The Sons Of Esau Continue To War (Genesis 27)

Shiites vs Sunnis: A region at war

Israel Hayom
The most important event is the removal of sanctions from Iran. As part of a process that began when the agreement on its nuclear program was signed, Iran is returning to the world with an American stamp of approval as a regional power. Iranian intellectuals understood this as soon as the interim deal was signed between Iran and the world powers in November 2013 and explained at conferences throughout the world that that recognition was a clear right of the Iranians given their country’s importance, strength, history, and achievements in the region in general and in the nuclear negotiations in particular.
Doubtless, this sense of power and international legitimacy in Iran jumped following the final nuclear deal and the removal of sanctions this week. This means that from now on, Iran will keep growing economically and militarily while living up to the agreement, as least until its economy improves significantly.
During this upcoming period, Iran will behave like a regional power, and anyone who does not accept its status will have to deal with its increasing power and the strength of its emissaries in the region. The American move in making the deal, and its ramifications for Iran’s stature, serve as a kind of proof for the Sunnis of an American decision to align with the Shiite side of the struggle.
The second-most important event was the response of the Saudis, who executed a Shiite preacher who was imprisoned after a trial (the sentence was handed down a year and a half ago) to send a clear message to the Iranians, as well as to Saudi Arabia’s own allies in the Sunni world, that they would not give up on their fight against the Iranian Shiites — certainly not when it comes to Iran’s attempts to attack Saudi Arabia’s intactness by stirring up its Shiite minority.
This decision was similar in principle to an earlier Saudi decision to employ force in Yemen and battle against the Houthis, whom the Saudis perceived as agents of Iran.
Saudi Arabia has undoubtedly changed its behavior under its new king, Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, and steered by his son Mohammed‎ bin Salman, the country’s 30-year-old defense minister. This means that Saudi Arabia is prepared to take risks and pay prices that it was not prepared to pay in the past. In this case, the price of severing relations with Iran,a step the Saudis decided to take after Iranian demonstrators set fire to the Saudi embassy in Tehran in protest over the execution of the Shiite preacher.
Other Sunni states followed, breaking off relations with Iran — the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Sudan –– while Egypt, which is receiving substantial economic aid from Saudi Arabia, has not. Sudan, which had former ties to Iran, has actually cut it off entirely.
The Saudis are spearheading a Sunni challenge to the Shiite efforts of the past 35 years, which the Sunnis have thus far been able to check. The results are clear in Iraq and Lebanon, and are the underlying cause of the ongoing war in Syria and the conflict in Yemen.
The third event slipped under the radar of most of the Israeli media. This was an announcement by Pakistan made during a visit to that country by the Saudi defense minister and heir to the throne. The host declared that Pakistan would respond severely to any attack on Saudi Arabia.
Whether or not that is true, the Pakistani threat comprises an interesting development. Thus far, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have been portrayed as an element of the conflict between Pakistan and India, and now all of a sudden they’re being used in a Middle Eastern context, in a conflict between the Shiite superpower and the entity who wants to be perceived as its Sunni counterpart.
This is a real change in the balance of power throughout the entire Middle East. If Pakistan moves from a one-time declaration to actual intervention in these tussles, the regional balance of power will change, but past experience indicates that they will be very careful about committing themselves.
What will be the ramifications of the intensifying conflict? First, it is quite clear that it will be much harder to deal with the war in Syria properly. That war is not just a civil war between different factions of Syrian society. It is a war between Shiites and Sunnis, with Iran standing behind one side and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and Turkey, to a certain extent, backing the other.
Even if there were some agreement in Syria about peace talks, which is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, Iran and Saudi Arabia will not take any steps toward each other, so the Syria war will continue. The Iranians will also seek out Saudi Arabia’s soft underbelly, probably via the many Shiites in Saudi Arabia and in some Gulf states, and the Saudis will respond with all their strength, mainly through economic and other forms of aid to anyone in the Middle East who opposes the Shiites.
The Saudis’ success in winning Sudan’s heart and removing it from Iran’s circle of influence should be noted and is very important, to Israel as well, because Sudan was a key stop on the weapons smuggling route from Iran to the Gaza Strip.
The very possibility that a nuclear nation will join this bitter struggle raises serious questions and concerns about the consequences of a possible deterioration, since it’s very hard to control endless battles colored by religion.
Pakistan moving its attention to the heart of the Middle East does not bode well for an already complex and conflicted region. A Pakistani change like this one, if it is not a one-time case of lip service for its Saudi friend, could make the regional reality even more complicated and could eventually turn out to be very influential for the region. In the meantime, it appears to be a one-time event, not a turning point, even if it is important in and of itself. It will be necessary to keep constant tabs on whether Pakistan is headed toward that kind of direct intervention.
The lesson Israel should learn from all these recent events is clear: Israel must not be drawn into such a complex and deep-running battle as the intra-Islamic conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, or between the Arabs and Persians in the Gulf region. Israel must take care to safeguard its own interests, including taking a risk if force should be exerted, but after great consideration, without arrogance, and with precision.

