even concedes this point.

Now to the ‘Ugly’ part. The government of Iran is a habitual liar. That’s not a baseless slander, but simple fact. The country possesses nearly ten percent of global oil reserves as well as eighteen percent of natural gas reserves. Their claim that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes has always been a charade. Evidence has clearly shown that, despite their claims to the contrary, they have pursued technology to weaponize nuclear energy.

In fact, the IAEA inspectors are on record as saying that they (Iranians) have routinely stonewalled the inspectors and that it is entirely possible that Iran has an undisclosed clandestine nuclear weapons program in place. The lifting of sanctions will open Iran up to a host of countries and their companies, including some of our allies who agreed to this deal; many of whom were already dealing with Iran in violation of existing United Nations sanctions.

United Nations monitors recently issued a report that expressed frustration about the failure of United Nations member states, including those negotiating this deal, to report back to the UN about new incidents of Iran violating Security Council sanctions against its nuclear program, even though some have unfolded in plain sight. I guess reporting U.N. violations was not deemed important to risk sensitive negotiations, during which the Iranians were promising not to violate the provisions of the agreement.

One example in the report cited the failure of member states to report the highly publicized presence of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Qods Force, in Iraq. His Iraq visit was a violation of the U.N.’s imposed travel ban on key Iranian officials. Not that he cares much about restrictions, as he moves freely about the region, including a lot of time spent directing the fight against ISIS in Syria.

If you don’t know anything about the Qods Force, I suggest reading my novel: Bishop’s Gate.

One thing I am curious about is, once the sanctions are lifted and those countries and companies get their fingers into Iran legally, how many will be willing to vote to snapback sanctions? One thing I do know is that once you open Pandora’s Box, what you unleash will not willingly go back inside.

The administration claims that "tough, new requirements will keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon".

No it won’t. It might prolong it slightly, but they will obtain it. The world is playing checkers while the Iranian’s are playing chess. They are happy to let time pass by, while they work toward their end game, which brings me to another point. Can someone explain why their ICBM program remains intact? Isn’t anyone concerned about the “I” in ICBM, which stands for Intercontinental?

Iran doesn’t need an ICBM to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia, or to further its regional terrorism program, so what is the purpose? Please spare the talking point about how Iran’s is much further away from an ICBM then they are from a nuke. That isn’t really all that encouraging. Plus, they have two allies, who coincidentally are their main weapons suppliers, waiting in the wings. It is entirely possible that they might potentially expedite the ICBM process.  The lifting of weapons sanctions is another really bad idea.

Despite all the flowery prose coming forth from the administration and the world about this deal, the fact of the matter is Iran is Iran. They have not changed. Ink on a piece of paper does not change the heart of a person or a country. When you are chanting ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’ your words resonate very clearly. When you sponsor terror throughout the region, and make no apologies for it, you show us who you truly are.

Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled by the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian Revolution, after Khomeini's death.

Many will point to the allegation that Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwa saying that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was ‘forbidden under Islam’. However, I am also aware that the Qur’an says that there are two forms of lying to non-believers, Taqiyya and Kitman, which are permitted under certain circumstances.  Taqiyya, which is saying something that isn't true, is permissible when it advances the cause of Islam. If he didn’t agree with his country’s nuclear program, then why were they still pursuing it in violation of his alleged fatwa?

On the other side of that coin, when the Supreme Leader is quoted as saying ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’, and has actually taken steps to direct terrorist activities against both countries, I tend to take him, and his words, very seriously.

None of this is a condemnation of the President. This is not a partisan issue; if you think that way, you are part of the problem. We are facing a grave threat, and the administrations answer is to kick the can down the road. What good does this do? Understand that when the provisions of the deal sunset, the breakout time for Iran to have a nuclear weapon begins to diminish from the ‘one year’ theory. That is if, and it is a really big IF, they don’t already have a clandestine program place. So, theoretically, we have only bought ourselves a 10 year reprieve. Realistically, it might be much less.

Again, I don’t trust them.

