A Culture of Slavery Cannot Coexist With a Culture of Freedom — One Must Dominate

---

A Culture of Slavery Cannot Coexist With a Culture of Freedom — One Must Dominate Posted: 30 Aug 2015 12:14 PM PDT One way to think about what we're doing is that we are trying to stop the Islamization of the West. Another (perhaps more inspiring) perspective is that a culture of freedom is coming into conflict with a culture of slavery and only one can dominate because they are mutually exclusive. Which means that our goal is to make freedom dominate the world. Some things cannot coexist. If it's night, it cannot also be day. If something is wet, it cannot also be dry. You can't be faithful and promiscuous. The most fundamental principle of Islam is slavery. According to Islamic definitions, a Muslim is a slave to Allah. Islamic doctrine not only condones slavery but sanctifies it. And the ideology insists on a strict hierarchy. Islam must dominate all other religions and political systems. That's the goal. It allows for no mutuality or equality among religions or political systems. Let's do a mind experiment. Let's say we have two groups living on an island. One wants to cooperate and live together as equals, the other is completely committed to dominating or enslaving the members of the other group. What will happen? Given enough time, one of those two ways of being will dominate the whole island. They cannot coexist indefinitely. People in the West now feel hesitant to "impose" their values on other people. But the values of human rights and freedom do not belong to any particular culture. They are born in our hearts. Every person yearns to be free. Every person wants to be treated humanely. Even Muslims. But the ideology of Islam says a Muslim's only opportunity to gain freedom is to make it to Paradise. And the way to make it to Paradise is to follow Muhammad's example. The only way for a Muslim man to guarantee he will make it to Paradise is to die while fighting against non-Muslims in jihad. This ideology cannot coexist with freedom and human rights. One must dominate the other. I wish it weren't true. I wish the true believers in orthodox Islam could just be confined to some remote place and let the rest of us live in peace. But the fundamental goal of Islam is to bring the whole earth under the rule of Islamic law, so an orthodox Muslim must always try to achieve this goal or he doesn't have a chance of making it to Paradise. And the only other option is eternal torture in hell (vividly described in the Koran). He is highly motivated. Either the free countries must continue to impose freedoms and rights on the Muslim world (and continue to defend those freedoms and rights in their own countries) or the reverse is going to happen: Muslims will impose their own strict limits to freedom and rights everywhere they can. If you thought this thing was going to be over soon, you were dreaming. Islam must be continually fought back, exposed, marginalized, discredited — and freedoms and rights must be continually imposed and defended. This struggle is nothing new. There have always been those who strive to impose their will on others, and there have always been those who strive to be free. Islam is just the latest iteration of this endless struggle. This is an epic battle. If you ever wanted your life to count for something, if you ever wanted to give yourself to a purpose you recognize as a mighty one, here it is. Are you in?

Home  |  Articles  |  Blog  |  About  |  Donate Federal Government Subsidizes Halal Food in Public Schools by Johanna Markind PJ Media August 28, 2015 http://www.islamist-watch.org/20699/federal-government-subsidizes-halal-food-in Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. In recent years, three American public school districts have provided taxpayer-supported lunches meeting Muslim students' dietary standards. They have not similarly provided lunches satisfying any other students' religious standards. The halal foods purchased with public funds are costlier than comparable non-halal foods. This is problematic under the U.S. Constitution's Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Even if a school district endeavors to provide all students with food satisfying each one's religious requirements, it would arguably entangle the government in religious observance and so violate the separation of "church" and state. If a school district goes out of its way to provide food satisfying the religious requirements of only some students, but not others, it risks illegally giving them unequal advantages and elevating their religion over others. This is especially so given that the school food is paid for at least partly with public funds, although the schools have been reluctant to reveal how much tax money is involved. The Halal Programs Public schools in Dearborn, Michigan, first began offering halal lunches in 2001. That winter, the school district invited "proposals from halal food distributors to provide food at several of its 28 public schools," and began a pilot program. Presently, according to David Mustonen, director of community and public relations for Dearborn Public Schools, "All schools have a halal option five days a week." Dearborn Heights' Crestwood School District started a halal food pilot program in 2013-14. Last year, Crawford High School in San Diego operated a pilot program offering a halal lunch option twice a week. Legislators in both New York City and New York State have proposed mandating public schools to serve halal food. In February 2014, New York City Councilman Rafael Espinal introduced a resolution requiring New York City schools "to provide a halal lunch menu option." Three separate bills have been introduced in the New York State Assembly during the current (2015-16) term that would require public schools in big cities to offer halal lunch options. One of them requires that the