Syria's Major Supporters And Why

There has been a lot of press and talk about the Assad regime and the violence that is spreading slowly out of its borders. We have seen Iran as a major supporter of Bashar al-Assad. Today we need to look at the top three political and material supports that Assad has. Those three supporting nations, in ascending order, are China, Russia, and Iran. This analysts will not take into account UN votes, but financial and material support. China has its trade route and an ideolgue supporting some of their territorial views. Russia maintains a stronger military presence in the eastern Mediteranean, profits from arms sales, and has invested billions into Syrian infrastructure. Iran, we can easily state that they are knee deep in the hooplah and they are in it for the full range of what happens.

China has quite a financial interst with Syria. China, as of February this year, was Syria's third largest export country. Recall history, Syria was part of the Silk Road. Even today, china sees Syria as a trading and shipping hub. A rather important hub, at that. Ideologically, Hu Jintao and Assad have given support to each other on some views that have caused strong international angst over. Those views include Syrian support of China's claims and treatment of Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjang, and on China's application of human rights. China continues to support Assad on his claims over the Golan Heights.

China and Syria find mutually beneficial financial and ideological support for each other.

Russian support for the Assad regime includes military and financial interests as well. The depth of these interests goes far deeper than those of China.

Financially Russia is looking to recover financial interests are closely tied to its military interests in the region. The port at Tartus provides a strategic foothold. The Black Sea Fleet uses the port facilities for ship maintenance, supply, and logistics. The facilities at Tartus and the power grud in the surrounding area infrastructure has benefitted from Russia's investing $19.4 billion dollars in 2009. As of 2011 the facilities and piers at Tartus can, and have, supported guided missile cruisers and Kuznetzov class aircraft carriers. Russia continues to act in ways that undermine American interestts.

Russia may also be getting some isolationism ideas like the  methods used during the Cold War. At that time the West made strategic allies in order to surround Russian expansion and stop their geographic spread. Current examples include US support to Bahrain and Uzbekistan. I believe that this gambit is one that will completely fail for the West.

The Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader, Vladimir Zhimorovsky, has made some very strong statements againsty Western support to the rebels. Statements that indicate there is much more going on than is currently visible. Zhimorovsky has said that any US support to the rebels is "absolutely unacceptable" and would, in his eyes be, tantamount to violently toppling a regime.

Russia gains a naval forward support base and earns billions from arms sales. Commercially, Russia has earned $5 billion in weaponss sales to Damascus.

Iranian Support is all geared towards gaining a physical and very strategic position in the region. Iran has been so completely isolated from decent international contact for so long that the leadership is looking for any way to expand out of their isolation. By any means includes the blatant shipments by air and over land as well as the hardcer to see support through Hezbollah and in assisting Assad with the training and manning, as it were, of an army of children suicide bombers and fighters. This last group is known as the Basij, which Ahmedinijad claims to be. Judging by his age and grey hair, I openly declare him a failure in his service as a child soldier/suicide bomber. If Ahmedinijad could have done that right 40 years ago his poor judgement and mistakes wouldn't be an issue now.

Seriously, Iran already has missiles that can strike Israel from inside its borders, but, I am guessing that the guidance systems still leve something to be desired. Iran has successfully launched mutlistage rockets and put sattelites into orbit, but, they have yet to demonstrate the capacity to deliver their paylods at range. Every missilt that Iran has, buys, and makes can carry a nuclear payload. Iran is even working on its own independent re-entry vehicle. This IRV makes enough people at the IAEA to start investigations, not that any inspection will receive compliance from Ahmedinijad or Khameini.

Iran has the largest missile surplus in the Middle East. One of their missile production/storage sites was just bombed in Sudan earlier this week. Reports of this Israerli lead attack state that 300 Shahab III missiles there were destroyed. Iran is trying to put its own strike missile system in place in Syria. Why would they not expect to be allowed to? That is, should Assad not die in place.

Just imagine the changes that would most undoubtedly take place if Russia and Iran had missile silos in Syria while the US missile defense system, which Obama unplugged and dismantled, absent from the region. Could we ever again have allies in Eastern Europe? Could we carry on trade theough that region? No, not at all. The US Naval Fleet coverage and the protections it guarantees would be stripped away from the Mediteranean, through the Gulf of Aden, off the Somali pirate coast, and into the Indian Ocean.