As I have said, this isn’t just an Obama problem. The responsibility has been shared by every administration going back to President Carter. The current regime came into power through a bloody coup, and the world did nothing. If you haven’t, I suggest you take the time to read up on the current Islamic Republic of Iran. You cannot begin to understand the problem, if you don’t understand the history.

In the thirty-five years since the revolt, they have grown to the world’s number one sponsor of state terrorism. Their list of involvement in acts of terror is stunning in its depth and breadth. The U.S. hostage crisis, which lasted for more than a year, the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing, the Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, the Khobar Towers bombing, the training of Al Qaeda, and the list goes on. They have also been named as being involved and complicit in the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the September 11^th attacks, and the Riyadh Compound bombing. 

The world has allowed the current Iranian government to grow from a simple street bully, to a global one. Iran has never stepped back from its commitment to attack the ‘great Satan’, and yet everyone has treated it like nothing more than baseless rhetoric, even when those words were dripping with innocent blood.

Someone recently asked me: What would you do? As if somehow they can justify this bad deal. My answer was: It should never have gotten to this point.

After WWII, the United Nations was created. It was an organization that was supposed to prevent things like this from ever happening. Part of its mandate is maintaining international peace and security. Like its predecessor, the League of Nations, throughout its seventy year existence, the U.N. has proven time and again that it is incapable of doing what it was established to do.

Consider for a moment the fact that the four policemen, a branch of the U.N., which was originally conceived by FDR, was to be the enforcement arm, responsible for keeping order within their spheres of influence. Britain would oversee its empire as well as Western Europe; the Soviet Union had responsibility for Eastern Europe along with the central Eurasian landmass; China controlled East Asia and the Western Pacific; and the United States was charged with overseeing the Western Hemisphere. As a preventive measure against new wars, countries other than the Four Policemen were to be disarmed. Ironically, this concept was originally drafted by FDR in November 1943 at the Tehran Conference. Guess that didn’t work out well.

Like an insolent child, Iran should never have been allowed to arrive at where it is today. Their behavior should have been stopped long ago. Now they are at the threshold of becoming a nuclear power, and the best we can formulate is a plan to delay it by ten to fifteen years.

What will we do in that time frame? Well, if history is any indicator, nothing. What will Iran do? I would venture to guess that they will do what they have always done. They will continue to pursue a covert nuclear program, they will continue to promote unrest and terrorism throughout the region, and push the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

There might be the occasional verbal admonishment, or the threat of ‘tougher’ sanctions, but, in the end, the west has already shown their hand. They have been judged by the Iranian’s as being weak and unwilling to fight, eager to ‘give up’ concessions in order to avoid a conflict.

Imagine what the world would be like today if, instead of pursuing ‘peace in our time’, Hitler was told that if you cross into Austria, you will be dealt with swiftly and severely? Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement quickly led to the so called ‘flower wars’, the annexation of Austria, the Sudetenland and Memel. Had the west stepped in and said no, to Hitler’s advances toward Austria, would it have prevented WWII? I don’t know, but I do know that despite their attempts to avoid it, the war eventually occurred. Bullies don’t stop until someone stands in their way and says ‘enough’.

WWII ended with a mushroom cloud over Japan, my fear is that WWIII will begin with one.

Only time will tell if I am right. I hope that I am not. I hope that the ‘experts’ got it right this time. That somehow the leopard has truly changed its spots.  However, if I am correct, then we have just turned the corner on a journey, which ends with that mushroom cloud appearing over the nation of Israel.

Israel won’t let that happen of course, which means, despite the grand designs of the negotiators, the prospect of World War III just became significantly greater, not less.

But what do I know? I’m just an author who writes fiction novels……… Then again, as we all know, ‘Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth’. 

Prescient Author vs. Lying / Incompetent Politicians

So, I'm sitting here and I get a breaking news alert: US was running guns through Benghazi to Syria.

Wow, didn't see that one coming....... Oh wait, I did.

Then, I got another article that stated: Defense Intelligence Agency warned of rise of ISIS seventeen months before President Obama dismissed them as "JV Team."

You mean the President was wrong?

That's funny, because when I wrote the plot outline for my book, Bishop's Gate, back in January 2014, I had no idea that some of the key fictional elements would come to fruition.