Esau Strikes Back At Jacob (Genesis 27)

US issues travel warning following terror attacks

Empty tables are seen at a restaurant on the Grand Place in Brussels, Monday, Nov. 23, 2015. The Belgian capital Brussels has entered its third day of lockdown, with schools and underground transport shut and more than 1,000 security personnel deployed across the country.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
Empty tables are seen at a restaurant on the Grand Place in Brussels, Monday, Nov. 23, 2015. The Belgian capital Brussels has entered its third day of lockdown, with schools and underground transport shut and more than 1,000 security personnel deployed across the country.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
A travel alert issued on Monday says current information suggests that Islamic State militants, al-Qaida, Boko Haram (BOH’-koh hah-RAHM’) and other terrorist groups continue to plan attacks in multiple regions. U.S. authorities say the likelihood of terror attacks will continue as members of IS return from Syria and Iraq, and others not affiliated with terror groups engage in violence on their own.
Extremists have attacked in France, Nigeria, Denmark, Turkey and Mali and IS has claimed responsibility for bombing a Russian airliner in Egypt.
U.S. citizens are advised to be vigilant in public places and on transportation and avoid large crowds, including holiday events or festivals.

The Nuclear End (Revelation 15)

November 14, 2015 8:26 AM ET
Mourners arrange candles at the gate of the French Embassy in Berlin. Hundreds of people came throughout the day to lay flowers, candles and messages of condolence to mourn the victims of attacks Friday night in Paris.
Mourners arrange candles at the gate of the French Embassy in Berlin. Hundreds of people came throughout the day to lay flowers, candles and messages of condolence to mourn the victims of attacks Friday night in Paris.

Millions of people grew up in a time when we had nuclear nightmares. We worried that a few huge bombs might blow up the world, and we rehearsed how we should hide below our school desks if sirens ever sounded.

They’d test those civil defense sirens every Tuesday morning in Chicago; I’ve heard of other times in other cities. In time, they became just one more city sound, like the screech of a subway train or the flapping of pigeon wings. But every now and then, the siren could make you think, and chill a sunny morning. They could sound like small, mournful screams to remind us that we’d been born into a world that could disappear in a flash.

We couldn’t see what frightened us; maybe that’s often the way. The menace was overseas, in the skies, out of our hands. Powerful men were thought to hold our destiny in theirs, but we believed what held them back from pressing a button — the single button we thought would unleash a fireball — was what was pretty candidly called MAD: mutually assured destruction. Presidents, premiers and generals didn’t want to die any more than ordinary citizens.

Children don’t have to go through nuclear war drills now. We don’t think of our world disappearing in a flash. But in our times, almost anywhere, it’s hard not to think about the world being blinded by a thousand different flashes that take people by surprise as they go about their daily lives. In fact, terror depends on people being surprised as they laugh, walk, listen to music, talk to one another, walk the dog, or sip a coffee. And you may wonder: What can deter the kinds of people who wear suicide vests or rake crowds with bullets, if they are as uncaring about their own deaths as others?

