Archive for the ‘Iran’ category

Iran-Saudi crisis spurs Hizballah strike on Israel

January 4, 2016

Iran-Saudi crisis spurs Hizballah strike on Israel, DEBKAfile, January 3, 2016

Iranian_protesters_set_fire_to_pictures_of_the_Saudi_royal_family_3.1.16

The heated verbal battle between Tehran and Riyadh over Saudi Arabia’s execution of a Shiite cleric escalated Sunday night, Jan 3, with the severance of diplomatic relations. On the broader front, the repercussions from the quarrel between the two leaders of the Muslim world’s Shia-Sunni split are widely seen in Middle East military and intelligence circles as spurring a fast-track Hizballah attack on Israel.

Among the 47 people executed by Saudi Arabia Saturday on terrorism charges was Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, Saudi Shiite leader and a prominent Shiite cleric in the region. Put to death with him were several Saudi Shiite and Sunni activists, which enraged Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the point of threatening the Saudi royal family with “divine revenge.”

From Iran’s perspective, the Saudis committed the unpardonable act of executing Shiites together with Sunni Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists. This made the House of Saud the first ruling power ever to treat Shiite and Sunni terrorists alike. This, more than anything, incensed Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hizballah, who are deep in a bloody war against the Sunni Islamic State and the Nusra Front terrorists in Syria. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are additionally locked in a bitter conflict with ISIS in Iraq.

The Iranian war effort is backed by the US in Iraq and by Russia in Syria.

By the mass executions of both classes of terrorist at the same time, Riyadh issued four messages:

1. Washington and Moscow are wrong. The Iranians and the forces they back in the Persian Gulf, Syria and Iraq are just as much terrorists as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

2. The House of Saud is determined to fight both with equal resolve and severity

3. Riyadh has already taken Tehran on in Yemen, and indirectly in Syria, and is now ready to take the fight against Tehran all the way to the war on terror.

4. Taking off the diplomatic gloves, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir Monday night severed relations with Iran and ordered all Iranian diplomats to leave the kingdom within 48 hours. The foreign ministry said that by condemning the Nimr execution, Iran was supporting terrorism.

Saudi diplomats were already gone after protesters in Tehran torched and ransacked the Saudi embassy Saturday.

Amid all the sound and fury, Tehran’s attention was drawn to comments made by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the light of a major terrorist attack in Tel Aviv. He pointed out that, in addition to the Palestinians, Israel is threatened by two streams of radical Islam, the Shiites and the Sunnis.

He was clearly referring to Iran and its terrorist arm, Hizballah, on the one hand, and ISIS and Al Qaeda, on the other, inspired less by the Tel Aviv outrage than by the gathering clouds of terror darkening the region, which place the Saudi royal family and Israel on the same side, sharing a similar perception of the two foes facing both countries.

Policymakers in Jerusalem noted the odd statement by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to reporters on Saturday, January 1 on the way home from a visit to Riyadh. After years of reviling the Jewish state, he said, “Israel is in need of a country like Turkey in the region. We have to admit that we also need Israel.”

He sounded as though he was urging the resumption of the old political and military alliance binding the two countries years ago.

DEBKAfile’s Middle Eastern sources point out that, since his comment came directly after his talks with Saudi King Salman in Riyadh, it appeared to open a path toward the possible creation of a new Middle East bloc consisting of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Egypt, and Israel, bound by the same enemies. This grouping could serve as a counterweight against the Sunni-Shiite bloc of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizballah, which has the backing of the US and Russia on one hand, and fights ISIS on the other.

Iran’s leaders may curse the House of Saud without restraint, but they are canny enough not to go from words to deeds, knowing they would be on their own if they attacked the oil kingdom and earn no backing from either Washington or Moscow.

However, it might be easier for Tehran to take advantage of Netanyahu’s tough predicament in his war on terror, by sending Hizballah to strike Israel and, meanwhile, pre-empt the formation of a new anti-Tehran alliance. Speeding up Hassan Nasrallah’s promised revenge for the assassination of its master terrorist Samir Quntar would serve this purpose.

This possibility has prompted the IDF to keep artillery units pounding areas bordering on Israel during the past few days. The IDF says this action is necessary to stop Hizballah exploiting the stormy, snowy winter weather to attack Israel. Its military chiefs appear to be acting on information received of an approaching Hizballah operation as its leader has threatened.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Challenge of Radical Islam

January 3, 2016

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Challenge of Radical Islam, You Tube, January 3, 2015

(It’s an hour and six minutes long but well worth watching. — DM)

 

Tehran biennial to grant $50,000 cash prize to best cartoon on Holocaust

December 17, 2015

Tehran biennial to grant $50,000 cash prize to best cartoon on Holocaust, Tehran Times, December 17, 2015

[A] contest focusing on the portrait of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been arranged on the sidelines of the competition.

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

TEHRAN – Organizers of the 11th Tehran International Cartoon Biennial has allocated a cash prize of $50,000 for the best cartoon on the Holocaust, the organizers announced on Wednesday.

Three other cartoonists will also receive cash prizes of 12,000, 8,000 and 5,000 dollars respectively, the secretary of the biennial, Masud Shojai-Tabatabai, told the Persian service of MNA.

He added that the competition will be held in June 2016 in Mashhad with cartoonists participating from 50 countries.

“We do not mean to approve or deny the Holocaust, however, the main question is that why is there no permission to talk about the Holocaust despite their (the West) belief in freedom of speech.

“Moreover, why should the oppressed people of Palestine pay the price for the Holocaust? We are also worried about the contemporary holocausts in which a great number of women and children are being killed in Iraq, Yemen and Syria,” he added.

Shojai-Tabatabai also said that a contest focusing on the portrait of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been arranged on the sidelines of the competition.

The Palestine Museum of Contemporary Art will be hosting an exhibition of the works at the time of the competition.

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor

December 8, 2015

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor, Tehran Times, Javad Heirannia, December 8, 2015

(Did Nader Entessar  ghost write parts of Obama’s December 6th address to the nation? — DM)

TEHRAN – Regarding Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s second letter to the Western youth in which he called terrorism “our common enemy”, Professor Nader Entessar says it is necessary to counter “Islamophobia no matter where it emanates”.

In part of his letter issued on November 29, the Leader of Islamic Revolution said: Anyone who has benefited from affection and humanity is affected and disturbed by witnessing these [terrorist] scenes- whether it occurs in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria.

Entessar, professor and chair of political science at South Alabama University, tells the Tehran Times that “interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei in his second letter to the Western youth has talked about terrorism and its roots. What is the importance of this issue?

A: Terrorism has been a major global scourge for some time now. Although the term “terrorism” is used extensively by journalists, pundits and politicians, there is no universal agreement on what terrorism is. There is certainly a need for a dispassionate treatment of this phenomenon and its root causes if one is serious about confronting the threat of terrorism in today’s world.

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei has emphasized in his message that Islam is the religion of friendship, however why do some try to equate Islam with violence?

A: In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda. In many ways, the term “Islam” has replaced communism as a rallying cry against which many politicians in the West can coalesce and advance their electoral agendas. For example, the Republican Party in the United States has incorporated Islamophobia as an essential part of its 2016 presidential campaign. In addition, the same trend can be witnessed at state and local elections as well where running against “Islam” has become a badge of honor for many U.S. politicians.

Q: Why do some try to associate Islam with terrorism whenever a terrorist act happens?

A: The emergence of such violent groups as al-Qaeda and Daesh in recent years and their terrorist campaigns under the guise of “Islam” has given a field day to the Islamophobes to advance their message. Unfortunately, the thrust of Islamophobia is not limited to extremist groups in the West. Several liberal groups and personalities have also jumped on the anti-Islam bandwagon in many Western countries. Again, as I previously indicated, it pays political dividends to adopt an anti-Islam posture in the West. Being an anti-Muslim bigot is relatively cost-free but may bring political advantages to a politician or would-be politician in several Western countries.

Q: What is the importance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter at this juncture of time?

A: It is very important to confront Islamophobia no matter where it emanates. Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years. Therefore, leaders of religious faith groups have a special responsibility to try to reach to other faith communities and highlight what unites the human race in order to promote the common good.

*********

[highlight]

“In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda,” Entessar says in an interview with the Tehran Times.

No, the Islamic State Will Not Be Defeated — and if It Is, We Still Lose

November 25, 2015

No, the Islamic State Will Not Be Defeated — and if It Is, We Still Lose, BreitbartBen Shapiro, November 24, 2015

GettyImages-497044984-640x480

Barack Obama has now created an unwinnable war.

While all of the 2016 candidates declare their strategies for victory against ISIS, President Obama’s leading from behind has now entered the Middle East and the West into a free-for-all that cannot end any way but poorly.

The best way to understand the situation in Syria is to look at the situation and motivation of the various players. All of them have varying agendas; all of them have different preferred outcomes. Few of them are on anything approaching the same page. And Barack Obama’s failure of leadership means that there is no global power around which to center.

ISIS. ISIS has gained tremendous strength since Barack Obama’s entry to power and pullout from Iraq. They currently control northern Syria, bordering Turkey, as well as large portions of northern Iraq. Their goal: to consolidate their territorial stranglehold, and to demonstrate to their followers that they, and not other competing terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, represent the new Islamic wave. They have little interest in toppling Syrian dictator Bashar Assad for the moment. They do serve as a regional counterweight to the increasingly powerful Iranians – increasingly powerful because of President Obama’s big nuclear deal, as well as his complete abdication of responsibility in Iraq.