food be provided to Muslim students "at no cost." Media stories about lobbying efforts to serve halal food in New York City and San Diego public schools largely framed the issue as one of poor Muslim children going hungry because government-funded public schools failed to provide food satisfying their religious requirements (e.g., for San Diego: here, here, and here; for New York City: here and here). The articles presumed parents could not or would not provide lunches, or argued that unheated packaged lunches were insufficient to enable children to learn effectively. Adds David Loy, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, "The [San Diego] school district has a valid secular purpose of promoting equal educational opportunity by ensuring that low-income students eat lunch and therefore learn more effectively." New York City's proposed legislation shares these assumptions. The coverage has also focused on meat. Articles typically presume that supplying halal meals equates to serving meat meals, although one story about Dearborn Heights indicated the school district was offering more vegetarian options in addition to meat, and one about San Diego commented that salad dressings are sometimes not halal. Other Religions Excluded The Middle East Forum asked Mustonen whether Dearborn makes kosher or other religiously compliant meals available to students. He responded only: "If there were a demand for kosher lunches (hot or cold) the district would consider that as an option." In other words, no. Neither San Diego nor Crestwood (Dearborn Heights) responded to any questions about whether they provide food satisfying non-Islamic religious requirements. The legislation pending in New York City and State does not require public schools to satisfy religious dietary requirements of non-Muslims. For instance, they are not required to offer kosher meals, despite New York's historically large Jewish population. While the Forum cannot conclusively say that no public school lunch programs in the country benefit students of other religions having dietary restrictions, several public school districts that have traditionally had large Jewish populations were contacted for this article. Districts contacted include: New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, Scarsdale, New Rochelle, Lawrence School District (Nassau County, New York), Lower Merion (Pennsylvania), Shaker Heights (Ohio), West Bloomfield (Michigan), and School District 68 and Township High School District 113 (Skokie/Highland Park, Illinois). They uniformly responded that they do not offer kosher lunches. New York City, Baltimore, Lawrence School District, and School District 68 offer a few items, such as juice, marked kosher. Philadelphia and Chicago have eliminated pork products from their menus, and Cleveland has cut back on pork products. Government Funds Used to Pay a Premium for Halal Food Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, the federal government pays for free lunches for all students (i.e., free to students, paid for by the federal government) at a school if more than 40% of its students come from low-income homes. Crawford qualifies for free lunches for all students, according to Loy. Dearborn declined to provide details about the number and percentage of its students participating in the federal lunch program, but as of 2011, approximately 60% of its students qualified for federal help. A number of Dearborn schools, if not the whole district, likely qualify for lunches free to all students courtesy of the federal government under the new federal policy. In any case, it receives millions of federal dollars each year for free and reduced-price lunches. Crestwood (Dearborn Heights) also declined to provide information, but data suggest Crestwood also meets the 40% threshold for universal access to free lunches. As of 2009-10, 46% of Crestwood High School's 1,260 students received subsidized lunches, and as of 2014, 62% of them did. Halal meat costs more than non-halal meat. Asked about the Dearborn program's cost, Mustonen responded only, "Any increase in cost is off-set by an increase in revenue." He provided no details, and the source of the increased revenue is unexplained. Reportedly, halal meals for the Dearborn program cost the district 20%-30% more per meal than equivalent non-halal meals. Significant dollars are involved: the Dearborn school district contracted to pay $228,000 for halal meat. The time period covered by the contract was not provided. Neither San Diego nor Crestwood (Dearborn Heights) school district responded to inquiries on the respective program's cost or any other issue. Before beginning its pilot program, the San Diego school district reportedly spent "$16 million a year on 22 million meals for students, but adding a halal menu could be a considerable extra cost... the meat is a bit pricey because it is considered hard to come by." A later story about the San Diego halal program mentioned increased cost only in the context of the food being organic, not in the context of it being halal. It gave no specifics, other than stating organic drumsticks cost "a few extra cents." Like Mustonen, Gary Petill, food services director of San Diego Unified School District, stated that increased participation – paid for by the federal government – covered the increased cost. Demand for school lunches at Crawford has increased by about 300 meals (it is unclear whether that figure represents the additional number of meals per week, or the number of additional students participating in the twice-weekly halal lunch option), the cost of which is borne by the federal government, not by parents or students. Not all additional participants are Muslim; the breakdown of Muslim as compared to non-Muslim new participants is not known. Crestwood (Dearborn Heights) food service director Lori Squire did not respond to an inquiry for this article