A Wide-Ranging Interview with Erick Stakelbeck of CBN

by Jerry Gordon (November 2009)

Erick Stakelbeck is the on-air correspondent on terrorism and national security affairs in the Washington, DC bureau of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Stakelbeck is one of the few who, by dint of education and experience, knows the threat of Islamization in America and Israel.  He didn’t start out his journalistic career after graduating college in the late 1990’s with that in mind.  Prior to the watershed 9/11 date, Stakelbeck, a Philadelphia native, former high school and college basketball player, was bent on a sportswriting career and ended up covering the NBA for a publication in New York.

After awhile he found sports reporting less than fulfilling. After 9/11 he set out to learn more about radical Islam through in-depth research and eventually ploughing through the Qu’ranic canon. His family background (his father was a U.S. Airborne veteran) and longtime interest in foreign affairs and the Middle East was a motivating factor. Through David Horowitz, he first realized his dream of writing on Islamic terrorism at FrontPageMagazine. Subsequently, he joined Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism and authored opinion pieces for a wide array of publications: The Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times and National Review Online among them. He also began appearing on Fox News. CNN and other television networks as a terrorism analyst. Eventually offered the chance to go on-air and report on terrorism and national security for CBN full time, he jumped at the chance.

Stakelbeck has a broad portfolio of assignments at CBN.  He focuses on the growth of homegrown terrorism; the world wide Sunni al Qaeda network; the “stealth jihad” of Muslim Brotherhood fronts like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim American Society (MAS); Saudi influence in the US; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Iranian support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the threat of nuclear Iran to Israel and US interests in the Middle East.

Stakelbeck is decidedly pro-Israel.  He periodically talks to general audiences on behalf of AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations.

Gordon:  What was your journalism background before you became a CBN terrorism correspondent in the Washington Bureau?  

Stakelbeck: I've had quite a ride since graduating from HolyFamilyUniversity in Philadelphia--my hometown--in 1999. They say beginning writers should write about what they know. Being a former high school and college basketball player and hoops junkie, my immediate inclination was to follow the bouncing ball. My first full-time journalism gig was as a sportswriter, covering sports for a local chain of newspapers based in suburban Philly. At the same time, I was freelancing for some national basketball publications, interviewing college and NBA players. I got my big break with one of them in 2000 and moved to New York City to work as an assistant editor and staff writer, covering the NBA. I soon found that while I loved sports, writing about today's athletes felt very unfulfilling, especially with so many pressing, life-or-death issues going on in the world which increasingly commanded my interest.  

Like most Americans, I was outraged, angered, saddened, dismayed--you name it--in the aftermath of 9/11. I felt a burning desire to do something to help in the fight against these Islamist barbarians at the gates--a fight that was clearly shaping up as a struggle for the very existence of America and Western civilization. I immediately began consuming every book, DVD, white paper--you name it—that I could get my hands on about Islam, the Middle East and terrorism. As Sun Tzu said, know your enemy. I had already had a lifelong interest in these topics, courtesy of my father, who was a former member of the U.S. 101st Airborne Divison and a student of military history. So things fell into place very quickly. I read and re-read the Koran and Hadiths. I also read the Bible from cover to cover for the first time. 

After an intensive year of study, I decided that I wanted to put my journalistic talents to use and begin writing about these topics. I had been a longtime admirer of political pundit and conservative activist David Horowitz, who has written so eloquently and bravely about his transition from radical Leftist to one of the towering intellectual figures of the American Right. I contacted David, introduced myself and sent along a few clips, asking if I could publish something on his popular website, Frontpage Magazine.com (FPM). David, to my eternal gratitude, agreed to give me a shot. I was soon turning out columns about Islamic radicalism, terrorism and campus radicalism for FPM. Even better, David hired me as a researcher for his book, Campus Support for Terrorism.  

While working for David, I met terrorism expert Steve Emerson, whose groundbreaking work on homegrown jihad I had long admired. Steve had noticed my work at FPM and liked what he saw. He offered me a job as a senior writer at his Washington, D.C think tank, The Investigative Project on Terrorism. I spent almost two years working for Steve, writing columns and longer pieces for the Washington Times, New York Post, Jerusalem Post and National Review Online, among others. The topics ranged from Iran and Syria to Al Qaeda to CAIR and beyond. Learning under an accomplished investigative journalist and terrorism expert like Steve was, in a word, invaluable. While working for Steve, I was also able to build up my contacts and begin doing TV and radio appearances for Fox News, CNN and others. I soon discovered that I liked the wide platform TV provided. I saw an opportunity to reach a larger and more diverse audience on air than I would through my print columns and articles. The more people that would learn about the imminent threats we were facing, the better. That is how I looked at it. 