Obama Carter Clinton Power Plant and Plans Opinion

The agreement which Obama appears to be making a deal that would be shouldered by a future administration, not at all by him. Whether that was by plan in 1994 I cannot say with certainty.

Not all plans carry out in life as they were designed to on paper. Such is the case with President Clinton and former President Carter. President Clinton wanted to allow NK to have a light water reactor (LWR) so that Kim Jung Il could provide power for his country to improve their living conditions. After all, even Kim Jung Il has a right to peaceful nuclear power so that his people could  have energy to power their cities so that the people could live at a higher standard. Right?

Lets jump to Cairo in 2009 when Obama says to the world that even Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power so that the Iranian people could have energy to power their cities so that the people could live at a higher standard. Sounds familiar? Yes, it should.

In between these two events of Clinton-Carter providing an LWR to Nirth Korea and the Cairo speech, there is a long history for North Kirea and Iran both violating every sanction against them as we'll a every agreement entered into insofar as non proliferation goes.

The Council on Foreign Relations makes reference to released diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks. Iran and North Korea were both benefitting from Pakistani scientist, A. Q. Khan. It was known that shipments between Iran and NK were going through China. The Kgan network collaborated on ballistic missiles.

Both NK and Iran have centrifuges which are similar enough that it is clear the Khan network brought these three countries together, in my opinion, for nuclear proliferation.

Should we be opposed to Iranians having energy that us more reliable than what they have now? No.

Obama is I the same mind that Clinton and Carter were. Only now, Obama I deliberately forgetting the years of violated sanctions, the years of threats against Israel and America from the same people he is cutting a deal with. It was a foolish and morbidly poor decision then. It is only worse now because Obama, allegedly educated, is ignoring a painfully recent lesson. This time.ir is Obama Biden Clinton. 

Presidential Advisors on Foreign Policy

The president and Mitt Romney have a number of advisory boards. So, who has been serving on theadvisory board for Obama and for Romney's plans for foreign policy?

BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front, Obama has four academics, three Madeleine Albrights, two Sam Nunn's, one retired veteran, one former intelligence specialiast, and a Joe Biden. By the way, Albright was part of the FAILED North Korea nuclear disarmaqment talks (emphasis is mine).

Romeny has six Hawks looking closely at Iran, vocal American exceptionalists, four highly qualified internationl intelligence professionals, and one former terrorist who is strongly anti-Sharia. This last man, Walid Phares, may seem dubious; however, I have met him, talked with him, and attended some of his speaking events. This man knows the world of terrorists like no one else inside the United State4s policy teams.


Since he is the winner of the last presidential electoral fight, in the Incumbant Corner we have President Obama, a former community coordinator, and his team of Foreign Policy Advisors. Obama's policy, according to Wikipedia (such a bastion of knowledge nuggets, eh?) is described "as a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self awareness.