Iran. Iran wants to maximize its regional power. The rise of ISIS has allowed it to masquerade as a benevolent force in Iraq and Syria, even as it supports Assad’s now-routine use of chemical weapons against his adversaries, including the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Iran has already expanded its horizons beyond Iraq and Syria and Lebanon; now it wants to make moves into heretofore non-friendly regions like Afghanistan. Their goal in Syria: keep Bashar Assad in power. Their goal in Iraq: pushing ISIS out of any resource-rich territories, but not finishing ISIS off, because that would then get rid of the global villain against which they fight.

Assad. The growth of ISIS has allowed Assad to play the wronged victim. While the FSA could provide a possible replacement for him, ISIS can’t credibly do so on the international stage. Assad knows that, and thus has little interest in completely ousting them. His main interest is in continuing to devastate the remaining FSA while pretending to fight ISIS.

Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Jordan. As you can see, ISIS, Iran, and Assad all have one shared interest: the continued existence of ISIS. The same is not true with regard to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, all of whom fear the rise of radical Sunni terrorist groups in their home countries. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, however, because openly destroying ISIS on behalf of Alaouite Assad, they embolden the Shia, their enemies. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan would all join an anti-ISIS coalition in the same way they did against Saddam Hussein in 1991, but just like Hussein in 1991, they won’t do it if there are no Sunni alternatives available. Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are the top three sources of foreign fighters for ISIS.

Turkey. The Turks have several goals: to stop the Syrian exodus across their borders, to prevent the rise of the Iranians, and to stop the rise of the Kurds. None of these goals involves the destruction of ISIS. Turkey is Sunni; so is ISIS. ISIS provides a regional counterweight against Iran, so long as it remains viable. It also keeps the Kurds occupied in northern Iraq, preventing any threat of Kurdish consolidation across the Iraq-Turkey border. They will accept Syrian refugees so long as those other two goals remain primary – and they’ll certainly do it if they can ship a hefty portion of those refugees into Europe and off their hands.

Russia. Russia wants to consolidate its power in the Middle East. It has done so by wooing all the players to fight against one another. Russia’s involvement in the Middle East now looks a good deal like American involvement circa the Iran-Iraq War: they’re playing both sides. Russia is building nuclear reactors in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. They’re Bashar Assad’s air force against both the FSA and ISIS. Russia’s Vladimir Putin doesn’t have a problem with destroying ISIS so long as doing so achieves his other goal: putting everyone else in his debt. He has a secondary goal he thought he could chiefly pursue in Eastern Europe, and attempted with Ukraine: he wants to split apart the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which he rightly sees as a counterbalance to check Russian aggression. Thanks to today’s Turkish attack on a Russian plane, and thanks to the West’s hands-off policy with regard to the conflict, Putin could theoretically use his war against ISIS as cover to bombard Turkish military targets, daring the West to get involved against him. Were he to do so, he’d set the precedent that NATO is no longer functional. Two birds, one war.

Israel. Israel’s position is the same it has always been: Israel is surrounded by radical Islamic enemies on every side. Whether Iranian-backed Hezbollah or Sunni Hamas and ISIS, Israel is the focus of hate for all of these groups. Ironically, the rise of Iran has unified Israel with its neighbors in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. All three of those countries, however, can’t stand firmly against ISIS.

All of which means that the only country capable of filling the vacuum would be the United States. Just as in 1991, a major Sunni power is on the move against American interests – but unlike in 1991, no viable option existed for leaving the current regime in power. And the US’ insistence upon the help of ground allies is far too vague. Who should those allies be, occupying ISIS-free ISISland?

The Kurds have no interest in a Syrian incursion. Turkish troops movements into ISIS-land will prompt Iranian intervention. Iranian intervention into ISIS-land would prompt higher levels of support for Sunni resistance. ISIS-land without ISIS is like Iraq without Saddam Hussein: in the absence of solidifying force, chaos breaks out. From that chaos, the most organized force takes power. Russia hopes that should it destroy ISIS, Assad will simply retain power; that may be the simplest solution, although it certainly will not end the war within the country. There are no good answers.

Barack Obama’s dithering for years led to this. Had he lent his support in any strong way to one side, a solution might be possible. Now, it’s not.

Islam — Radical, Extremist and Mainstream

November 21, 2015

Islam — Radical, Extremist and Mainstream, Dan Miller’s Blog, November 21, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM

In largely secular western societies, Islam and its history are viewed by many non-Muslims as substantially irrelevant to how devout Muslims behave. Perhaps the view that religion is of little importance to devout Muslims is based on the role, minor if any, that religion and religious history play in their own secular lives. However, both Islamic teachings and history give devout Muslims their grounding in Islam and teach them that Islam is the religion of war, not peace: Islam must become the world’s only religion by extirpating all others.

Islam was founded by Mohamed ( c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) in the sixth century. Mohamed

is considered, almost universally,[n 2] by Muslims to have been the last prophet sent by God to mankind[3][n 3] to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[4][5][6][7] [Emphasis added.]

Islam considers the words of Mohamed, as transcribed in the “Holy” Quran and Hadith, to be the words of Allah. “Restoring” other monotheistic religions means changing them to comport with Islam as dictated to Mohamed by Allah; unaltered, those other religions cannot continue to exist; it is the duty of Muslims to force them to change or to exterminate them.

Islam provides the basis for Sunni and Shiite (principal branches of Islam) efforts to govern world civilization according to Islamic principles as voiced by Allah through his prophet, Mohamed. Since Islamic principles tolerate no religious or political freedoms (let alone contemporary gender equality or homosexuality notions), such western ideas must be extirpated — as they have been in Saudi Arabia (now the head of the UN Human Rights Council) and Iran. Islamic principles are also manifested by the hopes and efforts of the Islamic State (Sunni, like Saudi Arabia) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shiite) to achieve their own caliphates.

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr is a scholar of Islamic law and a graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University — regularly touted as the world’s most prestigious Islamic university. Al Azhar University co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginnings” address in Cairo, to which Obama insisted that at least ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited. According to an article at Jihad Watch,

After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, Sheikh Nasr said:

It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic].  The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?  Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it].  Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate.  Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc.  Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities].  Al Azhar teaches stoning people.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? [Emphasis added.]

Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar.  Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches… and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir’s Beginning and End.”

Since the world’s preeminent Islamic university teaches Islam as proclaimed by the Islamic State, how can non-Muslims claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic? Why do many, even conservatives, refer to the Islamic State and its allied Islamic terror groups as “radical” or “extremist?”

Martin Luther was “radical” and “extreme” because he tried to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism which he deemed malign.

He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

Unlike Martin Luther’s eventually successful efforts to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism, the efforts of Egyptian President Sisi and other moderate Muslims to reform Islam have thus far gained little traction. Obama appears to support President Sisi’s principal opponent in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sisi and other moderates — rather than the Islamic State and Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — should be characterized as “radical” or “extreme” because they dispute the teachings of Allah as relayed through his prophet, Mohamed. The proponents of Islam as it now exists are “mainstream,” and therefore neither “radical” nor “extreme.” We should support “radicals” like President Sisi.

As noted in an article titled Beware of Islamic Terrorism,

All Islamic terrorists — not only the Islamic State group and al-Qaida — systematically and deliberately target civilians, stabbing their Muslim and “infidel” host countries in the back, abusing their hospitality to advance 14 centuries of megalomaniac aspirations to rule the globe in general, and to reclaim the “waqf” (Allah-ordained) regions of Europe in particular.

Emboldened by Western indifference, these destabilizing and terror-intensifying aspirations have been bolstered by the Islamic educational systems in Europe, the U.S. and other Western countries. These proclaim a supposedly irrevocable Islamic title over the eighth-century Islamic conquests of Lyon, Nice and much of France, as well as all of Spain; the ninth-century subjugation of parts of Italy; and the ninth- and 10th-century occupations of western Switzerland, including Geneva. [Emphasis added.]

Europe has underestimated the critical significance of this long anti-Western history in shaping contemporary Islamic education, culture, politics, peace, war, and the overall Islamic attitude toward Europe, North America, Australia, and other “arrogant infidels.” “Infidel” France has been the prime European target for Islamic terrorists, with 11 reported attacks in 2015, despite France’s systematic criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority — dispelling conventional “wisdom” that Islamic terrorism is Israeli or Palestinian-driven.

Europe has ignored the significant impact the crucial milestones in the life of the Prophet Muhammad have had on contemporary Islamic geostrategy, such as his seventh-century Hijrah, when Muhammad, along with his loyalists, emigrated or fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina), not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world. [Emphasis added.]

According to a moderate Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, writing in an article at the Daily Beast titled ISIS Is Just One of a Full-Blown Global Jihadist Insurgency,

Our political leaders have been restricting the definition of this problem to whichever jihadist group is causing them the biggest headache at the present time, while ignoring the fact that they are all borne of the same Islamist ideology. Before ISIS emerged, the U.S. State Department strangely took to naming the problem “al Qaeda-inspired extremism,” even though it was not al Qaeda that inspired the radicalism. Rather, Islamist extremism inspired al Qaeda. And in turn, ISIS did not radicalize those 6,000 European Muslims who have traveled to join them, nor the thousands of supporters the French now say they are monitoring. [Emphasis added.]

This did not happened overnight and could not have emerged from a vacuum. ISIS propaganda is good, but not that good. No, decades of Islamist propaganda in communities had already primed these young Muslims to yearn for a theocratic caliphate. When surveyed, 33 percent of British Muslims expressed a desire to resurrect a caliphate. ISIS simply plucked the low-hanging fruit, which had been seeded long ago by various Islamist groups, and it will now require decades of community resilience to push back. But we cannot even begin to do so until we recognize the problem for what it is. Welcome to the full-blown global jihadist insurgency. [Emphasis added.]