So when I learned that CBN was looking for an on-air correspondent to work out of their Washington, D.C. bureau, covering terrorism and national security, I was seriously interested. I had always loved CBN’s hard-hitting, un-PC work on radical Islam and foreign policy issues, and also its strong pro-Israel stance. It seemed like a perfect match when I took the job, and it has turned out to be exactly that. As you can see, I have been very fortunate to have some great mentors in this field and have been blessed with some incredible opportunities. Not bad for a guy from Northeast Philly!         

Gordon: How long have you been the CBN terrorism correspondent? 

Stakelbeck: Since May 2005: about four-and-a-half years. 

Gordon: How do you develop the stories that you report? 

Stakelbeck: Number one, I am constantly reading the latest news on terrorism, national security and the Middle East. I spend a good deal of time talking to contacts and picking their brains as well. There have been times when contacts have alerted me to a compelling story or helped put me in touch with a great interview subject. In my research, I try to look for patterns and trends that are emerging. For instance, since we have had an explosion of homegrown terrorist plots on U.S. soil since May; my work has been heavily focused on that over the past six months. I also look for important stories that no one else is covering, or that are not being covered in any kind of depth by the mainstream media. I always find that “culture clash” stories are interesting in that regard. Examples are stories I have done recently on Somali Muslim immigrants moving to small town, rural America and Hamas supporters setting up shop in the heart of Middle America: Columbus, OH.  I am very blessed that the CBN News team trusts my instincts and gives me a great deal of creative freedom to pursue stories that I believe all Americans need to know about. 

Gordon: How broad is the range of your reporting?  Domestic, International or both? 

Stakelbeck: The range of my reporting is pretty broad and covers both domestic and international security. I focus on a few things. Number one, Al Qaeda and the worldwide Sunni Jihadist movement. Number two, homegrown terror threats, homeland security news, and the “stealth jihad” waged by Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups like CAIR and ISNA and also the Saudis. Third, the wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. Fourth, the broader Middle East, with a particular focus on the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas axis. Lastly, any issues affecting Israel’s security and global anti-Semitism. I have also reported on North Korea, Russia and Venezuela and their nefarious activities. It’s a full plate but I love every second of it.  

Gordon: What in your experience have been significant changes in Federal government counter-terrorism policies over the past several years? 

Stakelbeck: The collapse of “The Wall” that began under the Clinton administration and existed until 9/11 gave a big boost to our counter-terrorism efforts. This wall of separation, insanely, prevented the foreign intelligence (CIA) and domestic criminal investigative (FBI) communities from sharing information about terrorism-related investigations. That barrier is gone today, and while there is still a good amount of inter-agency rivalry and squabbling, all sides have forged a more united front in the war against radical Islam. On the negative side, the Obama administration, unfortunately, has made the disastrous decision to close GuantanamoBay prison and potentially house hundreds of hardened Islamic jihadists on U.S. soil. Even worse is the administration's morale-crushing move to seek the possible prosecution of brave CIA officers who do the unpleasant but necessary work that saves American lives. Interestingly enough--and much to the hard Left's chagrin--the Obama administration has actually retained most of President Bush's highly effective anti-terrorist policies, from the Patriot Act to rendition to drone missile strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan. But any positive moves the current administration has made have largely been negated by the extremely dangerous decisions on Gitmo and CIA interrogators. There is also the matter of how to define our enemy, from an "official" government standpoint. I was critical of the Bush administration when it dropped terms like "Islamic terrorism," "Jihadist" and "radical Islamist" from its lexicon in favor of terms like "violent extremist" to define our enemy. The Obama team has taken this politically correct, intellectually dishonest strategy even further, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano going so far as to describe acts of Islamic terror, comically, as "man made disasters." Let us be honest with the American people about who exactly we are fighting, what our enemies believe and what they seek.   

Gordon: From your contact with senior officials in the counter-terrorism and intelligence communities, do they understand the threat of Islamization both here and abroad?  If not, why not? 

