The No Message Party! The IAF Embraces The ADIR. European Harmony Over? Linda Sarsour - Another Muslim Hypocrite. Law Enforcement -Obama's Pinata!

<
If Republicans are smart they should say in unison : Obstructionist Democrats have become a no message party and want to raise your taxes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, Trump is telling those who are not on our side in The U.N. and continue to expect we will keep sending them our tax money that course of conduct may be coming to a screeching halt. ( (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Israel, the IAF and the F 35 (ADIR)  are ready. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
European harmony over according to Stratfor's Friedman.

The eastern bloc of nations, that were subjugated by Russia, are not likely to come under Russian influence but their antipathy towards the E.U could result in weakening NATO which is Putin's long term goal.

The "One World "concept is unlikely to happen for millenniums because of the difference in cultures and experiences etc.  The U.N cannot function because of this so it tries to impose its will and will also fail in the process.  Nation states want their own borders and their citizens to live their own lives.

Obama could not shake the fact that he grew up believing America was a Colonial and enslaving nation. The fact that we moved on and he remained enmeshed in his contempt and need to apologize for the country he sought to "rule" will eventually become a larger written part of his declining/crumbling legacy.

America is a great nation with all its many faults and Trump is trying to place us back on top in his own often churlish, undisciplined. way but he has a good chance of succeeding because he connects with the "deplorables."

A perfect example of this is his off hand comment regarding those who do not vote with us but continue to have their hands out.  In essence he said " let them eat cake."(See 1 and  3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Speyer spies!(See 4 below.)

And

The anti-Semite, anti-Trump, Linda Sarsour has been smoked out as just another angry, radical Muslim hypocrite. What's new?

Apparently when an exceedingly overweight female Muslim employee reported she was being sexually harassed by a fellow male Muslim co-worker, Linda Sarsour not only would not listen but also eventually forced the woman out of her job and has orchestrated a tweet attack on her.  Linda Sarsour is the women who led a widely broadcast/reported parade against sexual harassment.

At the time of reporting the incident,  Sarsour told the accuser no one would do that because of her "gross" physical size.

Maybe Linda should cast her lot with the Soros sponsored nut cases or probably already has.

I caught the interview this evening of the accosted women and she seemed credible. Sarsour is the typical angry hot head and firebrand who other duped women are likely to follow.

I predict that as Trump's popularity and poll ratings rise, as they have in the last week or so by 3 points, and he continues to make political progress in carrying out his campaign pledges and reversing the tragic record of his predecessor, attacks on Trump will rise. Identity politics is one of the weapons the radical left use and even some members of The FBI it seems because they believed it was their job to save the nation should Trump be elected.

Enforcement organizations like police departments,  the CIA, MP's and  the FBI, among others, often attract the brutish, the bullies, the kind of  hypocrites who are no better than those they lawfully pursue.

We are so fortunate that the vast majority of those who seek to engage in law enforcement do so for the right reason and are selfless Samaritans but then Obama used them as his pinata.

As more time passes I also predict Obama's reputation and standing will descend as we come to learn more about his presidency.  Hillary's public acceptance has sunk to new lows.  Perhaps she needs to write another book or maybe run again so she can disprove the "three strikes you're out" theory.
+++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

HALEY WARNS US ‘TAKING NAMES’ OF UN OPPONENTS OF TRUMP'S JERUSALEM MOVE

BY TOVAH LAZAROFF

The United States has publicly warned United Nations member states not to
support Thursday’s UN General Assembly resolution denouncing US President
Donald Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.

The text will also call for nations, including the US, not to relocate their
embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. To date, the US is the only country who
said it will do so.

The UN General Assembly is scheduled to hold a special emergency session to 
disavow Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem on Thursday at the request of Yemen, 
Turkey and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The resolution is expected to 
pass by a large majority

On Monday the US vetoed the same text at the UN Security Council, after the 14 
other member states approved it. 

“At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more,” US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley tweeted on Wednesday, 

“So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names [sic],” Haley said.

Haley also sent a warning letter to UN member states, portions of which were circulated on Twitter.

“To be clear, we are not asking for other countries [to] move their embassies to Jerusalem, though we think it would be appropriate. We are simply asking you to acknowledge the historical friendship, partnership, and support we have extended and respect our decision about our embassy.

“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. We will take note of every vote on this issue,” Haley wrote.

The US has opposed the Jerusalem resolution out of support for Israel but also because it believes that matters involving American sovereignty are at stake as well.

