Massive Spending. It's not coming to an end.

The Perspective: The video says it all.

What Do Iran's Protests Really Mean?

The Perspective:

What now? Do the eight days of protest signal the beginning of the long overdue end of the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran, or the start of a sustained, systematic repression? Put another way, is this another Velvet Revolution or Tiananmen 2?

Though it is still impossible to predict, my hunch is that in the short run what is being called the Twitter revolution in Iran is unlikely to prompt the immediate collapse of the regime. With so much money and power at stake, the mullahs who have run the country (into the ground) in the name of God will not easily give up as the exhausted communist regime governing Czechoslovakia did in 1989. But will the Supreme Leader and his apparatchiks prevail, as did China in its infamous suppression of the students and workers who protested in 1989 for more freedom? Again, power in the short run seems unlikely to shift to the Islamic challengers from the hard-line clerics in the most serious power struggle the regime has experienced since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 150,000-strong Revolutionary Guard and 300,000 Basiji vigilantes may well temporarily suppress the uprising with bullets, clubs and tear gas. But in choosing repression, the Islamic theocracy has lost critical legitimacy and become just another of the garden-variety military dictatorships so prevalent in the region.

Plus, the sclerotic regime is unlikely in the long-run to deliver the prosperity with which China rulers placated its rebellious people. Even if the mullahs win this round, the desire for change in Iran seems likely to grow along with the demographic bulge Iran own version of baby-boomers -- the 70 percent of the country that is under 30, many of whom are fed up and want jobs, lower inflation, and yes, more freedom.

The challenge for President Obama is the following: will this titanic power struggle be resolved before Iran acquires nuclear weapons? That, too, seems unlikely, which means Obama may have to choose among the best of several bad policy options.

Here what happened over the weekend and what to look for in the days ahead:

- On Friday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Orwellian titled Supreme Leader, effectively declared war on his own people, by announcing in his Friday sermon, no less, that the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been duly re-elected and that the protests over alleged election rigging should end. (For a summary of key points, click here) Ahmadinejad 11-million vote lead could not have been rigged, he asserted. Those who protested to the contrary were riff-raff, ill-wishers, and spies, especially for Zionism. They would get what they deserved if their protests did not stop, and they would be responsible for the bloodshed. On Monday, the 12-man Guardian Council announced that while there was evidence of extensive fraud in the election, Ahmadinejad was still the victor.

- Iranians ignored the Supreme Leader orders not to march and turned out on the streets in numbers unseen since the '79 revolution. By Sunday, 19 martyrs had been killed (the government says there were only 10) in the hit-and-run battles between green wave protestors and the pro-regime Basiji vigilantes, as the government arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands of others. Writing in the New York Post, Amir Taheri estimated that around 3,000 people had been detained, among them, virtually all the key aides to Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's key challenger, and other opponents, the editors of two of Iran's leading newspapers, 16 officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, (charged with implementing the repression) and dozens of clerics and theology students who are backing the opposition. State TV said that 457 had been arrested in one day.

- Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister and the key challenger, a founder and card-card carrying member of the Islamic theocracy, has now found himself cast in the unlikely role of accidental leader of this uprising, which is now no longer just about an alleged stolen election, but about the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. So far, he seems to have risen to the occasion. Announcing that he was ready for martyrdom, he demanded a new election and called upon his followers to conduct nation-wide strikes if he is arrested. Gary Sick, whose Internet site, Gulf 2000 -- along with Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish -- has provided indispensable updates from Iranian academics, journalists, experts, and Iranians on the front lines of this battle, said Sunday he was convinced that Mousavi was evolving into a true leader of the forces that had threatened to spin out far beyond his control. Noting that Mousavi called for a new type of political life in the country and free expression in all its forms, Sick concluded that Mousavi had issued a truly revolutionary statement.The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next. But for outside observers, he said, it is like standing on the edge of a glacier and feeling the ice begin to crack under your feet.

- By Sunday night, the blood-stained face of Neda, a beautiful young Iranian woman who was allegedly shot by Basiji and died on the streets of Teheran with her philosophy professor hovering helplessly over her was being seen on Web sites throughout the world. Tributes to Iran's symbolic martyr and calls to mourn her have been deluging YouTube.

What should we be watching for in the days ahead?

