Archive for the ‘Pakistan’ category

Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam

May 18, 2016

Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 18, 2016

Quran and Islam

In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.” The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”

At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”

If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?

You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.

This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.

Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.

He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.

Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.

Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.

But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.

The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.

These are undeniable facts.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.

Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?

9/11 cost us $3.3 trillion, over 10,000 dead, a national loss of privacy and traumas inflicted on millions. What could any number of moderate Muslims possibly contribute to outweigh all that? If it were a debt, it would take a thousand years to even begin balancing out those scales. And instead of trying to make amends, Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA have waged a relentless campaign to undermine national security and defame Americans. They have refused to cooperate with law enforcement, defended terrorists and denounced America. These are our “moderate” partners.

But the Obama/Petraeus narrative about needing partners in Muslim communities in America implicitly concedes that Muslim communities at home, like the Saudis and Pakistanis abroad, create environments in which Islamic terrorists can safely operate. They admit the existence of Islamic no-go zones where the FBI and local law enforcement are ineffective so that we have to treat parts of Michigan or New Jersey like Pakistan or Iraq, trying to work with untrustworthy allies to gain intelligence on enemy territory.

We have to work with CAIR or ISNA, the way we do with the Saudis or Pakistanis, even though they’re untrustworthy, because they’re all we have in parts of America that have become enemy territory.

This argument is terrible enough in the Middle East. But it’s horrifying in the Midwest.

It’s bad enough that we sign off on “partners” who finance terrorists and then pretend to fight them in Syria or Afghanistan, do we really want to be doing this in Illinois or California?

The real problem, as Obama and Petraeus indirectly concede, is that Muslim communities create an ideal environment for Muslim terrorists. The last thing that we should be doing is building them up.

Even if Muslim communities were an asset, the Obama/Petraeus narrative is that they benefit us by helping us deal with the problems that they cause. The obvious question would be to wonder why we need them in the first place to help us cope with a problem that wouldn’t exist without them.

Obama insists that we need Muslim immigration so that Muslims will help us fight Muslim terror. But if we didn’t have Muslim immigration, we wouldn’t need Muslims to help us fight Muslim terrorism.

Muslim immigration isn’t a solution. It’s a problem posing as a solution. And we are told that we need to make the problem bigger in order to solve it. Muslim immigration has yet to reduce terrorism in any country. The increase in Muslim populations has not made Europe any safer. On the contrary, it has increased the risk of terrorism. The same is also true in Africa, Asia and across the Middle East.

The plan to reduce the risk of terrorism by increasing the Muslim population has failed around the world. Nor has it ever worked in the United States. What are the odds that it suddenly will now?

Building a counterterrorism strategy around creating more terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a suicide mission. Using Muslim immigration to fix a terrorism problem caused by Muslim immigration is like drilling a hole in a boat and then trying to plug it with water. Europe is sinking and if we don’t stop importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, we’ll be facing the same problems that Europe does.

“It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric,” Petraeus insists. It’s a compelling argument, but not in the way that he thinks it is.

If Muslims can’t handle the full spectrum of argument, debate and namecalling that is a part of life in a free country without turning homicidal, then something has to go. According to Petraeus, it’s freedom of speech. According to others, it’s Muslim migration. Americans will have to decide whether they would rather have freedom of speech or Muslim immigration. Because even the advocates for Muslim migration are increasingly willing to admit that we can’t have both. The choice is ours.

Either we can hope that Islam will save us from Islam. And that Muslims will protect us from other Muslims. Or we can try to protect ourselves and save our lives and our freedoms from Islam.

Pakistan: Christians Tortured At Hands of Police

May 11, 2016

Pakistan: Christians Tortured At Hands of Police, Clarion Project, May 11, 2016

Pakistan--Christian-Torutre-Police-IPOne of the Christian men being tortured by police taken by a relative who bribed his way into the police station.

Two Pakistani Christians men are both fighting for their lives after being tortured by police in Lahore. The two men, Faraz Masih, 30, and Doya Masih, 40, were arrested for allegedly committing a robbery, a crime which they deny.

Pakistan--Christian-Torutre-Police-Inside

Without being formally charged, the men were kept in police custody for days, hung upside down and brutally beaten. Family members were denied access to the prisoners. However, after offering a huge bribe to a junior police officer, one relative was allowed into the police station where he photographed the gruesome scene.