but has reportedly said a maximum of 20% of students who buy their meals opt for the halal chicken patty option. It is unclear to what extent federal funds subsidize those lunches. To sum up, three American school districts are providing Muslim students with food meeting their religious requirements. Dearborn is not doing the same for students of other religions, such as Jews. San Diego and Dearborn Heights ignored questions about how students of other religions are treated. New York City and State are considering legislation that would require schools to provide halal food but not food meeting any other religious requirements. The halal food costs more than comparable non-religiously prescribed food. It is paid for in part or in whole with millions of dollars in federal funds. In effect, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and San Diego appear to have established Islam as an official religion, whose rituals are endorsed by the government and paid for with public funds. New York City and New York State may join them. Other religions, such as Judaism, are unrecognized. It may be halal, but it sure doesn't sound kosher. Johanna Markind is Associate Counselor for the Middle East Forum. Related Topics:  Government, Halal, Schools (Non-Islamic)  |  Johanna Markind This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.islamist-watch.org/list_subscribe.php Islamist Watch

U.S. Marine Veteran Amir Hekmati Held Hostage for 4 Years in Iran

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 31, 2015 Phone: (212) 922-0063 press@uani.com U.S. Marine Veteran Amir Hekmati Held Hostage for 4 Years in Iran UANI Ad Campaign Calls for U.S. to "Leave No Man Behind" Saturday, August 29 marked the fourth anniversary of Iran's detention of U.S. Marine veteran Amir Hekmati. Hekmati is one of four Americans, including Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, Pastor Saeed Abedini, and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, held hostage by Iran. The United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) ad "Leave No Man Behind," part of UANI's national campaign to educate Americans on the fundamental defects of the Iran nuclear agreement, highlights the  failure to secure the release of these four Americans. In prison, Hekmati has reportedly been tasered during interrogations, whipped on his feet with cables, and force-fed drugs such as lithium. According to reports he was held in solitary confinement for 17 consecutive months and placed in painful stress positions for extended periods. Prison officials have also subjected Hekmati to sleep deprivation and psychological torture. His guards have tormented him by, for example, falsely informing him that his mother had died in a car accident. In protest of his treatment and imprisonment, he has engaged in multiple hunger strikes. Hekmati, a former U.S. marine from Michigan who served in Iraq, was arrested on August 29, 2011 while on his first trip to Iran to visit his ailing grandmother. In January 2012, "Iran's Revolutionary Court sentenced him to death and aired a televised confession in which he claimed to be a spy for the CIA." However, "after international outcry, in March 2012 Iran's Supreme Court overturned his death sentence and ordered a retrial." In a letter he wrote that was smuggled out of his prison cell in September 2013, Hekmati said, "This is part of a propaganda and hostage-taking effort by Iranian intelligence to secure the release of Iranians abroad being held on security-related charges." In April 2014, the New York Times reported that Hekmati "was secretly retried by a revolutionary court in December [2013], convicted of 'practical collaboration with the American government' and given a 10-year prison term." Click here to read more about Iran's American hostages. Click here to view the UANI ad "Leave No Man Behind." ### United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

United Against Nuclear Iran | PO Box 1028 | New York | NY | 10185

STOP IRAN - SUCCESS IN SANTA BARBARA, CA!!

SUCCESS!! READ FULL STORY DO ALL YOU CAN OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO KILL THIS DEAL PLEASE GENEROUSLY DONATION TO TOM AND HIS TEAM AS THEY WORK TO STOP THE IRAN DEAL.  All donations are tax deductible **************************************** CLICK HERE TO WATCH PAST SHOWS ON OUR ARCHIVES Follow The United West on Twitter @TheUnitedWest ***  THE UNITED WEST PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL   MONDAY AUGUST 30, 2015

Eye on Iran: Foes Try New Ways To Attack Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal

Join UANI           Top Stories WSJ: "Capitol Hill opponents of the landmark Iranian nuclear accord are devising a Plan B to ratchet up pressure on Iran as President Barack Obama moves closer to locking up the support needed to implement the deal... One focus is expected to be the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran's energy industry. Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) are pushing a bill to extend the law for an additional decade. They have said such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other violations. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a presidential candidate, and other Republican lawmakers are also drafting bills to impose new sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC. 