The targets of terrorism don’t tend to be strategic military objectives. The language of our times calls them “soft targets.” Near as I can tell, this simply means targets that are as soft as our own flesh — like the people we saw in the blinking lights of emergency vehicles in Paris over these past few hours, and we’ve seen in recent years from New York to London, Mumbai and Nairobi: commuters, shoppers, concertgoers, laughing families, schoolkids, partiers and vacationers. Mothers, children, uncles and friends. Innocents.

Esau Will Destroy Jacob (Genesis 28)


Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: Destroying Israel is “Muslims’ First Priority”

by Staff | 07.08.15 6:17 pm

Ahead of Friday’s commemoration of Qods Day, an Iranian holiday calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a release stating that the annihilation of the Jewish state “is Muslims’ first priority,” Iran’s Tasnim New Agency reported today.

The statement, issued on Wednesday, has called on the people of Iran and other Muslim countries to attend the mass rallies on coming Friday in support of Palestine.

It also slammed the Zionist regime of Israel as the common enemy of the Islamic nations, saying the strategy to destroy that regime is Muslims’ first priority.

The Quds Day signifies the “strategic depth of the logic of resistance” and the fight against tyranny in the world, the statement added.

Another Iranian news agency, Alalam, reported on the official statement made by the Iranian army in commemoration of Qods Day.

In the statement, released on Tuesday, the Iranian Army hailed the International Quds Day as an occasion to reaffirm solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine and express disgust at the Zionist regime of Israel as the “common enemy of the Islamic society.”

The Quds Day also marks “unity and convergence” in the Islamic community in the fight against attempts made by the world arrogance and Israel to create “evil coalitions” for creating rifts among the Islamic denominations, the statement added. …

It is seen as an opportunity for freedom-seeking people across the world, regardless of faith, to voice their support for the cause of Palestine and vent their anger against the Apartheid regime of Israel, which has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.

The last Friday of Ramadan was designated as Qods Day in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei to call for the destruction of Israel, and has subsequently been marked by “a ritualized outpouring of hatred directed at Israel.”

On Qods Day shortly after his election two years ago, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who is often referred to as a “moderate,” called Israel an “old wound” on the Muslim world. Iranian news agencies added that Rouhani called for Israel to “be removed,” but retracted after the language cause an uproar.

Earlier this week, former Iranian president Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an ally of Rouhani who is also often characterized as a moderate, proclaimed that “the forged and temporary Israeli entity, which is an alien existence forged into the body of a nation and a region be wiped off the map.”
Earlier this year, Iranians celebrated the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Islamic revolution with cries of “Death to America.” It was a sentiment echoed a month later by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.




BY MICHAEL WEISS 05.28.155:2

The Obama administration is being slammed from all sides for its failing strategy against ISIS—and rightly so. But amid all the scorn, one question has yet to be asked about the resiliency of the terror army, which actually goes to the heart of its decade-old war doctrine. Namely: Does ISIS actually win even when it loses?

This isn’t an academic issue. America’s allies in the ISIS war are gearing up for a major counteroffensive against the extremist group. That assault that could very well play right into ISIS’s hands.

Having superimposed its self-styled “caliphate” over a good third of Iraq’s territory, in control of two provincial capitals, ISIS is today in the strongest position it has ever been for fomenting the kind of sectarian conflagration its founding father, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, envisioned as far back as 2004.

Zarqawi’s end-game was simple: by waging merciless atrocities against Iraq’s Shia majority population (and any Sunnis seen to be conspiring with it), Zarqawi’s jihadists would have only to stand back and watch as radicalized Shia militias, many of whose members also served in various Iraqi government and security roles, conducted their own retaliatory campaigns against the country’s Sunni minority. Internecine conflict would have the knock-on effect of driving Sunnis desperately into the jihadist fold, whether or not they sympathized with the ideology of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi’s franchise and the earliest incarnation of what we now call the Islamic State.