After sharing the photos with local crime reporters, the mainstream media picked up the story. Media attention on the case forced the police to transfer the near-unconscious men to a private clinic for medical attention.

In a strategy reported by locals to be typical in such cases (which are also reportedly very common), the privately-managed clinic was chosen by the police to avoid legal “complications.” If the police would have transferred the men to a public government hospital, their medical records could be used an evidence against the offending officers.

Although a senior police officer ordered a commission of inquiry to investigate the incident, locals say this is a common tactic used to deflect attention from the police and silence the media.  It is not expected to bear any outcome.

Although Pakistani law disallows any corporal punishment while in custody and states that all those arrested for crimes must be brought to a court within 24 hours after their arrests, in this case, the police did not charge the men and, therefore, there is no official record of their arrest.

One relative reported that the police were demanding a huge bribe to release the men, who both come from poor families. “The police investigators applied third-degree torture methods during interrogation. They were demanding one hundred thousand rupees ($955) for the release of the suspects,” he told local media.

The sum, which represents more than a year’s salary for those living in poverty in Pakistan, was impossible for the families to pay. According to a survey by the Christian Monitor, most prisoners in Lahore’s prisons are Christians who cannot afford to pay the requisite bribe asked after every arrest.

Thousands in Pakistan have lost their lives through this state-sanctioned abuse that criminal suspects encounter at the hands of police and prison officials.

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA

April 17, 2016

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intel Org to Deadly Attack on CIA, Clarion Project, April 17, 2016

Jennifer-Ehle-Jennifer-Lynne-Matthew-Zero-Dark-Thirty-HPJennifer Ehle plays Jennifer Lynne Matthew in the film Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda. Matthews, a mother of three was described as “one of the CIA’s top experts on al-Qaeda.” She was head of Camp Chapman and killed in the attack on the base.

Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a Taliban-affiliated terror group in Afghanistan to perpetrate one of the deadliest attacks on the CIA in the agency’s history, according to inferences made in recently-declassified U.S. government cables and documents.

On December 30, 2009, a Jordanian suicide bomber blew himself up in Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, located near the border with Pakistan, killing seven CIA employees. The bomber, a Jordanian doctor and double agent, tricked the Americans, telling them he would lead them to Ayman al-Zawahri, now head of al-Qaeda and, at the time, second in command.

A document dated January 11, 2010 , issued less than two weeks after the bombing, reports how the head of the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied organization designed as terrorist by the U.S., met twice with senior officials of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) the month of the bombing.

During the first meeting, funding for “operations in Khowst [Khost] province” were discussed. “Funds were later provided to tribal elders in Khowst province for their support of the Haqqani network,” according to the cable.

At the second meeting, ISI officials gave “direction to the Haqqanis to expedite attack preparations and lethality in Afghanistan.”

Although heavily redacted, a cable issued the following month specified the head of the Haqqani network as well as another individual were given $200,000 “to enable the attack on Chapman.” The cable specifically mentions a number of individuals involved in the operation, including an Afghan border commander who was given money “to enable a suicide mission by an unnamed Jordanian national.”

The Jordanian mentioned is assumed to be the suicide bomber, Humam al-Balawi, whom the CIA had cultivated as an al-Qaeda informant. Codenamed “Wolf,” al-Balawi turned out to be a double agent, perpetrating the deadliest attack against the CIA in the 15-year history of the war in Afghanistan.

Although each document states, “This is an information report not finally evaluated intelligence,” Admiral  Mike Mullen (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) terms the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency. The U.S. has long-documented the connection between the ISI and the Haqqani terrorist organization.

The documents were the first public disclosure connecting the attack on Camp Chapman to the Pakistani ISI. They were released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request. The U.S. had previously blamed al-Qaeda for the attack.

Easter Greetings From the Taliban

March 28, 2016

Easter Greetings From the Taliban, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, March 27, 2016

In Lahore, Pakistan, a Muslim associated with the Taliban bombed a park where Christians were celebrating Easter, murdering at least 69, mostly women and children, while injuring more than 300 more. A spokesman for the terrorist group explained, “Members of the Christian community who were celebrating Easter today were our prime target.”

