Archive for February 2015

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Missiles and menaces in an Iran-Russia-North Korea alliance

February 13, 2015

Missiles and menaces in an Iran-Russia-North Korea alliance, The Hill, Michael Ledeen, February 13, 2015

Iranian scientists are often very good, and their missiles are excellent, but the satellite was not a product of Persian technology. According to well-informed Iranians, 70 percent of the package is Russian, 20 percent is “Asian,” (i.e., North Korean), and the rest comes from Europe. The Iranian input was gluing it together.

It’s no coincidence. Russia, Iran and North Korea are in active cahoots. They are pooling resources, including banking systems (the better to bust sanctions), intelligence and military technology, as part of an ongoing war against the West, of which the most melodramatic battlefields are in Syria/Iraq and Ukraine.

******************

At the beginning of February, Iran sent a spy satellite into orbit, the first time it had done so in three years. As you’d expect, they bragged about it, proclaiming it a triumph of national scientific know-how according to Agence France-Presse:

The satellite was locally made, said the official IRNA news agency, as was its launcher, according to [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, who noted that Iran’s aim is to have no reliance on foreign space technology.

“Our scientists have entered a new phase for conquering space. We will continue on this path,” Rouhani said in a short statement on state television.

Iranian scientists are often very good, and their missiles are excellent, but the satellite was not a product of Persian technology. According to well-informed Iranians, 70 percent of the package is Russian, 20 percent is “Asian,” (i.e., North Korean), and the rest comes from Europe. The Iranian input was gluing it together.

The composition of the satellite is significant, as it neatly provides us with the proper context in which to think about the world. It shows us that Tehran is part of a global alliance that stretches from Pyongyang, North Korea through Moscow, across the Middle East and into our own hemisphere, notably Havana, Cuba and Caracas, Venezuela.

I believe that the Iranians, Russians and North Koreans want us to recognize their alliance. Indeed, at the same time the Iranians were launching “their” satellite into orbit, the North Koreans were testing an anti-ship missile with Russian fingerprints all over it. In all likelihood, it’s a Russian cruise missile.

It’s no coincidence. Russia, Iran and North Korea are in active cahoots. They are pooling resources, including banking systems (the better to bust sanctions), intelligence and military technology, as part of an ongoing war against the West, of which the most melodramatic battlefields are in Syria/Iraq and Ukraine.

To judge by their language, the leaders of the three countries think the tide of world events is flowing in their favor. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered an ultimatum to the West, saying that Iran’s war against “evil” would only end with the removal of America. Russian President Vladimir Putin marches on in Ukraine, blaming the West for all the trouble, and the North Koreans are similarly bellicose.

They are singing from the same hymnal. And they aim to do us in.

Still, not all is well with our enemies. You wouldn’t expect a brutal regime to have trouble carrying out punishment against convicted criminals, but there are several documented cases in which that has occurred. Iran applies the Law of Talion — “an eye for an eye” — so that if someone is convicted for blinding another person, the punishment is to be blinded himself. Yet Iranian doctors frequently refuse to do it, insisting that it violates their oath to “do no harm,” and they have stuck to their principles, leaving the guilty parties in jail as the authorities search for a willing doctor.

This is, to be sure, an unusual form of civil disobedience, but I haven’t seen any reports of those doctors being punished for it. Which is not to suggest that human rights are improving in Iran, any more than they are in Russia or North Korea. Quite the contrary, in fact. Human Rights Watch, which is not notoriously tough on the Islamic Republic, recently published a grim analysis of the worsening treatment of the Iranian people.

Perhaps the doctors’ disobedience will carry over to broader segments of the society.

Categories: Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, North Korea, Russia
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Should Islam Be Banned for Blasphemy?

February 13, 2015

Should Islam Be Banned for Blasphemy? Raymondibrahim.com via Middle East Forum, Raymond Ibrahim, February 13, 2015 (Originally published under the title, “Islam: Banned for Blasphemy?”)

Blasphemy

Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions.

Modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity.