'I'm trying to make sure Americans aren't blown up, we're trying to prevent the IRGC and the Quds Force from their external terror plots,' said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.). U.S. officials believe the IRGC is the single most dominant entity in the Iranian economy, with vast holdings in real estate and construction, telecommunications and energy. Maintaining, or increasing, sanctions on the unit could stave off a flood of new investment into Iran after the nuclear agreement goes into place." http://t.uani.com/1hOXR82 The Hill: "Republicans intend to hammer Senate Democrats next month if they do not allow an up-or-down vote on a measure disapproving President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Democrats appear close to having enough support for the deal to bottle up the disapproval measure with procedural motions. If Republicans vote in a united bloc, they would need the support of six Democrats to break a filibuster, but only two Democrats have broken rank so far. If the resolution is filibustered, it would be a major victory for the White House, which wouldn't have to use President Obama's veto pen to protect the Iran deal. Opponents of the agreement, however, believe Senate Democrats will pay a political cost. 'Democrats will be setting themselves up for a further political hit if they deny the people the opportunity - the people meaning members of Congress - to vote on it,' said Allen Roth, the president of the hawkish Secure America Now, which is staunchly opposed to the agreement. 'I think it'll be handing a political gift to the Republicans.' Republicans have already begun to make their case." http://t.uani.com/1hP7zas AFP: "A senior Kuwaiti lawmaker on Sunday described Iran as the 'true enemy' of Sunni-ruled Gulf Arab states, in a sign of growing tensions with the Shiite power. 'It has become clear to all that Iran is an enemy plotting to swallow up our states and resources and is the true enemy of the region,' Hamad al-Harashani, the head of the Kuwaiti parliament's foreign relations committee, said in a statement. It was the strongest Kuwaiti criticism in years of Iran, with which Kuwait has traditionally had better ties than its fellow Gulf Arab states. Harashani singled out an apparent bomb attack Friday in Bahrain as 'yet further evidence of Iran's aggression' in the region... 'Iran is seeking to spread chaos and undermine the ruling regimes' in the region, Harashani said, calling on Gulf states to boost security coordination. Kuwait and Iran were on relatively good terms for years until the Gulf state this month broke up a 'terrorist cell' and seized large quantities of weapons and explosives. Local media reported that the cell belonged to pro-Iranian Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah." http://t.uani.com/1Q4kSip Nuclear Program & Agreement Reuters: "Iran's military capability has not been affected by its nuclear deal last month with six world powers, President Hassan Rouhani said on Saturday, moving to reassure hardliners that the deal was no sign of Iranian weakness. 'With regards to our defensive capability, we did not and will not accept any limitations,' Rouhani said at a press conference carried on live television. 'We will do whatever we need to do to defend our country, whether with missiles or other methods.' Last week, Iran unveiled a new surface-to-surface missile it said could strike targets with pinpoint accuracy within a range of 500 km (310 miles), a move likely to worry Tehran's regional rivals." http://t.uani.com/1KzzZA8 AP: "President Hassan Rouhani said Saturday he opposes a parliamentary vote on the landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers. Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily, he said... 'If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government . it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,' Rouhani said. 'Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?'" http://t.uani.com/1X6SBwp Congressional Vote Politico: "Critics of the Iran deal believed the August congressional recess was their best chance to scuttle the nuclear accord, as wavering lawmakers returned home to angry protesters and a barrage of TV ads. The longer the deal hung out there, they figured, the worse it would be for President Barack Obama. Instead, the monthlong break has been a major bust... Opponents are baffled that only 14 House Democrats and two Senate Democrats have sided with them. The polls are getting worse, Iranian leaders keep making impolitic comments and TV ads continue to hammer uncommitted lawmakers. What aren't these Democrats seeing, they wonder? ... 'There's a very strange disconnect now, which grows larger as every day goes by, between the way American people feel about the Iran agreement and the way members of Congress seem to feel,' said Lieberman, an independent who caucused with the Democrats and is now an architect of several big-dollar, anti-deal campaigns. 'In public opinion, the high point was the day the agreement was announced.' ... But other steadfast critics are still battling. United Against a Nuclear Iran, which Lieberman chairs, is preparing to unleash yet another ad against the deal. Coleman and Lieberman's American Security Initiative is still up on the air. And after going dark for several days, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran is back on the air." http://t.uani.com/1O42TqZ WashPost: "Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz prevented consideration of a resolution at the party's summer meeting here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats. The resolution was drafted with the intention of putting the national committee on record in support of the agreement as Congress prepares to take up the issue when members return from their August recess... A party spokeswoman and said procedural issues prevented the proposed resolution from being considered. She did not directly address Wasserman Schultz's role in the decision-making. Other Democrats said that it was congresswoman's direct opposition that blocked its consideration." http://t.uani.com/1JHq7Pv Free Beacon: "A majority of American voters believe that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are to some extent misleading the public on the nuclear deal with Iran, a survey released by an organization that opposes the agreement indicates. Specifically, 64 percent of voters believe that Obama and Kerry are 