Indeed, in the mid-2000s, the Jordanian jihadist nearly got what he wished for by waging spectacular terror attacks against Shia civilians and holy sites, such as the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a strategy which quickened devolved Iraq’s violence from a primarily anti-American insurgency into all-out civil war. The only stopgap for a truly apocalyptic or nation-destroying result was the presence of nearly 200,000 U.S. and coalition troops. Today, however, absent such a foreign and independent military presence, the main actors left in Iraq are the same extremists—Shia militias and ISIS.

This fact was only driven home last week after thousands of U.S.-trained Iraqi Security Force personnel, including the elite counterterrorist Golden Division, fled from Ramadi, allowing the city fall to a numerically modest contingent of ISIS jihadists. Having been initially instructed by Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to refrain from defending the city (no doubt at the prompting of Washington) the Hashd al-Shaabi, the umbrella organization for these Shia militias, now say they are prepping a massive counteroffensive to retake Ramadi. It promises to be a drawn-out and highly fraught counteroffensive, pitting paramilitaries—which have been accused of war crimes and atrocities by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations Human Rights Commission—against genocidal ISIS militants.

Many Iraqis fear, with good reason, that this counteroffensive will also extend to Sunni civilians who will now be branded “collaborators” of ISIS, as they have in previous Hashd-led operations. The result: torture, extrajudicial killing, and ethnic cleansing. Nothing would better serve the ISIS narrative or legitimate its claim to be the last custodian and safeguard of Sunni Muslims in the Middle East. Such an outcome might even precede the eventual disintegration of the modern state of Iraq into warring ethno-religious enclaves. That this was ISIS’s plan all along adds yet another grim paragraph to the obituary of American-hatched adventurism in the Middle East.

True, Hashd al-Shaabi has routed ISIS elsewhere before, namely in Amerli and Jurf al-Sakhar and Tikrit. In the aftermath, the militia was accused of committing human rights abuses, but those accusations didn’t tear the country apart.

The difference with Ramadi, however, is one of both scale and symbolism. This city of close to 200,000 is dead center in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, where ISIS has the home advantage. Ramadi was also, not coincidentally, the cynosure of the so-called “Anbar Awakening,” which saw hundreds of thousands of Sunni tribesmen rise up against ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, in a cautious but fruitful partnership with American soldiers in the mid-2000s, a grassroots counterinsurgency whose gains were then solidified by the “surge” orchestrated by U.S. commander General David Petraeus. This time, absent any American combat forces, there are Shia Islamists who have never before tread into Ramadi. Many Iraqis dread the consequences.

“Iraq is not unified,” Iraq’s former Deputy Prime Minister Rafe Essawi, a senior Sunni political leader originally from Anbar, told The Daily Beast. “Fifty percent of the country belongs either to Kurds or ISIS, and 50 percent belongs to the Shia militias backed by Iran. We said too many times to our friends the Americans that we do not need to see the militias in Ramadi because this will lead to sectarian conflict.”

Yet the Americans have little on offer by way of an alternative. U.S. training efforts are still months off from fielding military units able to join the fight. With Iraq’s future resting on them, Hashd is seen as the only ready bulwark against further ISIS encroachments, although its conduct in Anbar may paradoxically purge the province of ISIS’s hard power while underwriting its soft version.

The Ramadi offensive hardly got off to a promising start. On Tuesday, Hashd spokesmen announced that the name for their Anbar offensive was “Labeyk Ya Hussein,” a slogan roughly translated as “At your service, Hussein,” in tribute to a venerated Shia religious figure. The connotations were therefore of holy war—not exactly the multi-sectarian, pan-Iraqi message Baghdad has preferred to telegraph to international audiences.

On Wednesday, in response to criticism from U.S. officials and some Iraqi leaders—including demagogic Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (who has fallen out with Iran and has since platformed himself as a nationalist politician)—the operation’s name was changed to to more universal: “Labeyk Ya Iraq.” But the public relations rethink has not addressed underlying concerns about the Hashd’s intentions, nor allayed Sunni anxieties.

“I think the careful examiner of the facts on the ground will see de facto borders are being drawn, whether by design or by circumstance,” said one former Iraqi official who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity. “The militias have effectively cleared the Baghdad belts to the south of Sunnis, and with the Ramadi operation I expect the same will happen westward, but it will entail a lot more fighting and possibly much more instability.”