Things like urban racial tensions, gun running to Syria and the rise of the threat of ISIS.

So how is it exactly that a retired NYPD sergeant was able to piece together a fictional story line that everyone in the real world was saying wasn't happening?

Am I that prescient? Perhaps.

More likely it is because I tend to be a news and intelligence junkie. I follow these things like a lot of folks follow sports. Call it an occupational hazard of having lived it. I dealt with the race hustlers up close and personal, read the global intel briefings, which shed light on just how truly screwed up this world actually is, etc.

So when I see these reports it makes me wonder: Am I all that, or are we only getting part of the story?

I'd love it if you read my books, so I will say a bit of both.

For being the most powerful man in the world, doesn't it appear a bit odd to you that he seems to find out the news the same way most of us do? Don't believe it for a moment. The President has at his disposal the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world. If he doesn't know about an issue it is because they are intentionally creating what they call 'plausible deniability'. Simply put, POTUS doesn't want to get caught in a lie. So, someone close to him is told and then they mention it in passing, but he is never 'officially' told.

You think POTUS really believed that ISIS was the JV? If I knew what was brewing in Syria, you can bet that they sure as hell knew. He made that little story up because it didn't fit the narrative he was trying to sell.

Remember, he was a community organizer. They sell stories, not facts.

Facts are annoying. It reminds me of the 'activists' who want you to believe there is an epidemic of cops killing innocent black men, even though no actual facts back this up. In fact, the real epidemic is the that the odds are much greater that you will be killed by another black then by the police.  Unfortunately for black America, those facts are ignored. There is no money to be made marching for victims of black on black crime.

The problem is, we don't have real leadership anymore.

We are not governed by principals, but by political talking points. What is trending? How can we hashtag this? Who can we  blame?

POTUS tells us that the threat of terrorism is on the decline, because it fits the narrative he is pitching during the election. It's not true. He knew it, and you should have known as well. It was a tale that was propped up by the media and now we know it was lie. Just a bit too late.

POTUS, the Secretary of State and the Ambassador to the UN, tell the world the attack in Benghazi was about a video tape mocking Islam. It wasn't and they knew it. In fact, the warnings were there before the attack. No one in the media will ask the tough questions, and even when those in Congress do, they are mocked.

Four dead Americans is nothing to be mocked.

Foggy memories, 'I don't know answers,' conveniently deleted emails.

At the end of the day, it's all still a lie, just wrapped up in a neat little package, because they know the average American just doesn't care.

Like I have said: Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.

Check out Bishop's Gate and ask yourself what else are you being lied to about.

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

Bishop's Gate Available in Print

For those of you who like the feel of an actual book in your hands, the weight is over. Bishop's Gate is now available in print.

The price is $16.99, which is slightly higher than the previous book, but remember, there is almost 100 pages more.

You can get it direct through Createspace (which is an Amazon Company) via the following link: Createspace: Bishop's Gate

Or you may purchase it direct through Amazon at the following link: Amazon: Bishop's Gate

Once again, I thank you for your continued support.

So you think you understand the Middle East?

Good for you, because I can tell you that many people don’t. What is funny to me is that a lot of people, who don’t understand the dynamics that are involved, are very happy to tell you what is going on.

Most of the time I just shake my head and walk away, there’s simply no point in arguing with folks who get there news delivered in talking point format. If you think that the current state of affairs in the Middle East can be summed up in 140 characters or less, you need to spend more time in a book!

One of the central themes of my last two books, Queen’s Gambit and Bishop’s Gate, is the very real threat of terrorism that we face. If you watch the news, you might not truly understand the complexities of what is going on. So I thought a bit of a refresher course would be in order. Please, understand that this is an introductory look at the subject and is in no means meant to be construed as comprehensive.

The Middle East, like Ireland, is complex and should be studied at length.

For the purposes of this we are going to look at things beginning in the early 1900’s. At the time, the Ottoman Empire controlled the Middle East, this would soon come to an end thanks to WW I. By 1917, the British Empire had made three different agreements with three different groups promising three different political futures for the Arab world. The Arabs insisted they still get their Arab kingdom that was promised to them through Sharif Hussein (McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). The French and British expected to divide up that same land among themselves (Sykes-Picot Agreement). And the Zionists expected to be given Palestine as promised by the Foreign Secretary for Britain (Balfour Declaration). 