-- A deepening split within the senior ranks of the clergy. As Ali Ansari wrote in the Guardian on Sunday, the silence of many of Iran's clergy suggests their alienation from the regime that now rules in their names. Ansari reports that Ayatollah Sanei, one of the most senior clerics in Qom who was a close companion of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruholllah Khomeini, complained that his protest was unlikely to have any impact on Iran's rulers. Even more worrisome to the Supreme Leader, he added, five senior clerics have protested the elections and the violence that has followed. And Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the former heir to Khomeini, who was pushed aside in an earlier political struggle after having criticized the lack of freedom in Iran, has now openly condemned the elections. Neither Ahmadinejad, nor his master's voice, Ayatollah Khamenei, are popular in Qom, notes Professor Ansari, who heads Iranian studies at St. Andrews College. The clerics may bide their time, but their intervention, which may come sooner rather than later -- especially if violence spreads -- could be decisive. The defection of the clergy could spell serious trouble for the Supreme Leader. In theory, notes Iranian analyst Hooshang Amirahmadi, the 86-member Council of Experts, all clerics, can unseat him.

-- Calls for a national strike could be as deadly, if not more so, to the regime than the bloody protests that have outraged Iranians and Iran watchers throughout the world. If the street protests end, this could very well be Mousavi's next step.

In the short-run, brute force is likely to overpower the protests, unless the regime fundamentally miscalculates and outrage spreads. But however this phase of the crisis ends, the Islamic Republic will not be the same. Now that Obama's rhetoric has finally caught up with Iranian reality on the ground and American idealism, his laser-like focus on negotiations with Teheran should factor in the broader struggle for freedom being waged by Iranian whose haunting images fill the Internet and airwaves day after day.

Iran's At The Tipping Point

The Perspective:

Why did the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei decide to suppress demonstrations and not order a reorganization of new elections to solve the crisis? What is the analysis inside the Khamanei/Ahmedinijad “war room”? Based on several assessments, it appears that the regime feels the protest movement is too wide and too determined to allow it to expand further.

The ayatollahs in charge of the “revolution” and the top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards as well as their financial operatives fear a popular shift inside Iran’s population along the magnitude of East Europe’s revolution against Soviet rule. The most cataclysmic parallel would be with the fall of Romanian communist dictatorship under Ceausescu. Even a change a la Gorbachev is too dangerous for the elite that ruled Iran with an iron fist for three decades. Hence, after a minute calculus, the top mullahs and their militia barons have decided not to open Pandora’s box to bring reform or democracy to their own world. And, the world should expect them to use all the power at their disposal to do away with the demonstrations and its leaders.

But how will the Khomeinist “war room” break up the uprising? What is their plan?

One would assume that after a thorough review of the real opposing forces on the ground, and after having secured what they believe is a solid allegiance by the Pasdaran and Bassij commanders along with assurances they may have obtained that Iran’s armed forces will remain distant from the crackdown, the regime will proceed in several directions:

- Put pressure on Musavi and the leading reformer figures such as Rafsanjani and Khatemi

-Deploying the militias and security forces across the capital and in other cities

- Taking back Tehran block after block while trying to avoid an international media backlash

- Arrest and neutralize student and civil society leaders; and at the same time, insure that Western Government, particularly the United States would remain distant from “meddling in Iran’s business.”

So what would be the opposition’s plan? What are the hopes and projections of Musavi and his supporters? The former prime minister and his allies might wish that Khamenei and the supreme Council would find a better solution which would allow a negotiated solution and a lasting settlement. He wants to defeat Ahmedinijad but not, no yet anyway, bring down the regime. However, there is more than one “opposition” group in the country and the most daring groups have already taken to the streets to resist the Ayatollahs and bring a real change — not to recount the votes. Thus, one has to expect a long haul for the opposition.

But is it true that a strong U.S. position in favor of the Iranian democracy movement would create a backlash against America? The reality is that those who are advancing this argument are in fact trying to shield the Iranian regime in the West. The Khomeinist propaganda machine is unleashing all doubts possible about international support to the demonstrators. In fact, the tipping point against the ayatollahs’s militias is precisely a world outcry in defense of the uprising. Presently there are no neutral Iranians who could be irritated by American or Western verbal support to democracy in Iran. The argument is inserted in the debate to confuse the public and mollify outside solidarity. What can shift the ground against the oppressive Pasdaran is precisely this, if a wide majority of Iranians feel the international community is, at least morally, on their side.

The militias will try to suppress the masses, but the latter may take the struggle to a higher ground and perform strikes that paralyze the country. In short, this time the Khomeinists won’t have it easily. Too much power and wealth has disconnected them from their citizens.

Iran’s youth is at the vanguard of huge disenfranchised segments of society including women, workers, and ethnic minorities. The largest segments of the population haven’t joind the clash yet. Our bet from the sociological sample we’ve seen is that when that happens, an earthquake may occur. The ayatollahs and their extended clientele are rushing the regime’s army to crush the revolt in the womb. Badly advised in the past, the U.S. administration is still hesitant to engage with its real future partner, the people.