Former Swedish prime minister and Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations Carl Blidt tweeted, "In UN Security Council US lost by 14-1 on issue of Jerusalem. Now it’s getting nervous and threatening prior to a vote in the UN General Assembly."

After the Security Council vote, Haley said, “The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.”

She further stated, “The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council.”

Monday’s veto at the Security Council marked the first time the US has used its veto power since 2011, when it put a halt to a resolution denouncing Israeli settlement activity.

Over the last ten years, the US has used its veto power only twice at the Security Council.

Russia, in contrast, has vetoed 16 Security Council resolutions in that same period, mostly on Syria and the Ukraine. 

Five countries — the US, Russia, China, France and Great Britain — are permanent members of the Security Council and enjoy veto power. The other 10 countries on the council hold rotating two year positions.

Also:

Trump threatens to slash aid to countries backing UN Jerusalem vote

'Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot,' says US president ahead of Thursday's General Assembly session 

By TOI STAFF and AGENCIES

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday cautioned he could slash funding to countries that support a UN General Assembly resolution on Thursday that seeks to annul the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

 “They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot. We don’t care,” Trump said at the White House, Reuters reported.

On Tuesday, Nikki Haley, Washington’s UN envoy, warned that she would report back to Trump with the names of those countries who supported a draft resolution rejecting the US recognition.

“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us,” she wrote to UN envoys. “We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.”

The UN General Assembly will hold an emergency session on Thursday to vote on the proposed measure, after the US vetoed a similar resolution for the Security Council.

No country has veto power in the 193-nation General Assembly, contrary to the council, where the United States, along with Britain, China, France and Russia, can block any resolution.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki on Wednesday accused Washington of “threatening” member countries of the UN General Assembly over the vote.

Malki said American officials were “committing another mistake when they have distributed this famous letter trying to threaten countries, (and) threaten their sovereign decision to choose how to vote.”

He spoke at a press conference with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu in Istanbul, shortly before both men left for New York.

“This is really a new definition of world order in politics and it seems that the American administration… are putting their stamp on a new political reality that many countries will reject,” Malki said.

Turkey and Yemen requested the urgent General Assembly meeting on behalf of the Arab group of countries and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The two countries circulated a draft resolution on Tuesday that mirrors the measure that the US vetoed in the Security Council on Monday, reaffirming that any decision on the status of Jerusalem has no legal effect and must be rescinded.

Malki said the UN session would show “how many countries will opt to vote with their conscience.”

“They will vote for justice and they will vote in favor of that resolution that was presented by both Yemen and Turkey on behalf of the Arab group and OIC,” he said.

In an address December 6 from the White House, Trump defied worldwide warnings and insisted that after repeated failures to achieve peace, a new approach was long overdue, describing his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the seat of Israel’s government as merely based on reality. He also said the US embassy would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but did not give a schedule for the relocation.

Trump stressed that he was not specifying the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in the city, and called for no change in the status quo at the city’s holy sites.

The announcement was hailed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by leaders across much of the Israeli political spectrum. It was criticized by many countries, condemned by the Arab world, and infuriated Palestinians, who held violent demonstrations for several days in the West Bank and on the Gaza Strip’s border with Israel.

In a memo to its missions around the world Tuesday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry advised diplomats to encourage their host countries to oppose the resolution at the General Assembly. In the case of countries that are planning to back the resolution, diplomats were urged to encourage their local counterparts to at least refrain from expressing public support for the proposal.

Israeli diplomats were told to emphasize that the resolution is one-sided and will harm prospects for peace by undermining Trump, and may also lead to further violence in the region.

At the Security Council on Monday, the other 14 members of the council voted in favor of the text, condemning the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and calling on countries not to move diplomatic missions to the city.

Haley’s “no” vote was the first US veto in the Security Council since Trump took office nearly a year ago.

Monday’s text expressed “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem.”

Sponsored by Egypt, it also affirmed that “any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

Without naming any country, it also expressed “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem.”

Explaining the US veto after the vote, Haley said that the US “will not be told, by any country, where we will put our embassy.”

Referring to the fact that the US once again stood alone in defending Israel, she said. “We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.”

By vetoing the draft resolution, the US defended “its sovereignty,” she argued.

“What happened today at the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten,” she said, slamming the council for its obsession with anti-Israel resolutions.

Haley accused some unnamed countries of “trying to distort the president’s decision to serve their own agendas,” and insisted the US position “is fully in line with previous Security Council resolutions.”