As you can see, things were not off to a good start from the beginning.

After the war, the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations) was created and one of its roles was to divide up the conquered Ottoman land. It was the League who ‘created’ the Arab world we know today. The borders were drawn arbitrarily, without any regard for the people living there. No consideration was given to ethnic, geographic, or religious issues. These lands were supposed to be ruled by the British or French until such time as they were able to stand alone. The differences between Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. were entirely created, as a method of dividing the Arabs against each other. 

The situation in Palestine was even worse. The British government created the British Mandate of Palestine and allowed the Zionists to settle there. However, they set limitations on the number, because they did not want to anger the Arabs already living there. This condition continued to fester until 1947 when the United Nations dissolved the British Mandate of Palestine and created a partition plan for Palestine. Under this resolution it required the withdrawal of the British Empire and created independent Arab and Jewish States. It also established the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

Of course the plan was accepted by the Jewish people and rejected by the Arabs. Immediately after the resolution passed, civil war broke out.

Recently I heard a college educated woman say that the Jews came in and stole the land from the Palestinians. Here is a news flash; the Jewish people have lived in this area since 2500 BC. The ‘nation’ of Palestine is a modern creation.

While the U.N. resolution passed, it was not without issues. Every Arab nation voted against it. Here are some examples of the sentiment that existed:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, said: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in". He also called for ‘severe measures’ to be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.

General Secretary of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, said: “Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades."

Egyptian King Farouk said that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and “drive them out of Palestine.”

So, despite the creation of five Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), the Arab world still demand the creation of an Arab Palestine state. Clearly, they had drawn the famous ‘line in the sand.’

After the resolution passed, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine. They immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported by the Arab Liberation Army) while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order, organized their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis. The conflict then turned into what is known as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The one year conflict triggered significant demographic changes throughout the Middle East. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel and they became Palestinian refugees. In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel with one third of them having fled, or having been expelled, from their previous countries of residence in the Middle East.

Despite what many believed would be a one-sided battle, the Jewish people did not get the memo. They fought as if their very lives depended on it, and it did. In the end, not only had the Jewish people retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution (#181) had recommended for the proposed Jewish state, but they also took control of almost 60% of the area allocated for the proposed Arab state.

So there you have the ‘basic’ primer for the problems between the Arabs and the nation of Israel.

Now, you would think that would be enough, but you would be wrong. You see, when they turn their attention away from Israel, they seem to be inclined to have issues with one another as well.

Iran – The current make-up of Iran is much different than it was. Following WWII the country was led by the Shah of Iran. However, the oil crisis of the 70’s created an economic recession which led to the Islamic revolution in 1979. The new regime proceeded to storm and occupy the US Embassy in Tehran in what is known as the Iran Hostage Crisis from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981. The current regime is a theocracy, under the rule of the country’s supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah. Iran is a predominantly Shia Islam country. This toppling of the Shah led to concerns in Iraq, that its new Shia neighbor might be a problem.

Iraq – This country has known nothing but turmoil since it was a British mandate. From WWI to the 60’s, the country was in a constant state of flux, with one coup d’état after another. Then, in 1979, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, ascended to the top slot. Hussein initially welcomed the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and sought to establish good relations with the Ayatollah Khomeini's new government. Khomeini had other ideas. He openly called for the spread of the Islamic Revolution to Iraq and took to arming Shiite and Kurdish rebels against Saddam's regime and sponsoring assassination attempts on senior Iraqi officials. This led to a series of military conflicts between the two countries, including the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, throughout the 80’s.

When Saddam Hussein was ousted from power Iran began to make its in-roads. They actively engaged against US military forces, providing some of the most lethal IED’s encountered.  The current Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi, is a Shia Muslim, and is enjoying a new relationship with Iran, including military assistance in fighting ISIS.