Stakelbeck: The average field agent definitely "gets it" when it comes to radical Islam and Jihad. Many of the bureaucrats at the top of these agencies, unfortunately, do not. Yes, they fully understand the basic fact that radical Islamists want to kill us. But some of them haven't the foggiest idea about Islamic history, doctrine or eschatology beyond the politically correct, misleading platitudes supplied by CAIR and other American Islamist "civil rights" organizations. These groups are, in reality, offshoots of the Jihadist Muslim Brotherhood movement, which was the precursor of Al Qaeda and Hamas. Despite their radical pedigrees, CAIR and their ilk have been able to curry favor with the F.B.I. and law enforcement agencies over the years, even conducting "sensitivity training" for agents. In such forums, jihad--which has historically meant violent military conquest in the name of Islam--has been recast as mere "spiritual struggle." For example, going to work and raising your kids could be your own personal Jihad. This is pure bunk and fatally misleading. But it is the kind of dangerous nonsense that has been able to creep into our law enforcement and intelligence communities, thanks to well-meaning but misguided "outreach" efforts by the FBI's hierarchy, among others. The Bureau, to its credit, has cut ties with CAIR, at least for the moment, due to the group's links to Hamas fundraisers. But it continues its "outreach" to other American Islamist groups unabated. I'll wager that since 9/11, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, far too few officials have taken the initiative to go out and learn about our Islamist enemy--read the Koran or Hadiths or study Islamic doctrine and history. What a far cry from the days when Ronald Reagan was devouring every book he could get his hands on about Marxism and Communism during the Cold War. Again: know your enemy.       

Gordon: David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry in their new book Muslim Mafia uncovered plans of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, the ISNA, MPAC, and MAS to penetrate the Congress and the Obama Administration to further their Islamist agenda and overturn our Constitution.  How dangerous do you believe that threat is and what can be done about it?  

Stakelbeck: I attended a press conference in October at the U.S. Capitol where four Republican members of Congress (led by Sue Myrick, one elected official who definitely understands the Jihadist threat) called for a full Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into CAIR's activities, not to mention an IRS investigation into the group's non-profit status. These lawmakers were moved to act after reading eye-opening documentation laid out in Muslim Mafia, which includes evidence that CAIR is seeking to place interns in Congressional offices in an attempt to exert greater influence on Capitol Hill. As I stated earlier, I believe the threat posed by CAIR and its fellow Muslim Brotherhood fronts like MAS and ISNA is severe--one glance at the now infamous 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that was revealed in the Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial tells us that. According to this memo, all American Brotherhood members "must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." It's obvious from this memo that any group with ties to the Brotherhood--like CAIR, ISNA and MAS-- is no friend of the U.S. As a result, they should be denied any and all access to the halls of power (starting with the White House, Capitol Hill, the intelligence community and the Pentagon) and be subject to full DOJ investigations. That includes a close look at their sources of funding, much of which comes from overseas.    

Gordon: You uncovered new details about Daniel Boyd, the alleged ringleader of a homegrown terrorist cell in Raleigh, North Carolina. Tell us about your investigative work there. 

Stakelbeck: Our CBN News team, along with my friend and colleague, terrorism expert, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, was able to uncover new details about Boyd that had been previously unreported. Boyd’s case had so many fascinating elements and was a great case study in homegrown jihad. It had a little bit of everything. Think about it: Boyd was a white convert to Islam who had trained overseas in Afghanistan/Pakistan. He then returned to the U.S. with newfound fighting skills, and the hunger for violent jihad had never left him. In his mind, how could he ever go back to a normal, quiet life after that? He craved jihad. Raised and educated in the U.S., he was able to ingratiate himself into American society and deceive his non-Muslim neighbors. Boyd also possessed a trait which virtually every homegrown Jihadist I have investigated shared: a virulent hatred for Israel and Jews. He actually attempted to enter Israel in 2007, with plans to travel to Gaza and link up with jihadists there. Luckily, the Israelis did not let him enter the country. In addition, Boyd hated the U.S. military, as evidenced by his desire to attack American military bases. Lastly, Boyd was, by all accounts, a very charismatic, forceful figure who was able to attract impressionable young people in his local Muslim community with his radical message. Even some of his young, non-Muslim neighbors looked to him as an "advice giver," according to one that we spoke to. So, this case had many of the classic homegrown Jihad traits.