But a chain of developments inside Iran may change opinions across the Potomac. We sincerely hope Washington would catch up with the change coming from the East, faster.

The Letter Everyone Should Read

The Perspective: I didn't write this myself, this is from a letter that was sent to my friend Glenn Beck .

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense Now available in book stores nationwide...

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

The Rigged Iran Elections and What They Really Mean

The Perspective: The Supreme Leader of Iran has spoken, and it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for another four years. A major, cataclysmic war is the most likely outcome of the Iranian elections. And the battle lines are clear. It's Netanyahu vs. Ahmadinejad -- Bibi vs. Mahmoud -- and the big question is: Who will strike first?

This weekend's events in Iran tell us a lot.

First, the results prove that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei firmly, completely and whole-heartedly supports Ahmadinejad's End Times beliefs. Khamenei also fully supports Ahmadinejad's commitment to build nuclear weapons and long-range, high-speed ballistic missiles. There is no daylight between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad on this Radical eschatology, or End Times theology, as some analysts and commentators have suggested. These two men are who I have said all along they are: members of an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. They are kindred spirits. They believe the wind is at their backs, that Allah is on their side, and they believe they will soon see complete victory. That's what makes them so dangerous.

Second, the results prove that the people of Iran never had a real choice. This wasn't a real election. It was totally and completely rigged by a Radical Muslim mafia. The aftermath became, as one Iranian noted over the weekend, a Tehran Tiananmen. Protesters and dissidents were beaten, arrested and tortured. Text messaging was turned off. Facebook was shut down. The internet was down or slowed for vast stretches. All this prevents ordinary citizens from mobilizing their opposition to the government. That said, however, the massive turnout at the polls -- and the street demonstrations and violence in Iran over the weekend -- showed that even though Iranians didn't have real Reformer candidates to choose from, the vast Iranians are deeply disgusted with the current regime. They long for true freedom and true democracy. They desperately wanted the elections to be real. They are ABA -- Anybody But Ahmadinejad. They don't buy into the regime's End Times theology. They desperately want someone to liberate them. I feel for them. I want them to be free. Now more than ever.

Third, the results prove that the Obama administration's belief that you can sit down and have a rational discussion with such Radicals -- or trust an agreement even if one could be negotiated with them -- is nonsensical. How could we possibly trust the Iranian leadership to keep a promise to stop building nuclear weapons (if such a promise were made), when they steal elections and beat and torture dissidents in front of the whole world?

Fourth, as for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, he was right: Iran is the real threat to the region and the world, not Israel's refusal to make more "land for missiles concessions" to the Palestinian leadership.

The Invisible War

The Perspective:

The foiled synagogue bombing plot shows us one thing: We are truly the victims of our own success. I noted this week that this is a triumph for law enforcement, but it’s also a subtle reminder of how the fight against radical Islamic terrorism isn’t over — most importantly, it’s not over on the home front.

This event obviates it, sure. But in our postmodern mentality, there’s a certain bit of cognitive dissonance about impending terrorist attacks. The threat level offered by Homeland Security is background noise, discussions of terrorism are simply examples of fear-mongering, and the closing of Guantanamo Bay is a priority, moreso than effectively communicating a new strategy of fighting terror.

This last is actually the most pertinent to the Obama administration, because his speech, while certainly a testament to his good faith in the rule of law, put forward no such new strategy. Instead, it focused, as his speeches tend to focus, on the rhetoric surrounding the debate. In this, Obama provided nothing new aside from his own desire to dismiss his dissenters as those too focused on the past — but in a way, it’s Obama who, despite frequently talking about the last eight years, seems to have learned nothing.

Perhaps this is because being direct about these issues puts him in political jeopardy. As Karl Rove notes in his thoughtful Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday, Obama has indeed backtracked on a number of national security initiatives. This shows a calculating and thoughtful side to the president that is, in some way, reassuring.

What is not reassuring, however, is his unwillingness to come out and speak directly about his intentions. This is a longstanding characteristic of this man prior to the White House. I suspect that over time, we will see more of this pattern. He will continue to pledge greater transparency, to call for respectful debate in his speeches, all the while offering little substance to the people hanging on his words.

It’s not evil. It’s just disappointing. A thoughtful man reluctant to share his thoughts with the people who depend on them.