This is because the war for the future Iraq isn’t being waged first and foremost by Iraqis but by their self-interested next-door neighbor, Iran, led by its elite Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated terrorist entity in its own right.

Iraq’s sectarian division, whereby Sunnis have been forced out of Shia-controlled areas under the auspices of fighting ISIS, reflects the fact that the Hashd operates more according to Tehran’s geo-strategic and ideological interests, the former official said. “I feel that Iran and some of its erstwhile allies have reached a realization that they have lost a significant ally in Syria and therefore need to buffer the ‘Shia’ zones in Iraq to protect them while paying lip service to the notion of a unified state.”

It certainly does not help matters that America’s unacknowledged ally in the anti-ISIS coalition is the IRGC-QF, whose commander, Major General Qassem Suleimani, not only blamed U.S. incompetence for the fall of Ramadi this week but labeled the United States an “accomplice” of the jihadists—a conspiratorial view of ISIS’s secret patronage widely shared among the Hashd rank-and-file.

The scenario described by Essawi and the ex-official is more common among the Sunni political class than either Washington or Baghdad care to acknowledge. Whether it is credible will depend on how the Hashd conducts itself on hostile terrain and whether it can break with precedence of collective punishment. If the militias act as a nationalist reserve army, under the command and control of Haider al-Abadi—something the White House has insisted as a precondition of U.S. air support—then they may be able to recruit Sunnis to their efforts, or at least earn their respect and admiration.

Essawi argues that Hashd has so far relied on coercion rather than a savvy hearts-and-minds approach for winning over Sunnis. “The Sunni tribes used to be against ISIS after [their] crimes,” he said. “Definitely there are some local supporters of ISIS, but the tribes, generally speaking—almost all of them are committed to fight. It is the government that refuses to strengthen them. So some very weak tribes have been coerced into accepting this bad choice: It’s either Hashd al-Shaabi or ISIS.”

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni deputy prime minister under Abadi, disagreed.

He emphasized that the Hashd should henceforth operate under the Iraqi flag rather than the host of competing standards their constituent militias currently brandish (including those bearing the images of Iranian ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei). But Mutlaq is hopeful of greater Sunni support for the Hashd. He pointed out that volunteer camps established near Ramadi incorporate Sunnis volunteers and Iraqi policemen who fled the city into the broader counteroffensive.

“The government will give them training and weapons,” a statement issued by Mutlaq’s office read, without offering specifics. As for Shia sloganeering deemed alienating the Anbari support base, he doesn’t think this has had too dire an impact. “The Sunnis were conflicted about the intervention from the Hashd al-Shaabi because they were worried about reprisal attacks. But the Hashd is less harmful than ISIS. At least, these people are Iraqis and we can deal with them later on, but we can’t with ISIS.”

Nevertheless, Mutlaq wonders just what form a pro-government success may take and what happens the day after ISIS is routed from Ramadi. “His concern is whether Ramadi will undergo demographic changes,” his office said. “Will Sunnis be forced to relocate to others areas and will there be any revenge attacks and conflicts between the Hashd and the tribes?”

Usama al-Nujaifi, one of Iraq’s vice presidents and the former parliamentary speaker, pointed out that recent missteps by the militias has squandered incipient good will for Sunni reconciliation. Yesterday, during a parliamentary session, the Sunni governor of Diyala province was fired—and replaced with a Shia. “This is a real threat and a very negative message to Iraqis. This is considered a break to the rules and it contradicts what has been agreed,” Nujaifi said. “The majority in Diyala are Sunnis.”

ISIS is counting on such political heavy-handedness to indemnify its own savagery. “It is that enemy, composed of Shiites joined by Sunni agents, who are the real danger with which we are confronted, for it is our fellow citizens, who know us better than anyone,” Zarqawi wrote in a 2004 letter, correctly foreseeing that the U.S. military occupation would be fleeting and incidental to the future of Iraq.