We were able to uncover revealing details about Boyd (he had stolen from a local business, had poor relations with his employer, etc.) simply by knocking on doors in and around Raleigh and asking questions. Considering that some of his neighbors--even after the release of the damning indictment against him--still maintain Boyd’s innocence, acquiring a full portrait of the man was essential. I feel we were able to get one: and it wasn’t pretty. He may have had his well-meaning, infidel neighbors fooled, but local Muslims knew all too well about Boyd’s extremist views and lust for armed Jihad. I spoke at length, off-the-record, to a local Muslim leader in Raleigh who knew Boyd and his family well. This Muslim leader said that “nothing in [Boyd’s] indictment surprises me. He talked about jihad all the time,” adding that Boyd often bragged about his time spent fighting in Afghanistan during the late 1980’s and was a pied piper type among young people.

This Muslim added that more people should have spoken out about Boyd, noting, sadly, that Islamic communities in the U.S. have become much too insular and isolated—they’ve circled the wagons, so to speak. This is a crucial and troubling point. Although it is important to note here that a Muslim informant apparently aided the feds in their investigation of Boyd.

Gordon: In your view, how dangerous is the homegrown terrorist threat?

Stakelbeck: I believe that if we do have another terror attack on American soil in the near future, it will most likely come from a homegrown cell or individual that does not need guidance from Al Qaeda. In other words, young American Muslims inspired by Al Qaeda, but radicalized on the Web or at the local mosque. It does not take a brain surgeon to walk into a crowded shopping mall, yell, “Allahu Akhbar” and begin firing at random. We actually did see an act of Islamic terror here back in May, when a Muslim convert shot and killed a U.S. military recruiter in Arkansas. In fact, since May, we have seen no less than seven major terrorist plots broken up on U.S. soil. And that isn’t even including the Arkansas shooting or the continuing pipeline of Somali-Americans going back to their home country to join the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Shabaab group. This is a dizzying array of plots—including the biggest since 9/11, by the Najibullah Zazi cell in New York/Denver—showing that the homegrown threat is worsening. These plots are occurring in some of the most out-of-the-way places where you would never expect Islamic terrorists to set up shop: Raleigh, North Carolina, Springfield, Illinois. Rural Arkansas. These terror cells aren't just popping up in New York City or LA: immigration gateway cities. These are often quiet suburban communities, even rural areas.

We have, thankfully, thus far been able to avoid another attack due to superior law enforcement and intelligence work, and a little bit of luck.

Gordon:  You’ve reported on the assimilation problems of Somali Muslims in American communities.  Why has this immigrant community produced homegrown terrorists who become Jihadis in Somalia and further, what should our government do to screen radical Muslim immigrants from coming to America?

Stakelbeck:  I think the biggest problem with the Somali community in the U.S. is the lack of assimilation that you mentioned. I have covered and followed the Somali Muslim communities in several cities: Columbus, Ohio, Minneapolis, Minnesota, even in rural Tennessee. And the current running through every one of these communities is a failure to assimilate. Somalia hasn't even had a functioning central government for the past 20 years. It’s a hotbed for warlordism, jihadism and banditry. It’s just a very nasty place, one of the most dangerous, most backward places in the world. So to take people from this kind of situation and bring them to a major metropolitan area in the United States is frequently a recipe for disaster.    

I have interviewed several Somali American Muslims, who have come here, gotten a taste of U.S. society and Western civilization, and have immediately withdrawn. The government helps them get on their feet for the first few months, but then they are essentially on their own. Many people in these Somali-American Muslim communities are becoming very isolated. They are not making an attempt to reach out and become a part of the American fabric.  When you have a situation like this, with a self-isolating, immigrant Muslim community whose religious and cultural norms are alien to most Americans, the people in that community are more susceptible to radicalism.  When they feel isolated and alienated from society, from the culture-at-large, what do they lean on?  What they know. And what do they know? Often times, they lean on Islam.  Some Somalis feel like they don’t have any prospects, that they don’t belong here or fit in.  If they come under the sway of a radical Imam who can convince them, "Hey, the West, the U.S., is your enemy, and you should destroy this country from within," then, unfortunately, some can be susceptible to that message.  We see it in the Somali community here and we see it in other immigrant Muslim communities, not only in the U.S. but throughout the West. Minneapolis is a good case study. There is one particular mosque that a number of Somali Muslims attended who then went back to Somalia to wage Jihad and join an al-Qaeda-linked group. Investigators believe that they likely fell under the sway of radical teachings at that mosque.