The Homegrown Threat

The Perspective: The dramatic foiling of a year-long plot to blow up two New York City synagogues and shoot down military planes at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, New York has important lessons for combating terrorism in America. First, it reinforces the New York Police Department’s argument that militant Islamic terrorist threats to the United States may increasingly be homegrown.

Law enforcement officials say they believe that at least three of the four accused were converts to Islam, that all four had been in prison. One of them was on parole. One official said that they may have met and perhaps been radicalized while attending a post-prison release rehabilitation program in Newburgh, some 70 miles north of New York City.

Second, a law enforcement official said that the disruption of the plot illustrates the importance of having police surveillance in place “at the right time and the right place” given how quickly the operational part of the planned attack unfolded. According to the complaint charging the three African-Americans and one Haitian-born immigrant with conspiring to use WMD in the United States, the men decided to get weapons to attack their targets at a meeting on December 5, 2008. This means that the plot went into high gear in less than six months.

Third, the incident demonstrates the importance of a smooth working relationship between the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which led the investigation, and the New York Police Department. In recent years, relations between the agencies have been strained over access to information in counter-terrorism cases and by other turf issues. But both Federal and local officials said today that cooperation had improved significantly since the appointment last December of a well-respected G-man, Joseph M. Demarest Jr., to head the FBI’s powerful New York office. Both NY Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Mr. Demarest were on hand at the press conference last night describing details of the alleged plot.

Fourth, the disruption of the attack depended in large part on information provided by a “confidential witness,” an informant whom the FBI recruited six years ago and sent to Newburgh after pleading guilty in 2002 to criminal fraud and being sentenced to five years of probation. The complaint quotes a FBI official as saying that the information the informant provided during this and other investigations “has proven to be accurate and reliable” and has been “corroborated by other evidence.”

Finally, while Washington is mired in debate about how and where Gitmo detainees should be held and/or tried, the foiled plot in New York demonstrates that the terrorist threat to America, and to New York in particular, did not end with Obama’s election as president, but rather, remains alive and well. James Cromitie, the plot’s alleged ringleader, is an American citizen and convert to Islam. Also known as “Abdul Rahman,” Cromitie was released in 2004 after having served four years in prison for selling drugs in a school zone. To the best of law enforcement’s knowledge, he had never met anyone from Al Qaeda or a terrorist group. Yet the complaint quotes him last November lamenting the fact that “the best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already.” That left a strike at Iraq and Afghanistan-bound military aircraft and an attack on synagogues as the best fallback targets. “I hate those motherf***ers, those f***ing Jewish bastards,” the complaint quotes Cromitie as saying. “I would like to get [to destroy] a synagogue.”

Onta Williams, known as “Hamza,” 33, had also served a year in jail in 2003 for possessing a controlled substance, believed to be cocaine, a law enforcement source said. Last April, the complaint says, he declared “in substance” that “they [the U.S. military] are killing Muslim brothers and sisters in Muslim countries, so, if we kill them here [in the United States]…it is equal.”

The FBI supplied the alleged plotters with three mock “impromptu explosive devices” containing 30-plus pounds of phony C-4, which Cromitie placed on Wednesday night in cars parked in front of two synagogues, including the Riverdale Jewish Center. Had it been real, that much C-4 could have significantly damaged the building, which was scheduled to hold three services on Thursday morning at 6:05 am, 6:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m.

Law enforcement officials say that the men were going to explode the IED’s remotely by cell phone as they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq-bound aircraft taking off from Stewart International Airport in Newburgh. But the stinger missiles the informant had provided were, fortunately, as phony as the IED’s.

All four men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, of course, and whoever winds up defending them will undoubtedly argue that that the informant egged the four men on and provoked them into staging the attack. There is still much we don’t know about how and where the men met, how and where they were radicalized, and whether in fact their alleged violent tendencies were enflamed by the informant.

But the foiling of the plot seems at face value a clear success for the FBI and NYPD. The sense of vindication today is especially keen within the NYPD, which in 2007, released a 90-page assessment of the terrorist threat facing the nation. The study argued that the primary terrorist threat to New Yorkers—indeed, to all Americans—comes not from Al -Qaeda in Iraq or from the mountainous tribal region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the intelligence community in Washington asserted that same year in its national intelligence estimate. Rather, the NYPD concluded, the main terrorist threat was increasingly homegrown. While Al Qaeda remained a vital source of “inspiration and an ideological reference point,” the study concluded, the more insidious terrorist threat came primarily from younger Muslim men between the ages of 15 and 35 who have no direct Al Qaeda connection, but who become radicalized by exposure to an “extreme and minority interpretation” of Islam.

That seems to be the case in this latest of the homegrown plots interrupted by the NYPD and the FBI.