Lebanon – Has also experienced upheaval since its inception. When they went to war against Israel, 100,000 Palestinian refugees fled to the country because of the war. Israel did not permit their return after the cease-fire. With the defeat of the PLO in Jordan, many Palestinian militants relocated to Lebanon, increasing their armed campaign against Israel. The relocation of Palestinian bases also led to increasing sectarian tensions between Palestinians and the Christian Maronite’s as well as other Lebanese factions. In 1975, following increasing sectarian violence, civil war broke out in Lebanon. It pitted a coalition of Christian groups against the joint forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), left-wing Druze and Muslim militias. In June 1976 Syria sent in its own troops, ostensibly to restore peace.

In 1982, the continued PLO attacks from Lebanon on Israel led to an Israeli invasion. A multinational peacekeeping force of American, French and Italian military units, joined in 1983 by a British contingent, were deployed in Beirut, after the Israeli siege of the city, to supervise the evacuation of the PLO. In 1983, following the Beirut bombing, the peacekeeping forces withdrew. Lebanon continues to be used a launching spot for rocket attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. Hezbollah is a Lebanon based terrorist organization that has become a major political payer in Lebanon. It was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran. Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.

Syria – Is another country that has known nothing but upheaval since it was a French mandate. From WWI to the 60’s, the country was in a constant state of political turmoil. After the Suez Canal Crisis, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union. This gave the Soviets a foothold for Communist influence within the government, in exchange for military equipment. This caused considerable unease in their neighbor to the north, Turkey. While the current president, Bashar al-Assad, is an Alawite Muslim, he has close ties to the Iranian regime. Iran sees the survival of the Syrian government as being crucial to its regional interests. Syria provides a crucial thoroughfare to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran see’s al-Assad's Alawite minority led government being a crucial buffer against the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United States. In the on-going conflict in Syria, Iran has provided enormous military resources, including strategic assistance, from its vaunted Qods force in the fight against the rebels, of whom ISIS is a large part. ISIS (or ISIL, or IS) is a Salafi Islamic group fighting to impose a global Islamic caliphate. Many believe that the group’s roots are founded in the Muslim Brotherhood. It adheres to global jihadist principles and follows the hardline ideology of al-Qaeda, whom they separated from in 2014. 

Have you noticed the one compelling and underlying issue among all of this? Yes, Religion.

The other issue is Iran. Since 1979 they have been at the forefront of sowing the seeds of discontent. They have been slow and methodical, playing a game of chess and moving their pieces with a keen tactical mind. The threat posed by a potential nuclear Iran is almost unimaginable. I don’t get the warm and fuzzies thinking about a nuclear powered Iran and I am sure that Israel feels the same way. Iran has been adamant that they want Israel gone. This is not an ‘old’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threat. The new Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, said in an interview that: "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed."

Also, if I hear one more person say that Iran needs it for ‘energy’, I think I’ll scream. Iran holds the world's fourth-largest crude oil reserves and the world's second-largest natural gas reserves. Instead of pursuing nuclear energy, made they should abandon that route and have the sanctions lifted, which would allow them to better pursue these energy ventures.

Like I said, this is only a basic primer, to show you that the issues are much more complex than some will say. Religion drives the majority of conflicts, whether it is directed at Israel or whether it is direct at internal sectarian issues. The folks in D.C. may be loathed to say it, but it is a religious war we are dealing with. It always has been and we won’t do ourselves any favors by pretending it isn’t. The conflict between Arab and Jew dates back four thousand years. 

So the next time you’re watching the news, and you hear some talking head say that in order to fix the problems we must look at the socio-economic issues, turn it off and go pick up a book.

Bishop's Gate - Now Available

I am pleased to announce that the 3rd installment in the James Maguire series, Bishop's Gate, is now available on the Kindle e-Book platform.

As you read this book I would like to remind you that the draft of this book was written a year ago. So as you consider the timeliness of the topics discussed, remember that many of these subjects had yet to happen.

ISIL, Terrorism, War, Religion and America's Tepid Response

In my book, Queen’s Gambit, one of the central issues is the threat posed to this nation by radical Islam. It is a theme that is carried over in my forthcoming book, Bishop’s Gate.