Gordon: Why, in your view, did the Obama administration appoint Leon Panetta as CIA director?  Has he exhibited independent judgment over the terrorist interrogation issue that embroiled Congress this summer?

Stakelbeck: The choice of Panetta was a head scratcher for me. President Obama had talked during his campaign about breaking from the past. He said was going to put a new face on Washington. Then he turns around and picks Leon Panetta, a guy who is a longtime D.C. insider and former adviser to Bill Clinton as his CIA director. Prior to Panetta taking this post, he did not have a strong intelligence background.  I talked to Pete Hoekstra, a Republican Congressman who is very involved in intelligence matters--one of the best on these issues. He told me--surprisingly--a week after the Panetta pick, that he liked it.  He said he thought Panetta's diverse experiences in Congress and as an adviser to President Clinton were a positive. Hoekstra pointed out that Panetta was privy to high-level intelligence briefings during the Clinton years. He also liked the fact that Panetta wasn’t a member of the intel community, wasn’t an intel "insider," and would bring an outside perspective to the CIA.

All that may be true. But what we’ve seen so far is that Panetta really hasn’t been out in front, hasn’t been very public at all, and has basically been undermined at every turn by the Obama administration.  There are reports that he and Eric Holder, the Attorney General, have had screaming matches in the White House over Holder’s insistence on possibly prosecuting CIA interrogators. As a result, the morale of the CIA has never been lower. Panetta realizes this and just how devastating these prosecutions would be for the Agency. The end result of what the administration is doing will weaken the CIA.  There were actually rumors a few months ago that Panetta might step down.  I tend to think he won't step down because he is a loyal Democrat who wouldn't want to cause a public fuss and embarrass Obama. But if he did step down, I wouldn’t be shocked, just because he’s been undermined so badly in public by this administration.

Gordon: Why did the Obama administration endeavor to appoint acknowledged critics of Israel, like Charles Freeman with past Saudi connections, to the National Intelligence Council and ex-Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as foreign intelligence advisor?

Stakelbeck: I think it has become obvious that for some reason, the Obama administration enjoys offending and insulting supporters of Israel. After the Freeman appointment, I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even though Freeman's long history of anti-Israel demagoguery, Saudi ties and unabashed Arabism was readily accessible via a simple Google search.  But in the months since the Freeman fiasco we have seen a steady stream of anti-Israel appointees and choices for awards from this administration. We had Mary Robinson, who oversaw the UN Conference on Racism in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, which descended into an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hatefest that the U.S. and Israel literally walked out of.  Yet the Obama administration turns around and gives her the highest civilian honor you can receive in the United States--the Medal of Freedom--for her work towards women's rights. They certainly knew of Desmond Tutu's anti-Israel views, yet he received the same award, along with Robinson.  At a time when seemingly the entire world--even previously reliable allies like Turkey--is turning against Israel, this is particularly inexcusable. Now you have Chuck Hagel, a harsh critic of Israel for years, being named to an advisory post in the administration.  You had Jim Jones, the President’s National Security Advisor, appearing as keynote speaker at a recent conference for the far left, anti-Israel group J Street. Israeli government officials have gone on record as saying that J Street’s agenda is harmful to Israeli interests.  At least a dozen Members of Congress who were originally slated to speak at the J Street conference backed out once they learned of the group's anti-Zionist views. Yet the President's National Security Advisor--who knew full well that others were pulling out because of J Street's dangerous agenda--still delivered the keynote address at this conference. Jones himself has made controversial statements about Israel in the past, and another Obama advisor, Samantha Power, is rabidly anti-Israel. So, from Freeman to Mary Robinson to J Street to Hagel and beyond, there is a troubling pattern here. That is not even mentioning this administration’s unprecedented pressure on the State of Israel or President Obama's previous friendships with anti-Israel zealots like Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi.

Gordon: The Obama administration has postponed enacting bipartisan Iran nuclear sanctions legislation passed by Congress.  Why in your view did they do that?  Further, what would the sanctions legislation actually do to deter Iran from completing workable nuclear weapons?