That team includes ...
Hillary Clinton:            Secretary of State; Former First Lady, former top level lawyer.
Tom Donilon:              National Security Advisor; Manager of Overseas Crises; 1993 he was the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs; A partner with the Washington office of the national law firm of O'Melveny and Myers This man is described as the central figure of Obama's foreign policy. He seems to be a top go-to-guy and, it would appear, the most likely suspect in national security leaks of late.
Susan Rice:                  1993 Started her career with the National Security Council in Washington, DC, as the director of international organizations and peacekeeping; Was a \n ardent follower of Madeleine Albright on African Affairs under President Clinton; Currently Ms. Rice is the US Ambassador to the UN; Has likely lost her run for Secretary of State to John Kewrry due to her claims that the recent embassy attacks were from spontaneous protests about an anti-islam film.
Joe Biden:                    Vice President; Has not made foreign policy, but keeps in touch with world leaders; Was the Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; In 1990 predicted that the Soviet Union would cease to exist, how about that, Vladimir Putin, your Russia no longer exists. What dfo you have to say about that?; Nation building can prevent full scale war is one of his beliefs.
Dennis McDunough:    Was Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Former Foreign Policy Advisor to Tom Daschle; Outspoken  proponent for energy and environmental concerns; Feels that the US Aid Packages are inadequate, "woefully insufficient", according to a report on www.cfr.org; Believes that American needs to set clear deadlines on troop withdrawal so that we c an focus on reducing the national deficit and solve our own economic problems.
Richard Danzig:           Sam Nunn Prize Fellow in International Security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Consultant to the Department of Defense on bio-terrorism; Holds that Security Strategy should "aim to keep us and our allies free ... [and] protect as much as possible".
Jonathon Scott Gration: Retired Air Force Brigadier General; CEO of Millenium Villages, based upon the UN Millenium Development goals to bring African villages out of poverty; Dirfector of Strategy, policy, and assessments for Europen Command (EUCOM); Supported withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but, to his credit, said that if the situation required it that it would "be crazy not to readjust"; Supports hunting terrorists into Pakistan.
Sam Nunn:                   Former politician from Georgia; Lead the effort to reduce the global threat of nuclear arms; Served eight years as the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Voted against the first Gulf War.
William J. Perry:         Was Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute; Was a Professor at Stanford University; 1994-1997 Served as Secretary of Defense; Sent US Forces into Haiti; Oversaw military intervetion in Bosnia in 1994; Critic al of the US Invasion in Iraq; Suipports nuclear disarmament.
Sarah Sewell:               Lectured on Public Policy; Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance under Clinton; Called for a natinoal doctrine delineating the responsibilities of both civilian and military insofar as nation building is concerned.
Anthony Lake:             National Security Advisor to Clintonfor Bosnia and Somalia; Pushed for greater UN involvement in Sudan; Critical of the Iraq War.
Mark Lippet:                Served one tour in the Navy as an Intelligence Officer for the SEALs; Completed one tour in Iraq; Known as the closest daily advisor to Obama; Reported to have had a hand in every major speech and statement OBama has given on foreign affairs; Worked for the Senate Appropriations Committee on Foreign Operations Subcommittee and the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
Suasan Rice:                Was a Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute for Foreign Policy Global Policy, and Global Ecoonomic Development; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairstowards the end of the Clinton Presidency; Critical of the Iraq War; Wanted tougher US response to the Darfur situation; Advocates fighting global poverty as part of US National Security.
George B. Craig:         Former Clinton Whitehouse Aid; Director of Policy Planning under Madeleine Albright; Partner in a Washington law firm; Criticized Bush for taking sides in some Latin American elections.
Madeleine Albright:    Secretary of State under Clinton; Former US Ambassador to the UN; Part of nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea; Believes that America has lost its moral authority.
Joe Biden:                    A name that speaks for itself.

In short, Obama has four academics, three Madeleine Albrights, two Sam Nunn's, one retired veteran, one former intelligence specialiast, and a Joe Biden.

In the challenger's corner we have Mitt Romney, who has built a national level highly respected investment firm. His policy appears to be storngly hawk, and fiscally aware.

Romney's corner men include
Cofer Black:                Former CIA counter terrorism department head; Former Vice Chairman of controversial Black Water; Serves as in house intelligence for Romney; Has the dubious reputation of conceiving, planning, leading the CIA's war in Afghanistan; supported enhanced interrogation, yes, torture.
John Lehmon:             Former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan; Continues to vierw Russia as a primary threat to the United States.
Paul Dobriansky:        Began his career in the State Department, he was the Under Secretary for Global Affairs; Known as a staunch defender of human rights.
Mitchell Reiss:            Director of Policy Planning under Collin Powell; Integral part of the Northern Ireland Peace Proicess.
Robert Kagan:             Most vocal of the American exceptionalists; A thoughtful writer who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
John Bolton:                Former US Ambassador to the UN; Chastized Bush for not being hawkish enough towards IRan.
Elliot Cohen:               Pushed the case for toppling Saddam Hussein; Continues to push for a closer overwatch on Iran; Conmsiders military intervention in Iran as a possibility.
Walid Phares:              As a teen was recruited by al-Zawahiri extremism and terrorism: Active and vioolent participant in the Lebanese civil war; Nowe an ardent anti-Sharia speaker, teacher, and writer.
Michael Hayden:         Lead both CIA and NSA under G. W. Bush; Supports torture for getting information in order to prevent military and national security losses.
Dan Senor:                   Has participated in debates about military action against Iran: Had previously said, in regards to Iraq, that "Off the record, Paris is burning. But, on the record, security and stability are returning".
Max Boot:                    Hawkish; Supports showing US strength; Said that Iraq would have bennefitted from a long term commitment of 65,000 to 70,000 troops; Advocates staying longer in Afghanistan; Advocates bombing Iran.
Eric Edelman:              Hawkish: Former Cheney aid; Former Ambassodr to Turkey; Believes that a war with IRan is a better alternative than a nuclear capable Iran; Recently made some harsh statements against Obama in leaking classified material, but has been involved in doing so himslelf under Scooter Libby.

In short, strong advocates of American strength, leadership, and prominance in the world. This team has policy writing experience, and has gotten their lumps in the real world, not in academics.

Rebuilding American Influence in the Middle East is NOT a DIY Project

On the 18th the NY Times published an OpEd by Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian diplomat. Mr. Muasher asked what can America do to rebuild influence in the Middle East. One suggestion was that our nation (that, by law, cannot have an official religion) must back "a dynamic change toward pluralism". Lets look briefly at pluralism in the east, shall we. In Egypt Coptic Christians are hunted and slaughtered with impunity. In Darfur there is an Arab tribe, Jinjaweed (Arabic for Devils on horseback) that are trying to cleanse the area of Africans so it can be an all Arabian region. Iran and Syria have spent the past several years trying to kill off all the non-Shi'ites within their boarders. Iraq has spent decades torturing and murdering non-Sunni people. This does not fit the definition of pluralistic.

Mr. Marwan acknowledges that there was a time when America had influence on the Arabian Street. He does not say when, in his opinion, that changed. I believe that shift happened during President Ford's time in office. The first sign of that was when the Arab members of OPEC started the oil embargo against America. Those members were, and these should sound familiar, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. That embargo bled us financially and showed us vulnerable. What does that mean? Consider now these two Arabian proverbs, "A falling camel invites many knives" and "When people see two horses and one is strong and the other weak, people naturally like the strong horse".

The Middle East is a harsh environment that has bred a harsh people. Weakness is a detriment to survival. Only here, in America, do people cheer for the under dog. Culturally, we see even the sickly runt of the litter as valuable. In the Middle East the scarce resources are saved for the strong, not the weak. This is a dichotomy that is completely the opposite of ours.

Fast forward past the list of attacked US Embassies (still an act if war according to Clinton's Stated Departmentt) to the time when Obama met the Saudi King. Obama deliberately did what President John F. Kennedy said that no leader of the free world should ever do. Obama bowed. The Middle East is not a dojo, bowing is a sign of subjugation. By bending over and exposing your neck you are saying that your life is theirs to take or to spare.

Apologizing for aging been a world leader, which is another sign of weakness. It says to them that we should not be better off than they. It makes America look like a falling camel.

So, how do we regain face, rebuild any semblance of power, in the Arabian Street?

Al Jazeera just posted a video, in English so we can clearly get it, that Clinton, Obama, and America are not welcome there. That video is titled "You Are Not Welcome in Egypt". This year alone has seen more than $250 million dollars given to the Egyptian banking sector to prevent a collapse, $90 million for democratic development, $100 million for economic recovery, and not with Obama's yearly $1 billion dollar gift. That comes out to $1.8 billion of our tax dollars given to one government that has openly opposed America for the last 39 years while profiting from us.

How do we regain influence in the Middle East? With backbone, swift, harsh responses to acts of war and opposition, with a clear message that we are stronger than they.

I have no idea how we can do this. We need the likes of Fenerals Abrams, Patton, Schwartzkopf, the business acumen of Lee Iacoca, JP Morgan, Carngie,and Presidents Reagan and Bush senior to formulate that plan. We need, as a nation, to be able to stomach what must be done. This must include developing our own sources of fuel and energy. We must revitalize our industrial souls. Other than that, I must leave it to those with bigger brain pans than I.

 

The Week In Review 19 October 2012

Obama has been privately supporting a nuclear Iran since, at least, May of this year. The Wasihngton Post caught it and did an article about it. This news was all over the news in the Middle East. Just this week news outlets like CNN, Fox News have begun talking about it. In 2011 I talked about how likely this was. Both Secretary and former President Clintom have openly said this is a very dangerous situation. Secretary Clinton fears an arms race in the East. My guess is she forgot about Pakistan and India and their nuclear tap dance.

In 2008 Obama stood on a stage in Cairo and promised that Iran would not go nuclear on his watch. This close to November Obama would be technically correct; however, he will leave the next president a bigger mess than he received. What will it look like with a nuclear Iran and Iranian nuclear weapons in Iran's proxy, Syria?

Won't the UN say something about this increasingly dangerous scenario? I am sure the UN will huff and puff before it finally says something like, "Hey, you kids! Get outta my yard!" The UN was impotent before. America is only going to come up against more blockades in the UN and internationally now that Russian allies Azerbaijan and Pakistan are on the UN Security Council. The next administration is going to be completely stonewalled with Russia, China, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Togo, Colombia, Morocco, and Guatemala voting against the US the next administration is going to have more of a mess than this one received.

Perhaps now is the time to redo an infamous picture fromSoviet history. Now it will show the profiles  of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Obama.

The Appeasement Protocol did not work for London during WWII and it is proving disastrous now. According to the State Department attacking an embassy is an act of war against that nation. Appeasement resulted in nine acts of war against the United States that have gone unanswered, at best, ignored at worst. This response, which includes Obama and Clinton pointing fingers claiming it was not my fault, only makes our nation appear weak and disorganized.

One wonders why the charging station for a Chevy Volt at the US Embassy in Vienna at a cost of $108,000 was a more important investment than the loss of human life and millions upon millions of dollars lost in those nine embassy attacks.

Those countries in which our embassies were attacked continue to get tens of millions of our tax dollars yearly. Those countries which oppose us internationally, like Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, receive billions of our tax dollars yearly to develop their infrastructure while our infrastructure falls further into disrepair.

We, as a nation, must stop sending billions of dollars to nations that hate and oppose us, that produce and export highly sought after materials like oil and gold. We should not be paying for their despotism. This administration has shown that it is penny foolish and dollar moronic. The next administration is leaving a much larger mess for the next administration than it received.

That's this week. I cannot wait to see what Chairman MaiBama is going to do to us next week.


http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-10-16T17:49:00-04:00&max-results=7
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/foreign-policy-magazine-on-syria.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/iran-not-budging-on-nuclear-issues.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-cusp-of-nuclear-iran.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/embassy-security-lower-priority-than.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/embassy-attacks.html

Syria, Iran, and Russia

During the last year the political landscape in the Middle East has shown some signs of change. Algeria, Libya, and Egypt were able to rid themselves of their despotic rulers. I would argue that the resistance groups waited, like a pack of wild dogs, for the leaders to be old, sick, and weak enough to take down. Conversely, Iran was able to quickly and not so quietly put down its own uprising with some people finding the government violence on social media. This is also being replayed in Syria. For six months now the Assad regime has been slaughtering its own citizens.

Since that started the world has seen the UN repeatedly call the slaughter an abominable and criminal act. The US and the EU have tried to have new sanctions levied against Assad only to be stymied by Russia and China on the UNSC.

Why has Russia stated that it will not support sanctions? Russia has invested billions of dollars in Syria, Russian investments in Syria in 2009 were valued at $19.4 billion, mainly in arms deals, infrastructure development, energy, and tourism. Russian exports to Syria in 2010 totaled $1.1 billion, Russia is also reported to have invested heavily in the strategic naval facility in Tartous; investments and work that could all be jeopardized if the Assad regime is overthrown or the country descends into violent chaos. As it is, Moscow, which has criticized the NATO-led intervention in Libya, is waiting to see if the new authorities in Tripoli will honor some $10 billion worth of business deals reached with the Qaddafi regime.

Let’s also recall the fact that Russia lost the Cold War. Moscow enjoyed wide authority in the region in the Soviet era and has watched with increasing alarm as Western pressure and a public frustration helped push veteran regional leaders from power as reported in Soviet newspapers.

Meanwhile, in trying to encourage the discourse and further talks, as required by Russia, the US diplomatic envoy is attacked, again, by regime loyalists (read as active supporters of terrorism attacking a legal and diplomatic representative of the United States).

The call for regime change is coming. This is the path which I described in earlier writings where the slaughter has to get to a level of visibility which requires the Arab League and/or OIC to say that something must be done. The UN will eventually be allowed to make that call and, when it does, you will all see Obama rushing in with boots on the ground. Such a good little lap dog for that mechanism, if only he would learn when not to bark, this would go much quieter for the OIC and Arab League. Until that call goes out, Obama gets to strategically and tactically avoid Iran, Russia, and the bad press that would inevitably come.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15412322,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/at-un-syria-sanctions-falter/2011/09/28/gIQA8V1T5K_blog.html

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2193310&Language=en

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/201703.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4104473,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44714346/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syria-criticizes-arab-league-for-meeting-anti-assad-opposition-figures-1.384818

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article497251.ece

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0919/Why-Russia-is-blocking-international-action-against-Syria/(page)/2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8762912/Russia-warns-of-Syria-terror-threat.html

Obama Gets Cosier With Iran

I have been concerned (frightened) by the current administration’s policies towards the Middle East. I have posted and considered the cultish and narcissistic nature of Ahmedinijad, the Iranian goals of bringing back the mahdi, and Iranian expansionism. I have also stated fairly clearly that I believe that President Obama is the Manchurian Candidate for Iran. This morning’s news releases do nothing but reinforce and strengthen that opinion.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Friday expressed regret over the fall of US ally Hosni Mubarak “while President Obama sat on his hands." This sitting on his hands, as I have mentioned several times, goes back to the Iranian uprising in 2009 when videos and tweets and facebook posts were coming out in torrents detailing a vicious crackdown on the people. This violent squashing of people demanding to be treated as people, as they are in the West, was stomped down with hobnailed boots of the regime and was supported by both houses of Iranian governmental leadership. Bachman should also say something about the ongoing slaughter and hobnailed boot-stomping actions of Syrian President, Basher al-Assad.

Earlier this year Obama attempted to put Israel on the US State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terror; however, pro-Hamas Turkey is to chair an Obama backed counter-terrorism body. This panel is not to include Israel and is being done quietly, in the shadows of the UN General Assembly this week. This would likely be why Ahmedinijad is so openly welcome at the event; it provides enough distraction to allow this little CT group to get started. Turkey is not a friend of Israel and not much of a friendly place to visit, at least so the US State Department says. There are travel warnings and terror groups there as well. Aside from being pro-Hamas the country is trying to put down an uprising of the State Department listed group Kongra Gel. This group has a history of attacking Turkish officials, security forces, and villagers who oppose the group. Do you see this as being familiar? Try 2009 Iran and 2011 Syria as fitting the pattern. Who else is sitting in this group? Good question. Obama is willing to sit with OIC members Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others.

Hillary Clinton calls this “smart power approach to counterterrorism,” and described the founding group as “traditional allies, emerging powers and Muslim-majority countries.” I call it another attempt to subjugate the power and strength of America to its enemies.

In spite of all Obama’s efforts to be seen on the right side of modern Middle Eastern history amid uprisings and revolts across the Arab world, the White House has warned that it will use its veto power to block the Palestinians in the UN Security Council, provoking dire warnings from another long-term ally, Saudi Arabia. Now, with Iran in support of the Palestinian state I believe that the White House will want to support the vote. If this were to happen the Democratic Party would quite likely openly denounce Obama in light of his plummeting poll numbers. While there are those who see this as a game of numbers, I see it as life and death reality. The reality of it is that Obama and his friends in the East are neither friend to the West nor of America.

There item which truly puts me in the camp of Obama/Iran is that Obama is reportedly looking into putting a phone line in the White House which goes directly to Iran. Ostensibly, this line is intended to alert Iran to the presence of US ships in the Persian Gulf. Iran already knows where our ships are. Everybody knows where our ships are! There is absolutely no OPSEC (Operational Security) these days and no one recalls the reality behind ‘loose lips sink ships’. Bottom line, someone thinks that it is a good and prudent idea to have a direct phone line between the two presidents. During the Cold War this was done with Russia; however, the presidents who served, with the dubious distinction of Carter, used that phone line as a diplomatic and foreign policy tool. In this case I believe that someone else would use that line to use Obama as a tool.

This is a view which the mainstream media is not going to cover or report until they are forced to do so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107699-503544.html

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/pro-hamas-turkey-and-u-s-will-co-chair-obama-backed-counter-terror-forum-israel-not-included/

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/pro-hamas-turkey-and-u-s-will-co-chair-obama-backed-counter-terror-forum-israel-not-included/

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/former-middle-east-allies-snub-washington-as-its-influence-dwindles-20110918-1kfyp.html

Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

I originally posted this piece on September 4th of 2011. It continues to draw traffic, so I am reposting it today.

Clinton and Obama may appear to be making a statement in support of religious freedom, but do not believe that is so. What I think they are saying is that we should ignore dictators and how they treat their subjects so as not to bring religious intolerance to their countries. They point at the growing levels of intolerance in Egypt and Libya with a gentle nod towards Syria and Iran. They are saying that we should ignore what is going on in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other similar countries (to include Somalia). Their claims of toppling dictators has opened various religious sects in those countries to intolerance, rather than the bigotry, prejudice, and fanaticism they have faced for generations. Check the timeline, you two, the term “generations” is cutting it kind of short, try centuries.

US Sounds Alarm on Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration warned Tuesday of growing religious intolerance and violence in Arab nations undergoing popular revolts that could undermine fragile democratic transitions.

While the overthrow of longtime autocratic leaders in the Middle East and North Africa has given millions hope for freedom it has also opened up religious and ethnic minorities to new threats, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. She urged countries not to “trade one form of repression for another” and to embrace the freedom to worship for all faiths as they embrace political pluralism for the first time in generations.

“In the Middle East and North Africa, the transitions to democracy have inspired the world but they have also exposed ethic and religious minorities to new dangers,”  Really? By bringing down tyrants and dictators and introducing freedom religious minorities are NOW being persecuted? What about the Christians who had their throats slit open on film in Somalia by al-Shabaab? Those attacks did not happen JUST because of “freedom from oppression”. How would she respond to the now six month old slaughter of Syrians sunni muslims by Bashir al-Assad? Is that due to a new found freedom?
“The people of the region have taken exciting first steps toward democracy, but if they hope to consolidate their gains they cannot trade one form of repression for another,” she said. She must have meant this in relation to Somalia. You know, the former al-Shabaab/al Qaeda senior leader turned miitant war-lord Inda Ahde is now openly and unabashedly stealing weapons, money, food, and other supplies from AMISOM forces and the national government of Somalia. To be certain he is also taking aid provided by both Iran and America, right Hillary? Please see http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/clinton-un-et-al-get-called-with-bs.html and http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/n-aid-convoy-looted-in-mogadishu.html for more on this.

Since the beginning of the year, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have all ousted longtime authoritarian rulers and pledged to move to democracies. Rebellions are also under way in Syria and Yemen. The U.S. has publicly expressed concern about post-revolt sectarian violence and the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Egypt and Libya. It has also condemned attacks on religious minorities in Syria as the government continues a months-long brutal crackdown on opponents.

In addition to highlighting concerns in those countries, the report also took aim at abuses of religious freedom in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iran and Saudi Arabia were identified once again as “countries of particular concern” for their records, meaning that governments there “engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” That designation can bring about U.S. sanctions, but Clinton waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia, a key regional U.S. ally that forbids the public practice of any religion other than Islam. All religious minorities in Iran, particularly Bahais, Sufis, Christians and Jews, were targeted for discrimination in Iran, the report said.

Saudi Arabia, the seat of Wahabism, is now listed as a country of concern? Really? You mean, a country with a history of arresting people for religious views other than islam ( and raping & beating them while in custody) is now a country of concern? Why, then was the State Department warning travelers of the dangers and risks of going there in 2010?

Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice. The country is an Islamic state governed by a monarchy; the king is head of both state and government. Sunni Islam is the official religion. The country's basic law declares the Holy Qur'an is the constitution, and the legal system is based on the government's application of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

The State Department lists one or two examples of why someone would go to court.

… closed court proceedings in capital cases made it impossible to determine whether the accused were allowed to present a defense or were granted basic due process, and there were reports that the government killed civilians in conflict.

The government reportedly announced 26 executions during the year, all by beheading. Death sentences for two women and one man convicted of witchcraft and sorcery were reportedly vacated.