I wrote the outline for Bishop’s Gate last January. One of the amazing things that I discovered was how, more than a year later, many of the things I had written about would come to fruition and be significant issues that we are dealing with, even now.

Several days ago, U.S. State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, made the following statement:  

“We cannot kill our way out of this war,… We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.” 

Immediately, there was a backlash that resonated through the political world like a California wildfire in August.

Later she doubled down, saying that her comments might have been too nuanced for some to understand.

I guess I am not as intellectually astute as Ms. Harf.

In her defense, there seems to be a mindset within this current administration that believes it can simply redirect the attention away from the real problem and create a new narrative that they are more familiar with, i.e. if we redistribute wealth and provide those downtrodden would-be jihadists with more financial opportunities, then they won’t take up arms against us.

Really? Maybe your comments weren’t so much nuanced as they were naïve.

Perhaps Ms. Harf can explain to me how she believes that radical Islamic extremists, pursuing their religious ideology, can be converted into peace loving, hedonists, simply by giving them a 9-5 job. What part of radical Islamic extremist are you a little fuzzy on? 

It's about religion, not about the credit limit on your Visa card.

Several weeks ago the President made the following statement at the National Prayer Breakfast:

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

Now, I’m really not sure why he felt that it was an appropriate time to bring that up, but he did raise an interesting point that I think a lot of people missed in the ensuing outrage, including the President.

Man’s pursuit of religious dogma can, and often does, cause him to commit unspeakable acts of barbarism in the name of God.

Many people in this country, and around the world, do not want to believe that the current battle we are fighting is a religious war. They, like Ms. Harf, and probably many others in this administration, want to believe that there is some other root cause. That Jihadi Johnny wasn’t nurtured enough as a child or that Falafel House isn’t hiring. Those are issues they can accept. Those are the neat little socio-economic issues they can champion. It’s sort of like social media diplomacy.

You know: #OccupyAleppo or some other little catchy slogan, in 140 characters or less.

The first problem is: they know it’s a lie. The second problem is: they have no clue how to address it.

It’s time to start being honest. We are at war with radical Islam. Why is that so hard to accept? Notice, I didn’t say we are at war with Islam, just an extremist segment of it.

Does this administration believe that we will offend the Muslim world by saying that? I think they do. Yet, when I saw the response of King Abdullah II of Jordan, to the slaying of his pilot by ISIL, I wonder why this administration can’t admit it. We are at war. Why do I say that? Because, and here is a news flash for those of you who just woke up, they are at war with US!

I’m sorry, but just because you do not want to accept it, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in what they are saying. In 2014 the Islamic State (otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL) declared a worldwide caliphate. In doing so, they claim religious, political and military authority over all Muslims, worldwide, and that the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null and void by the expansion of their authority and the arrival of their troops into those areas. They also said that they would “humiliate U.S. soldiers in Syria” and “raise the flag of Allah over the White House.”

Does any of that seem ambiguous to you? I’m thinking worldwide is a fairly self-explanatory as is flying their flag over the home of the President.

The sad thing is that they are only one of many who believe that they are at war with us. Pick any Middle Eastern terrorist group, look at their fundamental beliefs and you will see a remarkable trend. They all believe that the United States is their enemy, and not just any enemy, but the Great Satan.

Does it sound like they are just longing for a cost of living raise or an extension on unemployment benefits? If these economic issues were correct, then why do we see citizens of western nations going there to fight, instead of coming here for jobs?

The vast majority of Americans need to turn off the Real Housewives of Wherever, or American Idol, and start to educate themselves. If you have no idea what the difference is between a Shia and Sunni, you are part of the problem. Do you understand the ideology of Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia?

If you don’t, then how can you even begin to comment on the current threat we are facing?

The enemy we are facing believes that they are engaged in a holy war against the west, what we call it does not matter to them. All that matters to them is how we fight it. I keep hearing how this nation is war weary, and that might be true. This might not be a fight we want to wage, but that doesn’t mean we won’t have to.