Lahore83

President Obama, meanwhile, warns us against “stigmatizing” Muslims. (To be fair, his precise reference was to Muslim-Americans, although the context was the Brussels bombings.) Actually, you and I have no ability to stigmatize Muslims. The problem is that a great many Muslims are stigmatizing themselves, by committing terrorist acts, by applauding terrorist acts and supporting terrorists, and by failing to take action against terrorists and terrorist groups. President Obama demands that we maintain the absurd fiction that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, on the theory that pretending will make it so. Unfortunately, it won’t.

UK Megamosque Backs Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

March 8, 2016

UK Megamosque Backs Persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 8, 2016

UK megapreacher

When Muslim leaders in the UK make it clear that they want to see the persecution of Christians in Pakistan, what do they intend for the Christians and other non-Muslims in the UK? It’s a very good question that we all ought to think about.

Asia Bibi is a defenseless Pakistani Christian woman who was maliciously accused of “blasphemy” by her Muslim neighbors. They did this to settle a score after she committed the other “crime,” as a non-Muslim, of drinking water from the same cup as them. Asia was sentenced by Pakistan’s courts to death by hanging in 2010. She languishes in jail awaiting execution until this day. So far, so obscene.

Five years ago, Asia must have thought she had been given a lifeline. Imagine the delight felt by this powerless woman—for Christians are a tiny and discriminated against minority in Pakistan—when the governor of Pakistan’s largest province, the flamboyant secular Muslim, Salmaan Taseer, publicly took up her case…

In 2011 Salmaan Taseer was gunned down by his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri… Qadri came to be regarded as a hero by many Barelwi Pakistani Sufi Muslims for “defending” the “honor” of the Prophet Muhammad.

Blasphemy laws in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world exist to lock in Muslim authority over non-Muslims. The Bibi case is typical. When Muslims speak of defending the honor of Mohammed, they really mean defending their own honor and their subjugation of non-Muslims. And in the UK, there’s plenty of support for Qadri.

One of Europe’s largest mosques, the Barelwi Sufi managed Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham, UK, held a wake “in honor of the lover of the Prophet, Warrior Mumtaz Qadri, the martyr.”

Another Barelwi Imam, Muhammed Asim Hussain, whose verified Facebook page has been liked nearly 137,000 times, posted his position openly:

“A dark day in the history of Pakistan; the day Ghazi [warrior] Mumtaz was wrongfully executed and martyred in the way of Allah, when he did what he did in honor of the Prophet.”

A mainstream conservative Barelwi leader, Muhammad Masood Qadiri who presents a weekly show on Ummah TV, available on the Sky TV platform, doubled-down after hailing “warrior” Qadri as a “martyr”:

“This does not make me a terrorist sympathizer as I, along with millions of fellow Muslims do not accept that Gazi Mumtaz Qadri was a terrorist in the least. I have always been the first to condemn terrorism wherever in the world it takes place. I am also an Islamic religious minister. I therefore have a duty to express an opinion on fundamental matters concerning Islam and on this occasion, the crime of blasphemy.… As for having travelled to the funeral of Gazi Mumtaz Qadri, along with hundreds of thousands of others who also attended, I am not at all ashamed of this.”

If you believe in killing people in the name of Islam… you are a terrorist. It’s that simple. Any supporter of Qadri should be treated as a supporter of Islamic Supremacist terrorism.

Ghamkol Sharif is one of the UK’s megamosques. It can fit in 5,000 people. It’s one of those “moderate” megamosques though. And doesn’t at all want its support for murdering anyone who defends Christians to be viewed as “extremism”.

“Some are equating honouring Mumtaz Qadri to extremism. The issue must be holistically understood before any judgements are made,” the megamosque posted on Facebook.

Because when you shoot someone. You should understand that holistically.

The victim who was murdered for trying to protect a Christian woman, “while being aware of the strong religious sentiments of the Pakistani Muslims, he said the law- regardless of how it was applied- was a ‘Black Law’ and compared it to his excrement.” And so naturally his Jihadist killer, “is being hailed a hero not just for standing up to what he believed in but as a victim of a system that should have been fair. Comparing this case to terrorism and extremism is an absurdity.”