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

*****************

Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”

Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Koran itself— which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them“? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev, senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.” Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha—the “Mother of Believers”—as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity. (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive—only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

Categories: Blasphemy, Christianity, Islam
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Iraqi FM Deplores US Plan to Deploy Troops to Baghdad

February 13, 2015

Iraqi FM Deplores US Plan to Deploy Troops to Baghdad, Tasnim News Agency (Iran), February 12, 2015

(With Iran in control of both Iranian and Iraqi troops in Iraq, Obama’s recent request for congressional authorization to, maybe someday if he feels like it, deploy more U.S. special forces troops seems not to be welcome. — DM)

139308161844234754028513

During a press conference in the White House on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama said the Washington-led coalition purportedly fighting against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria is on the offensive and that he might use US special forces to eliminate the Takfiris.

**************

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iraq’s foreign minister lashed out at US plans for the deployment of special forces to his country under the pretext of fighting the ISIL terror group, saying Baghdad has not asked the UN for any such troops.

“The message that Iraq has submitted to the (United Nations) Security Council never included a request for ground forces to enter Iraqi territory to conduct such operations,” Ibrahim al-Jafari told a press conference after meetings with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on Thursday.

The minister further said that Iraqi armed forces were making gains against the extremist militants on their own and were not in need of more troops, Press TV reported.

“We have established a set of guidelines” for the US-led coalition, including air support for Iraqi forces as well as providing training and intelligence, Jafari said, emphasizing that “no country has regular armies or ground troops present in Iraq except for providing training and counseling.”

Bishop, in turn, said Australia’s role in Iraq was solely restricted to aerial support, training, advice and intelligence, adding, “We have not sought to expand our role to include combat troops.”

During a press conference in the White House on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama said the Washington-led coalition purportedly fighting against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria is on the offensive and that he might use US special forces to eliminate the Takfiris.

His remarks came hours after he asked Congress to authorize a three-year war against ISIL “and associated forces.”

Iraq has been facing the growing threat of terrorism, mainly posed by the ISIL terrorist group.

The ISIL militants made swift advances in much of northern and western Iraq over the summer, after capturing large swaths of northern Syria.

Since late September, the US and some of its allies have been conducting airstrikes against the ISIL inside Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.

Meanwhile, a combination of concentrated attacks by the Iraqi military and the popular forces, who rushed to take arms after top Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa calling for fight against the militants, have blunted the edge of the ISIL offensive.

Categories: Combat troops, Foreign policy, Iran, Iraq, Iraqi military, Islamic State, Obama, Terrorists, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pentagon spokesman portrays Guantanamo recidivism as a good thing

February 12, 2015

Pentagon spokesman portrays Guantanamo recidivism as a good thing, Long War Journal, Bill Roggio, February 11, 2015

Rear Admiral Kirby is not trying to be satirical. Or is he?– DM)

Yesterday, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby cast a positive light on jihadists from the Taliban and al Qaeda who have been released from Guantanamo and have returned to wage jihad. The topic came up in the discussion of an airstrike that killed Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban commander who was detained at Guantanamo from 2001 to 2007, released to Afghan custody and freed in 2009, and returned to the Taliban shortly afterward to assume the role of a senior military commander up until his defection to the Islamic State earlier this year. Below is the exchange, from the Pentagon’s transcript:

Q: Why was he released?REAR ADM. KIRBY: Joe, I don’t have the records on this guy from — from Guantanamo Bay.

Yes, he was a detainee. He was released in 2007. He was released to Kabul.

The other thing that we’ve said — and this is another great example, because we had a long, you know, discussion not too long ago about the — the recidivism and particularly the issue of this — this one individual who reengaged there in Qatar, and we said that they return to the battlefield and to the fight at their own peril. Mr. Kadim is proof of that.

Kirby’s statement that Khadim’s death should be viewed as a positive is cold comfort to the hundreds of Afghans, Americans, and Coalition personnel who were killed while Khadim commanded forces in southern Afghanistan. The jihadist was able to operate for more than six years as a top level Taliban commander and has the blood of thousands on his hands.

Khadim and Mullah Zakir, another Guantanamo alum (who is still alive; he “resigned due to ill health,” according to the Taliban) were responsible for implementing the Taliban’s counter-surge strategy. While the the jihadist group failed to halt Coalition and Afghan forces’ gains in the south from 2009 to 2011 (gains which are now melting away), at least 875 Coalition members were killed during the fighting in Kandahar (273 killed) and Helmand (602 killed) during that time period, according to iCasualties (note, data on Coalition members killed by province after 2011 is not available on the iCasualties website). The number of Afghan security personnel and civilians killed in Kandahar and Helmand by the Taliban during that timeframe is not available, but is likely in the thousands.