In other words, he wanted the Shia militias, principally the Badr Corps—now first among equals in the Hashd—to commit anti-Sunni atrocities as payback for Zarqawi’s own scorched-earth war against the Shia. “If we manage to draw them onto the terrain of partisan war, it will be possible to tear the Sunnis away from their heedlessness, for they will feel the weight of the imminence of danger and the devastating threat of death wielded by these Sabeans.”

If Iraq does fall apart, it will have been because Zarqawi’s apocalyptic plan got realized a decade after his death.

This WILL Be A Religious War (Genesis 27)




In a recent survey conducted by, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region.

The poll, which asked in Arabic, “Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.

Fulfilling The Prophecy Of Esau (Gen 27)


Top Khamenei Advisor: We Have Divine
Permission to Destroy Israel

MAY 12, 2015 6:36 PM
An official close to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei asserted that his government has a godly ordained right to annihilate Israel, Al Arabiya reported on Tuesday.
The “government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has divine permission to destroy Israel,” said Mojtaba Zolnour, a Khamenei representative in the elite Revolutionary Guards.

According to semi-official state news agency Fars, Zolnour said that, “the Noble Koran permits the Islamic Republic of Iran to destroy Israel.” He added that, “Even if Iran gives up its nuclear program, it will not weaken this country’s determination to destroy Israel.”
This is by no means the first time that Iranian political or military officials have threatened Israel with destruction.
Iran has raised the specter of “wiping Israel out of existence,” since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in the country in 1979. Khomeini’s animosity towards Israel was based on an ideological and religious opposition to Zionism, amplified by the challenge Israel’s military and economic strength posed to Iranian regional expansionism.
Perhaps most famously, former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” in a 2005 speech that he gave. More recently, in late March 2015, General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of Iran’s Basij militia – a volunteer paramilitary organization under the command of the IRGC – said that, “wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation.”
Iran also actively finances and militarily backs proxy terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah that are ideologically opposed to Israel’s existence.

The Islamic Revolution: Esau Breaks Jacob’s Yoke (Genesis 27)

Supreme Leader: Islamic Revolution Stood against Imperialism


Local Editor

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei said that the recent Iranian scientific advances have been achieved thanks to martyrdom for the sake of Allah.
During a message published Thursday, and delivered when his eminence received members of the secretariats of Congress of Educational Martyrs, Congress of University Student Martyrs and Congress of Artist Martyrs, Ayatollah Khamenei said the elites’ effective contribution to the Sacred Defense has exemplified the fact that the heavenly motivation to “sacrifice for the sake of Allah” had been deeply rooted in the multitudes of the pious.

He emphasized on the necessity of honoring the martyrs and reviving their valuable and beloved memories.

“The sessions to honor martyrs are in fact to perpetuate their path; their lifestyle and memories should be sought as a public way of finding virtues of their life in society,” the Supreme Leader said.

Ayatollah Khamenei brought a historical example of the early decades of Islamic history to compare between the today’s martyrs and the life of Imam Hussein (AS) and his epic campaign in saving and protecting Islam, Quran, and Islamic tradition and teachings.

“Any society which finds martyrdom as an everlasting truth, would not accept defeat. And that nation would move in its path toward progression without any fear and qualms,” asserted the Leader.

His eminence praised ‘the great feat’ by Iranian great nation as rejecting the division of the world to two categories of dominated and dominant.

“Rather, our nation brought to the scene an identity called Islamic Identity, which courageously stands against the imperialism drawing upon Godly and moral principles,” he said, adding that “this is despite the fact that the colonial powers still have continued to dominate over the downtrodden and oppressed of the world through many mechanisms available.

Source: IRNA

Esau Intent On Breaking Jacob’s Yoke (Genesis 27:40)

Khamenei Calls for Muslim Unity for Israel’s ‘Annihilation’

By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 10/3/2014, 1:29 PM


Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday used his annual message to Hajj pilgrims heading to Mecca to insult Israel and call for its “annihilation.”

The speech comes ahead of Eid al-Adha on Friday, the Muslim holiday celebrating Abraham’s “sacrifice of Ishmael” in an appropriation of the original Torah story, and like his speech for Eid al-Fitr in July was replete with unfounded barbs hurled against the Jewish state.