Sure. It’s absurd to compare terrorism to terrorism.

This is the Islamofascist infrastructure that has set up shop in the UK that justifies murder for blasphemy. Under these conditions, freedom of speech and religion becomes structurally impossible. The UK must choose between these and Islamic supremacism.

Muslim Father who Shot Daughter is the Most Popular Man in Pakistan

February 1, 2016

Muslim Father who Shot Daughter is the Most Popular Man in Pakistan, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, January 31, 2016

honor

Some cultures really are different. And bad. Very, very bad. Rotten, evil bad.

A 19-year-old Pakistani woman named Saba Qaiser fell in love against her family’s wishes and ran off to marry her boyfriend. Hours after the marriage, her father and uncle sweet-talked her into their car and took her to a spot along a riverbank to murder her for her defiance — an “honor killing.”

First they beat Saba, then her uncle held her as her own father pointed a pistol at her head and pulled the trigger. Blood spewed, Saba collapsed and her father and uncle packed her body into a large sack and threw it into the river to sink. They then drove away, thinking they had restored the family’s good name.

Incredibly, Saba was unconscious but alive. She had jerked her head as the gun went off, and the bullet tore through the left side of her face but didn’t kill her. The river water revived her, and she clawed her way out of the sack and crawled onto land. She staggered toward a gasoline station, and someone called for help.

About every 90 minutes, an honor killing unfolds somewhere in the world, usually in a Muslim country. Pakistan alone has more than 1,000 a year, and the killers often go unpunished.

According to M. Steven Fish’s hoax study though, Pakistan isn’t that much more dangerous than America. But murdering women in Pakistan is a victimless crime. In fact, it makes you really popular.

The police arrested Saba’s father, Maqsood, and the uncle, Muhammad, and their defense was that they did the right thing.

“She took away our honor,” Maqsood said from his jail cell. “If you put one drop of piss in a gallon of milk, the whole thing gets destroyed. That’s what she has done. … So I said, ‘No, I will kill you myself.’”

Maqsood said that after shooting Saba he went home and told his wife, “I have gone and killed your daughter.” He added: “My wife cried. What else could she do? I am her husband. She is just my wife.”

Tremendous pressure was applied to Saba by community elders to pardon her father and uncle. In the end, her husband’s older brother — the head of her new family — told her to forgive and move on. “There is no other way,” he said. “We have to live in the same neighborhood.”

Saba complied, and her father and uncle were released from prison. “After this incident, everyone says I am more respected,” her father boasted. “I can proudly say that for generations to come none of my descendants will ever think of doing what Saba did.”

The families still live near each other, although the father insists he will not try again to kill Saba.

This is the culture that mass Muslim migration is bringing to America and Europe. Is it any wonder that  crimes like Cologne happen?

Pakistan: “Christian Girls Are Only Meant for the Pleasure of Muslim Men”

January 25, 2016

Pakistan: “Christian Girls Are Only Meant for the Pleasure of Muslim Men” Gatestone Institute, Raymond Ibrahim, January 25, 2016

♦ “Around 700 Christian women in Pakistan are abducted, raped and forced into Islamic marriage every year – that figure is almost two a day and the world does nothing.” — Wilson Chowdhry, human rights activist, citing the Muslim non-governmental organization, “Movement of Solidarity and Peace.”

♦ “Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.” — Local residents, Pakistan.

Three Christian girls in Pakistan, who rejected the advances of some wealthy Muslim young men, were recently mauled by them. One of the girls died.

The London-born Chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) and human rights activist, Wilson Chowdhry, who broke the story, reported that one of the men had said: “Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”

The incident occurred on January 13 in Lahore. The three girls—aged 17, 18, and 20—were walking home after a hard day’s work. Four Muslim youths in a vehicle followed the girls and accosted them. The men “misbehaved,” yelled “suggestive and lewd comments,” and harassed the girls to get in their car for “a ride and some fun.”

The girls declined the “invitation,” and added that they were “devout Christians and did not practice sex outside of marriage.”

This caused an immediate change in the demeanour of the boys who became more aggressive and started to threaten the girls to enter the car or to be physically forced in. Terrified of the increasingly dangerous situation they were in the girls started to run in a fit of panic. This only enraged the young Muslim men further, one of them shouted out at the girls, he said: “How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the pleasure of Muslim men.”