Despite this, Kirby doubles down and says Guantanamo should be closed, which means even more jihadists will be freed.

Q: After seeing such example, like former Guantanamo detainee who was released and went back to the — to work with the Taliban, is the Pentagon still convinced that Guantanamo should be closed?REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yes. The Pentagon’s position is that the detainee facility should be closed. Secretary Hagel has made that clear on any number of occasions. There’s no change to that.

 

Categories: Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, GITMO, Hagel, Human rights, Islamic slaughter, Islamism, Obama, Obama administration, Terrorism, Terrorists, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Folks Do the Randomest Things

February 11, 2015

Folks Do the Randomest Things, National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy, February 11, 2015

(I think it may be satire, random of course. — DM)

pic_giant_021115_SM_Paris-Hyper-CacherFrench police guard the Hyper Cacher market in Paris

Random? You’d almost think we were dealing with an identifiable enemy motivated by a distinct ideology that is drawn verbatim from a particular belief system’s scriptures. Nah . . .

******************

I don’t understand why folks are giving President Obama and his spokes-minions such a hard time over his insistence that Ahmedy Coulibaly, the terrorist who just happened to be Muslim committing terrorism that had nothing to do with Islam, was just “randomly” picking out folks in Paris to kill when he randomly came upon a grocery that just happened to be Jewish and, coincidentally, to have Jews in it, whom he randomly killed.

Sure, we know Coulibaly called a French TV station during the siege, said he was loyal to the Islamic State that has nothing to do with Islam, and that he picked this kosher market because he was targeting Jews. But you can’t believe everything you hear on TV — just ask Brian Williams.

Come to think of it, the Paris attack seems an awful lot like another random one in 2008. Back then, another group of Pakistani terrorists who just happened to be Muslim, and who belonged to the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamic terrorist organization that has nothing to do with Islam, went looking for random folks to kill and just happened to stumble on the Nariman House, a Chabad Lubavitch Jewish center which, coincidentally, had Jews in it — Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife,Rivka, then six months pregnant.

Of course, when they were randomly detaining these two folks who happened to be Jewish before randomly killing them, the terrorists who happened to be Muslim were overheard in radio transmissions discussing how “the lives of Jews were worth 50 times those of non-Jews” in this jihad that had nothing to do with Islam. But hey, totally random, right?

By the way, have you ever flipped randomly through Islamic scripture?

I just happened to land on sura 5:82 — wasn’t looking for anything in particular, you see — and found that it says: “Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and pagans.”

Could something have been mistranslated? Maybe the revelation to the prophet really said “folks” but got somehow got written down as “Jews”? Doesn’t seem too likely. If you turn back a few verses, to sura 5:64, you learn Muslims believe the Jews have profoundly insulted Allah, claiming that “Allah’s hand is tied up” — which, as explained by the notes provided in the Saudi government’s English translation of the Koran, is a blasphemous taunt akin to calling Allah “close-fisted” and ungenerous.

In response, Allah instructs Muslims that it is the Jews whose hands should be tied up, and that they should be “accursed for the [blasphemy] they utter.” The verse adds:

The revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of [the Jews] their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them, We have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it. But they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.

That doesn’t seem very random.

Nor does sura 2:61, which explains that Allah has stamped the Jews with “humiliation and misery” because “they went on rejecting the signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause.” We further learn, four verses later, of Allah’s command that the Jews become “apes — despised and rejected” because they violated the sabbath.

Sura 5:41 describes the Jews as “men who will listen to any lie.”

According to sura 4:160–161, because of the “iniquity of the Jews,” Allah made it “unlawful for them” to eat certain “good and wholesome” foods. He was angered because

they hindered many from Allah’s way; . . . they took usury, though they were forbidden, and . . . they devoured men’s wealth wrongfully. We have prepared for those among them who reject Faith a grievous chastisement.

Given these, it should come as no surprise that Allah, in sura 5:51, instructs Muslims, “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends.” These passages probably also explain why, in sura 9:29, Allah commands Muslims to fight the Jews and the Christians until they agree to live under Allah’s law, pay a tax, and feel themselves subdued.