Haley noted that the US has given more than $5 billion to the Palestinians since 1994, more than any other country and she said: “The United States has never been more committed to peace in the Middle East.”

Haley said the vote marked “one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)Israel’s F-35 jet, now combat capable, is ‘not just a plane’

 By Yaakov Lappin

After they were deemed combat capable earlier this month, the F-35 “Adir” stealth fighter jets promise to create system-wide change in the Israeli Air Force (IAF).

Israel is the first nation outside the U.S. to declare the initial operational capability of the American-produced F-35s.

Brig. Gen. (ret.) Ephraim Segoli, a former commander of two combat helicopter squadrons who today heads the Airpower Research Center at the Israel-based Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, said the F-35 “is not just a plane, but a system in its own right.”

“It serves the entire air force, through its range of sensors and ability to communicate what it collects,” he told JNS. “This is not a platform that should be measured like other planes, in terms of how far it can fly, or how many bombs it can carry. It has a bigger contribution to make, through its many sensors, and ability to cooperate with the rest of the air force and distribute and produce [intelligence] data.”

The IAF plans to build two squadrons of F-35 jets, comprising a total of 50 aircraft. The jets are based at the Nevatim Air Force Base in Israel’s Negev desert. Nine of the planes have arrived so far, and five more are expected to join the IAF in 2018.

Segoli, who commanded the Palmachim helicopter and drone base south of Tel Aviv, said the IAF sometimes begins using air platforms before officially announcing that they are operational. 

“In my experience, we began using tools as soon as they arrived, while exercising the required caution,” he said.

Commenting on reports regarding glitches in the F-35’s software, he explained, “This is a very sophisticated plane. Every new system has mistakes. Some are linked to the platform and some are linked to the very advanced computerization.”

Ultimately, Segoli said, the IAF will need to answer the question of how to use such an advanced aircraft in its day-to-day task of engaging Israel’s asymmetric threats, notably the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups.

“What is the big challenge for Israel? Hamas/Hezbollah, or Iran? The defense minister says Iran, but the [IDF] chief of staff says Hezbollah. Some say this plane is designed for big, distant things,” he said, alluding to options for long-range strikes against Iranian targets. 

“I think this plane will also have to be used in the day-to-day challenges that we deal with in Lebanon and Gaza,” Segoli said.

The F-35 would be particularly useful in dealing with advanced surface-to-air missiles that are proliferating across the Middle East and falling into enemy hands, he added. 

“The IAF should not keep this plane for just the day, which may or may not come [he order to hit Iran.] Without trivializing the Iranian threat, we have immediate threats to deal with,” said Segoli.

At the same time, according to Segoli, the F-35’s stealth features are not foolproof.

“We can’t rest on our laurels and assume the planes can infiltrate any system,” he said. “We are in a very sensitive area, which has turned into a playground for the powers. The Russians are here with sophisticated radars. The Iranians are getting closer to us. This plane will be challenged with all sorts of attempts to cancel out its stealth. It is clear to me that the IAF is aware of this.”

A new era

The air force described the plane’s entry into service as the start of a “new era.” The IAF’s 140th Squadron, dubbed Golden Vulture, will fly the F-35s.

Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin, commander of the IAF, said Dec. 6 that the F-35’s milestone “comes at a time in which the IAF is operating on a large scale on a number of fronts in a dynamic Middle East.”

Tal Inbar, who heads the Fisher Institute’s space research center, noted the significance of Israel being the first and only state in the Middle East to possess a warplane as advanced as the F-35.

“The technological jump of the plane compared to all other planes in the area is enormous, but the jump in operational capabilities is no less important. The freedom of maneuver that the air force gets has been significantly strengthened,” Inbar told JNS.

He said the weapons systems and “advanced electronic systems” on board the jet take Israel from having air superiority to “controlling the air space in a very wide area.”

Is the fighter jet era fading away? 

Yiftah Shapir, a weapons expert and former researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, said that despite the F-35’s highly advanced features, the relatively small number of the warplanes in Israel’s possession prevents the stealth jet from having a huge immediate impact.

“Even if we buy 50, the IAF will still have to conduct most of its sorties with the [older] existing jets,” he said. 

Though he acknowledged the F-35’s advanced intelligence-gathering capabilities, Shapir argued that the jet will still rely on intelligence gathered from other sources “in the types of operations we need.” 

“We also need communications intelligence, and human intelligence, for the surgical operations we conduct,” he said. 