'only telling Americans what they think will help the agreement be passed by Congress,' according to a poll released by Secure America Now. Only 19 percent believe that the president and his secretary of state are providing Americans with 'all the facts.' The poll also demonstrates that 82 percent of U.S. voters-and 74 percent of Democrats-oppose Obama's plan to grant $100 billion in sanctions relief to Iran over the next several months 'without approval from Congress.' ... According to the survey, which was conducted between Aug. 13 and 17, 61 percent of American voters want their representative lawmakers on Capitol Hill to vote to reject the deal in the wake of knowledge that Congress will not be provided with details of the Iran-IAEA agreements." http://t.uani.com/1UnQIah Sanctions Relief WSJ: "In the 10 years since RAK Ceramics opened a $40 million tile manufacturing plant in Iran, the United Arab Emirates-based firm has racked up millions of dollars in losses in the Persian country, fired hundreds of employees and all but stopped its kilns from burning. But then Iran struck a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other foreign powers this summer. Now with sanctions expected to ease, RAK Ceramics is looking to boost output of the kitchen and bathroom tiles it sells in Iran and the wider region. Executives for one of the world's largest manufacturers of tiles and sanitary ware by capacity are now betting the long wait on Iran is about to pay off. 'We were a patient investor,' says Abdallah Massaad, RAK Ceramics' chief executive. RAK Ceramics is one of a handful of Arab-owned firms positioning their businesses to profit from a post-sanctions neighbor, even as frosty political ties between Iran and most of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the U.A.E., Oman, Qatar and Kuwait-show few signs of thawing. The week after the U.A.E. joined Saudi Arabian-led airstrikes in April against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, U.A.E.-owned Etihad Airways launched a daily commercial service to Iran's capital Tehran. Dubai-owned FlyDubai has launched seven new routes to Iran this year after a bilateral aviation agreement was signed in January between the U.A.E. and Iranian governments. Dubai's Jumeirah Group, operator of the ultra-luxury Burj Al Arab hotel, is searching for properties in Iran. Officials at DP World, one of the world's biggest shipping container handlers, recently visited the Persian state to see if the country's ports and railway infrastructure can be used to transport goods faster between China and Europe." http://t.uani.com/1FcX2L0 Reuters: "Would-be foreign investors in Iran should be prepared to share the benefits of their deals, the country's president said, indicating Tehran will impose tough terms that could clash with U.S. regulations even after sanctions are lifted... President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday suggested foreign investors will be welcome only if they work with a local partner, hire local workers and transfer technology, in some of the most explicit comments to date about the obligations businesses are likely to face. 'If foreign companies or countries think they can take control of a market of 80 million people, they are mistaken, and we must not allow it,' Rouhani said at a news conference broadcast on state television on Saturday. 'Our policy is that you bring your investment and technology to the country and partner with Iranians, and then a part of the Iranian and regional markets will be within reach of us both and there will be employment for our youth.' Such requirements are typical in developing economies, but companies could get into trouble in Iran if they accidentally partner with an entity under non-nuclear sanctions or share technology with potential military applications, experts said... Companies could, for instance, end up linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which controls much of the economy and often hides its financial interests. Much of the IRGC will remain under terrorism-linked U.S. sanctions. 'The risk of investing in a business in which there is either an overt or hidden IRGC interest is probably the single greatest risk facing investors who are exposed to U.S. or EU regulatory regimes,' said Nicholas Bortman, partner at risk consultancy GPW." http://t.uani.com/1LFY6Me Bloomberg: "Indian Oil Corp. is seeking to build a $3 billion petrochemicals plant in Iran, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. Shares rose. The plan hinges on assurances from Iran that the 1 million-ton-a-year project will have access to cheap natural gas as feedstock, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the information isn't public. A company spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment by phone, text message and e-mail. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is eyeing energy and infrastructure investments totaling billions of dollars in Iran, including upstream gas production and port developments. India has sought to secure ties with Iran and ensure access to its abundant hydrocarbons as years of sanctions on the Persian Gulf nation may be nearing an end." http://t.uani.com/1LOC1xW Reuters: "South Korea will consider increasing its imports of Iranian crude oil and condensate when sanctions on Tehran are lifted, a senior government official said on Monday. Woo Tae-hee, deputy minister for trade, who was part of a recent South Korean delegation to Iran seeking possible deals in the oil, gas and construction sectors noted there had been a sharp fall in imports of Iranian oil since the sanctions were imposed. 'Iranian crude has good quality, and its condensate is one we can utilize well,' Woo said. 'We will consider increasing imports of Iranian oil, which however will only be possible when the sanctions are lifted since they are still present.' ... Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh said after the delegation's visit that Seoul agreed to increase its purchases of Iranian oil once a nuclear deal with world powers cleared the way for an easing of international sanctions on Tehran." http://t.uani.com/1NT0HVx Terrorism AFP: "A policeman was killed and seven people, including a child, injured in an explosion Friday evening in a predominantly Shiite district of Bahrain's capital Manama, authorities said... The minister said the explosives used in the apparent bomb attack was 'very similar' to that seized by authorities last month which 'came from Iran'. In July, Bahraini authorities declared they had foiled an attempt to smuggle weapons from Iran. A few days later, two police officers were killed and six others injured in a bomb attack on Sitra island outside Manama. Bahraini authorities said earlier this month they had arrested five suspects over the attack. Police chief Major General Tariq al-Hasan said the suspects had links to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the Iran-backed Shiite militant movement Hezbollah." http://t.uani.com/1VsK4lB Human Rights NYT: "Iran's judiciary sentenced two people to 10 years in prison on Sunday for spying for the United States and Israel, but their names were not released, local media reported. It was not clear if the Iranian-American reporter Jason Rezaian, who faces similar charges, was one of them. It is not uncommon in Iran to hand down sentences without revealing names of the convicted, especially in matters involving national security. Judiciary spokesman Gholami Hossein Mohseni Ejei told reporters that a revolutionary court, which is also handling Mr. Rezaian's case, had sentenced the two 'due to their espionage for the United States and Israel,' he said according to the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency... Mr. Rezaian is charged with spying and assisting the 'hostile' American government, Iran's judiciary has said. Despite four sessions in a closed court, no further details of the case or the allegations have been publicized. According to Iranian law, a verdict needs to be issued one week after the final court session. Mr. Rezaian's last session was held on August 10. Instead of issuing a verdict, Iran's judiciary issued a statement saying that it was up to the judge, Abdelqassem Salavati, to decide whether the August 10 session was the final one." http://t.uani.com/1FcVWPt AFP: "US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday urged Iran to free Amir Hekmati, an American who served as a US Marine, from four years of 'unjust detention.' Saturday marks the fourth anniversary of Hekmati's imprisonment on what Kerry called 'false espionage charges' while Hekmati was visiting relatives in the Islamic republic. 'We repeat our call on the Iranian government to release Amir on humanitarian grounds,' Kerry said in a statement. 'This is a milestone no family wants to mark, and the Hekmati family has shown inspiring perseverance in the face of this injustice,' he added. 'And as befits a former Marine, Amir has shown tremendous courage in the face of this unjust detention.' Kerry reiterated his government's call for Iran to release two other Americans. These include pastor Saeed Abedini, who was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to eight years in jail for gathering a group of people to study the Bible, and Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. Kerry also urged Iran to 'work cooperatively' to help locate Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who disappeared while on Iran's Kish island in 2007." http://t.uani.com/1UnMwrh AP: "Dozens of people at a Michigan rally released balloons Saturday to mark the four-year anniversary of Iran's refusal to free a former Marine from prison. But they first heard from Amir Hekmati, whose words were recorded weeks ago during a phone call with relatives. He has been in an Iranian prison since 2011, although the U.S. government denies he's a spy and has repeatedly called for his release. 'The list of people I want to thank is far too long to include here,' Hekmati, 32, said. Rain suddenly stopped in Bay City as about 100 people turned out to hear remarks from Hekmati's Flint-area family, U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Michigan, and others." http://t.uani.com/1fRNqP8 AFP: "Iran's President Hassan Rouhani signalled Saturday there would be no quick resolution to the house arrest of the reformist political leaders who said an election was rigged in 2009. Though not mentioned by name, the house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi was raised at a press conference to mark the start of Rouhani's third year in office. Mousavi and Karroubi have been under such restrictions since 2011. Both said that the presidential election two years earlier, which saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected, was fraudulent. A reporter asked Rouhani why, despite 'reviving' hopes that the two former presidential candidates may be released, though again not naming them, 'we have not seen anything' on the issue. 'The government cannot do everything on its own,' Rouhani replied, acknowledging that the matter remained unsolved but suggesting it could be ended. 'I have made my efforts for resolving political and social problems but... more explanations can be given at the time within the framework of national interests.'" http://t.uani.com/1MYjuOj Foreign Affairs AFP: "Iran has barred famed conductor Daniel Barenboim from entering the Islamic republic because of his Israeli citizenship, thwarting his plan to lead a performance in Tehran, media reported Sunday. Barenboim, the 72-year-old general music director of the Berlin State Opera House, said Thursday he was in talks with Iran about a concert, in what would have been a major example of cultural diplomacy. But an Iranian culture ministry spokesman, Hossein Noushabadi, said an investigation meant Barenboim could not enter the country for 'security reasons', though the Berlin orchestra was welcome. 'We have no problem with the German orchestra coming to Iran, but we are opposed to the person leading that group,' Noushabadi said, quoted by news agency ISNA. 'He has multiple nationalities and one of them is Israeli. For security reasons and to prevent issues following the entry of certain people into Iran, we stopped it.'" http://t.uani.com/1PHflgU Opinion & Analysis Sen. James Inhofe & Scott Pruitt in WSJ: "President Obama's executive agreement with Iran is enormously controversial for good reason. Negotiated in coordination with Russia, China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the deal welcomes Iran as a participant in the world community conditioned only on marginal changes to its nuclear program. It effectively allows Iran to maintain technology that would lead to a nuclear weapon, as well as continue its human-rights abuses, sponsoring of terrorism, imprisoning of American hostages, and threats to American allies, including Israel. Fortunately, the U.S. states have the power to limit these threats, if they all choose to use it. President Obama pursued this major international accord as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty, in order to evade the Constitution's requirement of two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate for enactment. The consequence of the president's decision to skirt the people's representatives in Congress is that the people, through the states, may come to their own decisions regarding sanctions on Iran. To date, 25 states have enacted such sanctions against Iran. This is pursuant to the explicit authorization for such sanctions contained in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, in which Congress found 'that the United States should support the decision of any State or local government that for moral, prudential, or reputational reasons divests from, or prohibits the investment of assets of the State or local government in' Iran. These sanctions were bipartisan accomplishments in states from New York to Florida to Texas to California, and they were passed as expressions of those states' disapproval of a regime that holds American citizens in darkened cells and American allies under threat of annihilation. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed during July 28 congressional testimony that President Obama's deal does not affect the states' ability to impose sanctions on Iran, but said that the administration 'will take steps to urge [the states] not to interfere,' because President Obama had, as part of the deal, agreed to 'actively encourage' the states to drop their sanctions. We urge states to do exactly the opposite. Rather than drop their sanctions against Iran, states should strengthen and expand those sanctions. Regardless of President Obama's view of Iran, the states certainly have numerous moral and reputational reasons to prohibit the investment of public assets, such as pension funds, into companies doing business with countries that sponsor terrorism, and to prohibit state agencies from doing business with such companies... Because of these moral, reputational and prudential reasons, on Monday we are sending and endorsing a letter and a draft sanctions document to all 50 states, calling on the 25 states with existing sanctions to strictly and aggressively enforce those sanctions, and encouraging the 25 states that have not yet enacted sanctions to take every executive and legislative action available to immediately impose sanctions on Iran." http://t.uani.com/1MYfAEZ Richard Haass in WSJ: "The agreement to constrain Iran's nuclear capacity, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the U.S. Congress will vote on next month, places significant limits on Iran's nuclear program for a decade or longer. At the same time, the accord allows Iran access to resources that will enhance its ability to carry out a worrisome agenda throughout much of the Middle East. In addition, the agreement in no way resolves the problems posed by Iran's nuclear program. To the contrary, these problems could well grow as most of the restrictions on centrifuges and enriched uranium run out after 10 and 15 years respectively. So what should Congress do? Just to be clear, it is not being asked to vote on whether the accord is good or bad but whether the U.S. would be better or worse off with it. Nor should the vote be based on hopes the agreement will bring about a more moderate Iran. This is possible, but so, too, is the opposite. We cannot know if Iran will be transformed, much less how or how much. The agreement is a transaction that should be judged on its merits. It is a close call. The JCPOA like any pact is filled with compromises, some understandable, others questionable. Unfortunately, renegotiating the accord is not an option. The U.S. would quickly make itself rather than Iran the issue. International support for sanctions would erode. Rejecting the agreement would make it likely that Iran would resume nuclear activity in one or more areas the agreement prohibits. That would bring closer a difficult and far-reaching decision on whether to use military force in a preventive strike. Rejecting the agreement would also reinforce questions around the world as to American political dysfunction. Reliability and predictability are essential attributes for a great power that must both reassure and deter. On the other hand, simply voting in support of the agreement does nothing to address its shortcomings. There is, however, a third option: to make any vote in favor of the agreement conditional on the U.S. adopting policies and positions that supplement and clarify the JCPOA. The following seven points would address many of the legitimate questions and concerns voiced by members of