Now for some Italian humor:
===
When Israelis are killed by Palestinian terrorists the world blames Israel. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
On the books already! (See 2 and 2a below.)
====
Why Ben Ghazi matters to those who are not in denial because to be so helps elect someone undeserving. (See 3 below.)
===
Thoughts about terrorism and the Iran-Saudi confrontation (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
Dick
=======================================================================
1)
Palestinians Tell Us What They Want
When an Islamist terrorist with Israeli citizenship shot up a Tel Aviv café on New Year’s Day killing three people, there was no outpouring of support or sympathy from around the world for the victim or the people of Israel. Indeed, the only aspect of the story that drew much international coverage was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech afterward in which he cautioned Israeli Arabs that they needed to stand up and condemn rather than condone such crimes. This effort to condemn terrorism was damned as incitement against the country’s Arab minority. But a week later, the world got a taste of what real incitement to hatred and terror looked like when the shooter was finally cornered and killed by Israeli police in his hometown in northern Israel.
The murderer Nashat Milhem seems to have been a lone wolf attacker. However, he may well have been influenced to kill by ISIS propaganda in much the same way the San Bernardino killers in December and the Philadelphia man who tried to assassinate a police officer this past week. Yet part of the problem was that, whether or not they knew of his intentions before he struck, many in the Israeli Arab town of Arara knew the object of the nationwide manhunt was hiding thereand that members of his family were actively aiding his effort to escape justice. That speaks to exactly the problem Netanyahu sought to highlight in a population that, notwithstanding the challenges of a being a national minority in a Jewish state, enjoys more liberty and equality before the law than Arabs in any of the neighboring countries.
The Palestinian Authority, the entity that we are told is still Israel’s partner for peace, didn’t merely fail to condemn that attack in Tel Aviv the way all of Israel has condemned the few instance of Jewish terror. The PA’s Health Ministry has added Milhem to their list of Palestinians killed attempting to murder Israelis that are honored by the West Bank government. The PA noted Milhem’s action as, “a martyr who spilled his pure blood to free our land.”
Meanwhile, Hamas’ Al Quds television network devoted considerable time to honoring Milhem too and praised him as a “brave hero” and “martyr.”
And lest one think it is just the Fatah and Hamas movements that are praising the Tel Aviv murders, Arabs in East Jerusalem acting on their own set up mourning tents for Milhem and erected banners in their neighborhoods praising him as a “heroic martyr” that “defeated the occupation.”
While these statements of support for Milhem’s crime have largely gone unreported in the international press, they are, in a way, more significant than his crime or any other single terrorist outrage. That’s because they demonstrate again the truth of Daniel Polisar’s thesis in his November Mosaic Magazine essay “What Do Palestinians Want?”
Polisar studied decades of Palestinian public opinion surveys. His research brought him to the inescapable conclusion that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians oppose peace with Israel, think the Jewish state has no legitimacy no matter where its borders might be drawn and actively support terror against Jews under any circumstances. Some apologists for the Palestinians have claimed his conclusions are incorrect but the reaction to Milhem, just like their cheers for other acts of terror, provides incontrovertible proof that Polisar is right.
The reaction to the Tel Aviv shooting is more evidence that the conflict isn’t about borders or settlements, let alone anything Israel’s prime minister might say. Rather, it remains what it always has been: an existential struggle between two national movements over one piece of land. If the Palestinians ever undergo a sea change in their political culture that might allow their leaders to make peace and end the century-old war to eradicate Zionism, they would find that a majority of Israelis still willing to make tremendous sacrifices in terms of territorial concessions. But the support for Milhem’s slaughter and the many other individual acts of terror carried out over the last three months during the so-called stabbing intifada demonstrates that Palestinians and even many Arab citizens of Israel consider any murder of a Jew to be a blow against the “occupation.” Moreover, by applauding Milhem, they are also making clear they think cosmopolitan Tel Aviv is just as much of an “illegitimate and illegal Jewish “settlement” as the most remote hilltop community in the West Bank inhabited by right-wing extremists.