And let’s not forget the Hadith — authoritative collections of the recorded words and deeds of the prophet Mohammed. Like the Koran, they have scriptural standing in Islam. Also like the Koran, they often do not treat Jews as “random folks.”

Indeed, we are told that, in his dying words, the prophet cursed the Jews, along with the Christians:

When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” [Sahih Bukari, Book 1, volume 8, no. 427.]

In fact, in several hadith, the prophet is reported to have stated:

The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.

I know you’ll be stunned to hear this, but even though Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, they appear to think Islamic scripture means what it says. So if you were randomly to peruse, say, the charter of Hamas — an Islamic terrorist group that has nothing to do with Islam and that is randomly the Palestinian branch of the “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood — look what you find in Article 7:

Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!

Random? You’d almost think we were dealing with an identifiable enemy motivated by a distinct ideology that is drawn verbatim from a particular belief system’s scriptures. Nah . . .

Categories: Antisemitism, Charlie Hedbo, Foreign policy, France, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Jihad, Obama, Random acts, Terrorism, Terrorists
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama’s foreign policy successes in Yemen

February 11, 2015

(Here are two You Tube videos, posted today, dealing with the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Yemen and the situation there in general. Please compare and contrast. Obama hasn’t said much recently about his foreign policy successes there. Perhaps, as the State Dept. spokesperson says, the current situation in Yemen has nothing to do with Islam the United States.– DM)

CNN: Iran-Backed Rebels Seized U.S. Military Equipment As Embassy in Yemen Was Abandoned, CNN via You Tube, February 11, 2015

 

State Dept: U.S. Not ‘Being Run Out of Town’ Despite Abandoning 3rd US Embassy in Middle East, Washington Free Beacon via You Tube, February 11, 2015

 

Categories: Houthi, Iran, Obama, U.S. Embassy, Yemen
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies

February 11, 2015

4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies, You Tube, January 28, 2015

During a press conference on how to combat radical Islamic extremism, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated that under the leadership of Barack Obama the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated all of the National Security Agencies of the United States. Furthermore, Lyons said that Obama is deliberately unilaterally disarming the military and spoke to the need for the new GOP controlled congress and Military leaders to stand up to the administration and uphold their oaths.

 

 

Categories: Caliphate, Department of Defense, Egypt, Foreign policy, Freedom, Human rights, International Community, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Obama administration, Sisi, U.S. Congress, US national security agencies
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

On Iran, politics cloud fateful decisions as world approaches a Vienna moment

February 11, 2015

On Iran, politics cloud fateful decisions as world approaches a Vienna moment – Middle East – Jerusalem Post.

Washington’s political class may obsess over the optics of Netanyahu’s address. But it must prepare for the potential of greater crisis to come.

WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress may be a red herring.

​In domestic Israeli polls, his delivery may nibble at the bits of voters undeclared. The optics of attendance may embarrass the man. Great television is guaranteed. He may, after all, knock it out of the park.

But on the policy in question, the ship has sailed for Bushehr before Bibi’s boarding: World powers, led by the United States, have finally presented Iran with an historic nuclear deal. The outcome of this process now falls to the leadership in Iran. It is no longer in Israel’s hands— if it ever was.

To suggest Netanyahu’s speech was politically timed and nothing more, one must discount fifteen years of his near-constant obsession over the implications of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. US President Barack Obama is correct: Netanyahu and his allies do not believe a good deal with such a government is possible.

With an agreement now officially on the table, Israel is lamenting that a year’s worth of quiet briefings from Washington on the process proved futile. Apparently, private discussions over Israel’s security needs from such a deal are not being honored by the United States.

Interpret this not as a judgment of a nuclear deal still unpublished: We cannot evaluate an agreement when we haven’t yet examined its contents. But Israel has. And for that reason, Netanyahu’s fit must be counted and contextualized: After fifteen years of fighting, he believes Washington is settling for a deal he cannot accept.

Assuming Israel’s position is principled— is there evidence to believe Iran seeks nuclearization in the future, as well as the extermination of the Jewish state?— we reach an ominous conclusion: Netanyahu’s upcoming speech is merely a preview of darker times to come.

Protocol and politics cannot mask substantive policy differences on an issue so grave as to be called existential to Israel— not only by Israel, but by the Obama administration, repeatedly. The United States is now telling the Israeli government how best it can defend itself, and Israel is disagreeing publicly.