Consider pre-WWII German. The signs were all there: Re-arming of the German military (1935), Annexation of the Rheinland (1936), the Flower Wars: Austria (1938), Sudentenland (Czechoslovakia 1938), Memmeland (Lithuania 1939), and the German-Romanian Economic Treaty (1939).

By the time Germany invaded Poland in 1939, even Helen Keller could have read the tea leaves. The appeasement and admonitions did nothing more than to embolden Hitler, convincing him that Europe had no stomach to fight, and he was right. They only prolonged the inevitable. If we had put a stop to it early on, he would never have been strong enough to inflict the level of damage that he did throughout the whole of Europe.

In fact, unlike our allies, the one thing that we, as America, didn’t have to face at that time was a direct attack on our soil (Before some of you scream, Hawaii didn’t become a state until 1959).

9/11 proved that we don’t live in that world anymore.

Whether we are war weary, whether we don’t have the stomach to fight, means nothing to our enemies. They have the desire. They are not fighting for a single piece of land, or the invasion of another country. No, their goals are much loftier, a worldwide caliphate where you will bow to Allah or die. It really is just that simple.

Whether we choose to fight means nothing to them, they will fight us, and they believe that they have God on their side in this battle. Make no mistake about it, this IS a religious war. It may be, as the President has said, a perversion of Islam, but it exists nonetheless.

More often than not I take exception with the policies and principals of the President, but I do agree, in part, with what he said at the National Prayer Breakfast. Human beings can, and do, perpetuate terrible atrocities in the name of religion. I also believe in the quote, often attributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I don’t want to shed the blood of another member of the United States Military, in some God forsaken sandbox around the world, but I do know that we will one day have to re-fight this battle that we irresponsibly walked away from.

Whether we fight it there or here is the only question.

I am not naïve to think this battle will not come, and there is nothing nuanced about the threat we face. I just pray that when the battle does come, that we have leadership that has the resolve to end the threat, once and for all.

The Face of Evil: Taking up the fight against Terrorism

In my book, Queen’s Gambit, one of the central themes is the threat that we face from terrorism. It is a topic that I dealt extensively with during my time with the NYPD. 

Back in the 90’s I was part of a unit that provided dignitary protection and conducted threat assessments, both for individual security as well as commercial and residential sites. It was a difficult task, one that was made ever harder when we encountered resistance from the people we were trying to protect.

A case in point was in 1997, after the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, Georgia. I was sent to a major sporting venue and asked to evaluate their security and make recommendations. I spent several days going through their facility assessing the risks and taking notes. On the last day, I sat down with the senior members of the organization, and made my recommendations.

I instructed them on tightening perimeter security, establishing designated areas where spectators and packages could be searched, etc. It was nothing that I would consider overly egregious. It took about five minutes before I realized that I was just wasting my breath. I vividly recall one of the execs commentating that they couldn’t search attendees because their event didn’t draw that type of person.

I closed up my folder and wished them luck.

Not long after that, an individual was apprehended inside the venue by officers assigned to the event. This person had a large carving knife in their possession, something which would have been picked up long before the individual had entered the facility. A tragedy was avoided only by sheer luck.

It is the way I feel about the times that we are living.

As we have seen in the recent terror attacks in Paris, France, coupled with those in Ottawa, Canada, and Sydney, Australia, terrorism is alive and well. The real problem is not that terrorism exists, but our unwillingness to properly address it.

To be certain, the outcome in Paris was a failure, not a success. The minute the terrorists began their killing spree inside Charlie Hebdo we lost. In essence, we became reactive to the situation, attempting to put an end to it, when in reality; we should have been proactive and kept it from happening in the first place.

My aim here is not to play Monday morning quarterback, but to instruct.

Think of terrorism as a tool, like a hammer. It is used to bring about a particular response; it is the reason why you hear it referred to by different names: political terrorism, narco-terrorism, biological terrorism, and even eco-terrorism. The real threat however is the person wielding that tool. In order to properly address the threat, you need to know the mindset of the person.

The immediate threat that we face today is one driven by a religious zealotry to the nth degree. That is a statement of fact which simply cannot be ignored. If you want to be politically correct, and bury your head in the sand, then you better pray that you are just as lucky as those sporting executives were and pray that law enforcement, or the intelligence communities, catch them before they do whatever it is they are planning.