Stakelbeck: I’m going to answer the second part of the question first. The main focus of those sanctions would be to cut off the import of refined gasoline to Iran. The Iranians spend far too much time focusing on building nuclear weapons and not enough time figuring out how to refine gas. As a result, they have to import 40% of their refined gas from foreign companies.  A number of those companies are based in the West, so if we could get these companies to stop supplying refined gas to Iran it would hurt the Iranians, without a doubt.  There could be gas shortages; you could have some unrest in the streets that would result in a further weakening of the regime. At least, that is the hope. But Iran has a fallback option.  Hugo Chavez, the oil-rich Venezuelan dictator, has already promised to supply Iran with refined gas if sanctions are enacted. The Chinese and Russians will step up to the plate and work with Iran to get around these sanctions. So could sanctions have an impact?  Yes, and the administration should enact them immediately. But in the end, I think their impact would be dulled by the likes of Venezuela, China, Russia and others assisting Iran.  Right now, the Iranian people are in a position where we could support some subversive activities among those who hate this regime and cause real problems for the mullahs. Sanctions, even if only moderately effective, would be another strong blow to the regime. Unfortunately, President Obama has completely dropped the ball in this regard.  In June, he stood back and stayed mum as the Iranian people rose up against the dictatorship. President Obama said he did not want to “meddle” in Iranian affairs. I talked to several Iranian dissidents afterwards who were incredibly disappointed in Obama and despondent over his lack of action.

Back to sanctions. At the end of the day, it is real simple. Nothing--and I mean nothing--will stop Iran from their drive to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime views the acquisition of nuclear weapons as their divine right.  This is a religious mission for the Iranians.  Neither President Obama nor lawmakers here in the U.S. and the West can grasp that.  This is not the Cold War, where you had a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction, where we wanted to live and the Soviets also wanted to stay alive.  In the Iranian case, that regime has shown that it is willing to sacrifice thousands--if not millions--of their own people to further their jihad.  Look at the Iran/Iraq war.  The Iranians sent waves of young Iranians to clear mine fields.  Tens of thousands of them were killed. So if the Iranian regime can take out Tel Aviv and the surrounding areas--where most of Israel's population lives --and effectively end the State of Israel as we know it, I believe the Iranian regime will find it irresistible: it will, at some point, take its chances and launch an attack. Or the regime will supply a nuclear weapon to a terror group to let it do the dirty work. Rememeber, Iran is a big country, 70 million people.  Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, said a few years back, essentially: "One Islamic bomb would be the end of Israel. But we could survive an Israeli counterattack." 

So if Iran goes nuclear, you are going to have people with their fingers on the nuclear trigger who are not rational, who are religious zealots, people like an Ahmadinejad who believes that he, personally, can help usher in the return of the Mahdi, or Islamic Messiah. These are not people with whom you can have a rational dialogue. The Iranians are steeped in taqiyya--deception--the Islamic concept that justifies lying to non-believers. They have done it to the West time and time again in these ongoing nuclear negotiations. In the end, the ultimate reason the Obama administration is delaying these sanctions is because President Obama has the utmost belief in his own magnificent charisma and powers of persuasion. He still thinks he can convince the Iranians to take a different path and knows that sanctions would sabotage his grand efforts at normalizing relations with Iran. I think his Nobel peace prize has emboldened this delusion. Unfortunately for him and for all of us, nothing will stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons other than military action. I wish it wasn’t so and it’s not going to be pretty. But it is a fact.

Gordon:  Do you think Israel has any choice but to undertake a military assault on Iranian nuclear and missile development facilities?  When might Israel launch such an operation and how complicated and effective would it be?

Stakelbeck: I don’t think Israel has any choice. I think the Obama administration and the “international community,” have really backed Israel into a corner. I would be shocked if the Obama administration took any kind of military steps against the Iranians. I think the administration has made a conscious decision that they can live with a nuclear Iran and seem to believe that Mutually Assured Destruction will work with the Iranians, that we can isolate and contain them. But that's just not possible with Iran: a radical Islamist, expansionist state that seeks to export its Jihad throughout the world.  

The Obama administration, based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments a few months ago, may plan to offer a nuclear umbrella for Israel and the ArabGulf states to help deter nuclear Iran. Yet a nuclear Iran would surely spark a Middle East arms race, U.S. umbrella or not. It is interesting that the French are now taking a much tougher stance against the Iranian nuclear program than the U.S. That tells you how misguided and ineffective our approach to Iran has become. You are never going to get Iran's allies, China and Russia, on board with any kind of sanctions. They have close business and economic ties with the mullahs and are helping to arm the Iranians. The Russians are helping to build Iran's nuclear plant in Bushehr. So it’s pure folly to think that you are ever going to get Russia or China on board, not only for sanctions but any kind of real international pressure on Iran. 