The author of that article claims that Islamism (often referred to as “political Islam“) is not Islam:

I speak as a former Liberal Democrat candidate in the U.K.’s last general election and as someone who became a political prisoner in Egypt due to my former belief in Islamism. I speak, therefore, from a place of concern and familiarity, not enmity and hostility to Islam and Muslims. In a televised discussion with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on the issue, I have argued that of course ISIS is not Islam. Nor am I. Nor is anyone, really. Because Islam is what Muslims make it. But it is as disingenuous to argue that ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” as it is to argue that “they are Islam.” ISIS has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something. . . . [Emphasis added.]

It is important to define here what I mean by Islamism: Islam is a religion, and like any other it is internally diverse. But Islamism is the desire to impose a very particular version of Islam on society. Hence, Islamism is Muslim theocracy. [Emphasis added.]

In another article, Mr. Nawaz acknowledges,

Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves.

I wish Mr. Nawaz well and hope that his efforts to change Islam succeed. However, in drawing distinctions between Islam and Islamism, he seems to have forgotten, or perhaps to have chosen to ignore, the teachings of Allah as relayed by his messenger and Islam’s founder, Mohamed, referenced at the beginning of this article. Mohamed (and presumably Allah himself) would be surprised by and even horrified at such notions as “Islam is what Muslims make itand that Islam does not contemplate a Muslim theocracy. So, in all probability, would be many of the clerics at Egypt’s Al Azhar University.

Here are a few videos of Islamic clerics spreading their messages of Islamic peace, love and tolerance. The last of the bunch is about one of Obama’s favorite Muslims.

To close on a somewhat lighter note, here are a few observations by Jonah Goldberg taken from his Goldberg file (November 20, 2015 e-mail),

If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news” letter — you’ll find lots of left-wingtrollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).

What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today. [Emphasis added.]

Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)

. . . .

But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Simply put, this is nonsense. . . .  The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate. [Emphasis added.]

Despite all of this, don’t be distracted from the greatest threat to our security; or perhaps we should be:

theo3

Satire | US Not Sure Who It’s Fighting In Middle East, Bombs Israel ‘Just To Be Sure’

November 19, 2015

US Not Sure Who It’s Fighting In Middle East, Bombs Israel ‘Just To Be Sure’ Duffel Blog, November 19, 2015

US bombs IsraelUS officials are confident they understand the situation on the ground in Syria. (Duffel Blog photo.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Pentagon spokesperson Col. Steve Warren announced US aircraft participating in Operation Inherent Resolve, the code name for the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), struck targets in Tel Aviv today.

When asked why US warplanes would attack a long-standing ally, Warren explained, “Look, guys, this all makes perfect sense,” pointing to a nebulous PowerPoint slide.

“This was all supposed to be a campaign to topple Bashar al-Asad in Syria, starting with the Arab Spring in 2011. Which, in turn, allowed us to get back at Iran and Russia, both of whom support Syria,” said Warren. “So the CIA considered arming the rebels in Syria, which kind of backfired, and now we have ISIS, a group we thought we had already defeated back when they were al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter further explained, “Sure, we were a little worried when ISIS started running around the Middle East, chopping everyone’s heads off. But fortunately, Iran came to our rescue. Well, in Iraq, that is. We’re still fighting Iran in Yemen.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joe Dunford stressed the contributions of America’s coalition partners.

Dunford explained how the US tried to empower allies among the Gulf States to take on ISIS, “which in turn sort of helps us get back at Iran.”

“Unfortunately, most of those states also covertly support ISIS, even though they’re nominally our long-standing allies. Whoops,” said Dunford.

“That’s not to say we don’t have some powerful allies in the region, though,” Dunford explained. “The Kurds have proven to be our greatest allies there, and the Turks are one of our longest-standing NATO allies. Unfortunately, they spend more time fighting each other than ISIS. That old saying, ‘nothing brings people together like a common enemy’ is completely useless here.”

Dunford concluded, “So, you see, ISIS is supported by Arabs, who are opposed by Iranians, who are both opposed and allied with the US, who is sort of allied with Turkey and the Kurds, who are opposed to each other. Since the enemy of my friend is now my enemy, it made sense for the US to bomb Israel, Iran’s bitter adversary.”

Events grew even more complicated in the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. The attacks were reportedly the work of ISIS, who also claimed credit for the bombing of a Russian airliner earlier this month.

“France and Russia have formed an alliance, though in doing so, they automatically caused Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire to declare war in return,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook. “And, let’s face it, this whole thing really is the fault of the Ottomans when you think about it.”

The briefing then shifted to issues surrounding Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“There, the situation is much more simple,” Cook continued.  “The US is fighting the Taliban by providing billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan, which is supporting the Taliban. Basically, it’s like that scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker thinks he’s fighting Darth Vader, only to find his own face in Darth Vader’s helmet. That’s pretty much what we’ve gotten ourselves into.”

 

The French connection

November 17, 2015

The French connection, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, November 17, 2015

When Islamist leaders condemned Friday night’s Paris attacks, which left more than 132 people dead and hundreds of others critically wounded, you just had to laugh through your tears.

Terror masters in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Palestinian Authority actually had the gall to talk as if they themselves are not responsible for the ongoing murder of innocent people.

But hypocrisy, mendacity and lying as a matter of course are not the only reasons for their public expressions of solidarity with France during this frightful hour. In fact, what really bothers them is the fear that a rival group may be beating them at their own game. And hell hath no fury like a scorned, power-hungry radical Muslim with hegemonic aims and weapons with which to achieve them.

Such monsters, some in suits and ties to throw you off, are able to get away with playing the West for fools — particularly when the so-called leader of the free world keeps kowtowing to them, while espousing denial as a policy. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the bloodbath in Paris, U.S. President Barack Obama made a statement that put a smug smile on the faces of jihadists everywhere.

In the first place, he called the carnage “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This is an amazing assertion, since I don’t even share Obama’s values, let alone those of a great portion of “humanity” inside and out of Washington, D.C. You know, like the multimillions of anti-Semites, Christian-killers, women-subjugators and child-abusers who are trying to win the war over the world’s character and soul.

Secondly, the president said he didn’t “want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this.”

Right, responded radical Muslims in the privacy of their bunkers and bomb factories, for all Obama knew, the shootings and explosions in a theater, restaurants and at a soccer stadium could have been carried out by disgruntled Buddhists.

By the time he arrived in Antalya to attend the G-20 economic summit less than 48 hours later, even the U.S. president could no longer plead ignorance. So he had to address the issue of Islamic State tentacles spreading every which way, in spite of his having announced a few days earlier that its threat had been “contained.”

Even members of the left-leaning media were challenging his claim that the way he’s been fighting the al-Qaida spin-off is still the right one. And this, while sidling up to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose recent landslide re-election was a dark day for people with those ostensibly “universal” values Obama had mentioned.

The good news here is also the bad.

Effectively combating Islamic State is actually irrelevant in the wider context, as counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka has been trying to explain for years.

That Friday night’s multiple attacks in Paris were carried out by terrorists affiliated with ISIS is “wholly irrelevant,” Gorka — national security editor at Breitbart and military affairs fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — told me this weekend. “All members of the global jihadist movement, be they Sunni or Shia, Arab, Persian or converts, are driven by the same desire: the need to kill the kuffar [infidels] for the glory of Allah. All attacks, be they 9/11, 7/7, Mumbai, Amman, Paris or the recent stabbings in Israel, are tied together by the connective tissue of jihadist ideology.”

He stressed, “It is time for us to realize — and demand of our leaders that they act accordingly — that we face an existential threat, which, over the long term, could be as dangerous as Hitler’s Third Reich. This is a war between good and evil. And only one side will prevail in the end.”

I still harbor hope that the former will emerge victorious. But this cannot happen unless certain conditions are met. These include: getting the nuclear-deal-obsessive Democrats out of the White House; making Europe understand that it should be labeling undesirable Islamists, not Israeli products; and raising children in the West to grasp that the blessed ability to live in a free society means being prepared to die defending it against its detractors and destroyers.

Egypt-Saudi Arabia Relations

November 11, 2015

Egypt-Saudi Arabia Relations: Substantial Rifts Despite Shared Basic Interests, MEMRI, Y. Graff*, November 9, 2015

Introduction

Since the ouster of Muhammad Mursi in July 2013, Saudi-Egyptian relations have been close and marked by common interests. Saudi Arabia backed the Egyptian military’s ousting of Mursi and supported its claim that the ouster expressed the will of the people, in the face of international claims that it was a military coup. Alongside political support for the new regime, Saudi Arabia also donated billions of dollars to restore Egypt’s economy. However, despite the friendly relations, Arab press has reported that, since the death of Saudi King ‘Abdallah in January 2014 and the ascension of King Salman, relations between the countries have chilled. Outwardly, the leaders of the two countries strive to demonstrate unity and friendship, yet reports in the Arab media point at a growing tension between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, mainly due to fundamental disagreements on various political issues.

It should be mentioned that, contra to Saudi expectations and despite this country’s generous financial assistance, Al-Sisi’s Egypt does not regard itself bound by Saudi policies. In fact, it has employed an independent policy in the hopes of forging bonds of friendship and alliances on several concurrent fronts – in a manner that has sometimes contravened and even thwarted Saudi foreign policy. This has led to disagreements with Saudi Arabia on several fronts:

The Saudi openness towards the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), to Egypt’s dismay: Saudi fears regarding Iran – which substantially increased after Iran’s Houthi allies took control of the Yemeni capital of Sana’a in September 2014, and later of all of southern Yemen, including Aden, and parts of the north up to the Saudi border, and after Iran signed the JCPOA with the P5+1 Group – have caused a tactical Saudi shift towards the MB after years of animosity towards it and towards its sponsors, Qatar and Turkey. This, in an attempt to form a unified Sunni front to confront the Iranian threat in the region. Saudi Arabia’s openness towards the MB, which Egypt sees as an enemy of the regime and a terrorist organization, is expressed in the Saudi view of the MB as future partners in ruling Yemen and Syria. Further expressions were a visit by Hamas Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al to Saudi Arabia in July 2015, where he met with King Salman, as well as Saudi Arabia’s siding with Qatar in February 2015 when the latter opposed Egypt’s attack in Libya.

This Saudi rapprochement with the MB, Qatar and Turkey displeases the Egyptian regime, which regards them as its bitter enemies and rejects any cooperation with them, even at the cost of thwarting the cause of forming a united Sunni front against Iran.

An Egyptian openness towards Iran, to the chagrin of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia sees Iran as a strategic threat to its security and the security of the entire Sunni world. Conversely, many elements in Egypt do not regard Iran as an existential threat and are reluctant to enter the Sunni-Shi’ite struggle. Al-Sisi’s Egypt is seeking economic investments and alliances to fill its dwindling coffers, and some there see the lifting of sanctions from Iran as an opportunity to renew business relations with it, even if this goes against Saudi Arabia and despite the fact that Egypt and Iran have had historically tense relations and do not maintain full diplomatic relations to this day.

Egypt’s openness towards the Syrian regime: Saudi Arabia demands the ouster of Assad, whether by political or by military means, and even supports the armed opposition to that end. Conversely, Egypt opposes a military solution and advocates dialogue with the Assad regime to achieve a solution that would preserve Syria’s state institutions and its unity. Moreover, Egypt refrains from addressing the issue of Assad’s personal fate.

Saudi disappointment at absence of sufficient support for its military operation in Yemen: Saudi Arabia, which is leading a large-scale military operation in Yemen against the Houthis and supporters of ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh, is disappointed at Egypt’s refusal to participate more fully in this operation. Moreover, there are reports on disagreements between the two countries regarding the attitude towards the Yemeni MB, as well as reports that Egypt is in contact with Saudi Arabia’s rivals in Yemen in the hopes of finding a political solution to the crisis there.

This report will review the points of contention between Saudi Arabia and Egypt on various topics, as was reported in Arab media.

25685Egyptian President Al-Sisi with Saudi King Salman (image: elpah.com)

Egypt Furious Over Saudi Arabia Growing Close To Qatar, Turkey, MB

Since his ascension to the Saudi throne, King Salman continued efforts by his predecessor, King ‘Abdallah, to connect the traditional Sunni axis, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt – which includes countries such as Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain – with the MB axis – which includes Turkey, Qatar, and the various MB organizations and parties in the region such as Hamas, Al-Islah in Yemen, and the Syrian MB. The Saudis support the idea that both these axes should come together to confront Iran and its regional allies. In the opinion of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Iran has become an increasing threat in the past decade after gaining crucial influence in three Arab capitals: Beirut, Baghdad, and Damascus. In the past year, Iran has also added the Yemeni capital of Sana’a to the list,[1] after the Shi’ite Houthi movement took control of it, as well as of South Yemen and Aden together with forces supporting ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh. This takeover created a strategic threat to Saudi Arabia after the Houthis took control of the Strait of Bab Al-Mandeb, prompting the kingdom to launch Operation Decisive Storm in order to restore the rule of its ally President Hadi.

Up until the Houthi takeover of Sana’a, Saudi Arabia, much like Egypt, saw the MB axis as an equal threat to the one posed by Iran. It defined the MB as a terrorist organization, and conducted a public conflict with Qatar over this issue, which triggered a recall of its ambassador in March 2014.[2] However, the deterioration of the situation in Yemen, as well as the constant motion towards a nuclear agreement between Iran and the U.S. (which was eventually achieved in July 2015), caused Saudi Arabia to shift towards Iran as the central threat to its national security and the safety of Arabs in general. As part of this view, Saudi Arabia decided to grow close to its MB axis rivals and undertake the compromises necessary to achieve this.

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia began normalizing its relations with Qatar, even backing it in February 2015 during a harsh disagreement with Egypt.[3] Saudi Arabia’s openness towards Qatar and towards its ally, the MB, was also expressed by releasing many Egyptian MB prisoners, including high ranking activists who were imprisoned in Saudi Arabia during the reign of King ‘Abdallah, as well as by ending Saudi pressure on Britain to define the MB as a terrorist organization.[4]

Arab press also began reporting on contacts between MB officials and Saudi leadership. For example, Saudi officials met with Europe-based billionaire Youssef Nada, who is a noted MB donor;[5] Jordanian MB General Guide Himam Sa’id visited Saudi Arabia in June 2015 and met with the Saudi minister of religious endowments, and a delegation of Hamas officials led by Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al held a meeting with King Salman in Mecca in July 2015, which led to a release of Hamas activists imprisoned in the kingdom.

In order to bring Egypt closer to the MB axis as well, Saudi Arabia attempted to reconcile between it and Qatar, and Egyptian and Gulf sources even claimed that it explored the possibility of promoting inter-Egyptian reconciliation between the regime and the MB.[6] In recent months, the Saudi press featured articles criticizing Egypt’s rigid policy towards the MB. Senior Saudi political analyst Khaled Al-Dakhil, writing in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat on June 21, 2015, called it “a phobia” and “McCarthyism,” hinting that the Egyptian regime, which warns of a totalitarian MB rule, does not behave much differently itself. According to him, “this McCarthyist [attitude] towards the MB cannot be sustained for long… We need an alternative [to persecuting the MB], which has thus far not materialized.”[7] Saudi columnist Daoud Al-Shiryan made explicit calls for reconciliation with the MB in his June 17 column in the same daily: “The [Egyptian] enthusiasm for [meting out] the death penalty [to MB leaders], and the view that regards this as a tool for deterring and restraining them, and for imposing the country’s authority [over them], is an erroneous policy, since Egypt’s interest today demands to close the book on this topic and open a new horizon for political reconciliation [with the MB] while looking to the future.”[8]

Reports that Saudi Arabia was growing closer to the MB were of great concern to Egypt, but it seems that Mash’al’s visit to the kingdom and his meeting with King Salman were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Following the visit, several Egyptian columnists published articles featuring harsher tones than had been acceptable in Egypt up to that point. For example, ‘Abd Al-Rahim ‘Ali, editor of the Egyptian news portal Albawabhnews.com, who is close to Egyptian security forces, claimed in an article on Saudi-Egyptian tensions that Saudi Arabia was trying to “thaw the ice” with Hamas and grow close to this organization so it would join the anti-Iranian Sunni axis that Saudi Arabia heads and mediate between the kingdom and the Yemeni Al-Islah party. According to him, Egypt responded to these attempts by conveying that it refuses to be party to any plan in which the MB is involved. He claimed further that Egypt had conveyed a message to Saudi Arabia that “its alliance with this organization poses a threat to the Arab’s national security and especially to Egypt’s national security.” [9]

Even more critical of the Saudi openness towards the MB was editor-in-chief of the official daily Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, who did not mention Saudi Arabia by name but alluded to it in a highly resentful tone. He wrote: “Forming an alliance with political Islam organizations [such as the MB] will never benefit the region and the Arab forces [such as Saudi Arabia] that aspire to forge a new alliance against Tehran… as though those organizations were not party to the regional chaos and bloodshed.” He added: “The thought that we can combat the pox of terrorism and extremist organization [referring to Shi’ite militias such as the Houthis and Hizbullah] by supporting equally radical organizations [such as Hamas and the various arms of the MB] constitutes ignorance, near-sightedness, and politically folly.”[10]

Different Attitudes Towards Iran As Strategic Threat To The Region

Egypt’s objections to Saudi Arabia growing close to the MB also touch on their differing views on Iran as a strategic threat. Egypt disagrees with the Saudi position that Iran constitutes such a threat to Arab national security as to justify allying with the MB. Egypt sees the MB as a no lesser threat to Arab national security, and some elements there even argue that Iran does not constitute a significant threat at all.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said after the signing of the JCPOA that Egypt’s relations with Iran “are unrelated to the attitude of the Gulf states towards it.” He added: “Nobody is tying our hands. We are forging ties with [Iran] based on many considerations, including the regional one, not based on formal matters like the name of a street.”[11] Also, in late September, Shoukry met with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on the periphery of the UN General Assembly, and conveyed to him that Egypt expects Iran to support regional stability and Arab national security. The two also discussed a political solution in Syria and the implications of the JCPOA.[12] Then Egyptian Oil Minister Sherif Ismail, who is now prime minister, even expressed hope that Egypt could begin importing oil from Iran, thus easing its severe energy crisis.[13]

Several Egyptian columnists strengthened this position and called Egypt to see the JCPOA as a chance to economically develop Egypt and foster ties with Iran after many years of disconnect. Al-Ahram columnist Ibrahim Sengab argued that “naming a street in Tehran for the murderer of President Sadat [Khalid Al-Islambouli] cannot be grounds for severing ties between the countries.[14] Al-Ahram columnist Muhammad Idris wrote that in light of the rise of Iranian might in the region, Egypt is faced with two options. One is to create “strategic integration with Saudi Arabia” and lead a joint Arab force that would constitute a counterbalance to Iran, and the other is to normalize relations with Iran. According to him, the schism between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Saudi attempts to compete with Egypt rather than cooperate with it, indicate that normalizing relations with Iran is the better option.[15] However, it should be mentioned that many Egyptian articles sided with the Saudi position that sees the JCPOA as dangerous.

Another Iran-related disagreement between Egypt and Saudi Arabia revolves around the Egyptian regime’s estimate that Saudi Arabia is turning its conflict with Iran into a Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict, which Egypt has no interest in. Egyptian journalist Mai ‘Azzam harshly attacked Saudi Arabia’s conduct vis-à-vis Iran on this account, claiming that “Saudi Arabia is spearheading the transforming of the regional conflict into a sectarian one. It is the one that dragged the region into civil wars… [in which] members of the same nationality fight under sectarian banners, and it seems that this is a war between Shi’ites and Sunnis rather than a war of interests between Saudi Arabia and Iran.” She explained that “the clash between the interests of Saudi Arabia and Egypt is crystal clear.”[16] The editor of Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, also addressed this point and stated in his aforementioned article that Egypt “would never lead a sectarian war against Iran.”[17]

Saudi-Egyptian Disagreements Regarding Resolution Of Syrian Crisis

Saudi and Egyptian officials have been stressing that there is no disagreement between the countries with regards to the Syrian crisis. Saudi Ambassador to Egypt Ahmad Qattan argued in an August 4 press conference that the two countries no longer disagree on the means to resolve the crisis, and that the two had always agreed on the goal: a political solution that preserves state institutions, while distancing Assad himself from a position of influence.[18] Egypt’s foreign minister also stressed, in a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart, that the two countries had never disagreed and do not disagree today on the solution to the Syria crisis.[19]However, these statements do not seem to reflect reality, which points to major differences of opinion between the countries regarding the fate of Bashar Al-Assad and the ways to deal with the crisis. Egypt’s position on these matters appears closer to that of Russia, the strategic ally of the Assad regime along with Iran, than to that of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi-Egypt disagreements on the Syrian issue can be divided into several topics:

Ways To Deal With The Syrian Crisis And The Fate Of President Assad

While Saudi Arabia sees Assad as the root cause of the problem, and sees his ouster as a condition to solving the crisis, Egypt believes that removing Assad would only exacerbate the crisis and lead to chaos, as happened with the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and of Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi in Libya. While Egypt does not openly state that it supports Assad remaining in power, it does routinely warn of the implications of his ouster. In its view, removing Assad is not a condition to solving the crisis, and Assad’s fate is in the hands of Syrians – a position similar to that of Russia, Iran, and the Syrian regime itself. This was expressed in statements made by Egyptian President Al-Sisi, who called for a political solution in Syria, “not in order to support one side over the other, but rather to preserve the Syrian state and its institutions, and to solve [the crisis] without collapsing them.”[20]Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry also said that Assad’s fate should only be determined by the Syrian people, “who have a right to decide [their leadership] by [establishing] a transitional government and later in free elections held under international oversight and as part of the implementation of the Geneva 1 agreement.”[21]

Egypt does not view the “military option” as an alternative if a political solution cannot be reached, as Saudi Arabia has threatened.[22] Moreover, official elements in Egypt stress that a military solution in Syria is impossible, and that military action to topple the regime will only exacerbate the civil war in the country.

In Egypt’s opinion, only a political solution that ensures that the Syrian army and state institutions not be harmed can guarantee the stability of Syria and of the region. This Egyptian position was expressed in a document constituting a kind of roadmap to solving the Syrian crisis, which was presented by the Egyptian foreign ministry to several Syrian opposition parties and was published on the liberal Saudi website elaph.com on December 25, 2014.[23] The Egyptian document does not touch on the fate of Bashar Al-Assad, but stresses that the Syrian army cannot be dismantled since it is “the national institution defending the state and ensuring its independence and sovereignty, and [since it] will preserve national security and not interfere in politics.”[24]

The Root Causes Of The Crisis And The Priorities In Dealing With It

The two countries both see the spread of ISIS in Syria as a threat to the existence of the state and to regional stability, but differ on how to deal with it and the priorities in doing so. Saudi Arabia believes that the root of the problem is the Assad regime itself, since it is the cause of the uprising and the emergence of ISIS and other extremist Islamic groups, and therefore ousting it will end the uprising and weaken these groups.

Egypt, on the other hand, shares Russia’s, Iran’s, and the Syrian regime’s view that the essence of the crisis is the extremist Islamic terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra, and therefore the top priority is eliminating them. Moreover, Egypt sees the Syrian army as the spearhead of the fight against ISIS. It supports the Russian initiative that calls to establish a regional alliance against ISIS together with the Assad regime. Egypt even expressed support for Russian airstrikes in Syria, in contrast to Saudi Arabia, which opposes them. Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry even supported the Russian involvement in Syria in an interview with the Saudi Al-Arabiya TV, saying that “the info given us in our direct contacts with the Russian side indicates that Russia is interested in combating terrorism and working to reduce the spread of terrorism in Syria.” He added that the Russian involvement would help eliminate terrorism in the country.[25]

Attitude Towards Syrian Opposition

Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s disagreement regarding the status of Assad is also reflected in their support for different opposition elements. Saudi Arabia supports armed opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army and moderate Islamic militias with equipment, weapons, and money. The Saudis, in a joint move with Turkey and Qatar, which also support militias combatting Assad, recently established Jaish Al-Fath – an umbrella organization for several armed factions, including Islamist ones, which has made impressive achievements against the regime. Additionally, Saudi Arabia supports the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, an unarmed political opposition to the regime, in which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has considerable weight, and which also calls for the ouster of Bashar Al-Assad.

Egypt, on its part, while not boycotting the National Coalition, supports opposition elements willing to conduct dialogue with the Syrian regime, such as the National Coordination Committee for the Forces of Democratic Change (NCC), which is based in Syria and receives Russia’s support. Additionally, Egypt does not recognize MB elements that are members of the National Coalition. Thus, in June 2015, Egypt organized a summit for Syrian oppositionists in Cairo, but did not invite any MB representatives. In response, the National Coalition boycotted the summit.

Furthermore, unlike the Saudis, Egypt rejects a military solution in Syria, and opposes armed opposition. In this context, it is worth mentioning an article penned by Ahmed Sayyid Al-Naggar, head of the board of directors ofAl-Ahram, who harshly criticized the Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia’s support for armed opposition in Syria. He wrote: “Egypt should not permit the rending of Syria and the destruction of the unity of the Syrian state, as is being attempted today by the terrorist gangs of Jabhat Al-Nusra, ISIS, and the ‘Free Collaborator Army’ [pejorative term for the FSA] with the support of several regional countries…”[26]

Saudi Arabia’s dissatisfaction with Egypt’s policy on solving the Syrian crisis is embodied by criticism levelled by the former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Tariq Alhomayed, at Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry due to his statements in support of Russian involvement in Syria. According to Alhomayed, these statements by Shoukry indicate that he is “taking the criminal Assad lightly, and even showing sympathy for him, and [his statements] do not acknowledge that [Assad’s] crimes are the reason that Syria is in its current state, or that Assad is the official sponsor of terrorism and the reason for the appearance of ISIS there [in Syria]… It is a duty to say, even with a substantial delay, that there is a severe lack of understanding of the Syrian crisis in Egypt… What some people in Egypt do not understand is that the Assad army is sectarian and [moreover] has [now] been replaced by Shi’ite and Iranian militias and by Russian forces, and is no longer the same as the Egyptian army.”[27]

Reports On Warming In Egyptian-Syria Relations

In fact, since Al-Sisi’s rise to power in Egypt, and to Saudi Arabia’s dismay, there has been a noticeable warming of relations between Egypt and the Assad regime, embodied by Egypt’s uncompromising support for the survival of this regime and its army. This Egyptian position can be explained by the fact that the Syrian and Egyptian regimes both represent the Middle East’s old guard (authoritarian regimes leaning mainly on the army); by the strong ties between their militaries; by their similar view of the MB, ISIS and Al-Qaeda as threats to their security; and by their shared hostility for Turkey and Qatar, who sponsor the MB. It seems that similar interests and the similarity in the structure of both regimes lead Egypt to fear that the ouster of the Assad regime and its army, as well as the division of Syria, would open the door to a similar scenario in Egypt. Additionally, Egypt’s tightening relations with Russia – a strategic ally of the Syrian regime along with Iran – have contributed to its positive relations with the Assad regime. Furthermore, unlike its Gulf allies, Egypt did not participate in the international coalition attacks on ISIS in Syria, which the Assad regime called “illegitimate.”[28]

Over the past year, the Assad regime has recognized these disagreements between Saudi Arabia and Egypt and has attempted to exploit them to grow close to Egypt, including with positive statements on Egypt made by Syrian officials, and the dispatching of envoys to the country. For example, in a speech to Ba’th Party members in November 2014, President Assad showered Egypt with praise, saying: “We can describe the Egyptian role as positive. Our relations with the Egyptian security mechanisms, even during the days of [previous president Muhammad] Mursi, were good, and now they have developed; first, thanks to the rise of President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi, and second, due to the blows dealt to the MB in Egypt. This led to a major warming [between the countries].”[29] In an interview with Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV in August 2015, Assad stressed the importance of relations with Egypt: “Even when Mursi, of the MB, was Egyptian president and despite his offenses towards Syria, we never tried to harm Egypt; first, due to the importance of our relations, and second, because contacts between Syria and Egypt were not severed even during the reign of Mursi.” Assad hinted at the pressure Saudi Arabia is applying to Egypt to avoid forging stronger ties with Syria, saying: “We want Egypt to play the role of an important… and influential country, [one] that assists the other Arab countries on the basis of its ancient history, not on the basis of a handful of petrodollars and recent history.” According to Assad, “rival countries are pressing Egypt in attempt to keep it from playing the part we wish it to play.” He also said that Syria-Egypt relations help attain balance in the Arab arena and that “Syria believes that it is in the same trench as the Egyptian army and people in dealing with terrorists…”[30]

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem told the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram that “Egypt does not play a part [in Syria] for obvious reasons,” alluding to its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and added: “The Mursi regime, which decided to downgrade diplomatic relations [with Syria], is gone, and we hope that they will now return [to the previous level].”[31] In an interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar, Al-Mu’allem said that there is security coordination between Syria and Egypt and that it was an advanced step towards normalizing relations between the countries.[32] The Lebanese daily Al-Safir, which is close to the Syrian regime, even reported in February 2015 that Al-Sisi had renewed security coordination with Syria “to a small degree.”[33] Additionally, the website Alahednews.com, which is owned by Hizbullah, reported that Egypt was arming the Assad military.[34]

25686Al-Mu’allem (center) posing with members of the Egyptian media (Image: Al-Ahram, Egypt, August 20, 2015)

Alongside these messages, the Syrian regime dispatched several envoys to Egypt. In December 2014, a delegation headed by ‘Imad Al-Assad, the cousin of President Bashar Al-Assad, visited Egypt.[35] One month later, in January 2015, an unnamed Syrian regime envoy met with Egyptian officials in Cairo. According to reports on a Syrian opposition website, the visit was meant to bolster Egyptian efforts to unite the Syrian opposition and promote indirect talks between the regime and opposition as a preamble to direct talks with Egyptian or international presence.[36]

Though Egyptian officials make sure to avoid explicit expressions of support for the Assad regime, the administration’s mouthpieces do express such support, unreservedly. Official Egyptian press featured numerous articles calling for Assad to remain in power and backing him in his struggle against terrorism. They also featured articles praising the tight relations between the two countries and peoples, articles which presented the events in Syria from the Egyptian regime’s standpoint, and discussed the common enemies of the two countries and the need for the Egyptian army to assist its Syrian counterpart.[37]

Thus, chief editor of Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, wrote in April 2015 that “distancing Bashar Al-Assad from any solution to the crisis is a akin to imposing guardianship upon the Syrian people and its choices, and [constitutes] interference in its affairs, and marginalization of parts of the Syrian people who see him as a component in a solution.” ‘Allam also claimed that, had the MB regime remained in power in Egypt and had the Assad regime been ousted, tens of thousands of ISIS fighters would have entered Egypt, and therefore “the mighty stand of the Syrian regime and army in the face of terrorism constitutes defense of Egypt and its national security…”[38]

Similarly, Morsi ‘Atallah, former head of Al-Ahram‘s board of directors, wrote in June 2015 that, contrary to statements by Saudi Foreign Minster Al-Jubeir that Egypt and Saudi Arabia agreed that Assad must be removed and that Egypt would press Russia to abandon him, “this trend does not match the principles of Egyptian policy… which is far from sticking its nose into the internal affairs of its Arab sisters… regardless of circumstances and excuses.”[39] In a February 2015 article, Al-Ahram columnist Makram Muhammad Ahmad stated that Bashar Al-Assad would “necessarily be part of a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis” because he still controls a large portion of the country, because the army will remain loyal to him, as well many minorities; and especially in light of estimates that the only alternative to his rule is ISIS.[40] In another article on September 8, 2015, written on the backdrop of the wave of Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe, Ahmad wrote that Syria “is being worn away by ISIS and Al-Qaeda due to the insistence on getting rid of Assad as a precondition to a nonviolent solution,” adding that “the crimes Assad has committed against his people are of limited [scope] compared to the crimes of Arabs who stand silent and helpless in the face of the great disaster of the Syrian people.”[41]

The Yemen Crisis: Saudi Arabia Disappointed At Insufficient Egyptian Aid; Egypt Fears MB Inclusion In Future Arrangement

It initially appeared that there was solidarity and cooperation between Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the Yemeni situation, since Egypt dispatched aerial and naval forces to join the Saudi-led coalition that launched Operation Decisive Storm in March against the Houthis and the supporters of ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh. However, as time wore on, the rift between the countries became apparent, embodied by Egypt’s reluctance to dispatch ground troops to Yemen, while other coalition members such as the UAE, Sudan, and Mauritania have already done so.[42]

Egypt sees the Strait of Bab Al-Mandeb, which is the gateway to the Red Sea, as a strategic area, and Egyptian officials have repeatedly stressed that their country would prevent the Houthis from taking control of it. Moreover, in April 2015, President Al-Sisi said that Bab Al-Mandeb and the security of the Gulf States were matters of Egyptian national security, and that the Egyptian army would be mobilized to deal with them if necessary.[43]Nevertheless, it appears that Egypt is avoiding taking a more active role in this operation, possibly due to several reasons: The Egyptian army’s preoccupation with combating ISIS terrorism in Sinai; bitter memories of Egypt’s failed war in Yemen 50 years ago, which claimed the lives of thousands of Egyptian soldiers; and Egypt’s aversion to Saudi Arabia’s pact with the Yemeni MB against the Houthis and Saleh.

Since the onset of the Arab Spring in 2011, Saudi Arabia has opposed the MB-affiliated Al-Islah Party in Yemen, but since the ascension to the throne of King Salman, the Saudis seem to have been seeking to improve their relations with it.[44] The Al-Islah Party welcomes the anti-Houthi Saudi operation in Yemen, and Saudi reports even indicate that it has taken an active part in it. The independent Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq reported that Saudi Arabia has even insisted that Al-Islah be given a substantial role in the Yemeni regime. Egypt, on the other hand, is apparently still avoiding cooperating with the MB in Yemen or bolstering its political power. Al-Shorouqcited Egyptian sources as saying that, despite understanding Saudi fears of an Iranian takeover, they do not want to replace one religious force in Yemen (meaning the Houthis) with another (meaning the MB).[45] According to the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, Egypt in fact told Saudi Arabia that its participation in Operation Decisive Storm was conditional upon the Al-Islah Party not becoming part of the future regime in the country, and the Saudis were forced to make assurances along these lines, while simultaneously trying to preserve their alliance with the party.[46]

Two additional events in Egypt demonstrate this country’s opposition to Saudi policy in Yemen: In April 2015, a protest against Operation Decisive Storm was held outside the Saudi embassy in Cairo, which featured offensive slogans aimed at the Saudi king. A report in the Egyptian daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ claimed that this was “a plot of the Egyptian MB to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.”[47] However, the fact that such a protest even took place in Egypt, which strictly regulates protest activity,[48] raised many questions. Thus, following the protest, the independent e-daily Rai Al-Yawm wondered whether it had received the implicit blessing of the Egyptian regime, which does not air out its differences with Arab countries, choosing instead to express them in indirect ways and via messages in the media. The daily asked: “Is it possible that Egyptian authorities used this means to express their differences with Saudi Arabia [on Yemen]?”[49]

25687Egyptians protesting Saudi Operation in Yemen. Right: “Stop barbaric aggression against Yemen.” Left: “Salman, you coward, you agent of the Americans” (Images: Watan.com, Arabic.cnn.com, April 6, 2015)

The second event took place in July 2015. The London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat reported that the El-Sawy Culture Wheel[50] in Cairo, which is considered one of Egypt’s largest and most important cultural centers, was holding an exhibition depicting “Saudi aggression in Yemen,” adopting the Houthi narrative of events.[51] Saudi journalist Jasser Al-Jasser attacked the El-Sawy Culture Wheel in a July 16 article, calling it the abode of “political mercenaries” – a reference to Egypt’s political elites. According to him, the exhibition falsified reality and facts and constituted “a hostile act against all Saudis” and an offense to Saudi martyrs.[52] It should be mentioned that, according to a report in Al-Hayat, the Culture Wheel denied holding such an exhibition, likely after it caused diplomatic embarrassment to Egypt, which quickly issued a statement via the foreign ministry spokesman denying that there were any disagreements between it and Saudi Arabia on Yemen.

25688The exhibition at the El-Sawy Culture Wheel (Image: Al-Misryyoun, Egypt, July 9, 2015)

However, Arab media featured reports on meetings held in Cairo between Egyptian officials and Abu Bakr Al-Qirbi, an emissary for ousted president Saleh, to formulate a solution to the Yemeni crisis that would not include the Al-Islah party. Sources said that Saudi Arabia had told Egypt it was displeased by this move.[53]   Conversely, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar reported on July 24 that the Egyptian officials’ meetings with Saleh’s and Houthi representatives had been held with Saudi Arabia’s knowledge.[54]

Saudi Arabia Thwarts Egyptian Initiative To Establish “Joint Arab Force”

Another clear expression of the many disagreements between Egypt and Saudi Arabia can be seen in the fact that in recent months, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly delayed an initiative presented by President Al-Sisi to establish a joint Arab force empowered by the Arab League to carry out missions to defend Arab countries. Al-Sisi intends for this new force to be sent by the Arab League to Libya, to remove the increasing threat to Egypt from terrorist elements operating there, including ISIS.

Al-Sisi presented this initiative to Arab leaders at the Arab League summit in March 2015, shortly after ISIS in Libya executed 21 Egyptian Copts living in the country. The initiative received the support of Arab leaders at the summit, and it was decided to hold deliberations and formulate a protocol to establish it. However, the Arab defense and foreign ministers summit that is set to convene to approve the formulated protocol has already been postponed twice – once on July 26,[55] and again on August 26.[56]

The London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi claimed on September 2, 2015 that Saudi Arabia was behind the postponements. The report stated that Saudi Arabia had thwarted the Egyptian initiative due to the severe disagreements between the two countries on various topics, chiefly Syria and Yemen, and added that “the fact that a [new] date has not been set for the summit indicates that the disagreements run deep.” According to sources cited in the report, one of the main reasons for Saudi Arabia blocking the Egyptian move is the strong ties between the Al-Sisi and Al-Assad regimes, and Egypt’s efforts to achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis that ensures Assad remains in power, which is contrary to the Saudi position. The report also states that initially, Saudi Arabia supported the establishment of the Joint Arab Force in an attempt to entice Egypt do join its coalition for Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen, but after Egypt did not commit to the coalition sufficiently, Saudi Arabia decided to reign in the Egyptian initiative. The report also cited analysts and associates of the Saudi regime who estimated that Al-Sisi’s aim in establishing the Joint Arab Force was not to combat terrorist organizations in Libya, but rather to suppress pro-MB Libyan rebels and establish a government under his sponsorship, allowing him to take control of the oil in eastern Libya. They said that Saudi Arabia was disinclined to take sides in the Libyan crisis and preferred to reach an UN-brokered solution geared at establishing a national consent government that includes the MB.[57]

Saudi Arabia Fails To Block Egyptian Media Assault; Tense Relations Persist

On July 30, 2015, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman arrived in Cairo for an official visit, meeting with President Al-Sisi and attending a graduation ceremony at the military college, during which Al-Sisi stressed that the prince’s visit to Egypt sent the message that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were “together.” The visit ended with the “Cairo Declaration,” which states that both countries will work to strengthen their military and economic ties and will cooperate on the strategic level.[58] The visit alleviated the concerns of many in the Egyptian media for a time, and the Cairo Declaration assured that the future of cooperation between the countries was secure. And indeed, immediately after the visit, Egypt approved an extension of its forces’ activity in Yemen until the end of the operation, even committing to dispatch ground forces to protect the ports of ‘Aden after they were liberated by forces loyal to Yemeni President Hadi. Furthermore, during and after the visit, the Egyptian press featured several articles praising the close relations between the countries. An article by journalist Mohammed Mujahid Al-Zayyat, published in Al-Ahram on August 3, even directly rejected the anti-Saudi allegations published in the Egyptian press mere weeks earlier. He claimed that Saudi Arabia did not really belong to the Turkey-Qatar-MB axis and that the visit to Saudi Arabia by Hamas Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al had not been meant to show Saudi support for Hamas, which is in conflict with Egypt, or to circumvent Egypt as mediator in the intra-Palestinian reconciliation.[59]

25689Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman and Egyptian President Al-Sisi during the former’s visit to Cairo (Image: Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, July 30, 2015)

However, Al-Misryyoun editor Gamal Sultan, who is known for criticizing the regime, stressed that anti-Saudi articles had appeared in official dailies, indicating that the tensions were real.[60] Moreover, even though there are occasional high-level meetings between Egypt and Saudi Arabia where the strong cooperation between the countries is emphasized and reports on their disagreements are denied, Arab press continues to feature numerous reports on the ongoing tensions between them. Thus, for example, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that King Salman had been scheduled to visit Egypt in early September after visiting the U.S., but eventually did not come. The daily claimed that the king’s change of plans reflected ongoing Saudi-Egyptian tensions.[61] On the other hand, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said in an interview on September 10 that the countries were preparing for a visit to Egypt by King Salman, even though a date had not been set yet, and reiterated that there were no disagreements between the countries, but rather that each country “has its own role and its own attitude…”[62]

On October 13, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that, following a proposal by Saudi ambassador to Egypt Ahmad Qattan, Saudi Arabia had paid to fly 50 Egyptian media figures to participate in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. The daily stated that each year, Saudi Arabia funds the pilgrimage of media figures from countries friendly to Saudi Arabia, and that this year the largest group had been from Egypt. According to the report, Saudi Arabia hoped this move would help bridge its gaps with the Egyptian media, but this goal was not achieved. When the journalists returned to their country, they once again attacked Saudi policy, mainly on Syria.[63] This may have angered the Saudi ambassador, who reportedly had a harsh argument several days later with Sayyid Ahmed Al-Naggar, head of Al-Ahram‘s board of directors, during a festive dinner at the home of the Algerian ambassador to Egypt. Following the argument, news sites reported that the Saudi ambassador had left Cairo in a rage. Qattan quickly denied these reports, and speaking to the Egyptian daily Al-Watan he said: “Would I leave Egypt because of Ahmed Al-Naggar? That makes no sense.”[64] Official elements in both countries also issued swift denials that the ambassador had left Egypt, but the e-daily Rai Al-Yawm remained unconvinced, and claimed, in an October 19 editorial, that alongside the cancellation of King Salman’s visit to Egypt, this was another expression of the deteriorating relations between the countries.[65]

 

 

* Y. Graff is a research fellow at MEMRI.

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1155, Iran’s Support For The Houthi Rebellion In Yemen: ‘Without Iran There Would Be No War In Syria And Ansar Allah Would Have Never Emerged’, April 21, 2015.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1075, Unprecedented Tension Between Qatar And Saudi Arabia/UAE/Bahrain Threatens To Break Up Gulf Cooperation Council, March 14, 2014.

[3] After ISIS executed 21 Egyptian Copts living in Libya, Egypt retaliated by attacking ISIS targets in the country, an attack backed by the Arab League, aside for Qatar, which expressed reservations about the move. Egypt’s representative to the Arab League claimed that Qatar’s position “reveals its support for terrorism,” leading Qatar to recall its ambassador from Egypt. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), in which Saudi Arabia is a central member, condemned the Egyptian Arab League representative’s statements against Qatar and the London-based Saudi dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat published articles expressing reservations about the military attack in Libya (see for example a February 18, 2015 article by Tariq Alhomayed in Al-Sharq Al-Awsatand a February 18, 2015  article by Randa Takieddine  in Al-Hayat).

[4] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), March 15, 2015.

[5] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), April 18, 2015.

[7] Al-Hayat (London), June 21, 2015.

[8] Al-Hayat (London), June 17, 2015.

[9] Albawabhnews.com, July 18, 2015.

[10] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[11] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), July 13, 2015. The reference is to a street in Tehran which the Iranian regime named after Khalid Al-Islambouli, who assassinated Egyptian president Sadat in 1981. Officially, Iran has had no diplomatic relations with Egypt since 1980, when Khomeini severed them in protest of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and of Egypt’s hosting of the deposed Iranian Shah. The name of the street in Tehran has long been emblematic of the difficulties facing a reconciliation between Egypt and Iran.

[12] Alarabiya.com, September 24, 2015.

[13] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 29, 2015.

[14] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 22, 2015.

[15] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015.

[16] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), July 23, 2015.

[17] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[18] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), August 5, 2015.

[19] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), October 26, 2015.

[20] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 10, 2015.

[21] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 9, 2015.

[22] While Saudi Arabia states that it supports a political solution for the crisis, it seems to believe that the Assad regime should be pressured militarily in order to bring him to the negotiating table and force far-reaching concessions from him. Following a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers on September 16, Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir said that if a political solution cannot be reached, then “the military option is still on the table,” and that the Syrian opposition has been dealing with Assad with increasing effectiveness. Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), September 16, 2015. Al-Jubeir reiterated these statements in a press conference during the UN General Assembly on September 30. Al-Watan (Egypt), September 30, 2015.

[23] After elaph.com published the document, Egypt issued an official denial that it had formulated an initiative to solve the Syrian crisis. Elaph.com, December 25, 2014. The document published by the website proposed that opposition and regime delegations conduct direct talks sponsored by the UN based on the Geneva 1 declaration, Security Council resolutions on Syria, and the six point peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, who served as the UN and Arab League’s joint special envoy to Syria, which he presented to the Security Council on March 16, 2012. Annan’s plan included: calling on the Assad regime to commit to a political process that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people; ending fighting and withdrawing troops from population areas; enabling the transfer of humanitarian aid; releasing political prisoners; and enabling journalist’s freedom of movement as well as freedom of expression and protest. See Aljazeera.com, March 27, 2012.

[24] In his speech at the 70th UN General Assembly on September 28, 2015, Al-Sisi called on Syrian opposition and regime elements to come to Cairo to negotiate “in order to formulate a clear vision for a transitional phase in accordance with the Geneva document, which will provide a common ground for all Syrians to build a democratic Syria that is sovereign over all its territory, and which preserves the state’s essence and institutions, respects the variety of elements in its population, and strengthens their national affinity.” He stressed that “these Syrian national elements are invited today to participate and invest every effort in negotiations to find a political solution to the crisis that realizes the ambitions of the Syrian people. ” Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 30, 2015. In this statement, Al-Sisi expressed the main principles of Egypt’s policy on the Syrian crisis: Finding a political solution through dialogue with the regime, and preserving existing state institutions.

[25] Al-Ahram (Egypt), October 5, 2015.

[26] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 7, 2015.

[27] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 4, 2015.

[28] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1125, Egypt’s Position On International Anti-ISIS Coalition: Reserved Support Alongside Refusal To Commit To Military Participation, October 22, 2014.

[29] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 3, 2015.

[30] Presidentassad.net, August 25, 2015.

[31] Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 20, 2015.

[32] Al-Akhbar (Egypt), August 19, 2015.

[33] Al-Safir (Lebanon), February 11, 2015.

[34] Alahednews.com, September 22, 2015.

[35] Al-Hayat (London), December 18, 2014.

[36] Aksalser.com, January 26, 2015.

[37] See for example, Riyadh Sanih, Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 9, 2015; ‘Asim Bakri, Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), August 19, 2015; Gamil ‘Afifi, Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015; and Muhammad Hussein Abu Al-Hassan,Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 9, 2015.

[38] Al-Ahram (Egypt), April 17, 2015.

[39] Al-Ahram (Egypt), June 9, 2015.

[40] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 17, 2015.

[41] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015.

[42] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), May 31, 2015.

[43] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), April 4, 2015.

[44] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), April 17, 2015.

[45] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), May 31, 2015.

[46] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), August 21, 2015.

[47] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), April 6, 2015.

[48] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1061, Egyptians Deeply Divided Over Law Restricting Public Protests, January 28, 2014.