The Muslim men chased the girls and ran the car into them. Two girls fell to the ground; one’s hip was broken, the other’s ribs were shattered. The youngest, Kiran Masih, aged 17, flew up in the air and crashed into the speeding car’s windshield. The Muslims, laughing and with the girl on the windshield, accelerated. Then the driver apparently slammed on the brakes, hard. The force of the stop catapulted the girl into the air. She then crashed to the ground, cracking her skull open and smashing her bones. Within minutes she was dead.

1438Twenty-year-old Sumble, a Pakistani Christian, had her hip broken when a group of Muslim men rammed a car into her and her girlfriends. The men attacked the Christian girls for refusing to have sex with them. Sumble’s friend, 17-year-old Kiran Masih, was murdered in the attack. (Image sources: British Pakistani Christian Association [left]; Investigative Project on Terrorism [right])

As usual, Pakistani police are reportedly “doing little to apprehend the young men and are allegedly delaying the investigative process.” Chowdhry said:

In any other nation [than Pakistan] the perpetrators would be arrested, convicted for murder and sentenced for a long term…. Violence against Christians is rarely investigated and highly unlikely to be met with justice…. Women have a low status in Pakistan, but none more so than Christian women who find themselves under the grip or terror, especially after this attack. Muslim NGO “Movement of Solidarity and Peace” state[s] that around 700 Christian women in Pakistan are abducted, raped and forced into Islamic marriage every year – that figure is almost two a day and the world does nothing.

Accounts like this — including the claim that it is a Muslim man’s right to rape Christians and other “infidels” — are common in Pakistan.

A Muslim rapist, while attacking a 9-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan, her told her “not to worry because he had done the same service to other young Christian girls.”

Local residents, discussing the man’s remark to his 9-year-old rape victim, said: “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

The Islamic concept of “spoils” is explained by one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic law and jurisprudence, the late Majid Khadduri, in War and Peace in the Law of Islam:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.

Even in Western nations, Muslims from Pakistan believe it is their right to rape and sexually abuse “infidel” women – or even Muslim women if they are out at night unaccompanied or not wearing a veil. Of course a veiled woman might also be attacked, but then the rape would be the same as for a non-Muslim rapist — he wants what he wants and that’s that. But if she is a Muslim out on her own, he can rationalize away or justify the rape as “his right” since she is acting like an infidel, so supposedly deserves what she gets. This author knows of no instance where a Muslim man targeted a Muslim woman because he thinks it is his “right.”

In Britain in 2012, nine Muslim men—eight from Pakistan—were convicted of rape and sexual exploitation of children in Britain. And just as Christians and other “infidels” in Pakistan are told before they are raped, the men regularly “told their victims that it was all right for them to be passed around for sex with dozens of men ‘because it’s what we do in our country.'”

Today, as Muslims spread into the West, what they do to “infidel” women in their adopted countries is increasingly what they do to “infidel” women in their home countries—as thousands of women in Cologne and other cities recently found out.

Our World: In Pakistan, they trust

January 12, 2016

Our World: In Pakistan, they trust, Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick, January 11, 2016

Pakistan viewA general view of houses from a hilltop in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (photo credit:REUTERS)

It is a testament to the precarious state of the world today that in a week that saw North Korea carry out a possible test of a hydrogen bomb, the most frightening statement uttered did not come from Pyongyang.

It came from Pakistan.

Speaking in the military garrison town of Rawalpindi, Pakistani Army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif said that any Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity will “wipe Iran off the map.”

Sharif made the statement following his meeting with Saudi Arabia’s defense minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to media reports, Salman was the second senior Saudi official to visit Pakistan in the past week amid growing tensions between Iran and the kingdom.

Salman’s trip and Sharif’s nuclear threat make clear that following the US’s all-but-official abandonment of its role as protector of the world’s largest oil producer, the Saudis have cast their lots with nuclear-armed Pakistan.