Congress and others in a manner that would protect U.S. interests and position the U.S. to deal with the Iranian challenge for the long haul. These points could be made in a White House communication, congressional resolution, or both." http://t.uani.com/1PHhHfN Amb. James Jeffrey in WashPost: "The drama is breathtaking. A decisive president makes a crucial decision on the Middle East issue that defines his tenure, a decision that could transform not just the specific situation but regional security. Yet he has just lost both houses of Congress, opinion polls on the decision are heading south, lawmakers are up in arms, and even some in his administration have doubts. But rather than hesitate, he drives ahead. Barack Obama, 2015, with Iran? No, George W. Bush, 2006-07, with the Iraq troop surge to save his effort in the country he ordered the U.S. military to invade. Both presidents, at the same point in their tenures, pushed major initiatives against very strong domestic opposition. Given the similarities, the fate of Bush's surge could provide insight into the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action with Iran. Bush's success suggests that, one way or another, Obama will also prevail in implementing the Iran deal... But aside from presidential grit and creative legal reasoning, there is another reason that Obama is likely to prevail. The international system over which the United States still presides rests on the ability of the American president to act unilaterally even on unpopular decisions if a vital national interest is at stake. Bush, facing the collapse of his Iraq policy if he could not curb that country's descent into civil war, acted on such an interest, despite resistance in Congress, deep skepticism in the Iraq Study Group and doubts among many top advisers. We see similar behavior by Obama on Iran. His American University defense of the deal was simplistic, but left no doubt where he stands. That doesn't mean the agreement deserves to survive, only that Obama will use every trick in the book to ensure it does. Just as Bush coupled the surge with commitments for a relatively rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, Obama might have to concede points on his Iran project to critics to save the deal, but save it he likely will. Which means the more interesting question is not whether the deal will survive, but whether the nuclear agreement and Obama's underlying Iran project will suffer the same fate as seen with Bush's Iraq project... Like the surge, the deal has become the defining element in a presidential project to transform the Middle East. Obama's is focused on Iran, while Bush's focused on Iraq. The first characteristic of these projects is serious risk - with Iraq, major conflict; with Iran, regional and alliance turbulence. The second is deviation from standard U.S. foreign policy since 1945. With few disastrous exceptions (North Korea 1950, Bay of Pigs 1961), that policy has concentrated on defending its global perimeter while containing first communism and, since 1989, chaos in places like the Middle East, in part due to public opposition to more ambitious but riskier national gambits. But ambitious is exactly what the projects behind the surge and Iran deal have been - to transform, respectively, Iraq and Iran, and thereby move the Middle East decisively toward a peaceful global community. Bush and Obama's means differ, but not the goal: fix the problem rather than, as usual, manage it... So the fate of Bush's project can shed light on Obama's. While the surge worked militarily, and some American-encouraged democratic reforms survive, the United States did not succeed in the larger project to inculcate our values in Iraq, and even less in the region as a whole. There are many reasons for the 'Arab Spring,' but Iraq was not among them. The surge was a courageous gamble by Bush that saved the United States and Iraq from military defeat, but has not transformed the Middle East. Obama's Iran project faces similar risks. Ambitious efforts of this kind require projecting our values onto very different societies, with extremely broad goals based on the presumed universality of those values. But this is a huge lift with little precedent aside from America's unique experiences in Japan and Germany. And thanks to the timing of U.S. elections, in both cases, soon after tactical success - implementing the surge, negotiating the Iran deal - the president in question had or has to make way for a successor, although in both cases, the larger project still faced or faces public skepticism. Bush's successor, Obama, campaigned on an 'ending America's wars' theme not compatible with a transformational Iraq policy, as seen in his half-hearted effort to keep a troop presence there. Likewise, Obama will yield office almost certainly to someone more skeptical toward Iran. That includes any Republican, but also Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state, who said last month that 'even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran.' Thus, even if Obama is right on Iran's potential transformation, he won't be around to nudge it forward, just as Bush was not there to ensure that the surge's success could jump-start regional change. It's not that Bush had to be proven wrong on Iraq; rather, absent immediate, demonstrable and extraordinary success, the political friction such a bold endeavor generated almost guaranteed he would be succeeded by a leader who isn't enthused about carrying it forward. The timing didn't work for him, and well might not for Obama. His bet on an Iran transformed has to be immediately, demonstrably and extraordinarily right, or his larger project could suffer the same fate as Bush's in the hands of his successor." http://t.uani.com/1KnOfxn           Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.  UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.