“The conspiring enemy is aiming to stoke the fire of a civil strife among Muslims, to misdirect the motivation for resistance and jihad and to secure the Zionist regime and the servants of Arrogance (America – ed.) – who are the real enemies,” said Khamenei referencing the bloody conflicts rocking the Muslim world.

Calling for Muslim unity against Israel, the same Friday that Arab MK Ibrahim Sarsour (Ra’am-Ta’al) called for the establishment of the “United Islamic States” and bashed Israel as being “crueler than ISIS (Islamic State).”

Khamenei likewise accused Israel of having “no limit or boundaries regarding viciousness, cruelty, and trampling underfoot all human standards and ethnics. Crimes, genocide, mass destruction, the killing of children, women and the homeless…they take pride in.”

The statement is ironic given Iran’s horrific human rights history; just this Monday it was reported that an Iranian psychologist was executed for “heresy” after eight years in prison, and on Wednesday Iran was to execute a woman who defended herself from rape.

Khamenei continued “contrary to the idiotic dreams of power and stability for this regime that the filthy officials of the Zionist regime dream, day-by-day this regime has moved closer to implosion and annihilation.”

In response, Khamenei called for the Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza to “reinvigorate their endeavor, determination and resolve…Muslim nations should require their governments to lend real and serious support to Palestine.”

Iran supplied Hamas with rockets used in its recent terror war on Israel, and is continuing to develop its nuclear program even while engaged in nuclear talks with world powers.

Khamenei back in January publicly revealed that the negotiations with the US about Iran’s nuclear program are merely a tactic to stall international pressure and gain time to continue nuclear development.

Benjamin Versus Esau

Benjamin Netanyahu has again warned that Israel will not wait “until it’s too late” to stymie Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and that scientists in the Islamic Republic could be ready to make a push towards producing a bomb within a few weeks.

In a rare interview with the Western media, Mr Netanyahu told the US television network CBS that Iran is getting “closer and closer to the bomb”. “I will not wait until it’s too late,” he added. The comments come on the eve US Secretary of State John Kerry’s latest visit to the region.
Mr Netanyahu has made stopping Iran’s nuclear programme his priority since being returned to office in January. Until now, Israeli officials have maintained that its allies – by which they largely mean the United States – should present a credible military threat as well as the crippling economic sanctions that have already been imposed on Tehran.
Mr Netanyahu appeared to hint in the CBS interview that he felt that a decision on any military action against Iran may be nearing. “They’re edging up to the red line,” Mr Netanyahu said in reference to a speech he made to the United Nations last year in which he held up a cartoon picture of a bomb with a red line drawn across it, to demonstrate how close Iran is to producing a bomb. “They haven’t crossed it yet. They’re also building faster centrifuges that would enable them to jump the line, so to speak, at a much faster rate – that is, within a few weeks,” he said.
Iran denies that its nuclear programme is intent on making a nuclear weapon, rather it is designed for the production of efficient nuclear energy.
Some in the West welcomed last month’s election of Hassan Rouhani as the next president of Iran, pointing out that among the list of six candidates, he was the most moderate. At the time of his election, Dr Rouhani made conciliatory statements in relation to the US, and on Iran’s nuclear programme; a marked change from the approach adopted by his predecessor, the outgoing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“We’ve spoken many times, President Obama and I, about the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I know that is the US policy. What is important is to convey to them, especially after the election, that that policy will not change. …And [it] should be backed up with ratcheted sanctions. You should ratchet up the sanctions and make it clear to Iran that they won’t get away with it. And if sanctions don’t work, they have to know that you’ll be prepared to take military action – that’s the only thing that will get their attention.”
Mr Netanyahu, dismissed the idea that Dr Rouhani’s election would lead to a change in Iranian nuclear policy. Mr Netanyahu said that Dr Rohani had himself referred to Mr Ahmadinejad as being “a wolf in wolf’s clothing.” Dr Rohani’s approach, though, the Israeli leader said, is to, “be a wolf in sheep’s clothing – smile and build a bomb.”