Archive for the ‘Iranian proxies’ category

‘Senior Official’ of Iran-Russia-Syria Alliance Brags About Subverting U.S. Diplomacy

February 17, 2016

‘Senior Official’ of Iran-Russia-Syria Alliance Brags About Subverting U.S. Diplomacy, Washington Free Beacon, Morgan Chalfant, February 17, 2016

FILE - In this file photo taken on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, shakes hand with Syrian President Bashar Assad as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, right, looks on in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said his country is ready to aid Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State militants on the ground, rebel commanders scoffed at the notion, pointing out that Russian aircraft were pounding rebel bases in central and northern Syria on daily basis. (Alexei Druzhinin, RIA-Novosti, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP, File)

FILE – In this file photo taken on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, shakes hand with Syrian President Bashar Assad as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, right, looks on in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. (Alexei Druzhinin, RIA-Novosti, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP, File)

A “senior official” of the military alliance between Iran, Russia, and Syria that is currently waging a ground offensive in Aleppo boasted about subverting U.S. diplomacy in a recent interview with an U.S. newspaper.

The official told the Wall Street Journal that military forces from Iran, Russia, and Syria would use a recent ceasefire deal brokered by world powers—including the United States—not to take steps towards a peaceful resolution of the Syrian war, but to consolidate their military gains.

The Journal reported:

“These allies are together in the same command center, working, planning and coordinating their operations in the battlefield,” said a senior official in the Iran-Russia-Syrian regime military alliance. “Retaking Aleppo will restore the regime’s strength and control over Syria; toppling the regime is now a thing of the past.” A cease-fire as proposed by world powers in Munich last week, he said, would simply be a pause for the Iran-led ground forces to consolidate recent territorial gains.

Thousands of fighters organized by Iran—including Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Shia fighters from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries—have launched the assault on Aleppo alongside Syrian army forces. Emboldened by Russian airstrikes, the fighters have been able to advance on Syria’s largest city.

There is some doubt regarding whether the ceasefire will be implemented at all. The deal was established by global powers on Friday, though neither Assad nor the Syrian opposition formally signed off on it. The deal was supposed to allow humanitarian aid to be sent to Syria and commence peace negotiations. The United States hoped that the ceasefire would be implemented in a week’s time.

Hours before the ceasefire was announced, Assad vowed to retake Syria in its entirety in an interview published by AFP.

Iran has put billions of dollars toward backing Assad, and Russia has launched a military intervention in Syria to back the Assad regime under the guise of fighting terrorist groups.

While the Obama administration has long said that Assad must be removed from power, the United States has softened that stance since 2011, when the Syrian civil war began. Secretary of State John Kerry said in December that the administration was not seeking a “regime change” in Syria following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change,” Kerry said then, indicating that world powers were focused on achieving a peace process in which “Syrians will be making decisions for the future of Syria.”

Both Russia and Iran have resisted any effort to oust Assad.

Special Israeli emissary to Moscow over Russian Syria air strikes near border

February 17, 2016

Special Israeli emissary to Moscow over Russian Syria air strikes near border, DEBKAfile, February 17, 2016

Israel_near_border_16.2.16

In view of the crisis building up on the southern Syrian-Israeli border, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided immediately on his return home from Berlin early Wednesday, Feb. 17, to send a special  emissary to Moscow to ask for clarifications. Tuesday, Intensified Russian air strikes came to within 6 km of the Israeli border, sparking a growing exodus of Syrian refugees heading towards the Qoneitra border crossing to Israel.

DEBKAfile’s sources reveal that the envoy is Dr. Dore Gold, director-general of the Foreign Ministry and one of the prime minister’s few trusted confidantes.

It was still not clear whom Gold will meet in the Russian capital, but it is assumed that it will be one of Moscow’s senior decision-makers in the loop on its military operation in Syria.

The fact that Netanyahu decided to dispatch a top diplomat rather than a senior military or intelligence officer is a sign that the prime minister is not of one mind with the IDF’s intelligence assessments of the situation on the ground.

Netanyahu’s concerns grew after after the Russian air force on Tuesday widened its massive bombing of southern Syria from the city of Daraa to the Golan town of Quneitra, in order to help the Syria army’s 7th armored division push the rebels east, so they will not attempt to cross the border and seek shelter in Israel.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that that 12 of the 15 targets bombed by the Russian air force across from the Israeli border were new rebel positions that had not been attacked before, even by the Syrian army. Military sources monitoring the war said Tuesday night that there is no doubt that the Russians are in the process of wiping out the rebel positions along the Israeli border by means of an offensive comparable to their operations in the northern Aleppo sector.