Shapir compared the arrival of the new aircraft with the introduction of “the best cavalry force ever seen” by the American officer George S. Patton in 1913, just before the eruption of World War I.

“In my eyes, the F-35 is like the best cavalry force,” said Shapir. “It’s the best-ever fighter jet, in an era when the role of fighter jets is slowly disappearing.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) Europe’s Era of Harmony Is Over

By George Friedman

The European Union is engaged in a two-front fight for its own survival. On the western side, the United Kingdom has voted to leave the EU, and Brussels and London are struggling to find a mutually beneficial basis for the future. To the east, the bloc has admonished the government of Poland, an EU member, for actions it deemed undemocratic. It is threatening to bar Poland from the EU decision-making process and to cut off funds that it gives Poland under its own formula.

Once the Brexit vote was cast, confrontation was inevitable. But facing off with Poland, the largest country in Eastern Europe, at the same time as the Brexit negotiations was a choice – and on its face, a strange one. This oddity is compounded by the fact that Poland is not alone in facing Brussels’ ire. The charges made against Poland are similar to those made against Hungary, and there are similar rumblings in Brussels about the Czech Republic, although it has not matured into a full confrontation except over immigration. Put another way, a major western power is pulling away from the EU at the same time that the EU appears to be pushing away a substantial part of its membership in the east.

Idiosyncrasies of Democracy

On an abstract level, it would seem that the periphery of the European Union is pulling away from the center. And the center has quietly debated whether that’s a good thing. There has been some talk in the central region of either creating a separate union consisting of Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, or creating a bloc within the existing bloc. The point would be for these countries to stop being responsible for countries not ready to operate at the center’s level of performance. It would mean that southern Europe, with its economic problems, and Eastern Europe, with its distinctly different political culture, could go their own way.

It would seem that this is what the EU is doing now, though if so, it is happening unconsciously.
The European Union is not a nation-state; it operates by process. It struggles with flexibility, even when, as in the case of the Brexit talks, both parties need a deal. Similarly, participation in the bloc comes with conditions that limit what countries can do internally, and even if it is locked in painfully difficult negotiations with the U.K., the EU is prepared to challenge the eastern bloc, almost as though it were on autopilot. The EU has many problems, but perhaps the most interesting is this: It wants to be a unified entity, but the rules that create its process keep it from acting with geopolitical rationality.

Brussels’ criticism of Poland is that it is behaving undemocratically. Last year, the government took steps to gain more control over television and radio outlets, and now it is discussing legislation that would place restrictions on foreign media. The epicenter of the storm, however, is Poland’s plans for judiciary reform that would give the government more control over supreme court judges and the courts in general. The counterargument from Poland is that its government was democratically elected. It did not hide its right-wing proclivities from the voters, but on the contrary, emphasized them. Everything it does now, it does with a democratic mandate. The same can be said of Hungary and the Czech Republic. So how can these countries be undemocratic?

Incoming Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki gives a speech to present his program to lawmakers on Dec. 12, 2017, at the parliament in Warsaw. JANEK SKARZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images

The countries that founded the European Union had very different institutional structures. The United Kingdom had no supreme court until 2009, and it still lacks a written constitution. For a good part of the 20th century, it had only government-funded and government-run radio and television and barred other entrants to the market, though it had a vibrant and large publishing industry. France had a law making it illegal to insult the president. Germany barred any political movement that was deemed Nazi. These are not bad laws in the least. They were variations not on democracy – which all three countries were – but on liberalism. Each built a liberal democracy based on its history, and it was understood that there can be variations on the theme of democracy. The one thing that could not vary is the right to national self-determination through free elections.

When the EU was created, it was caught between two imperatives. One was to retain the right to national self-determination. The other was to harmonize the various members. Most of the harmonization that was accomplished was economic in nature, but the EU also pushed for political harmony. In practice, this meant limiting national self-determination to fit the standards of what was acceptable to the major members (with British oddities accepted but not recommended –Brussels expected written constitutions).

But then the EU admitted members whose histories differed from their own. This was particularly the case with Poland and other Eastern European countries. Poland, for example, was the first country that Nazi Germany invaded, and it experienced horrors that few other European countries have. After German occupation came Soviet occupation. The countries of Eastern Europe lived through a long, dark night. East Germany did as well, and the politics of that region bear the scars.