Those who urge Israel and Netanyahu to disregard the failure of past attempts to make peace and the disastrous and bloody consequences of Oslo and the Gaza withdrawal need to think long and hard about the Palestinian reaction to Milhem. So long as so-called “liberal Zionists” as well as the Obama administration ignore the truth about Palestinian intentions, their critique of Israel is worthless. What’s more, those who are supporting the “Palestinian resistance” should not kid themselves that they are backing a movement about freedom. The cheers for Milhem as Palestinians continue to hold rallies in favor of the murder of random Jews should remind everyone that those who back such “resistance” are supporting terror, not justice.
1a)
1a)
|
Palestinian children wear "suicide belts"
to celebrate Fatah's 51 years of violence
Itaamr Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
When one looks at Palestinian Authority education and messaging to its children, it is no wonder that in the last three months, most of the terror attacks have been carried out by young Palestinians. At Fatah's anniversary celebrations in Bethlehem last week, young masked children were dressed with "suicide belts" and equipped with "guns" and "RPGs".
Palestinian Media Watch has reported that a central part of PA educational messages to children is promotion of violence and glorification of terrorists. The official PA daily reported on this Fatah event, specifically mentioning the fact that children participated in the procession brandishing toy weapons and "suicide belts," however the PA mouthpiece did not express any reservation or disapproval over this at all:
"Children were seen carrying models of RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and explosive belts, and they all walked through the alleys of the refugee camp in the procession, during which the sound of songs of the national revolution were heard."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 8, 2016]
Present at this celebration were top Fatah and PA officials, including Fatah Central Committee member Mahmoud Al-Aloul, Head of the General Intelligence Services Majed Faraj, and Minister of Tourism and Antiquities Rula Ma'ay'a. (All photos are from Ma'an, independent Palestinian news agency, Jan. 7, 2016)
 The PA and Fatah violence and terror promotion is not just for parades and celebrations, but is part of their ideology. Abbas' Fatah movement has now expressed official support and approval for the Tel Aviv murderer. Nashat Melhem killed 3 Israeli civilians at the beginning of this month. The movement "opened a mourning tent for the heroic Martyr (Shahid) Nashat Melhem" [Official Facebook page of the Fatah Movement, Jan. 10, 2016] and greeted the terrorist with "congratulations and may Allah receive you in Heaven." [Official Facebook page of the Fatah Movement, Jan. 8, 2016]Fatah has also glorified another murderer. Muhannad Halabi who stabbed 2 Israeli civilians to death has been called a "hero" and honored as the one who sparked the "Jerusalem Intifada":
"Igniter of the Jerusalem Intifada
Martyr (Shahid) of the homeland, the hero Muhannad Halabi"
[Official Facebook page of the Fatah Movement, Jan. 10, 2016]
 The following is the report in the official PA paper on the rally with children holding weapons:
Headline: "Fatah marked the anniversary of the Launch in Bethlehem"
"The Fatah movement in Bethlehem marked the 51st anniversary of the Launch (Intilaqa) with a huge ceremony in the Deheisheh refugee camp yesterday [Jan. 7, 2015]. Thousands set out from three [different] places in processions that passed through a number of streets in the district and met at the Martyr's Tower in the Deheisheh refugee camp, where a speech rally was held in the presence of Fatah Central Committee member Mahmoud Al-Aloul, Head of the General Intelligence Services Majed Faraj, Minister of Tourism and Antiquities Rula Ma'ay'a and dozens of the movement's leaders in the district.
At the head of the procession, which began at the President [Yasser Arafat]'s Airstrip at the top of the Zaher Hill in the Deheisheh refugee camp, stood masked men, and behind them walked children who wore black shirts with pictures of the deceased president Yasser Arafat and Martyr (Shahid) Jihad Al-Ja'afari, called 'Gaddafi', under the name 'death squads.' Likewise, children were seen carrying models of RPGs (i.e., rocket projected grenades) and explosive belts, and they all walked through the alleys of the refugee camp in the procession, during which the sound of songs of the national revolution were heard."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 8, 2016]
Intilaqa - "The Launch" of Fatah on Jan. 1, 1965, when it carried out its first terror attack against Israel, attempting to bomb Israel's National Water CarrierJihad Al-Ja'afari ("Gaddafi") - 19-year-old Palestinian who threw a Molotov cocktail and was then injured by Israeli soldiers' gunfire during confrontations in the Deheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem on Feb. 24, 2015. Al-Ja'afari later died of his wounds. Photos and text posted on the official Facebook page of the Fatah Movement on Jan. 10, 2016
Posted text: "The Martyr Riyad Naif - Jalazone refugee camp branch of the Fatah movement opened a mourning tent for the heroic Martyr (Shahid) Nashat Melhem"
[Official Facebook page of the Fatah Movement, Jan. 10, 2016]
Nashat Melhem - 29-year-old Israeli Arab terrorist who carried out a shooting attack, killing 2 Israelis, Alon Bakal and Shimon Ruimi, and wounding 8 others, at Hasimta bar in Tel Aviv on Jan. 1, 2016. Melhem fled the scene, and later that day killed a taxi driver, Bedouin Israeli Amin Shaaban, in another part of Tel Aviv. A week after the attacks, on Jan. 8, 2016, Israeli security forces tracked down Melhem in a building in his hometown of Arara in the north of Israel. After Melhem opened fire at them, the Israeli security forces shot and killed him. |
==================================================================================
2) Here is Title 8 US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
2) Here is Title 8 US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.
You probably won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our narcissist-in- chief), but those are the facts.
2a)WAKE-UP FREE WORLD ! !
2a)WAKE-UP FREE WORLD ! !
WHAT IS A HIJRAH?It appears the policies of the liberal socialist leaders in Europe and the US do not want to keep these lands from being overrun. Why?I couldn't figure out why other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.) weren't taking in refugees, so I started digging (references at the end).,Hijrah (Kegira) is jihad by emigration. It means moving to a new land in order to bring Islam there and is considered in Islam to be a holy and revered action. "And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah." (4:100),So if a Muslim dies in the process, that's essentially the same as being a suicide bomber, his reward is automatic. This explains the great eagerness to undertake such a perilous journey. Muhammad and his followers emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina in 622 CE. It was there that he became a military leader.This is where all the commands to commit violence against unbelievers originate from. It's important to note that the Islamic calendar marks this as the beginning of Islam.This current massive hijrah was announced last January although few paid the announcement much attention. A supporter (or member) of ISIS uploaded a document in Arabic that urged Muslims to get to Lybia for its proximity to southern Europe and for the important tactical value of its illegal immigration circuits to facilitate infiltration of European cities ("It has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat").In February, transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy said ISIS was threatening to send 500,000 migrants as a "psychological weapon" against Europe. The Italian Minister for the Interior, Angelino Alfano, said at the time, "If the militias of the Caliphate advance faster than the decisions of the international community how can we put out the fire in Libya and stem the migration flows?We are at risk of an exodus without precedent."Also in February, the Turkish intelligence service warned police that up to 3,000 trained jihadists were seeking to cross into Turkey from Syria and Iraq and then travel through Bulgaria and Hungary into western Europe. From Syria, to Hungary, then into the rest of Europe. Sound familiar?In May, a Libyan government adviser warned that Islamic State operatives were being "smuggled to Europe in migrant boats." ISIS is profiting from the human trafficking trade, forcing boat owners to hand over their profits or be killed. Some ISIS operatives are already sheltered in safe houses in the south of the Europe. Groups of men, 17 to 25, from Palestine and Syria, cross into Bulgaria and from there move into the rest of the EU.A former Al Qaeda double agent told the BBC that he knew of two Egyptian brothers who reached Italy from Libya, accompanied by men who were "deeply religious and fluent in Italian and French."Go watch the videos of those "refugees" again. How many of the "refugees" are 17-25 year old men?If that doesn't convince you, we already know terrorists are coming through with the waves of refugees: a week ago five men were arrested attempting to cross the Bulgarian-Macedonian border with Islamic State propaganda, specific Jihadists prayers, and decapitation videos on their phones. They had been posing as refugees.UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage warned: "I fear we face a direct threat to our civilization if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into Europe."Other Muslim countries are not "taking in" these "refugees" because this is a hijrah into Europe. This is no humanitarian crisis. It is an invasion. Its goal is to transform Europe: overtax its economies, tear down its wealthiest nations, re-draw the demographics and, of course, the culture.Sources:
=================================================
3)
4) The volcano of Islamic terrorism
3)
Do you recall the President referring to the Benghazi incident as "a bump in the road"?
I heard an ex-Navy Seal being interviewed on Fox News regarding a book he has written about how to handle crisis situations in our lives.
At the end of the interview he asked if he could make a comment on Benghazi , and of course the anchor said "yes."
===
The poem was written by an anonymous Marine Corps officer:
"THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI"
We're the battling boys of Benghazi,No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell,
Defending our country we loved so well.
It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.
We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate
Led them to safety and stood at the gate.
Just the two of us and foes by the score,
But we stood fast to bar the door.
Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,
So we fought and we fought and we fought 'til we died.
We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,
But Barack and Hillary didn't give a damn.
Just two dead Seals who carried the load
No thanks to us...we were just "Bumps In The Road."
The Obama Administration obviously won't be held accountable because they apparently accept Hilary Clinton's assessment,"What difference does it make?"
And she wants to be the next President. Pray she is not!
4) The volcano of Islamic terrorism
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
Islamic terrorism has dominated the history of Islam, as demonstrated by the murder of three of the first four Caliphs succeeding Muhammed: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644 AD), Uthman Ibn Affan (656 AD) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661 AD). Islamic terrorism has been one of the most active and dangerous volcanoes - domestically, regionally and globally - since the initial eruption of Islam in the 7th century. Historically, all Arab regimes have achieved, sustained and eventually lost power through domestic violence, subversion or terrorism.
Currently, irrespective of Israeli policies and the Palestinian issue, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya have become battlegrounds of rival Islamic terror organizations. All pro-US Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE face clear and present lethal terror threats. Iran and Saudi Arabia – the two leading world bankers of Islamic terrorism – confront each other militarily, economically, ideologically and religiously. Intra-Muslim fragmentation, unpredictability, instability, intolerance, subversion, terrorism and the provisional nature of Islamic regimes, their policies and agreements have been recently intensified in an unprecedented manner.
The lava of Islamic terrorism has consumed mostly Muslims in the abode of Islam, but it is aiming to sweep the abode of the “infidel,” and is currently spreading into the streets of the USA, Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, Asia and Australia.
While most terrorists are Muslims, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. However, most Muslim policy-makers have not represented the will of the majority, which has been systematically suppressed/oppressed in most Muslim societies (including Muslim communities in Western countries). These Muslim societies have never experienced democracy, exposing the majority to tectonic eruptions of violence by rogue regimes and organizations.
Contrary to conventional “wisdom”, the 1,400 year old volcanic Islamic terrorism has not been triggered by social and economic deprivation or by the absence of civil liberties. It has been triggered by the fourteen century old megalomaniacal, supremacist, intolerant, anti-democratic, repressive, non-negotiable and eternal aspiration – led by educated Islamic “elites” - to force the world of the “infidel” and the “apostate” to submit to Islam. The latter is, supposedly, the only legitimate religion, divinely ordained to rule the world.
According to the Qur’an, Islam is the only worthy/legitimate successor to the Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism. Thus, the subordination of humanity to the legacy of Muhammed should be achieved, preferably, via nonviolent means (da’wah), deceit/doubletalk (Taqiyya’) and immigration (Hijra’’). But, in face of defiant “infidels” and “apostates,” the “believers” should resort to non-compromising, non-merciful violence (jihad), subversion, breach of international accords and terrorism.
Unlike the Western definition of terrorism (the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians), the Qur’anic definition of terrorist (irhab) is the derivative of the verb arhaba(to terrify, scare), which is a tactic employed against the “infidel,” in order to advance the goals of Islam (Qur’an, Sura 8, verse 60). The Muslim bottom line is that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.”
Contrary to political-correctness - and as demonstrated by the 1,400 year old track record of Islamic violence and terrorism and the lack of intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence - Islam has never considered itself to be “a religion of peace” as defined by Western dictionaries. According to Muhammad’s legacy, the term salam – which is derived from the same root as Islam - is employed when addressing fellow Muslims, but not when addressing non-Muslims, unless constrained by temporary military, economic or political inferiority.