Those who subscribe to the religious tenants of radical Islam have no desire to sit down and discuss their animus toward you. They believe in only two things: conversion or death.

Amazingly, there is a certain segment of society which believes that ‘we cannot be like them’. As if by simply doing nothing, we will somehow convince them to lay down their swords to join us in some utopian global citizen fairytale.

It sounds quite naïve to decry the use of non-lethal interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation, when your enemy is only interested in killing you. If you don’t understand this fundamental difference, you are part of the problem.

For starters, when it comes to the basics of Islam, most are woefully uneducated. The majority of folks couldn’t tell you what the difference was between Sunni or Shia, or the many other denominations of Islam. Not that I can blame them, as many struggle with defining their own religious beliefs let alone a complex religion like Islam. The issue I have is that, if you are uneducated, you shouldn’t be interjecting yourself into the conversation.

George Bush, and enhanced interrogation techniques, did not create the problem of Jihad, it has been around for over a thousand years. We are not in a traditional war, but a religious one. Our enemy cannot be appeased with money or land; they seek only to spread their brand of religion, opposition to which means death.

The French are going to have to come to terms with a monster that they helped create. In an attempt to be politically correct, they allowed their core principles to be modified. The first time they surrendered, they set in motion a practice that has brought them to the brink.

There are now an estimated 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or No-Go Zones, across the nation of France. These are areas where the government has simply raised the white flag, allowing the local community to take over. As a result, these areas are not governed by the laws of France, but by Islamic Sharia law. In many instances the police or other public safety, such as fire and ambulance services, will not even go in to these areas.

This is not isolated to France; this is also seen in growing areas of the United Kingdom and Sweden. Even in the United States, there are burgeoning Muslim communities in places like Dearborn, Michigan, where locals are calling for the equivalent of No-Go Zones and the institution of Sharia courts.

What the French failed to realize is that terrorism is not a criminal problem. Islamic terrorists, like the Kouachi brothers and Amedy Coulibaly, are at war. Treating them as if they are a common criminal, who can be rehabilitate and returned back to society, is ludicrous. In fact, lax prison rules have allowed them to become a prime recruiting location.

Amedy Coulibaly converted to radical Islam while in prison in 2005. It was during that prison stint when he met Cherif Kouachi.  The two men became devoted followers of Djamel Beghal, a French-Algerian man with ties to al-Qaeda, who was convicted of plotting in 2001 to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Coulibaly tried to break another militant Islamist, Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, out of prison in 2013. Although he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, he served only several months before he was released early.

This is the mindset that believes that a terrorist is a criminal and a prison sentence administers the proper amount of justice. It is a mindset that we are seeing here in the United States as well. Western civilization seems loath to accept the fact that this is a war we are fighting; choosing to believe it is a criminal justice issue.

Imprisoning people like this serves only to keep them isolated for a finite amount of time until they are once again released to the battlefield, a fact we have seen replayed when Gitmo prisoners have been released. In their minds, they are prisoners of war and their duty does not end till they die or the war is won.

Whether you like it or not, this is the reality we now face.

Yesterday, over forty world leaders participated in a march in Paris denouncing terrorism. It was the largest assemblage since the Americans liberated that city during WWII. Unfortunately, absent from the scene were representatives of this administration. Yes, the American Ambassador was there, somewhere, but when you have the representative heads of France, Israel, England, Germany, and so many other nations, the least the administration could have done was send the vice-president.

However, this administration does not want to address the real threat posed by radical Islam. It wants to paint a narrative that terrorism is on the decline, not the upswing that we are witnessing with our own eyes.  They want to view it as a simple criminal justice problem and mete out sentences in civilian court. What could go wrong with that?

After all, we saw how well it worked out for France.

The photo at the top of this article is the enemy that we now face. It speaks to the contempt with which they view us. The glint of orange fabric at the bottom was just the latest victim, but, to be sure, they envision each and every one of us in that position. 

It's our choice to decide whether we try to reason with the devil or fight back.