“There are real differences substantively, but that’s separate and apart from the whole issue of Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington,” Obama told journalists at a joint press conference on Monday at the White House.

“I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the president, but to speak up for very survival of my country,” Netanyahu responded on Tuesday, in a reactive address.

March 17 may seem fated now. But the scheduling of Israel’s election that day came well after the UN Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany set out the goal of reaching a political framework agreement with Iran less than two weeks later, by March 31.

Politics seem to have played a role in Netanyahu’s calculation. But Israeli sources have told this publication for months— well before an election was on the horizon— that they feared this moment, when their private pleas to Washington would be muted and discounted, a deal would be presented and they would find themselves with no choice but to break, publicly, with the White House.

Six years of distrust led to this precipice. But no moment in that long story of crisis with Iran has forced repositioning so hard and fast as has now, today, when Israel feels itself cornered. Politics oversimplifies the crisis these countries now face.

A desperate Netanyahu is confronting the prospects of a defeat far greater than what may befall him on March 17— defeat on March 31. This is a leader who has deeply rooted, principled fears of Iran— rightly or wrongly— and he is watching Obama snatch his leverage away.

Rudeness, or protocolic inappropriateness, typically falls by the wayside when a nation considers its national security fundamentally jeopardized. Or at least, that is how Netanyahu is feeling. That explains how he is behaving.

Disagreeing with the prime minister on a policy level, even vehemently, still grants him the benefit of his principles— principles that have been recognized as substantive and concerning by many in Washington, beyond the conservative aisle.

For that reason, protocol should not shut the ears of lawmakers on Capitol Hill come March 3. We all must listen, scrupulously, if only to prevent more violent debates ahead.

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

What’s worse than no strategy?

February 11, 2015

What’s worse than no strategy? Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, February 11, 2015

It seems like only yesterday that U.S. President Barack Obama was being criticized for having no strategy to ‎counter the jihadi threat. In fact, it was about 10 days ago. Peggy Noonan’s Feb. 1 Wall Street ‎Journal column was headlined: “America’s strategy deficit.”‎

Since then, a different perception has been taking root: Obama does indeed have a strategy — ‎a “secret strategy,” one that is alarmingly misguided. ‎

According to this theory, he believes that fighting terrorism requires accommodating the regime ‎long recognized by the U.S. government as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism: the Islamic Republic of Iran. ‎

He may also see the Islamic republic not as a rival to the Islamic State group but as a more moderate ‎alternative — despite the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly declared ‎hostility toward America the foundation of the Islamic revolution. ‎

The president appears to believe that Sunni jihadis can be countered by Shia jihadis. Last week, Islamic State demonstrated its barbarism by immolating a Jordanian pilot. That should not ‎cause us to forget that Iran’s rulers supplied militias in Iraq with improvised explosive devices used to immolate ‎American soldiers, are supporting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad who has used chemical ‎weapons to scorch the lungs of his opponents, and are continuing to illicitly develop nuclear ‎weapons capable of immolating millions.‎

Dr. Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has not just speculated about ‎Obama’s “secret strategy.” He has painstakingly combed through the record and produced a ‎‎9,000-word report persuasively establishing that Obama, since early in his presidency, has ‎been in pursuit of a “comprehensive agreement” that would allow Iran to become what the ‎president has called “a very successful regional power.” ‎

Understand what that means: Iran would be the hegemon of the Middle East. Some states would ‎accept Tehran’s authority, striking deals and kowtowing in order to survive. Europeans would ‎accommodate Iran, based on its control of the flow of Gulf oil. Israel and Saudi Arabia, nations ‎that Iran’s rulers have threatened to wipe from the map, would be left to fend for themselves.‎

And some Sunnis would almost certainly turn to al-Qaida and Islamic State to help defend ‎them from Shia domination. Indeed, Islamic State rose in response to the extension of ‎Iranian power in Baghdad after America’s withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with ‎Obama’s decision not to support non-Islamist Syrians who had rebelled against the Assad ‎dictatorship.‎

Doran cites evidence that in the first year of Obama’s first term, there were more ‎White House meetings on Iran than any other national security concern. Detente with Iran was ‎seen as “an urgent priority,” but the president “consistently wrapped his approach to that priority ‎in exceptional layers of secrecy” because he was convinced that neither Congress nor the ‎American public would support him.‎