Our sources report that Israel’s concerns grew when, as the Russians bombing raids neared the Israeli border, Syrian officials threatened Jordan with serious consequences if Amman gave the Saudi air force a base for attacking eastern or southern Syria.

The threats began Tuesday, after Jordanian forces took over the Syrian-Jordanian border crossings formerly held by Syrian rebels, as a measure to stem the volume of Syrian refugees in search of sanctuary in the Hashemite Kingdom. But this step was interpreted by the Syrians and their Russian ally as clearing the way for Saudi intervention in the Syrian conflict using Jordan as a jumping-off base.

Meanwhile, Western military sources reported a sub substantial presence Tuesday of both Russian and Israeli warplanes in the skies over and around southern Syria.

Report: Hizballah Has Russian Technology Capable of Downing Israeli Jets

February 16, 2016

Report: Hizballah Has Russian Technology Capable of Downing Israeli Jets, Investigative Project on Terrorism, February 16, 2016

Hizballah is using advanced radar technology to “lock on” to Israeli aircraft flying reconnaissance missions over Lebanon, according to Israel’s Walla news service and reported by i24 News.

The new technology enables Hizballah to identify Israeli jets and fire missiles at them, Israeli security sources said.

“The connection between Hizballah, Russia and Syria have greatly changed the rules of the game in the region…Hizballah is indicating to Israel that it is ready for the next stage,” said an Israeli security official, quoted in Walla.

Israeli fighter jets are capable of detecting radar that threatens them, allowing pilots to alter their course. Nevertheless, the reports signal a troubling development that could hinder Israel’s freedom of movement in airspace across the northern border and its ability to effectively monitor Hizballah.

Following the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, the terrorist organization began acquiring sophisticated anti-aircraft systems and other advanced weapons from Syria and Iran. A recent report suggests that Hizballah is using Iranian anti-tank missiles in Syria that could be used against Israel in a future confrontation.

In light of these developments, Israel has allegedly targeted Hizballah weapons convoys on several occasions coming into Lebanon from Syria over the past few years. Nevertheless, the terrorist organization continues to build up its weapons arsenal and consolidate a base of operations on the Syrian Golan in order to attack the Jewish state.

Last month, Hizballah field commanders with operatives fighting in Syria told the Daily Beast that Russia is providing the terrorist organization with advanced weaponry amid enhanced coordination among both actors. The report outlines that Hizballah is acquiring long-range tactical missiles, anti-tank systems, and laser guided rockets from the Russians.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Politicized UN

February 16, 2016

Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Politicized UN, Gatestone InstituteRichard Kemp and Jasper Reid, February 16, 2016

♦ The UN’s assertion that the Saudi-led coalition has committed war crimes in Yemen is unlikely to be true. UN experts have not been to Yemen, depending instead on hearsay evidence and analysis of photographs.

♦ The UN has a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes against the armed forces of sovereign states. Without any military expertise, and never having visited Gaza, a UN commission convicted the Israel Defense Force of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians in the 2014 conflict. It was an assessment roundly rejected by America’s most senior military officer, General Martin Dempsey, and an independent commission.

♦ The Houthis have learned many lessons from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, groups also supported by Iran. Those lessons include the falsification of civilian casualty figures and their causes. The UN swallowed the fake Gaza figures hook, line and sinker, and are now making the same error in Yemen.

♦ The Houthis exploit gullible or compliant reporters and human rights groups to facilitate their propaganda, including false testimony and fabrication of imagery.

♦ Forensic analysis shows that rather than deliberately targeting civilians, the Saudis and their allies have taken remarkable steps to minimize civilian casualties.

The United Nations, Amnesty International and other groups have accused the Saudi-led coalition of war crimes in Yemen. A leaked UN report claims the bombing campaign against Iranian-supported Houthi insurgents seeking violently to topple the legitimate government of Yemen has conducted deliberate, widespread and systematic attacks on civilian targets.

If the UN’s assertion is true, and the coalition is deliberately and disproportionately killing thousands of innocent civilians, it is a war crime. But it is unlikely to be true. The UN has produced no actual evidence of war crimes. None of their allegations is based on investigation on the ground. Their experts have not been to Yemen, depending instead on hearsay evidence and analysis of photographs.

The UN has a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes against the armed forces of sovereign states. Only last year, without any military expertise, and never having visited Gaza, a UN commission convicted the Israel Defense Force of deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians in the 2014 conflict. It was an assessment roundly rejected by America’s most senior military officer, General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dempsey’s own findings were confirmed by an independent commission of experienced senior military officers and officials from nine countries. The High Level Military Group found that Israel had not committed war crimes, but had in fact set a bar for avoiding civilian casualties so high that other armed forces would struggle to reach it.

Moreover, last September the UN said that a US airstrike against a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, was “inexcusable” and “possibly a war crime.” Few military forces in the world take greater precautions to prevent civilian casualties on the battlefield than the US. Anyone who has actually experienced combat knows that while such incidents are tragic, when carried out by Western forces, they are far more likely to be the result of human error or the chaos of battle than deliberate war crimes.

There is every reason to believe that the UN is again crying wolf. There is no doubt that thousands are dying in Yemen in horrific circumstances. But we cannot just accept the UN’s figures and its attribution of the proportion of deaths being inflicted by the Saudi coalition. Most of the data comes from the Houthi insurgents, either directly or via non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and is simply accepted as fact. The Houthis have learned many lessons from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, groups also supported by Iran. Those lessons include the falsification and distortion of civilian casualty figures and their causes. The UN swallowed the fake Gaza figures hook, line and sinker, and are now making the same error in Yemen.

As with Israel’s defensive campaign in Gaza in 2014, and the continued U.S. military support to the Afghan regime, the Saudis’ war to defend the government of Yemen and curb Iranian aggression in the region is lawful and legitimate. Therefore, the illegality of civilian deaths must be assessed according to the laws of armed conflict, in particular whether adequate precautions were taken to avoid them, whether they were proportionate to the military objectives and whether they were necessary to achieve legitimate military goals. The UN cannot possibly make such judgements without a more far-reaching and thorough investigation, and especially not on the basis of information provided by Saudi Arabia’s enemies and by interpreting photographs.

Most of us do not like the way that the Saudi regime runs their country according to the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, and we abhor their record on human rights. But the Saudi military ethos is well known and understood by Western military leaders, including from the U.S. and UK, who have worked closely with them for many years. The reality is, as our officers currently serving alongside them will attest, that the Saudis and their allies are not deliberately trying to kill innocent civilians. Indeed, they are doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. The question is whether their best is good enough.

Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies have the most sophisticated Western combat equipment, including planes, attack helicopters, drones and precision-guided munitions. But they lack battle experience. The exception to this is the Emirati forces within the coalition. They have had many years of combat experience alongside Western militaries, including in Somalia, Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan. Because of that, they have acquitted themselves in Yemen with great professionalism and effectiveness at sea, on the ground and in the air.

But the lack of experience of the other coalition members puts them many years behind our own forces in wielding the highly complex 21st century capabilities of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, communication and targeting.

Yet the coalition faces the same tough challenges that we face on battlefields everywhere. Their Houthi adversaries fight according to the well-developed doctrine of their backers, the Iranian Quds Force. Like Hizballah, Hamas, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, their techniques include deliberately killing civilians, fighting from within the population and forcing innocents to become human shields.

1474

Completely ignoring the laws of war, they exploit their enemies’ adherence to them. They lure their opponents to attack and kill civilians. They exploit gullible or compliant reporters, international organizations and human rights groups to facilitate their propaganda, including false testimony and systematic fabrication of imagery. The aim is to instigate international condemnation in order to constrain their militarily superior enemies.

We have seen credible forensic analysis of strikes in Yemen that directly contradict the findings of the UN. Forensic analysis shows that rather than deliberately targeting civilians, the Saudis and their allies have taken remarkable steps to minimize civilian deaths. Of note, they have learned much from Israel’s conduct of operations in Gaza. This has included the use of guided munitions to conduct precision attacks against insurgents while seeking to reduce collateral damage.

Why would coalition forces spend vast amounts of money in a cripplingly expensive conflict firing precision strike munitions, and put their valuable pilots at risk, if they wanted to massacre civilians? Why not use much cheaper unguided munitions or Assad’s indiscriminate barrel-bombs?

The overwhelming majority of civilian deaths caused by the Saudi-led coalition have been due not to deliberate targeting, but to inexperienced pilots and unsophisticated intelligence and targeting capabilities in the face of an enemy that fights from within the civilian population. And to that the friction, confusion, stress and fog of war that leads even the most sophisticated, experienced and restrained military forces, such as American, British and Israeli, to sometimes kill civilians unintentionally. Contrary to the UN’s claim, this is unlikely to amount to war crimes.

Like every conflict in the Middle East, the war in Yemen is almost intractable, takes a heavy toll on innocent civilians, and is unlikely to end in anything approaching a perfect solution. But Saudi Arabia and its allies are making considerable efforts to restore stability to the country and its legitimate government.

Instability in Yemen undermines Western interests, including oil supplies. Instability also allows Al Qaeda and the Islamic State — proven and lethal threats to the US and the West — to flourish there.

By confronting the Houthis in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is also confronting Iran, which represents an even greater threat to the region and to the world. Emboldened by U.S. President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, enriched by the release of billions of dollars of previously frozen funds, encouraged by the imminent boost in oil revenues, Iranian imperial aggression is today rampant in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

However unpalatable to many, Saudi Arabia is and will remain a vital ally of the West. We must continue to support them in the fight in Yemen. We must not allow the false, ill-informed and increasingly shrill condemnations by the UN, human rights groups and the media to undermine Saudi’s fighting effectiveness as they have sought to do against other legitimate government forces fighting lawless insurgents in so many other places.

Russian-Turkish clash building up over Syria

February 14, 2016

Russian-Turkish clash building up over Syria, DEBKAfile, February 14, 2016

Turkish-self-propelled_howitzers_13.2.16

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan clearly took a calculated risk when he ordered a two-our cross-border artillery bombardment Saturday, Feb. 13 of Syrian army forces positioned around the northern Syrian town of Azaz and the Kurdish YPG militia units which two days earlier took control of the former Syrian military air base of Minagh some six kilometers from the Turkish border.

Kurdish troops backed by the Russian air force seized that base last week from rebel militias as part of the operation for cutting the rebel groups under siege in Aleppo from their supply routes. The Turkish bombardment was therefore an indirect attack on the Russian forces backing pro-Assad forces against the rebels in the Syria war.

Erdogan knows that Moscow hasn’t finished settling accounts with Turkey for the shooting down of a Russian Su-24 on Nov. 24 and is spoiling for more punishment. After that incident, the Russians deployed top-of-line S-400 ground-to-air missile batteries and advanced Sukhoi Su-35 warplanes to their base in Latakia near the Turkish border. Ankara therefore limited its strike to a two-hour artillery bombardment from Turkish soil, reasoning that a Turkish warplane anywhere near the Syrian border would be shot down instantly.

Emboldened by the delay in the Russian response, the Turks took another step: Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu threatened the Kurdish YPG militia with more attacks if they failed to withdraw from the Menagh air base.

Although the Turkish prime minister had called on “allies and supporters” to back the operation against the Russian-backed  Syrian Kurds, Washington took the opposite line by urging Turkey, a fellow member of NATO, to desist from any further attacks.

Washington’s concern is obvious. An outright clash between Turkey and Russia would entitle Ankara to invoke the NATO charter and demand allied protection for a member state under attack.

The Obama administration would have had to spurn this appeal for three reasons:

1. To avoid getting mixed up in a military clash between two countries, just as the US kept its powder dry in the Russian-Ukraine confrontation after Moscow’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in February 2014.

2. To avoid upsetting the secret Obama-Putin deal on the allocation of spheres of influence in Syria: the Americans have taken the regions east of the Euphrates River, and the Russians, the west.

The Kurdish YPG militia forces near Aleppo and the city itself come under the Russian area of influence.

3. Regional tensions were tightened another notch Saturday by Russian comments: Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that his country and the West have “slid into a new Cold War period,” and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said a third World War is actually underway -“I call this struggle a third World War by other means.,” he said.

Washington will avoid any action that risks further stoking this high state of international tension, but will act instead to de-escalate the cross-border Turkish-Russian confrontation over Syria.

All eyes are now on Moscow, Much depends on Russia’s response to the artillery bombardment of its Syrian and Kurdish allies. It is up to Putin to decide when and how to strike back – if at all.

Our Good Islam/Bad Islam Strategy

February 11, 2016

Our Good Islam/Bad Islam Strategy, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 11, 2016

Behead them

There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

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

Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.

But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives. Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims, “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.

Our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of a Bad Islam. Even its name is one of those names that must not be named. There is only Good Islam. Bad Islam doesn’t even exist.

This isn’t just domestic spin, which it is, but it’s also an attempt at constructing an Islamic narrative. Our leaders don’t care what we think. They just want us to keep quiet and not offend Muslims. They do care a great deal about what Muslims think. And so, in their own clumsy way, they try to talk like Muslims.

They are attempting to participate in an Islamic debate without the requisite theological credentials. They want to tell Muslims that they should be Good Muslims not Bad Muslims, but they’re too afraid to use those words, so instead they substitute Good Muslims and Not Muslims. All Muslims are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims are Not Muslims is their Takfiri version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Our counterterrorism strategy has been constructed to convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam. And any of us who criticize Good Islam or argue that the artificial distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam, between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, between Iran and Hezbollah, between Pakistan and the Taliban, is false are accused of provoking Good Islam to transform into Bad Islam.

Nothing so thoroughly proves that the difference between Bad Islam and Good Islam is a lie as the compulsive way that they warn that Good Muslims are capable of turning into Bad Muslims at any moment. Offend a Good Muslim, criticize his religion, fail to integrate him, accommodate his every whim and censor what he dislikes and he’ll join ISIS and then he’ll become a Bad Muslim.

After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.

Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.

But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.

What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.

Our Good Islam allies in Pakistan fight Bad Islam’s terror, when they aren’t hiding Osama bin Laden. Bad Islam in the Islamic State beheads people and takes slaves and Good Islam in Saudi Arabia does too. Qatar is our Good Islam ally helping us fight Bad Islam terrorists by arming and funding Good Islam terrorists who sometimes turn out to be Bad Islam terrorists so we can’t figure out if the Islamic terrorists the CIA is routing weapons to are Good Islam terrorists or Bad Islam terrorists.

The moderate Muslim Brotherhood wins democratic elections. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood then burns down churches. The moderate Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and then the extremist Palestinian Authority cheers the stabbing of a Jewish grandmother. The moderate Iranian government signs a nuclear deal and then the extremist Iranian government calls for “Death to America”.

Like the saintly Dr. Jekyll and the mean Mr. Hyde, Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin. When Dr. Jekyll wanted to act out his baser nature, he took a potion and turned into Mr. Hyde. But the nasty urges were always a part of him. When a moderate Muslim pulls a Keffiyah over his face and starts stabbing, bombing or beheading, he doesn’t become an extremist, he just expresses his dark side.

Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder. Bad Islam is not something ISIS invented on a website. It’s always been a part of Islam. We attempt to separate Good Islam and Bad Islam because we don’t like being beheaded. But Muslims don’t make that distinction.

Our counterterrorism strategy is based on empowering Good Islam, on building coalitions with Muslims to fight terrorism and enlisting their cooperation in the War on Terror. But we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.

Our moderate Afghan Muslim allies, when they’re aren’t raping young boys (one of their cultural peculiarities we are taught to ignore), sometimes unexpectedly open fire on our soldiers. The Muslim migrants who arrive here to “enrich” our societies sometimes start shooting and bombing. The head of Al Qaeda was hanging out near the West Point of Pakistan. The mastermind of 9/11 was saved by a member of the Qatari royal family. The call is coming from inside the house. Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll.

When we “empower” and “build coalitions” with Good Islam, we’re also empowering and building coalitions with Bad Islam. Just ask all the Muslim terrorists running around with our weapons.

Our leaders want Good Islam to shield us from Bad Islam. If Good Islam is out front, then Muslims won’t see a clash of civilizations or a religious war, but a war between Good Islam and Bad Islam. But the Muslim understanding of Good Islam and Bad Islam is very different from our own.

Sunnis see their Jihadis as Good Islam and Shiites as Bad Islam. Shiites look at it the other way around. The Muslim Brotherhood, that our elites were so enamored with, saw secular governments as Bad Islam. To win them over, we helped them overthrow more secular governments because our leaders had adopted an understanding of Good Islam in which giving Christians civil rights was Bad Islam.

To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.

There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.

There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.

Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.

The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America.

There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

Between Putin and Obama

February 7, 2016

Between Putin and Obama, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, February 7, 2016

The tide has turned in Syria: Aleppo, the rebel stronghold, is on the verge of falling to President Bashar Assad’s army. Hezbollah’s Shiite militias, the Iranian army and the massive Russian air strikes have been the difference.

In contrast to the rebels, Assad can count on his partners. On the Syrian dictator’s side, backed by Russia, action is being taken. On the rebel side, backed by the Americans, there has been a lot of talking. This perhaps explains why in January 2017 U.S. President Barack Obama will exit the White House, and Assad will still be in power. We can add this legacy to the American president’s splendid list of achievements.

And we haven’t even mentioned the millions of Syrian refuges, the terrible migrant crisis in Europe (leading to the rise of far-right parties across the continent), and the escalation of hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis. It’s not a short list.

Since last Monday, Aleppo has been under heavy attack from Assad’s forces. The gains on the ground have been considerable. Russia’s intervention has tipped the balance of power. No one can say this was unexpected. Washington, meanwhile, continues to grumble. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lambasted Moscow on Friday for the large number of dead Syrian women and children. Moscow isn’t exactly heeding his criticism. Washington still fails to understand that instead of talking, maybe it would be better to take action already. In August of 2013, however, after Assad had attacked his own people with chemical weapons for the 14th time, the Americans did nothing (red lines, remember?). Why should things be any different today?

Washington, you will say, has worked hard to find a diplomatic solution. This is a good time to remind everyone that the peace talks in Vienna have again hit a dead end. The talks aren’t likely to succeed for a number of reasons, namely that the two main players — Saudi Arabia and Iran — have reached a point of open hostilities, thanks to American foreign policy. Instead of cooperating to resolve the Syrian crisis, these two regional powers are closer than ever to a full-fledged military conflict. Riyadh is threatening to send ground forces into Syria to support the rebels. The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has already vowed that any such intervention would result in immense casualties for the Saudis. This is where things stand.

Over the weekend Turkey’s foreign minister discussed opening his country’s borders to the steady stream of refugees, but the crossings remain as shut as they were in September, 2014, when thousands of Kurds tried to flee the border town of Kobani. The European Union is trying to remind the Turks that they were given $3 billion for the expressed purpose of absorbing these 2 million refugees. But who expects agreements to be kept in today’s Middle East?

Who does have faith in agreements?

The refugee issue is becoming the hot button topic of the Syrian civil war. “The markets solved the economic crisis, the voters will solve the refugee crisis,” a French lawmaker said a few days ago. In the meantime, as Assad solidifies his power the far-right parties in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland, and of course in France, are all growing in strength. It appears that everyone outside the Obama camp is thriving. And here is yet one more legacy to tell the grandchildren about.

Jihadists reinforce other rebels during key battle in Aleppo province

February 7, 2016

Jihadists reinforce other rebels during key battle in Aleppo province, Long War Journal, February 6, 2016

Screen-Shot-2016-02-06-at-11.57.16-AM-768x433

An Al Nusrah Front convoy streams into Aleppo province in late January.

Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, sent a massive convoy of fighters to the Aleppo province in late January. The jihadists’ redeployment was promoted in a short video posted on Twitter. More than 100 vehicles filled with fighters streamed into the province.

It was a harbinger of the heavy fighting to come.

Bashar al Assad’s regime, backed by Russian airstrikes, Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias and Hezbollah, launched a major offensive in Aleppo earlier this month. The fight for the province is likely the most important battle in Syria since early last year, when the Jaysh al Fateh coalition, led by Al Nusrah and Ahrar al Sham (an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group) swept through the neighboring Idlib province.

If Assad and his allies are successful it will not only allow them to lay siege to the city of Aleppo, parts of which have been controlled by the insurgents since 2012, but also to cut off Idlib. Assad wants to secure the northern part of the province, which borders Turkey and houses vital supply routes for the insurgency.

The Syrian government claims to have made gains in pursuit of this objective in recent days.

The Syrian Army, “in cooperation with” paramilitary groups, “restored security and stability to Rityan and Mair towns in the northern countryside of Aleppo province,” Assad’s propaganda arm, SANA, claimed on Feb. 5.

The purported gains came two days after SANA reported that the Syrian Army and its allies “broke the siege imposed on Nubbul and al-Zahra towns by terrorist organizations.” SANA claimed that “[s]cores of terrorists were killed, most of them from [Al Nusrah Front] during the operations.” Nubbul and al-Zahra are both Shiite-majority towns in the northern part of Aleppo.

There is an ebb and flow to the fighting in Aleppo, as elsewhere, making it difficult to tell if the government’s gains are lasting, or just temporary. For example, although SANA says Rityan has been retaken from the insurgents, Al Nusrah continues to post images from the fighting there.

And although SANA says all of the opposition to the government in Aleppo comes from “terrorist organizations,” the reality is more complex. Jihadist groups such as Al Nusrah are partnering with other rebel organizations, including Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Islamist factions, in an attempt to thwart the Syrian government’s advances.

The opposition in Aleppo

One of the strongest rebel groups in Aleppo is the Nur al-Din al-Zanki Movement. Members of Zanki and Al Nusrah clashed at a checkpoint in late September and early October of last year. Zanki’s “political bureau” then denounced Al Nusrah in tweets that were published in both English and Arabic. However, the infighting did not lead to a permanent rift between the two. Instead, Zanki complied with Al Nusrah’s demands and quickly apologized.

In a statement written in Arabic and released on social media, Zanki said its criticism of Al Nusrah did “not represent the [Zanki] movement’s official position…and we owe [an] exoneration of our brothers from what was attributed to them – accusations, insinuations, and slander [libel] – to God Almighty, and we only think properly of them.”

The “relationship between us and our [Nusrah] brothers is proceeding on even better terms than what it was in the past, and this incident which occurred between us and our [Nusrah] brothers will not deter us from vigorously continuing to strengthen the bond of Islamic brotherhood between us and them, and which obligates us – religiously – to cooperate and combine efforts and fight off the aggressor enemy,” Zanki’s apology continued.

The statement ended with a call for both Zanki and Al Nusrah “to [ensure] that the only judgment in any dispute between us should be based on religious law.”

Zanki is not al Qaeda. But as the skirmish with Al Nusrah demonstrated, Zanki does not want to offend al Qaeda’s men, cooperates with them on the battlefield and believes in a version of “religious law” (sharia) that is at least similar to Al Nusrah’s.