The Iranians, according to various intelligence estimates, could have a nuclear device by 2010. The Israelis can't wait much longer than they already have, and the recent revelation that Iran has a hidden nuclear facility outside Qom just raised the stakes even higher. I have spoken to Israeli officials at length both on and off the record about this. The Israelis feel they have no choice but to let the Obama administration's diplomatic game play out. If Israel were to attack Iran while negotiations were still ongoing, the full anti-Semitic fury of the UN and much of the EU would come down upon Israel in a vengeful manner. The Israelis realize this, and feel they need to exhaust every possible option before possibly taking that ultimate step of military action against this existential threat of a nuclear Iran. That way, they can tell the world "hey, we tried it your way and we've waited long enough. We either act now or a second Holocaust awaits us. “The Israelis do not want to take military action. It is the last thing they want and a true nightmare scenario. All the Israelis want is to live in peace with their neighbors, including Iran.  If the Iran nuclear issue could work out diplomatically, the Israelis would be absolutely thrilled and relieved. Sadly, I do not see that happening. 

I think the Israelis will give negotiations until January 1st, and then make their decision. My gut tells me that by spring of 2010, if we have seen no momentum or real progress in these talks between the West and Iran, Israel will take military action. If they wait beyond the spring of 2010, it may be too late. The U.S. and Europe don’t want to do it. They are going to leave it up to Israel, once again, to take care of the West’s dirty work. It’s going to be interesting to see the public response by the Obama administration if and when Israel does take that action.  

I thank God that Benjamin Netanyahu, a man of strength and character, is the Prime Minister of Israel right now. A man who will be willing to make unappealing but absolutely necessary decisions for Israel's survival. Israel has no other choice. You have a 1939 type situation here with Iran. And I can assure you that when Netanyahu says "never again," he means it with every fiber of his being.

Gordon:  How important is the U.S. alliance with Israel in preserving our Middle East strategic interests?

Stakelbeck: The U.S. alliance with Israel is arguably our most important, given the stakes in the Middle East. You have a Westernized democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The most restless, volatile, dangerous region in the world, a region consumed with anti-American extremists who seek to erase the U.S. from the map and are working actively to do it. In the middle of all that, we have a staunch friend, a beacon of hope, in Israel. A democratic, Western nation that loves and supports the U.S., has strong ties to the U.S., with many American expatriates living there. The intelligence sharing and military cooperation that goes on between our nations has been constant and invaluable.  This has been a special relationship for years, back to President Harry Truman's brave recognition of Israel's nationhood in 1948. Israel is the original bedrock of Judeo-Christian civilization, and we all know the religious, cultural and biblical reasons for supporting the Jewish State. But there are many other reasons. An excellent and thought-provoking new book by George Gilder, The Israel Test, describes how Israel is growing into a technological and economic powerhouse with top-flight scientists, entrepreneurs and technological innovators.  Israel has become a Silicon Valley in the middle of the desert. So that’s another obvious reason to maintain and promote the alliance.

At the end of the day, putting everything else aside, it all comes down to this: Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies. I spent time last year in Sderot, where they keep the rocket casings that are constantly fired into their city by Palestinian jihadists in the nearby Gaza Strip. They have hundreds of them on display at the police station in Sderot. Stamped on many of those rockets, in Farsi, are the words, "Made in Iran."  So the same jihadist madmen who have been shouting death to America for 30 years also want to exterminate Israel. If that fact doesn't bring us together and strengthen our alliance, I don’t know what will.

Gordon: Will the Obama administration adopt a winding- down strategy in Afghanistan as suggested by Vice President Biden or a surge in military forces as requested by General McCrystal?

Stakelbeck: I think Obama will find what a happy medium is, for him. You will see more troops in Afghanistan, but not the 40,000 that General McCrystal is asking for. Unfortunately, I think you are going to see a strategy closer to what Vice President Biden is pushing. Biden, by the way, is a guy who has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue over the past 35 years. So to have the President taking Biden’s foreign policy advice is profoundly disturbing. But I think Biden's view could largely win out here. I think McCrystal will get some additional troops but not the 40,000 he needs for counterinsurgency and population protection. I'm not for nation-building or winning Islamic hearts and minds, because I don't think that is possible, particularly in Afghanistan. But McChrystal and General David Petreaus, two counter-insurgency experts for whom I have the utmost respect, believe that making the local population feel safe and secure is a big key to victory. You need more troops to do that with any kind of effectiveness, much as we did in Iraq with the surge.  