When last October, the USS Harry Truman exited the Persian Gulf, the move marked the first time since 2007 that the US lacked an aircraft carrier in the region. Nine years ago, the US naval move was not viewed as a major statement of strategic withdrawal, given that back then the US had some one hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

While the USS Truman returned to the Gulf late last month, its return gave little solace to America’s frightened and spurned Arab allies. The Obama administration’s weak-kneed response to Iran’s live-fire exercises on December 26, during which an Iranian Revolutionary Guards vessel fired rockets a mere 1,370 meters from the aircraft carrier as it transited the Straits of Hormuz, signaled that the US is not even willing to make a show of force to deter Iranian aggression.

And so the Saudis have turned to Pakistan.

It would be foolish to view Sharif’s nuclear threat as mere bluster.

By every meaningful measure, Pakistan is little more than a failed state with nuclear weapons. Pakistan appears in every global index of failed or failing states.

To take just a few leading indicators, as spelled out by Basit Mahmood in a report last summer for The Political Domain, barely 1% of Pakistanis pay taxes of any kind. More than half the population lives in abject poverty. The government has no control over most Pakistani territory.

Between 2003 and 2015, more than 58,000 people were killed by terrorism countrywide.

Public health is a disaster. Polio, eradicated throughout much of the world, is now galloping through the country.

Last summer more than 1,300 people died in a heat wave in the supposedly advanced city of Karachi.

These data do not take into account the wholesale slaughter and persecution of minority groups – first and foremost Christians – and the systematic denial of basic human rights and widespread, violent persecution of women and girls.

As for its nuclear arsenal, a 2010 report by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimated that Pakistan possesses between 70 and 90 nuclear warheads. Other credible reports estimate the size of the arsenal at 120.

Pakistan refuses to adopt a no-firststrike policy. In the US and worldwide, it is considered to be the greatest threat to global nuclear security.

Following a Pakistani jihadist assault on the Indian parliament in late 2001, India and Pakistan both deployed forces along their contested border. In the months that followed, due to Pakistani nuclear threats, the prospect of nuclear war was higher than it had ever been.

Cold War nuclear brinksmanship – which reached its high point during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis – paled in comparison.

In 2008, following the Pakistani jihadist assault on Mumbai, India threatened to retaliate against Pakistan.

India’s threats rose as evidence mounted that, as was the case in 2001, the jihadists were tied to Pakistan’s ISI spy service. Once again, rather than clean its own house, Pakistan responded by threatening to launch a nuclear attack against India.

And now, following the unraveling of US-strategic credibility, Pakistan’s aggressive nuclear umbrella is officially coming to the Persian Gulf.

Saudi Arabia’s decision to turn to Pakistan for protection indicates that the second wave of the destruction of the Arab state model is upon us. The notion of Arab states was invented nearly 100 years ago by the British and French at the tail end of World War I. The Sykes-Picot agreement, which partitioned the Arab world into states, rewarded national dominion to the most powerful tribal actors in the various land masses that became the states of the Arab world.

With the possible exception of Egypt, which predated Sykes-Picot, the Arab states formed at the end of World War I were not nation states. Their populations didn’t view themselves as distinct nations. Rather the populations of the Arab states were little more than a hodgepodge of tribes, clans and sectarian and ethnic groupings. In each case, the British and French made their determinations of leadership based on the relative power of the various groups. Those chosen to control these new states were viewed either as the strongest factions within the new borders or as the most loyal allies to the European powers.

The first wave of Arab state collapse began six years ago. It submerged the non-royal regimes, which fell one after the other, like houses of cards.

Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen ceased to exist.

Egypt, which in the space of two years experienced both an Islamist revolution and a military counter-revolution, still teeters on the brink of collapse.

Lebanon will likely break apart at the slightest provocation.

Today we are seeing the opening stages of the collapse of the Arab monarchies, and most importantly, of Saudi Arabia.

Most of the international attention to Saudi Arabia’s current threat environment has focused on Iran. The Iranian threat to the Saudis has grown in direct proportion to the Obama administration’s determination to realign the US away from its traditional Sunni allies and towards Iran. The conclusion of the US-led nuclear pact with Tehran has exacerbated Iran’s regional aggression as it no longer fears US retaliation for its threats to the Sunni monarchies.

But Iran is just the most visible of three existential threats now besetting the House of Saud.

The most profound threat to the world’s largest oil power is economic.