A year ago, Doran further reports, Benjamin Rhodes, a member of the president’s inner ‎circle, told a group of Democratic activists (unaware that he was being recorded) that a deal with ‎Iran would prove to be “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term ‎on foreign policy.” He made clear that there would be no treaty requiring the Senate’s advice and ‎consent.‎

The president believes that “the less we know about his Iran plans, the better,” Doran ‎concludes. “Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his ‎foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about ‎the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.” ‎

Those plans also explain why the president has refused to use tough sanctions, or even the threat ‎of tough sanctions, to force Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to choose between his nuclear ‎weapons program and economic collapse. Doran writes, “For Obama, to force a confrontation ‎with Khamenei would destroy any chance of reaching an accommodation on the nuclear front ‎and put paid to his grand vision of a new Middle East order.”‎

Doran’s piece was published in the online journal Mosaic on Feb. 2. Four days later, ‎Obama released his 2015 National Security Strategy. It contained nothing about the ‎‎”secret strategy.” In fact, it contained nothing that could be called a strategy. ‎

That appraisal is widely shared. For example, David Rothkopf — who served in the Clinton ‎administration, “voted for Barack Obama twice” and now edits Foreign Policy magazine — called‎ the National Security Strategy “a brief filed by the president in defense of his record to date” and “a mishmash ‎leavened by good intentions but unintentionally spiced up by oversights, misrepresentations, and ‎a bad track record.” ‎

Last Friday, National Security Adviser Susan Rice reassured an audience at the Brookings ‎Institution that “the dangers we face … are not of the existential nature we confronted during ‎World War II or the Cold War.” But if Iran becomes nuclear-armed, other despotic regimes will ‎follow, greatly increasing the likelihood that terrorists will get their hands on nukes and, sooner ‎or later, use them.‎

Remember that American leaders of both parties similarly minimized the threat posed by al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Is the lesson of that day, as Rice implies, that we should ‎worry only about existential threats — confident that we can absorb lesser doses of death and ‎destruction? Or should we have learned instead to do all we can to prevent our enemies from ‎inflicting such punishment now and in the future?‎

This is a debate worth having. But it will be inhibited so long as the president insists on hiding ‎his views, leaving it to a few exceptional scholars to read between the lines. ‎

Categories: Al Qaeda, Caliphate, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamism, Kerry, Middle East, Obama, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Terrorists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Columnist On Jordanian Daily: ISIS ‘Did Not Invent A New Islam’

February 11, 2015

Columnist On Jordanian Daily: ISIS ‘Did Not Invent A New Islam,’ MEMRI, February 11, 2015

(It would be encouraging if such statements were more often made in the “legitimate news” media of the U.S. and the “free” world. — DM)

In a February 10, 2015 article in the English-language Jordanian daily Jordan Times, titled “We Have a Problem”, attorney and columnist Zaid Nabulsi wrote that Muslims must not suffice with protesting that “Islam is innocent” of the terrorists’ actions. They must also acknowledge that the extremism of terrorist organizations like ISIS emanates directly from the teachings of Wahhabi Islam that now permeate the Sunni world, and from messages spread by the Muslim Brotherhood and by prominent clerics like Yousuf Al-Qaradawi. He added that Muslims must be brave enough not merely to condemn the ideology of the terrorists, but also to renounce Islamic texts that are incompatible with basic human values, including certain hadiths that are erroneously attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, as well as the writings of certain prominent medieval scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah.

The following are excerpts from his article:

“Some Wahabist Teachings, Which Have Permeated The Air We Breathe In The Muslim World, Are Simply Irreconcilable With Decent Human Values”

“Enough is enough. It is time to speak out. ‘Islam is innocent’ is an incomplete sentence. Introspection is needed, for, if we shy away from reality, the alternative will be more images like those we witnessed last Tuesday night, when brave Lt. Muath Al-Kasasbeh was burnt to death in a cage…

“Some Wahabist teachings, which have permeated the air we breathe in the Muslim world, are simply irreconcilable with decent human values, especially the ones that declare that every non-Wahabist is a disposable body whose bloodletting is unproblematic. So enough of this burial of our heads in the sand. It has become tiresome to keep hearing the unproductive cliché that Islam is innocent after each atrocity committed by devout fanatics who did nothing except execute the exact letter of their textbooks, which order them to slaughter the infidels.