[49] Raialyoum.com, April 9, 2015. The article mentioned a tweet by Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who also implied that Egyptian authorities might have quietly approved of the protest or even organized it, since “the operating principle of the Egyptian police is: If you protest without authorization – you will be killed.”

[50] Named for Abdel Moneim El-Sawy (died 1984), who founded the Egyptian news agency and served as culture minister under President Sadat.

[51] Al-Hayat (London), July 13, 2015.

[52] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), July 16, 2015.

[53] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), June 6, 2015; Albawabhnews.com, July 18, 2015.

[54] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 24, 2015.

[55] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 27, 2015.

[56] Alarabiya.com, August 26, 2015.

[57] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 2, 2015.

[58] Al-Hayat (London), August 3, 2015.  At the last Summit of South American-Arab Countries, held in Riyadh on November 10-11, 2015, Al-Sisi met with the Saudi king in another show of unity. Following this meeting the two countries’ FMs signed a protocol for establishing an “Egyptian-Saudi Corrdination Council” to implement the resolutions of the Cairo Declaration. Elaph.com, November 11, 2015.

[59] Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 3, 2015.

[60] Al-Misryyoun (Egypt), August 2, 2015.

[61] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 8, 2015.

[62] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 9, 2015.

[63] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), October 13, 2015.

[64] Al-Watan (Egypt), October 17, 2015.

[65] Raialyoum.com, October 19, 2015.

The Regional Storm Hits Israel

November 5, 2015

The Regional Storm Hits Israel, Israel DefenseAmir Rapaport, November 5, 2015

bomb in SyriaAn aerial view of a bomb explosion in Syria (Photo: AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press Service)

1. High Tide/Low Tide. When the “Second Intifada” broke out in October 2000, IDF used to refer to the riots and terrorist attacks in the Judea and Samaria area, as well is inside the territory of the State of Israel as “High Tide/Low Tide”, as each wave of riots was followed by a period of relative quiet, and then a new trigger emerged, leading to a wave of renewed violence, and so on.

Eventually, the “High Tide/Low Tide” incidents assumed a pattern of a murderous terrorist offensive, which took the lives of more than a thousand Israelis through suicide attacks, until the Intifada finally subsided in 2004.

The wave of riots and terrorist attacks that erupted about 15 years later, in the fall of 2015, appears to be connected, in some way or another, to the state of instability that characterizes many areas throughout the Middle East. For the last few years, the lion’s share of the fighting takes place in Syria, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed and millions more became refugees.

The major question that arose within the Israeli defense establishment in the fall of 2015 was whether this latest wave of terrorist attacks marks the outset of a “Third Intifada”. Although outwardly the Israeli interest is to announce “This is not a new Intifada,” in effect, there is talk about a “new situation” and no one knows how it will evolve.

Analyses performed within the defense establishment point to a number of reasons that suggest that this is a significant wave of terrorism which could turn out to be prolonged, as well as to reasons that justify the claim “This is not a new Intifada”.

One of the reasons that this wave of attacks is serious and could be prolonged is the religious motive: the Israeli media does not speak about it too often, but the Arab world is raging around rumors or reports that Israel actually intends to change the status quo on Temple Mount.

Even when one attempts to fish only “comfortable” data out of the statistics of the latest terrorist attacks, it is impossible to ignore the increase, by tens of percent, in the number of violent incidents throughout the Judea and Samaria area as well as within the “Green Line” during the last few weeks.

On the other hand, one significant difference between October 2015 and “Black October” (following the outbreak of the Second Intifada 15 years ago), is that the Israeli security forces are currently operating freely throughout the Judea and Samaria area. Consequently, entering the hospital in Nablus did not call for tactical support by tanks and aircraft. During the Second Intifada, on the other hand, it took the IDF and ISA quite a long time before they succeeded in regaining control over the centers of the Palestinian cities, pursuant to Operation Defensive Shield, and even then, the control achieved was only partial.

The recent events erupted despite the fact that IDF and ISA operate continuously against terrorist detachments. In each of the last few years, 2,000-3,000 Palestinian inhabitants were arrested. 80% of them were sentenced by the courts to prison terms of several months minimum.

It is still difficult to predict how the events will evolve over the next few months, but in any case, it seems that we have “a new security situation” on our hands.

2. Vladimir Putin. Many people regard the regional instability as the direct result of the American strategy of minimizing US involvement in the region, due to separatism processes and shifting the focus of world attention to Eastern Asia and the Pacific region (among other things, owing to the reduced dependence on Arab oil).

The party that stepped very effectively into the vacuum left by the USA was Russian President Vladimir Putin, who currently positions himself as the regional “Sheriff”.

No one can overestimate the importance of the moves made by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who deployed military forces to Syria this fall and continues to position himself as the strong man of the Middle East who never abandons his allies, while the USA has “transmitted” that her allies cannot rely on US support (as the USA had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011).

This fall, the Russians deployed to Syria fighter aircraft that attack targets of the rebels opposing the military of President Bashar al-Assad. These moves were carefully coordinated with Iran, which, for her part, deployed hundreds of troopers (who are currently helping Hezbollah withdraw some of its forces back to Lebanon).

The Russian-Iranian move may have been intended to exert pressure on Saudi Arabia that supports the rebels, as well as to raise the price of oil, which is important to the economies of both countries.

Complicated? Even if there is no connection between the moves in Syria and the energy market, there is a definite connection between the fighting in Syria and the war raging in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. A solution in Syria may project on the war over there, as in both regions Iran and Saudi Arabia support opposing sides, with the conflict between the Shi’ite and Sunni factions of Islam as the backdrop.

Behind the scenes of the latest developments in Syria there has always been a Russian plan to bring about the end of the civil war in Syria by dividing it into areas of influence, with about 30% of the territory, in the Tartus and Lattakia area, remaining under control of the Alawite community of the current President, Bashar al-Assad.

Russia is interested in the sea ports in this area, and much less in maintaining Assad in control over a part of the disintegrated country. The Russians will not yield to the American demand to remove Assad from power until they have guaranteed their important interests. The party expected to pay the price is Israel, which may find itself, within a few months, facing a de-facto Iranian and Hezbollah domination on the other side of the border with Syria on the Golan Heights.

This situation could evolve despite the fact that Israel and Russia coordinate some of their respective moves, as indicated by the trip made by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s to Moscow last September, accompanied by the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, and Head of the IDF Intelligence Directorate, Maj. Gen. Hertzi Halevi, during which they met with “Sheriff” Putin.

3. Meanwhile, in the South. The good news come from the south, where Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is determined to defeat the forces of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State that operate throughout the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt, Israel and the USA cooperate closely in the context of this effort, owing to their shared interests.

El-Sisi regards Hamas in the Gaza Strip as an enemy, owing to the cooperation between Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement, which is engaged in an on-going conflict with his regime.

Hamas itself is under tremendous pressure from different directions: from Egypt, which cuts off the underground tunnels connecting the Gaza Strip with the Egyptian territory, as well as from al-Qaeda and elements identifying with the Islamic State, who urge the leaders of Hamas to renew the fighting against Israel and occasionally even launch a rocket into Israeli territory in order to motivate Israel (which regards Hamas as the party responsible for such launches) to attack Hamas.

The reality that emerged in the Gaza Strip is yet another example of the complexity in our region. Iran, encouraged by the signing of the nuclear agreement with the superpowers, has renewed its support for Hamas, both financially and militarily (despite the fact that Hamas identifies with the rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad in Syria and in Iran itself).

The positive bottom line is that Hamas, owing to its own considerations, does its best to maintain the ceasefire agreement reached with Israel following Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014. That state of affairs remained in effect until the fall of 2015 but reality, as everyone knows only too well, is highly dynamic.

4. A Small Military. One of the most significant moves expected within IDF in November is the endorsement of the long-term plan for the coming five-year period, and the conversion thereof into an effective order for execution.

“Gideon” is the name of the new multi-year plan led by IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot. The plan is intended to rely on the long-term budget allocated to the IDF according to the recommendations of the Locker Committee, and will come into effect in 2016, after five years during which IDF have operated without a long-term plan, as the previous plan had ended as far back as during the tenure of Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi as Chief of Staff. The Gideon plan is intended to convert the IDF into a technological, cyber-based military organization, possessing fast maneuvering elements equipped with accurate, lethal weapons and enhanced sea and air branches. Above everything else, the most substantial investment will be made in intelligence.

The greatest concern among quite a few elements within the defense establishment pertains to the size of the military, as the new plan calls for the demobilization of quite a few units. One of the principles of Israel’s national security concept since the days of David Ben-Gurion is the need to maintain a strong, substantial military force, based on hundreds of thousands of reservists. The principle is still valid, but in effect, the emphasis is placed on intelligence, air power and commando operations. The substantial ground army, along with its massive tank OrBat, is reduced dramatically – which is inconsistent with the aforesaid principle.

5. Defense Exports. Nearing the end of 2015, the Israel Ministry of Defense and the Israeli defense industries embarked upon a massive sales effort. Between October and December, they will take part in not less than five major defense exhibitions in the USA, South Korea, Japan, Colombia and Thailand.

Even if that effort proves successful, the statistics for 2015 will indicate that Israeli defense exports still follow the downward trend that began in 2014. At best, the defense exports for 2015 will amount to US$ 5 billion, as opposed to US$ 7 billion in 2013.

The main reason for this decrease is the end of the global campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several major deals that are still on the agenda, mainly in India, can still change the picture before the end of 2015 and lead to a positive trend in terms of the scope of exports. In any case, the contribution made by the defense exports, which amounts to billions of dollars, to the Israeli economy and to the Israeli security resilience is immense. The massive proceeds enable the Israeli defense industries to continue to invest funds in research in order to develop products at the cutting edge of technology.