Furthermore, Arab/Muslim societies invoke Quranic verses and Islamic history precedents as guidelines for contemporary, daily, personal, tribal, regional and national conduct. For example, Qur’an, Sura 20, verses 47 -48 state that “Peace be on whoever follows the guidance [of Allah]… and punishment shall afflict those who deny and turn their back [on Allah].” Thus, salam is reserved only for those who submit/surrender themselves to Islam, while those who renege on their commitment to Islam are doomed. Moreover, any agreement with the “infidel” is defined as sulh,hudna’, a tenuous truce of limited duration, until the balance of power facilitates total submission of the “infidel” to Islam.
According to Hebrew University Prof. Moshe Sharon, a world renowned authority on Islam, "Islam came to being as a fighting religion…. Mohammed imposed his authority by means of his military strength… Islam was born in order to rule [humanity], as is only fitting for the religion of Allah which is one and exclusive…. The laws of Jihad form the basis of the relations between the Muslim world and the West…. The only possible relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are war or a limited ceasefire…. Jihad is the strategy and, therefore, agreements are a [tactical] interlude in the war [against the infidel]…. An agreement which contains anything beyond a limited armistice or ceasefire is null and void.”
Sacrificing reality and long-term national security on the altar of political correctness and short-term convenience, key Western policy-makers and public opinion molders have refused to recognize the central role (or any role) played by Islam – as advocated in Muslim schools, mosques, media and social media in Muslim and Western countries - in the intensifying threat of terrorism. These movers and shakers have, also, insisted that providing employment and educational opportunities is the most effective way to combat terrorism.
Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of the leading Saudi daily, Asharq Al-Awsat, wrote on February 22, 2015: “ISIS is not looking for jobs, neither are Al Qaeda or Hezbollah…. According to President Obama, oppressing the opposition leads to extremism and terrorism. However, the oppression of the Green Revolution by the Iranian regime has not led to extremism or terrorism in Iran…. Why is the entire Middle East, except Iran, targeted by terrorism? Why are some of Al Qaeda’s leaders in Iran?”
Winston Churchill's famous words on relations with communists apply even more so to terrorists: “Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile. You do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or beat it over the head. When it opens its mouth, you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up…. An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last….”
4a)
|
The decision by Saudi Arabia to sever diplomatic relations with Iran following the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran is an escalation in an enmity of long standing between these two countries. The dynamics underlying it cast light on a number of key trend lines in the Middle East. The first, apparent for a half decade now, is the ongoing decline of confidence on the part of Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent other Gulf countries in the power of their traditional patron – the United States of America. The new Saudi proactiveness, first apparent in the intervention by “Peninsula Shield” Gulf forces in Bahrain in 2011 to quell a nascent Shi’a rebellion there, derives from the strong sense that Washington no longer sees Riyadh’s interests as in line with its own. The abandonment by the US of long-standing ally Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 confirmed for the Saudis the sense that the current US administration is operating in the Middle East according to a set of perceptions quite alien to its own, and quite likely to end in disaster. The concluding of the deal on Iran’s nuclear program on July 14 set the seal on this Saudi perception. The US, in Saudi eyes, is seeking a rapprochement with a dangerous and expansionist Iran. This desire for rapprochement is based, in Riyadh’s view, on a quite mistaken US perception that Iran is available for transformation into a reasonable regional actor, in return for the satisfying of some of its ambitions. With the US unavailable, since it is unwilling to act to restrain Iranian ambitions, Riyadh has sought to do so itself. The Saudi intervention against the Iran-supported Houthis in Yemen and the Saudi assistance to Syrian rebels fighting the Iranian client – the Assad regime – in Syria are indications of this approach. As to Iraq, Riyadh is deeply concerned at growing Iranian influence, but US backing for the Shi’a-dominated Baghdad government and low Saudi influence among the Sunni population mean that the Saudis have no strong client. Similarly, Saudi support for the military coup in Egypt in July 2013, contrary to the US position, reflected Riyadh’s concerns regarding the proliferation of the Muslim Brotherhood across the region (a threat that has since declined in prominence). So the current breakdown in relations is the latest episode in an ongoing region-wide confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which derives from Riyadh’s sense that the choice facing it was to organize proactively against Tehran or watch it come to dominate the Middle East. This sense derives in the first instance from the vacuum left by American desire to withdraw from active involvement in the region. Saudi Arabia is not alone in its perceptions. Bahrain, which is most concerned about the Iranian threat because of its majority Shi’a population, has also severed diplomatic relations with Tehran. Kuwait has withdrawn its ambassador. The United Arab Emirates, Tehran’s main Gulf trading partner, has downgraded its relations, replacing its ambassador with an embassy official in charge. Qatar may well follow suit. Further afield, Sudan, too, has severed diplomatic relations in “solidarity” with Riyadh. The second related element underlying the Saudi- Iranian confrontation is the growth to prominence of sectarian markers as organizing factors in regional politics. Sectarian differences are not new. What is new is the collapse and effective eclipse of three regional states formerly ruled harshly by military regimes – Syria, Iraq and Yemen. In all three states, political-military organizations seeking to represent particular sectarian or ethnic elements among the disparate populations of these spaces are the main factors making war over the ruins of the states. In all three states, Iran and Saudi Arabia are supporting opposing sides, and in all three areas, the support runs along sectarian lines – Saudi support for the Sunni Arab insurgency in Syria, Iranian support for the Alawi-dominated Assad regime, and so on. So Saudi-Iranian state rivalry has collided with and been intensified by a much larger process. This is the reshaping of large swathes of the region along sectarian lines and the awakening of long-suppressed or eclipsed identities. But for Saudi Arabia, the growth of popular Islamist and jihadi movements among Sunni Arab populations is a matter for concern as well as manipulation. Organizations such as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood challenge the legitimacy of the Saudi state. States such as Qatar and Turkey are competitors for the leadership of the Sunnis. In seeking to make of itself the champion of a perceived Sunni defense against Iran-led Shi’a encroachment, Riyadh is also glancing over its shoulder at its own population and Sunni Arab populations elsewhere. It needs to demonstrate its own strength also, so as not to be credibly depicted as an unfit defender of Sunni interests by these movements or by rival Sunni states. It is notable that Saudi King Salman has proved more willing to align with Sunni Islamist forces than was his predecessor, King Abdullah, who regarded them as enemies. This fact has underlain, for example, Saudi proxies’ involvement in the Jaish al-Fatah rebel coalition in Syria, alongside al-Qaida and other Salafi jihadi forces. So the Saudi decision to execute Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, which triggered the current crisis, and the subsequent breaking of diplomatic relations with Iran are not only a simple product of Sunni-Shi’a rivalries. They are also informed by intra-Sunni concerns. Lastly, the partial but notable rallying of Gulf states (and Sudan) behind the Saudis is testimony to the lopsidedness of the sectarian battle and the Iran-Saudi contest in the region. Iran possesses abilities in the fields of asymmetric warfare and subversion far beyond those of Riyadh. It is in the process of seeking to make an alliance with a powerful global player looking to wield influence in the Middle East (Moscow). But Tehran also has a built-in structural weakness. As its activities in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and among the Palestinians show, Iran is not able to build lasting and deep alliances with forces outside of the Shi’a and associated minorities. And the Shi’a are a minority in the region, too few in numbers to form a basis for regional hegemony. The majority Sunni Arab world remains suspicious and cautious regarding Tehran’s designs on it. The result of this is that Iranian interference in each case until now has led not to Iranian victory and the reconstitution of the area as an Iranian ally. Rather, Iranian interference leads to ongoing instability and conflict, with the Iranian client neither defeated nor fully victorious. Iran creates chaos. But it has not begun to rebuild a new order out of this chaos. So welcome to the Middle East circa 2016 – state collapse, political Islam as the dominant language, an ambitious Iran at the head of a Shi’a/minorities alliance, and Saudi Arabia seeking to mobilize Sunni resistance to Iranian plans, in competition with sundry other Sunni actors. All taking place against a backdrop of American absence and Russian attempts to build a presence. The Saudi decision this week to sever diplomatic relations with Tehran represents an escalation within this grave reality rather than a radical departure. |
No comments:
Post a Comment