“The escapism that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with those atrocities does not hold water anymore because Wahabism and Islam have become indistinguishable. To understand the crisis of Muslims today, one has to remember that Wahabism exists in several textbooks containing the alleged sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, or books of ‘Hadith,’ revered by so many. What we must confront is the undeniable fact that it is from many stories found in these books that the unprecedented cruelty of groups such as the so-called Islamic State and Jabhat Al-Nusra emanates.

“The problem today has nothing to do with the original spirit of Prophet Mohammad’s message. Nor has it anything to do with the tumultuous history of Muslims over 14 centuries, parts of which were no doubt glorious and enlightened. The catastrophe today is with the visible manifestation of Islam in the modern world, as demonstrated by the prevalent beliefs and practices of many people who call themselves Muslims.”

“[The] Negative Image Of Muslims Is Not All Just Smoke And No Fire”

“[But] this negative image of Muslims is not all just smoke and no fire. This is what those 120 Islamic scholars who sent a letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi last year could not fathom. [ISIS] did not invent a new Islam. On the contrary, its followers are strict adherents of the same textbooks quoted in that long letter (bizarrely addressed to ‘Dr Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri,’ Baghdadi’s real name, bestowing intellectual respectability upon this mass murderer, as if one were writing a letter to the mayor of Copenhagen). In fact, the scholars’ letter was a misguided attempt to disinfect Wahabism, to cleanse it from itself, by claiming that IS simply misinterpreted texts that are otherwise compatible with human decency. In that sense, the letter squabbled over the semantics of the alleged instructions by the Prophet to spread Islam by the sword, but it did not dare renounce the authenticity of those same sayings…

“If we truly want to defend Islam, we need to perform a much more invasive surgery. Take the Muslim Brotherhood as an example of the prevalence of the Wahabist teachings among Muslims today. The Brotherhood is the virtual womb that incubated all the current jihadist groups, including Al-Qaeda itself (Al- Zawahiri hailed from the Egyptian MB offshoot that murdered president Anwar Sadat). Yet, when Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006, the three most senior leaders of the MB in Jordan brazenly visited the condolence house in Zarqa and announced to the media that Zarqawi was a martyr in the eyes of God, despite Zarqawi having blown up three hotels in Amman the previous year, killing scores of Jordanians going about their lives or celebrating a peaceful wedding…

“The orgy of decapitations in Syria over the last four years was promoted by very rich Sunni clerics such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and Mohammad Al-Uraifi, aided by the countless satellite stations openly calling for the murder of Alawites and Shiites, and financed by billions from extremely wealthy but hateful Muslims. So, enough with the denials. It is time to raise the alarm. We have a problem!”

“If We Really Want To Defend Islam As A Religion Of Mercy… We Have To Muster The Courage To Identify The Specific Texts That Actually Defame Islam, Denounce Them And Permanently Cleanse Islamic Tradition Of Them”

“There is obviously a propensity towards eliminating ‘the other’ imbedded deep within Wahabist ideology. It is not only foolish to deny this fact, it is also dangerous, for we would be covering the cancerous tumour with a bandage. What we cannot deny is that many of the Wahabist textbooks are the same operating manuals that Islamist butchers use to justify their savagery. For example, very few people know that while [the Jordanian pilot] Muath was being set on fire in that macabre video, the voiceover was a recitation of an Ibn Taymiyah fatwa deeming the incineration of unbelievers a legitimate act of jihad. Ibn Taymiyah is not some obscure scholar on the fringe of Sunni Islam. In the Sunni world, he is universally venerated with the title ‘Sheikh of Islam,’ elevating him to an almost infallible clerical status.

“If we really want to defend Islam as a religion of mercy, if we really want to be believed when we proclaim the innocence of this religion, we need to do more than just repeat this meaningless mantra about us having nothing to do with [ISIS]. We have to muster the courage to identify the specific texts that actually defame Islam, denounce them and permanently cleanse Islamic tradition of them.”

Categories: Caliphate, Foreign policy, Heresy, Human rights, Islam, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Islamism, Jordan, Koran, Media, Obama, Terrorists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »