Archive for August 9, 2015

« WarSclerotic home page

UK: Anjem Choudary Charged With Supporting Islamic State

August 9, 2015

UK: Anjem Choudary Charged With Supporting Islamic State, The Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, August 9, 2015

(With which of Choudary’s precepts do the Mad Mullahs of Iran disagree? — DM)

  • A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.
  • “Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim… if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire… so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.” — Anjem Choudary.
  • “Under the Shari’ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc.” — Anjem Choudary.
  • “We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!” — Anjem Choudary.
  • Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims… as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
  • Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison…” he warned, “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”

Anjem Choudary, one of the most outspoken and provocative Islamists in Britain today, has been remanded in custody, charged with the terrorism offense of encouraging people to join the Islamic State.

The charge is related to Choudary sending messages to his nearly 33,000 followers on Twitter, allegedly encouraging them to join the Islamic State — the radical Sunni Islamist group that has taken control over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and has threatened to attack targets in Europe and North America.

The effort to prosecute Choudary — well known for his relentless efforts to implement Islamic Sharia law in the UK — indicates that the British government intends to follow through on its recent pledge to crack down on radical Islam in the country.

It remains to be seen, however, if Choudary’s detention will serve as a deterrent to other Islamists in Britain. A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.

Choudary was originally arrested in September 2014 during police raids in London, as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism. He was subsequently released on bail while police continued their investigation.

On August 5, Choudary, 48, and an associate, Mohammed Rahman, 32, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and were charged with repeatedly violating Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 between June 2014 and March 2015.

Addressing the court, Sue Hemming, the head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“It is alleged that Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman invited support for ISIS [also known as the Islamic State] in individual lectures which were subsequently published online. We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman.”

When asked by the judge to indicate how he would plead, Choudary said: “Cameron and the police are guilty.” The judge replied that he took that to mean that he would be pleading not guilty. Choudary will remain in police custody until August 28, when he is set to appear at the Old Bailey, the Criminal Court of England and Wales. If convicted, Choudary faces up to ten years in prison.

Until now, Choudary, a lawyer by training, has managed to avoid prison by treading the fine legal line between the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic supremacism and the right to free speech. He has never been convicted of any offense.

Choudary is the former leader of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: “The Emigrants”). Al-Muhajiroun, which celebrated the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, was banned in January 2010.

Since then, al-Muhajiroun has repeatedly reinvented itself under an array of successor aliases. These include, among others: Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, Islamic Dawa Association, London School of Sharia, Muslims Against Crusades and Need4Khalifah, all of which have also been banned.

A study published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.

A report published by the British anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”

Al-Muhajiroun is said to have also played a major role in radicalizing Michael Adebolajo, who was found guilty of murdering (and attempting to decapitate) the British soldier Lee Rigby outside London’s Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.

Choudary said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim, and also praised Adebolajo as a “martyr.” He said:

“Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.

“That’s what I believe so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims. We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don’t, then obviously if they die like that they’re going to the hellfires.”

720Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary (right) praised one of the murderers of British solider Lee Rigby (left) as a “martyr” and said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim.

Police say that Choudary’s rhetoric has become more incendiary since June 2014, when the Islamic State proclaimed itself to be an Islamic Caliphate, a theocracy ruled according to Sharia law. Since then, police say, Choudary has repeatedly crossed the legal threshold for criminal prosecution for encouraging terrorism, such as justifying the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley, and the British aid worker, Alan Henning.

Choudary believes that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is “the caliph of all Muslims” and that Shariah law will eventually “be in command even in America and in Britain and in China and in Russia and everywhere else.”

The expansion of the Caliphate, the global implementation of Sharia law and Islamic supremacism are common themes in Choudary’s Twitter universe, where — through a daily barrage of anti-Western tweets — he repeatedly admonishes his nearly 33,000 followers to avoid assimilating into British culture.

In one tweet, Choudary wrote:

“Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari’ah & Muslims will have authority over China Russia USA etc. This is the promise of Allah.”

He also tweeted:

“Under the Shari’ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc.”

In another tweet, Choudary wrote:

“A Muslim always prefers: Shari’ah over Democracy, Submission over Freedom, Khilafah over Secularism, Jihad over oppression, Allah over [Prime Minister David] Cameron!”

Again, he tweeted:

“Cameron needs to accept that Islam is the fastest growing religion/way of life in Britain today & that one day Shari’ah will be implemented!”

On July 14, Choudary tweeted:

“The Khalifah [Caliphate] must ensure that no non-Muslim criticizes Islam or tries to convert Muslims to their own false belief, only Islam is propagated.”

On July 10, he tweeted:

“When the Shari’ah comes to UK/France/US/Russia/China we’ll ban Alcohol, Gambling, Fornication, Pornography, Usury, Democracy, Freedom, The UN etc.”

On July 6, Choudary wrote:

“The only time Muslims, Christians & Jews lived together peacefully with their honor protected in Europe was under the Shari’ah in Spain.”

After the July 2015 shootings of American servicemen by a Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Choudary tweeted:

“There’s a conflict in the world between those who believe Sovereignty belongs to Allah & those who believe it belongs to Obama! #Chattanooga.”

And again:

“The cycle of violence that we find ourselves in can be resolved. Muslims, Christians & Jews can live peacefully under Shari’ah! #Chattanooga.”

Choudary, who was born in the UK, has also explained how he feels about his British citizenship:

“We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!”

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 (€35,000; $38,000) a year in welfare benefits.

In February 2013, Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims. According to Sharia law, the jizya is a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.

In a video, Choudary said:

“We [Muslims] take the jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money.”

Meanwhile, Choudary’s Twitter followers have threatened violence unless he is released. In one tweet, a supporter used the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary with a picture of Big Ben and the flag of the Islamic State. Another tweet said: “The black days is coming to Britain if it doesnt [sic] release the Muslims.” Yet another said: “O Allah! Whoever has harmed them, then harm him, n whoever has shown enmity to them, then show enmity to them.” And another: “The shariah of Allah is the only solution for UK. #democracy is rotten.”

According to data compiled by an online analytics company, the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary was shared nearly 600 times in first the 24 hours after Choudary’s detention, potentially reaching 700,000 people. The data shows that most of Choudary’s supporters are living in the West: 69% of Choudary’s supporters are tweeting from Britain, Canada and the United States, and another 10% tweeting from Australia.

Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison,” he warned. “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”

Categories: Anjem Choudary, Caliphate, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran scam, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Mad Mullahs, Multiculturalism, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war

August 9, 2015

Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war

Several developments that have happened in Iran since the signing of the Vienna Accord should be regarded as warning lights that the rosy scenario Obama is flogging is not the one that is actually going to happen. Even worse, he knows he is selling the American public snake oil in order to hide his real agenda, which is more about Israel than Iran.

Aug 09, 2015, 05:00PM | Yoni Ariel

via Israel News – Op-Ed: Growing signs Iran deal increases probability of war – JerusalemOnline.

Photo Credit: AP

US President Barack Obama justified his Iran policy by saying that he believes that the deal will ultimately strengthen the moderate camp in Iran that genuinely seeks to reintegrate into the international community and invest the county’s resources in development, not eternal religious war.

Unfortunately, several events that have taken place over the past week tend to point in the opposite direction, which is that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is increasingly siding with the hard liners seeking to sideline the moderate forces headed by President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Mohammad Zarif. Contrary to the administration’s expectations, crackdowns and arrests of political activists have increased since the signing of the accord. What makes this latest crackdown particularly significant and worrisome is that some of those who have been detained either have dual citizenship, or have been in exile and returned home, having received assurances they would not be harmed. Most of them are in Teheran’s notorious Evin prison. However, at least one of them is being held at an even worse place, the Kharizak detention center, which is a concentration camp for political prisoners, notorious for torture.

These arrests are a signal that Iran is confident that the West will continue to appease it irrespective of what it does. This does not augur well for the future of the Vienna Accord.

The arrest of Washington Post journalist Jason Razaian (who holds both US and Iranian citizenship) was both a test and a warning sign. Arresting a US citizen who is an accredited journalist for one of the world’s leading newspapers is not something the cautious and canny Iranians would do lightly. It was a test of American resolve, which Obama by not insisting on his immediate and unconditional release as a precondition for continuing negotiations, flunked.

Since there is no reason to assume that the Iranians will suddenly begin respecting Obama’s resolve and backbone, there is every reason to assume they will start cheating as soon as they can. They have an incentive to start cheating as soon as possible, since they can assume that whoever succeeds Obama in the Oval Office, he or she will be less appeasing towards them.

The tailwind the Ayatollahs have gotten ever since the signing of the accord with every country running to Teheran to negotiate lucrative deals and sell it the up to date armaments it lacks has no doubt given Khamenei confidence that Iran can cheat with impunity, at least for the remainder of Obama’s term. Once again, the world has proven Lenin right when he said, “the Western world will fight among themselves who will profit from selling us the rope from which we shall eventually hang them.”

This means we need to understand what Iran’s cheating options are. Earlier this week, Avner Golov, a researcher at the INSS, TAU’s (Tel Aviv University) highly respected Center for Strategic Studies, published a position paper dealing with Iran’s options for continuing its efforts to become a nuclear power and how it is likely to pursue them. He takes it for granted that Iran will cheat or try to since there are no credible deterrents left on the table.

According to Golov, Iran faces a choice between the shortest and fastest route to the bomb or the safest one. He believes that Iran will opt for the latter, what he calls the “creeping or crawling bomb strategy.” Having learned from the experience of countries that tried to take the shortest and fastest route such as Iraq and North Korea that this is a relatively high-risk path, the Iranians will choose a longer more risk averse route. This road is paved with creeping incremental violations of the accord until they reach a point where they can break out in a relatively short timeframe, reducing the amount of time they are at a higher risk of being caught.

This strategy involves clandestine nuclear activities in parallel with the declared activities, designed to shorten the distance from the nuclear brink. The aim is to covertly line up as many duck as possible without being caught. The moment the decision to shoot is given, everything is ready to go and the final breakout to the bomb will be as short and quick as possible, minimizing the risk of being caught with their hands in the cookie jar before actually having eaten one, which in this case means before they have a bomb with which to threaten Israel, the region and the world.

The holes in the agreement, especially the ones than enable Iran to remove soil from Parchin and other sites before IAEA inspections, make this kind of cheating relatively low risk. Obama in effect has told the kid with a proven propensity for cheating he can take the exam whenever he wants, even if there is no proctor in the room.

The Iranians can also be fairly confident that the sanctions snapback clause will prove to be unenforceable, given the current rush to Teheran to cut deals. They can also be fairly confident that the international community will gradually divert intelligence assets to other areas, especially if and when a new crisis emerges, putting Iran on a back burner.

According to Golov, the bad news doesn’t end here. The agreement loses much of its teeth with age. This opens a third option to Iran. For the first decade, it may decide to play by the rules, and then go for break and take the shortest path to the bomb.

Another major inadequacy of the Vienna Accord is the fact it does not cover the issue of Iran’s ICBM program. This means Iran is free to continue developing its ICBM program. A bomb without the means to deliver it makes a country more of a target than a nuclear power. By being able to openly continue its missile development program, it can have a delivery vehicle ready and waiting for a warhead when the order to assemble it is given.

Israel’s options

Obama accused Israel of being the only country against the agreement. He conveniently neglected to mention that Israel is the only country the Iranian regime repeatedly threatens to wipe off the map.

This agreement is as much about Israel as it is about Iran. Obama crossed the red line dividing legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies from anti-Semitic incitement when he said that only Israel opposed the accord and that if it ended up being torpedoed in the Senate, war would follow.

The subtext of what he said is very clear. When he says only Israel wants to sabotage the accord and that the only alternative to the accord is war, he is really questioning American Jews’ loyalty to the US, implying that they put Israel’s interests first and want to drag America into an Israeli war.

Hitler crudely fanned anti-Semitism by openly accused the Jews of instigating war. Obama, a far more intelligent and sophisticated character is slyly insinuating it, hoping the mere threat of a potential anti-Semitic backlash will frighten enough of the Jewish community into not throwing its weight behind efforts to block the accord.

Even if this tactic does not cause an increase in anti-Semitism in the US, it will facilitate the transforming of Israel from a bi-partisan issue into merely another controversial political issue, with Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other. Whatever the outcome, Israel and American Jewry will find themselves in a lose-lose situation.

The most important thing is what Obama neglected to say, namely that Israel is not only the only country to oppose the agreement; it the only country which has repeatedly been threatened by Iran with destruction. This being the case, Israel should despite the risks involved continue its efforts to derail the agreement in the Senate. It has a reasonable chance of mustering the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster and have the Senate reject the agreement. The chances of getting enough Democrats to cross the floor and override a presidential veto are slim. However, such a situation would give the next president the moral authority required for taking the highly unusual step of openly repudiating an agreement signed by his or her predecessor.

Full disclosure

I feel in light of what I’ve written and the harsh things I’ve said about President Obama that my audience deserves full disclosure of my overall political opinions, as I believe they are germane in determining what conclusions the readers will reach regarding this article.

I am on record as being totally opposed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on almost every issue. I have never voted for the man and never intend to. I believe his hard line pro-annexationist policies are a disaster for Israel. I think he was reckless and irresponsible when he decided to unprecedentedly interfere in US politics during the 2012 elections and again when he addressed the Congress during the recent Israeli election campaign. His actions have materially helped Obama erode Israel’s standing as a bi-partisan issue above politics. Even worse, he backed the wrong horse, even though it did not take a genius to figure out long before November 2012 that Romney was an unelectable candidate.

Nevertheless, I believe he is right regarding Iran. It is probably the only issue he is right on. I do not agree with how he has handled the situation and the tactics he resorted to, which backfired and ended up making a bad situation even worse as far as Israel is concerned. I do agree with him that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.
This is the reason I believe Obama is wrong. It is precisely because Iran poses such a threat to Israel that this agreement all but guarantees Israel will be left with no choice but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran before it can exploit its many holes and inadequacies to become a nuclear power.

Until now, I’ve tended to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and have regarded his many mistakes as the results of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the region and not of a personal animus he has with Israel, its leader or Jews. His recent statement has changed that. The subtext of what he said leaves no room for doubt.

 

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

The day after the deal

August 9, 2015

The day after the deal, Israel Hayom, Prof. Eyal Zisser, August 9, 2015

(Please see also, Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria.– DM)

[Soleimani] wanted Russia and Iran to agree on the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their clients in the region (among them, Assad) and check their joint enemies (the Islamic State). After figuring that out, they probably moved on to the next topic: how to marginalize America in the region. As a means to both ends, Russia will continue to serve as Assad’s protector (despite his many crimes), all the while providing Iran with international backing. But above all it will send arms to Iran, to the Syrian regime, and if needed, to Hezbollah.

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

Over the weekend it transpired that Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, had visited Moscow two weeks ago and met with President Vladimir Putin. The Quds Force, in case you forgot, is in charge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ clandestine operations (including terrorism). The Quds Force is responsible for providing aid to Hezbollah and Hamas as well as to Syrian President Bashar Assad and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. In light of his direct involvement in terrorism, the international community imposed sanctions on Soleimani, including travel restrictions.

Only last week, at a hearing on Capitol Hill, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry vowed that the U.S. will make sure the sanctions on Soleimani would stay in effect and that the Obama administration would counter Iran’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East. But no one takes Kerry seriously anymore. While Kerry continues to engage Iran’s unimportant Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the real wheeling and dealing is actually in Moscow.

Soleimani did not go to Moscow because he had tickets to the Bolshoi. Rather, he arrived because he wanted to discuss “the day after the nuclear deal” with Putin. Namely, he wanted Russia and Iran to agree on the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their clients in the region (among them, Assad) and check their joint enemies (the Islamic State). After figuring that out, they probably moved on to the next topic: how to marginalize America in the region. As a means to both ends, Russia will continue to serve as Assad’s protector (despite his many crimes), all the while providing Iran with international backing. But above all it will send arms to Iran, to the Syrian regime, and if needed, to Hezbollah.

The Russians, unlike the Iranians, don’t consider Israel to be an enemy state. But as a famous Russian official once said: “When you chop wood, chips fly.” Israel has become the latest chip — the collateral damage. Soleimani’s visit is just the tip of iceberg. It shed light on the not-so-secret deals that are being negotiated in the wake of the “Vienna nuclear agreement.” Europe, as usual, is focused on profit and its corporate executives are already traveling in droves to Tehran to ink deals. There are also political deals Iran wants to secure, which are as important for Tehran. Their price, however, will be measured in blood rather than in euros or dollars.

No one in the Middle East, it seems, is keen on parsing each and every provision in the nuclear deal. Nor is there an attempt to see whether, in the grand scheme of things, it is will have been a worthwhile endeavor some 10 or 15 years from now, when its key elements expire. In this region, what counts is the way this agreement is perceived here and now — and what really matters to people is the way it is portrayed in the media. Under that criteria, Iran is the victor and America is the vanquished, because it caved to Iran. The deal, according to how the media has portrayed it, is a crushing political blow to Israel and the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia.

This knockout victory will likely produce a new Iranian-American partnership. At the very least, the two nations will mend fences. This will alienate many of Washington’s clients, who will have to look elsewhere for a more reliable ally. Egypt and the Saudis have already realized this and turned to Russia for aid and arms, figuring it would be more trustworthy than the “staff of this broken reed” (Isaiah 36:6).

Saudi Arabia is reportedly sending feelers to see if there is a deal to be had with Russia and Iran. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Saudi Arabia would withhold aid to the Syrian rebels if Iran ends its rogue presence in the state. Such a deal would secure Assad a victory over the insurgents, or a least ensure his regime survives.

The ongoing developments have caused panic, but not over the rising clout of Iran and Russia. The White House, it seems, is fretting over the possibility that Congress may vote against the Iran deal and further tarnish Obama’s image.

Categories: Arab nations, Assad, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Hezbollah, Imperialism, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, Middle East, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Putin, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Soleimani, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria

August 9, 2015

Russia and US woo Saudis to help save Assad – albeit putting Israel and Jordan in danger from S. Syria, DEBKAfile, August 9, 2015

Lavrov_Kerry_and_al-Jubeir-_Doha_3.8.15Lavrov, Kerry, Al-Jubeir at Doha

[N]either Israel nor Jordan has been co-opted to this big power initiative, as though they are not concerned. However, both have a big stake in Saudi Arabia’s next decisions. If Riyadh is won over by US-Russian blandishments and goes back on its decision to boycott Assad, the Saudi-Israeli-Jordanian effort to support Syrian rebel control of southern Syria will fall apart. This will open up both countries to new perils on their  northern borders.

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

Building on the nuclear accord signed in Vienna last month, the Obama administration has been in close communion with Moscow and Tehran on regional moves to save the Assad regime, as the key to their next regional policies, including a united front against the Islamic State.. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners are being assiduously wooed to join the new alignment being set up for this purpose. The live wire in getting them all together is Omani Foreign Minister Khalid bin Mohamed Al-Attiyah, the secret broker who brought Iran and the United States to the negotiating table for a nuclear accord. This was first reported in the last DEBKA Weekly.

Wednesday, Aug. 7, Obama threw out his first hint on this development: “The window has opened a crack for us to get a political resolution in Syria, partly because both Russia and Iran, I think, recognize that the trend lines are not good for Assad,” he said. “Neither of those patrons are particularly sentimental; they don’t seem concerned about the humanitarian disaster that’s been wrought by Assad and this conflict over the last several years, but they are concerned about the potential collapse of the Syrian state. And that means, I think, the prospect of more serious discussions than we’ve had in the past.”

The US president then affirmed more strongly in a CNN interview Sunday, Aug. 9:  “Is there the possibility that having begun conversations around this narrow issue [the nuclear accord with Iran] that you start getting some broader discussions about Syria, for example, and the ability of all the parties involved to try to arrive at a political transition that keeps the country intact and does not further fuel the growth of ISIL and other terrorist organizations? I think that’s possible,” Obama said. “But I don’t think it happens immediately.”

The administration and its prospective partners are united by the will to destroy ISIS – in its Syrian stronghold, for starters – but are divided on much else, DEBKA file reports. And so the process is moving forward in careful steps.

Their initial focus is on Syria, the bloody battleground which in less than five years has left at least 300,000 dead and more than 10 million people homeless.

The plan the group started out with in the last ten days was a swap as simple as it was ruthless: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would slow their assistance to Syrian rebel groups, against whom President Bashar Assad’s army and allies would hold their fire; Iran, for its part, was to start withdrawing its support from the Yemeni Houthis insurgents.

The informal truce in Syria would be the stage for the Assad regime and rebel groups to start discussing a new government with room for opposition parties. The Islamists of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front would not be invited.

In Yemen, Tehran would cut back on the arms and intelligence which have enabled the Houthi insurgents to stand up to the combined forces of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt. The pro-Western Yemeni President Abd Rabo Mansour Hadi would be restored to his palace in Sanaa and invite the insurgent leader, Abdu Malik Al-Houthi, to discuss his partnership in a new government.

This deal was tantamount to a joint US-Russian guarantee of Bashar Assad survival in power in return for a Tehran-Riyadh compact for Hadi’s reinstatement in Sanaa.

These arrangements were debated back and forth in exchanges, some semi-secret, among the leading actors for most of July. The visit to Riyadh of the Syrian intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Ali Mamlouk was set up by Moscow as a major push forward.

The plan was for the entire enterprise to be brought out in the open and sealed in Doha, Qatar, Tuesday, Aug. 3 at a conference attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir and other top Gulf diplomats.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was not there. But he put a strong oar into the proceedings by calling in at Muscat, Oman the day before the conference and subsequently on Friday Aug. 7. Assad also kept his hand in by sending his foreign minister Walid Moallem to Tehran and Muscat last week.

But then, at Doha, just as the package was ready to unveil, the Saudi foreign minister pulled away and blew it up with two provisions: a) Riyadh would not countenance Bashar Assad being allowed to stay in office, and: b) Saudi Arabia would not do business with any representative of the Assad regime.

This put a large spoke in the main wheel of the initiative and also scuttled some of the secondary plans depending on it.

But by then, a lot was happening in the Yemeni and Syrian war arenas:

1. Saudi and UAE armored forces had landed in Aden and were closing in on the Yemeni capital, Sanaa. The Houthi rebels, trained and armed by Iran, were forced to retreat without negotiations on their future role in government.

2. Syrian rebel leaders, sensing the approaching betrayal, sent a secret delegation to Tehran to discuss terms for opening negotiations with Assad. They too were left at sea about the deals in play among Washington, Moscow, Tehran and Riyadh over their future.

Saturday, Aug.8, the Russians, egged on by the Americans, set about winning Riyadh into the fold, Foreign Minister Al-Jubeir was invited to pay a visit to Moscow Tuesday, Aug. 11, for talks about the Syrian conflict and the war on the Islamic State.

Refusing to accept that the new initiative had been grounded in Doha, Moscow presented the visit as continuing the ongoing dialogue on the issues raised at that encounter.

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources note that neither Israel nor Jordan has been co-opted to this big power initiative, as though they are not concerned. However, both have a big stake in Saudi Arabia’s next decisions. If Riyadh is won over by US-Russian blandishments and goes back on its decision to boycott Assad, the Saudi-Israeli-Jordanian effort to support Syrian rebel control of southern Syria will fall apart. This will open up both countries to new perils on their  northern borders.

Categories: Arab nations, Assad, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Houthi, Insurgents, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, Kerry, Obama, P5+1, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria war, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Mr. President, Iran is the enemy, not Israel

August 9, 2015

Israel Hayom | Mr. President, Iran is the enemy, not Israel.

For U.S. President Barack Obama, the nuclear deal with Iran has become a personal issue, and that’s a shame • What can he say now that his fellow Democrats are opposing the deal, are they also like the “hard-liners” in Iran?