The drop in world oil prices has endangered the kingdom.

As David Goldman reported last week in the Asia Times, according to an International Monetary Fund analysis, the collapse in Saudi oil revenues “threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years.”

The house of Saud’s hold on power owes to its oil-subsidized economy. As Goldman noted, last month dwindling revenues forced the Saudis to cut subsidies for water, electricity and gasoline.

According to Goldman, Riyadh’s mass execution of 43 long-jailed prisoners at the start of the month was an attempt by the aging royal house to demonstrate its firm control of events. But the very fact the Saudi regime believed it was necessary to stage such a demonstration shows that it is in distress.

The third existential threat the regime now faces is Islamic State. Since 1979, the Saudis have sought to deflect domestic opposition by promoting Wahabist Islam at home and Wahabist jihad beyond its borders.

Now, with Islamic State in control over large swathes of neighboring Iraq, as well as Syria and Libya and threatening the Saudi-supported Sisi regime in Egypt, the Saudi royal family faces the rising threat of blowback. Some analysts argue that given the popular support for jihad in Saudi Arabia, were Islamic State to cross the Saudi border, its forces would be greeted with flowers, not bullets.

If the House of Saud falls, then the Gulf emirates will also be imperiled.

The Egyptian regime, which is bankrolled by the Saudis and its Gulf allies will also be endangered. The Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, which is protected by the US and by Israel, will face unprecedented threats.

The implications of expanding chaos – or worse – in Arabia are not limited to the Middle East. The global economy as well as the security of Europe and the US will be imperiled.

Obviously, the order of the day is for the US security guarantee to Saudi Arabia to be reinforced, mainly through straightforward US action against Iranian naval aggression and ballistic missile development.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration can be depended on to take just the opposite approach. And as a consequence, at least for the next year, the main thing propping up the Gulf monarchies, and with them, the global economy and what passes for global security, is a failed state with an itchy finger on the nuclear trigger.

Pakistan Cautiously Backs Saudi Arabia

January 11, 2016

Pakistan Cautiously Backs Saudi Arabia, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, January 11, 2016

(But please see also, Pakistan threatens to wipe Iran off the map if Saudi harmed. — DM)

Pakistan-air-force-display-640The Pakistani Air Force on display. (Photo: © Reuters)

Pakistan’s military has pledged to defend Saudi Arabia as tensions between the Sunni Gulf Kingdom and the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran soar.

“Any threat to Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity would evoke a strong response from Pakistan” Pakistani army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif told reporters on Sunday, following a visit from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammed Salman.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also confirmed his support for Saudi Arabia and made a statement welcoming Saudi Arabia’s anti-terrorist coalition initiative.

The Arab League has already backed Saudi Arabia in its spat with Iran, which was triggered by the execution of Shiite cleric SheikhNimr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia and a subsequent attack against the Saudi Embassy in Tehran.

A joint statement by Arab League foreign ministers condemned “hostile acts and provocations of Iran.”

Sunni majority Pakistan has long been a close ally of Saudi Arabia. Many Pakistanis work in Saudi Arabia and send remittances back to their families. Saudi Arabia has also given money to Pakistan in the past to help ease budgetary crises.

Yet Pakistan also has a large Shiite population and has remained on mostly good terms with Iran until now. It is also currently engaged elsewhere. On January 11 it will begin hosting four power talks with the US, China and Afghanistan to try and strike a deal with the Taliban.

It is no wonder then that Pakistan offered it’s “good offices” to try and broker a peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

“Pakistan has also always expressed its readiness to offer its good offices to brotherly Muslim countries for resolution of their differences through peaceful dialogue and reconciliation,” Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said in a statement.

Pakistan does not want to become embroiled in an all-out sectarian war, but it also has obligations to back its ally Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan threatens to wipe Iran off the map if Saudi harmed

January 10, 2016

Pakistan threatens to wipe Iran off the map if Saudi harmed, DEBKAfile, January 10, 2016

(Promises, promises. — DM)

In Pakistan’s first transparent nuclear threat to Iran, its chief of army staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif, vowed Sunday to wipe Iran off the face of the earth if any harm came to Saudi Arabia. He gave this pledge to Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman, who was on a visit to a military base in Rawalpindi.