Apparently, what the Obama administration is considering is fortifying Afghan cities--having a strong presence in cities like Kabul and Kandahar but pretty much ceding the countryside and rural areas to the Taliban.  What you would have under this strategy is a situation similar to what we have with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The administration talks about this as if it would be a good thing. This is madness, as anyone familiar with the situation in Lebanon will tell you. You are not going to be able to fend off the Taliban for long. If you give the Taliban any kind of territory and any kind of "peace" via treaties, like Pakistan has done, they will only push for more. In Pakistan, the Taliban seized so much territory that in April they got within 60 miles of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad before they were turned back.  

I think we potentially have a similar situation in Afghanistan. If you cede large areas of the country to the Taliban, you are going to have them fortify these areas and create al-Qaeda training camps. Eventually they will move on those Afghan cities. The Obama administration now seems to be thinking, "hey, you know, we can live with the Taliban. They are not an immediate threat to the U.S." Even though Taliban leaders, over the last two years, have repeatedly threatened to carry out attacks on U.S. soil and work hand in glove with al-Qaeda. So to say that the Taliban is not a direct threat to U.S. interests or the U.S. mainland is misleading at best.  Biden seems to think that sporadic drone missile strikes against Taliban/Al Qaeda targets in the Afghan countryside will do the trick. I think you might have some success with that strategy in the short term, but in the long term it can't work. The goal in Afghanistan should be to ensure that the country never again gets to a point like it did before 9/11, when it was run by anti-American, Jihadist barbarians who gave Al Qaeda safe haven to plan attacks on U.S. targets. We should take every step needed to prevent that--if that means more troops, which I think it does, so be it. Jeffersonian democracy is not going to happen in Afghanistan. It certainly shouldn't be a driving force in our strategy there. Protecting American lives, at home and aborad, should. If we leave too soon or do this with half measures, Afghanistan will descend into pre-9/11 chaos once again.

Gordon: How dangerous is the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and what assurances and controls can the U.S. exert to prevent weapons getting into the hands of terrorist groups in the Islamic World?

Stakelbeck:  Pakistani government officials, and even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have said that they think Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure. When the Taliban moved within 60 miles of Islamabad last spring, they were apparently  close to some of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. The Pakistani military obviously has a very strong presence and they ultimately hold the keys to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The problem is that the Pakistani military and Pakistani intelligence services are infiltrated by Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathizers. Pakistan never misses a chance to remind us that it is a sovereign country and we have been very mindful of that. But if you have the Taliban seize major metropolitan areas in Pakistan, everything is off the table. If it came to a point where it looked like the Taliban was going to overthrow the Pakistani government and a nuclear-armed, Jihadist state was going to ensue, the U.S., along with NATO, may have to take drastic measures, perhaps even attempt to destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal (if India didn't first). It would be that dire of a situation. A nuclear-armed jihadist state run by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, with designs against the West, is an apocalyptic scenario.

Gordon:  Finally, what thoughts do you have regarding improving U.S.  Counter-terrorism and Homeland Security?

Stakelbeck: I think the most important thing is to acknowledge who we are fighting. Yet again, know your enemy.  Be straight with the American people. Tell the American people that we are fighting a global jihadist enemy who seeks our destruction.  Terrorism expert Walid Phares has written in Future Jihad that we should be teaching what Jihad is and what our enemies believe to American kids in high schools and universities, informing the American public about the threats we face. We did it during the Cold War. Most Americans knew what Communism was about and were aware of the severity of the Soviet threat. People today are very uneducated and misinformed about Islamism, thanks to a variety of factors, including the mainstream media. I would say that 90% of Americans couldn’t even tell you what jihad is. Yet jihad, global Islamic expansionism through military force or stealth means, is what drives our enemies. There needs to be a sustained effort to educate the American public about the enemy we face.  We are going to be fighting this radical jihadist enemy for years to come, and if the average American doesn’t know who we are fighting, if they don’t grasp the ideology and theology of our enemies, there is no way we can win this war in the long term.

Gordon:  Thank you Erick Stakelbeck for a fascinating and engrossing interview

To comment on this article, please click here.

To help New English Review continue to publish timely and interesting interviews like this one, please click here.

If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Jerry Gordon, please click here.