Boaz Bismuth

It is still difficult to predict how big of a majority in Congress, if it all, will reject the nuclear deal with Iran on September 17. This weekend, however, U.S. President Barack Obama suffered a setback when senior Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer decided to oppose the deal and jeopardize the Obama legacy.

And Schumer is not alone. In the House of Representatives, Congressmen Eliot Engel (New York), Steve Israel (New York) and Brad Sherman (California) have declared their opposition to the deal. Sherman, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, was the sixth Jewish Democrat to voice his opposition. He compared the deal to the movie “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” saying: “I might be willing to accept the good with the bad during the first year of the agreement. But we must force modifications of the agreement, and extensions of its nuclear restrictions, before it gets ugly.”

What, then, will Obama say now? Will he reiterate the petty and extremely political comparison he made last week in a speech at American University, when he said, “It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.” Is it possible that the Democratic party also consists of these “hard-liners”?

Perhaps the president will continue playing the game, no less dangerous than the deal itself, in which he draws a connection between the “supporters of the Iraq war” to those opposing the deal, simultaneously sending a conspicuous hint to the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC? Is the president unaware that at stake is the most important international agreement of the modern era? Does he not understand that this isn’t about a country’s economic fate (Greece), but a country’s existence (Israel)? And does the president not understand that since its establishment in 1951, this is perhaps AIPAC’s moment of truth?

Beware the revenge campaign

It’s a shame Obama is making the Iranian nuclear issue personal. Whoever is not with him is against him. Iran is the enemy, Mr. President. Not you. Iran is the enemy — not Israel. America is still the “Great Satan,” Israel is still the “Little Satan” and the ayatollahs still aren’t holy. Even the prominent Democratic supporter, Haim Saban, has understood the danger and has joined the opposition.

It is exceedingly rare for Congress to reject an administration decision related to foreign policy. Too recall an instance of the Senate rejecting an agreement, we must go back to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the 14 Points plan proposed by one of the greatest American presidents, Woodrow Wilson (also a Democrat, also a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize that same year). That was nearly 100 years ago.

Obama needs to understand that this is not personal. All he has to do is peruse the comments made by supporters of the deal in order to understand why people in Israel, and in America, are very worried. Let’s take, for example, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, who supports the deal. She admits the deal is “not perfect” and believes Iran will continue to lie and continue to get stronger. Could it be that the deal’s detractors aren’t actually “ignorant,” as the president, according to commentators, tried painting them as in his speech at American University? Perhaps they are simply seeing clearly? And if someone is failing to understand why the polls suddenly flipped on Saturday — it’s because people have only just begun discovering the details of the deal. The Americans, for example, were stunned to learn during Secretary of State John Kerry’s congressional hearing that he was not versed in the details of the secret deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The important thing, however, is that here in Israel there are also those who support the deal. Maybe they know things that Kerry does not?

Obama already has the support of 16 Democratic senators. He needs 34 to back his presidential veto, which is certainly an attainable goal. We must pay attention to three scenarios:

  • The first, and most likely, is that both houses of Congress reject the deal by less than a two-thirds majority. The president vetoes the decision, and manages to enlist a one-third minority of supporters. The deal passes, but with a large warning sign from Congress, which rejected it. The president compensates Israel with a handsome aid package and takes its views into account.
  • The second and less likely possibility is that after 60 days, on September 17, Congress accepts the deal. This would be a magnificent achievement for the president, and a resounding failure for Israel. We can assume that in this scenario as well Israel would receive a compensation package, perhaps sweetening the bitter pill it has swallowed.
  • The third scenario is that Congress rejects the deal. The president tries issuing a veto, but fails to enlist the required one-third minority of 34 senators. This would lead us to two possibilities. The first being that Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton comprehend Israel’s influence in Washington. Israel would be more involved in the Iranian issue. Iran would be free of the deal, but not from sanctions. But there is also the possibility that Obama, a lame and battered duck, would engage in an aggressive and bitter vengeance campaign (in the U.N. Security Council among other places). Could this prove to be more damaging than the nuclear deal itself? This campaign, however, would come with an expiration date, as election season has already begun in the United States. And according to television ratings for the Republican debate on Friday, America is already showing interest in the next president — man or woman.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 2 Comments