Acts of Disharmony

When the Eastern Europeans finally broke free of the Soviet Union, they dreamed of becoming European, which in their minds meant joining the EU and NATO. They created governments that emulated the Western European governments. It was a period in which these countries searched for redemption, and they believed redemption meant putting their past behind them. They bought into the idea of the European as a species of human, rather than simply a member of one of several nations that had signed the same treaty. The Europeans wanted them to harmonize, and they badly wanted to harmonize.

It has been almost 30 years since the Cold War ended. The generation that came to power in Eastern Europe and led their countries into the EU is mostly gone. The new generation in charge longs for the past. It is not always a pretty past, but then neither is Germany’s or any other European country’s. But it is their past, and the era of obsessive harmonizing with Europe is over.

What is clear about Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic is that their publics chose not to harmonize with Europe, in the same way and for the same reasons that the United Kingdom chose not to remain in the EU. The process of harmonization is based on a homogenized sense of what it is to be European. Applied rigorously – on matters from nomenclature of cheeses, to how courts ought to be organized, to how many immigrants should be admitted – harmonization undermines national self-determination and national identity. Given the variations that are normal among democracies, Eastern Europe would assert its own right to idiosyncrasy; no one should be surprised when Hungarians elect a government that could not be elected in Luxembourg, because Luxembourg’s history is not the same as Hungary’s. But in the land of harmony, an act of disharmony is a threat to the system.

The European Union is following its process, but it is also trying to hold together something that is coming apart. It has tried to align national self-determination with harmonization, and it no longer works. It can’t let go of harmonization or all that would be left is a free trade zone, and Europe would go back to being a continent and not a proto-state. As the situation becomes more threatening, the threats become shriller, but the threats are simply reflexive attempts to keep the periphery from flying off in all directions and taking the center with it.

The periphery is coming apart. Whether those countries leave the EU, are pushed out or stay is of little consequence. The common experience of Eastern Europeans makes them unique. The experience of southern Europeans in the past 10 years makes them unique. Britain has never been anything but unique. And Germany is by far the most unique, the most unlike any other nation in Europe. What the EU doesn’t want to face is that Europe is a continent of many unique nations and nothing more.

The U.K. leaving and Poland being pushed out is not a strange geopolitical maneuver. It is simply part of an idea that could never have worked, and is not working.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)

Who Is Qais al-Khazali, and Why Should You Care?

by Jonathan Spyer
The Jerusalem Post

http://www.meforum.org/7104/who-is-qais-al-khazali

The leader of the Iranian-backed Iraqi Shi'a militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Qais al-Khazali (left), at the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Last Saturday, a recording emerged of an Iraqi Shi'a militia leader called Qais al-Khazali visiting the Lebanon-Israel border area.

The short video shows him in the company of two other uniformed men. They are in the village of Kafr Kila, which is adjacent to Metulla.

At a certain point in the recording, Khazali addresses the camera. '"I'm at the Fatima Gate in Kafr Kila, at the border that divides south Lebanon from occupied Palestine," he tells his listeners. Khazali continues:

I'm here with my brothers from Hezbollah, the Islamic resistance. We announce our full readiness to stand as one with the Lebanese people, with the Palestinian cause, in the face of the unjust Israeli occupation, [an occupation] that is anti-Islam, anti-Arab, and anti-humanity, in the decisive Arab Muslim cause. And, inshallah, all goodness and blessings to the mujahideen all over the world. And blessings and goodness to the Islamic resistance, which is ready to heed the call of Islam to pave the way to the State of Allah's Justice, the State of the Possessor of Time [the Mehdi], peace and prayers be upon him.

Khazali is the leader of an Iran-supported force called Asaib Ahl al-Haq (the League of the Righteous). In the manner preferred by the Iranians, the organization doubles as an armed militia and a political party. It was prominent in the Shi'a insurgency against the US and its allies just over a decade ago. Today, AAH is a key component in the Hashd al-Sha'abi (Popular Mobilization Units), the gathering of Shi'a militias raised up in the summer of 2014 to fight Islamic State when the Sunni jihadists were gunning for Baghdad. AAH has also played an important role in the Assad regime's war in Syria.

The emergent unity of purpose of Iran-supported forces in the Levant and Iraq is focused on Israel.

Khazali's visit had only a mild echo in news coverage of the region this week. The fallout from President Donald Trump's declaration confirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel continued to dominate the headlines. Arguably, however, the appearance of an obscure, bearded Iraqi Shi'a militia leader a short distance from the town of Metulla was an indication of a trend of greater potential concern to Israel than the small demonstrations held by Palestinians in Jerusalem and the West Bank to protest Trump's decision. The trend in question is the emergent unity of purpose of Iran-supported military-political organizations in the Levant and Iraq, and the emergent focus of attention of these groups – all directly controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – on Israel.

AAH is one of three veteran Shi'a Islamist groupings that form the backbone of the 120,000-strong Hashd al-Sha'abi. The other two are the Badr Organization, led by Hadi al-Ameri, and Kataib Hezbollah, led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

AAH is the smallest of these three groups and is in many ways the most radical. Splitting from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in 2004, when the latter ordered his men to cease fighting the Americans, AAH claimed responsibility for over 6,000 attacks on coalition forces in the period 2006-2011. AAH elements took part in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, alongside Hezbollah.

AAH claimed responsibility for over 6,000 attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq from 2006 to 2011.

Following the killing of five Americans in the Shi'ite town of Karbala in March 2007, Khazali was arrested by the coalition. Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese Hezbollah adviser with the Iraqi Shi'a militias, was apprehended with him. Khazali was released in exchange for Peter Moore, a British computer consultant kidnapped by AAH.

Following the US withdrawal in 2011, AAH entered the political process. It has worked and continues to work closely with former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki and his faction of the ruling Dawa Party. At the same time, AAH opened an office in Beirut and continues its close cooperation with Hezbollah. Despite its current visibility, the organization is shy of contacts with the Western media. On a project in Baghdad to profile pro-Iranian Shi'a militias in the summer of 2015, this reporter found AAH to be the only group to refuse all requests for interviews. This despite its possession of a seat in Iraq's parliament in 2014.

So why do Khazali and Asaib Ahl al-Haq matter?

Khazali's appearance at the border is the latest and most graphic demonstration that Israel can no longer consider its long standoff with Hezbollah as a closed conflict system between a state and a small, albeit well-armed militia. Iran has now breached the boundaries of this system.

Abu Kamal, the last link in the Iranian land bridge from the Iraq-Iran border to the Mediterranean, was captured by Iranian-backed forces in November.

On November 19, pro-Iranian Syrian and Iraqi forces completed the capture of Abu Kamal, a dusty town on the Syria-Iraq border 640 km. east of Quneitra. In so doing, Iran secured its land route from Iran through Iraq and Syria, to a few kilometers from the Quneitra crossing. It also secured a road for the supply of Hezbollah.

Iran is taking orders neither from Russia, nor from the nominal Syrian government of Bashar Assad in its activities in Syria. Rather, with thousands of militiamen on the ground in the country, it is building its own independent infrastructure. This includes the facility at al-Kiswa, 13 km. south of Damascus, bombed by Israeli aircraft on December 2. Iranian personnel are also present closer to the Israeli border.

In Iraq, as the war against Islamic State winds down, the Popular Mobilization Units is establishing itself as a permanent armed force. Already a year ago, its continued mobilization was confirmed by law. Now, components of the PMU are securing their status as political forces, ahead of the Iraqi elections scheduled for May. The Badr Organization was licensed to take part in the elections 10 months ago. On November 6, AAH also received its license from the Iraqi Higher Elections Committee to participate in the elections.

Using the kudos gained by their role in the war against Islamic State, and while maintaining their military capacity, these parties are set to perform well. And in cooperation with former prime minister Maliki, they may well emerge as the dominant force in Iraq after the elections.

Iranian clients are now in a position of unchallenged dominance in Iraq and Lebanon.

All this has the slight flavor of déjà vu about it. On a smaller scale in Lebanon, similar Iranian clients who knew how to combine military and political activity are now in a position of unchallenged dominance of the country.

So put all this together – the achievement of the Iranian land corridor through Syria to Lebanon and the Israeli border, the burgeoning political and military strength of Iran's proxies in Iraq, the Iranian efforts to push their presence and infrastructure to the border with the Golan Heights – and the potential scope and look of a future conflict between Israel and the Iran-led regional bloc becomes clear.

All this is taking place, by the way, at a time when the West is busy practicing politics in Iraq and Lebanon, backing supposedly moderate and certainly toothless figures such as prime ministers Saad Hariri and Haider al-Abadi.

Seen against this background, Khazali's tour of the area north of Metulla is the latest item of evidence confirming the growing boldness, broadening dimensions and advancing agenda of the Iranians in Iraq and the Levant.

Jonathan Spyer, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs and author of The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict (Continuum, 2011).