Despite its adherence to an Islamist ideology and alliance with Al Nusrah, Zanki has received American-made TOW missiles, which it has used against both the Assad regime and the Islamic State.

Another Islamist organization in Aleppo is Faylaq al Sham (Sham Legion), which fought as part of the Jaysh al Fateh coalition in Idlib. In early January, however, Faylaq al Sham announced that it was leaving Jaysh al Fateh to concentrate on the fighting in Aleppo. The group subsequently merged with others to form the “North Brigade” in Aleppo.

In late December, Sheikh Umar Huzaifa, a senior Faylaq al Sham official, was one of 38 ideologues who signed a statement proclaiming that jihad is an “individual obligation” for all Muslims “in situations like this.” The statement’s signatories, who belong to the “Association of Scholars in Sham,” portrayed the war in Syria as one pitting a “Crusader-Zionist-Safawi [Shiites and Iranians]” alliance against Sunni Muslims.

The association’s scholars claimed it “is no longer hidden from our Beloved Ummah [community of worldwide Muslims] what has reached the land of Sham with the rushing forward of the entire nations of Kufr [disbelief] against it,” because it “has become manifest in the Crusader-Zionist-Safawi coalition rushing to eliminate the revolution of the people of Sham and their blessed jihad.” The “battle of Sham has become a decisive battle against the nations of Kufr,” the statement continued, as the rebels’ enemies “gather to establish the Rafidhi [rejectionist] Shia to fulfill their drawn up plans for their (Shia) crescent (on the map) and to eliminate” Sunni belief in Syria and elsewhere.

Other signatories on the statement issued by the “Association of Scholars in Sham” included Sheikh Abdallah Muhammad al Muhaysini (an al Qaeda-affiliated cleric and “judge” in Jaysh al Fateh), members of Al Nusrah Front and Ahrar al Sham, Sheikh Sirajuddin Zurayqat (emir of the al Qaeda-linked and Lebanon-based Abdullah Azzam Brigades), as well as a number of other officials.

The battle for Aleppo is a complex, multi-sided affair. The organizations discussed above are just some of those fighting on the ground. The Islamic State, the Kurds, and the Western-backed Syrian Democratic Forces all have a presence.

Another group is Liwa Suqour al Jabal, which has reportedly received assistance from the CIA. Liwa Suqour al Jabal fights in Aleppo and has been targeted in Russian airstrikes.

“The Russian (air) cover continues night and day, there were more than 250 air strikes on this area in one day,” Hassan Haj Ali, the leader of Liwa Suqour al Jabal, told Reuters in an interview. “The regime is now trying to expand the area it has taken control of,” Ali explained. “Now the northern countryside (of Aleppo) is totally encircled, and the humanitarian situation is very difficult.”

The fight for Aleppo may very well shape the course of the war. And as the battle has raged on, jihadists have called for even more reinforcements. Sheikh Muhaysini, a popular jihadist cleric, has repeatedly urged Muslims to join the rebel’s ranks and for the existing insurgent organizations to unite under a common banner.

It remains to be seen if the jihadists, Islamists and other rebels can thwart the Assad regime’s advances.

Hezbollah tries to shift attention to the West Bank

February 5, 2016

Hezbollah tries to shift attention to the West Bank, Long War Journal, February 5, 2016

Hezbolla Gaza

Israeli security forces announced last week their dismantling of a five-man terror cell from the West Bank city of Tulkarem, jihadists who were recruited by Hezbollah’s secretive Unit 133. The men were instructed to gather intelligence information on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) training facilities for attacks and prepare a bomb for use in a suicide operation against civilians. The foiled plot was Hezbollah’s latest attempt to stir up Israeli-Palestinian violence, exploiting the conflict to improve its tarnished image while bogging down Israeli forces in a battlefield far from its home base.

Hezbollah established Unit 133 in the early 2000s, to focus its operations on Israeli targets both domestically and across the Middle East and Europe. Unit 133 relies primarily on human intelligence activity, luring recruits with money. Due to the nature and purpose of the Unit’s activities, it does not exclusively draw on Shia Muslims for recruitment. Recruits are given broad security and military training, charged with recruiting new assets as well as intelligence collection, target acquisition, surveillance, reconnaissance, managing sources and establishing cover stories.

For its operations within Israel, the unit was tasked with recruiting intelligence assets and terror operatives from among Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel’s Arab citizens. To accomplish that, it turned to Lebanese drug dealers who work with Israeli-Arab smugglers.

Unit 133 has been linked to previous attempts, some unsuccessful, to carry out attacks within Israel. In April 2012, for example, it tried to smuggle 24 C-4 explosive devices, M-16 rifles and other weapons past Israel’s border with Lebanon through Israeli-Arab smugglers. The goal was to have one of the Unit’s cells within Israel use the materials to carry out a mass-casualty attack, but the attempt was foiled by Israel’s Shin Bet security services before they reached their intended recipients. Last summer, Israeli security forces arrested Hezbollah operative Hassan Khalil Hizrana dual Lebanese-Swedish citizen, at Ben-Gurion Airport. Hizran was to report on the airport’s security procedures, recruit Israeli Arabs with ties to Israeli civilians or military personnel, and gather intelligence on military targets.

This newest cell, taken down last week, was put together and funded by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah’s son, Jawad. He instructed the men to recruit more Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, providing them with $5,000 to acquire the necessary weapons and materials for the intended attacks.

Israeli security officials said the cell hoped to reignite the months-long wave of Palestinian violence that has waned in recent weeks. Hezbollah likely hoped the attacks would be the catalyst for turning the violence into a real Intifada, or uprising, on par with the bloody Al-Aqsa Intifada of the early 2000s. Beyond simply killing Israelis, Hezbollah has much to gain from such a heightened level of violence.

For one, full-blown violence would refocus the ire of Sunni Arabs (particularly the wealthy Gulf states) on what they insist is the “central cause” of the Arabs – Palestine – and away from Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. Sparking another Intifada would also improve Hezbollah’s image on the Arab street, allaying some of the anger directed at it over its involvement in the Syrian civil war. It would allow Hezbollah to portray itself as primarily fighting Israel, while – unlike during the 2006 war – keeping the fight away from Lebanese soil.

Finally, if Israel were once again plagued with frequent Palestinian suicide bombings and large-scale attacks as in the early 2000s,  the IDF would become bogged down again in counter-terror operations in the West Bank, severely reducing its ability to act against Hezbollah – either in Lebanon or Syria.

Iran and Russia in first major falling-out over Syrian war and Assad

February 5, 2016

Iran and Russia in first major falling-out over Syrian war and Assad, DEBKAfile, February 5, 2016

P.V

While diplomats from 70 countries talked in London about how to raise $9 bn for projects to rehabilitate Syria’s refugees and rebuild their war-ravaged country, its future was further clouded this week by an argument that flared between the main arbiters, Russia and Iran.

Ali Akbar Velayati, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s foreign affairs advisor, spent three days in Moscow Feb. 1-4 haranguing Russian leaders, including President Vladimir Putin, whom he saw twice, on the differences that had cropped up in their long political and military cooperation for propping up the Assad regime.

The Iranian official went home without resolving those differences, DEBKAfile’s sources report exclusively. Left pending were not just the next stage of the war but also the fate of President Bashar Assad.

Velayati told Iranian reporters on his plane: “We are against stopping the war,” and “The war must be continued until all (Syrian) terror cells are eradicated.”

He did not elaborate, but DEBKAfile’s Iranian and Moscow sources point out that he was underlining Tehran’s concerns about Moscow’s reported plans for the Assad regime, in which Iran is heavily invested, and the slowdown of Russia’s air campaign against every last rebel group.

Most of all, Iran’s leaders were troubled to find that Russia, by dint of its proactive military intervention, had maneuvered itself into position for calling the shots for Syria.

They are particularly distrustful, according to our sources, over Moscow’s complicated deals with Washington on the Syrian question and the dialogue Russia is holding with the Persian Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia. The Iranians fear that Putin is calibrating his offensive against rebel groups according to the pace of these interchanges and may therefore scale back strikes on pro-American or “moderate” rebels, or even refrain from subduing them.

Tehran also looks askance at the improved relations Moscow is fostering with its rivals in the region, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited the two Arab capitals to allay their concerns for the Syrian rebel groups they support. He promised the Saudis not to harm them, so long as they did not get in the way of the joint Russian-Syrian steps in their country.

Given the Russian moves, the Syrian war looks increasingly to Tehran as unlikely to end in President Assad’s favor.

Lavrov seemed to confirm this Iranian concern on Feb. 2 when, during his visit to Oman he said, “Russian air strikes will not cease until we truly defeat the terrorist organizations ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra, And I don’t see why these air strikes should stop.”

The Iranians immediately jumped on his omission of all other rebel groups but the two Islamists as the enemy, confirming their suspicions that Moscow was now acting in Syria on its own account. This was the cause of raised tempers in Velayati’s second meeting with the Russian president in Moscow.

The Iranian official demanded the expansion of Russian military operations to cover more inclusive rebel targets. Putin shot back that if Iran wants to ramp up war operations, it should send its own troops into the fray – and not just generals.

He touched on a sore point:  Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps don’t have troops available for fighting in Syria. And so, Velayati’s mission to Moscow ended on an acrimonious note.