With the basis of their law being the quran and the law is sharia law, how can she say these things about a society run by the religion of piece? Keep in mind that, while things in Saudi Arabia are dark for travelers, how must it be in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control?

How about other countries where we can see the peace and stability of sharia? Look at all that has been on the Evening News about Syria … or, how about Obama’s success with the Sudan/South Sudan accord? Alright, Iran is there with the regimes while they slaughter their citizens and Obama/Clinton are not vocal about that. Nor have they said anything about the Iranian supported discord in Yemen. Interesting, I have not seen much about Iran in Saudi Arabia, maybe that is because the two countries are at odds?

In earlier posts I made the assertion that Saudi is in a precarious position with Iranian led violence and allies to the north in Syria and Lebanon as well as to the south in Yemen. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood is no friend to the House of Saud, either. Saudi Arabia is in a tight spot.

While the Washington Post reports Clinton as saying toppling dictators leads to religious intolerance, I say religious intolerance leads to dictators and the introduction of free speech and press (also the internet) brings awareness of those evils to the world. I encourage you to search my blog for anything and everything to do with Clinton or Obama and their failed foreign policies. Yes, these are their failed foreign policies, they have done it together.

While we are on this, Hillary, Barry, let’s stop sending them money and aid since all that is only going towards further oppressing the rights which our country was built on.

Take a look at some of my earlier postings

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/religious-intolerance.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/aid-to-somalia-really.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syrian-slaughter-is-family-tradition.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/sudan-no-longer-terroristic-but-still.html

Bibliography

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-sounds-alarm-on-threats-to-religious-freedom-in-post-revolt-arab-nations/2011/09/13/gIQApurlPK_story.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148843.htm

Iranian Expansion

When I was growing up and first entered the military the big global threat was Russia. Once Russia fell down it seems their proxy agents stepped up. This can certainly be said in regards to Iran over the past few years. This blog is not intended to be a repository of Iranian actions; however, the actions taken since Ahmedinijad took the presidency of Iran, seem to closely parallel those which Russia was taking. The use of Iran by the Soviets is not new, either.

However, the threat of Iran is the burning issue which more people should be paying attention to. Hitler told the world what he was going to do. So has Ahmedinijad. Ahmedinijad has said that he wants to be the one to establish the global chaos necessary to bring the mahdi. He wants to spread chaos and the death and turmoil that goes with it. Look at Syria and Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen for examples of the chaos which Ahmedinijad is fomenting and funding.

Why not use economic sanctions and bans against doing business with Iran? This is a good question. The simple answer is that there are a host of countries, that include North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela (to name a few) which are both hostile towards the United States and eager to spend their money on Iran. What is not so simple is why the US Government continues to do business with countries and businesses that are also currently doing business with Iran. It is correct to say that the US Government is currently awarding contracts to countries and businesses that are also doing business with Iran. You do realize that any international Iranian firm is also a proxy of the Iranian government, don’t you?

So, due to the complexities of international law, business, and a plethora of other bureaucracies and loopholes, there is little hope of actually harming Iran by way of economic sanctions. There are too many avenues by which Iran can elude such binding resolutions as the ones the world witnessed in operation against the old Iraqi regime, Oil For Food.

Appeasement is among the current biggest problems in US policy towards enemies. Appeasement has been the chief motivating factor informing the US’s intense support for Palestinian statehood close ties with Iran. Appeasement provoked the US to embrace radical Islamic religious leaders and terror operatives such as Sami Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi as credible leaders in the US Muslim community. Appeasement stood behind the US’s bid to try to entice Iran to end its nuclear weapons programs with grand bargains.

It is allowing Syria to support al-Qaida and Hezbollah as well as Palestinian terror groups; its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; or its involvement in facilitating the insurgency in Iraq and to continue as a proxy for Iran

Recently President Sarkozy of France put Obama to shame in the Men’s Department. Sarkozy called out Iran for it’s military, nuclear and ballistic ambitions. He said this constitutes a growing threat which “would provoke a major crisis that France wants to avoid at all costs.”In the eyes of Sarkozy Iran’s growing ambitions may be enough of a threat for a preventative attack, although it remains unsaid as to who would conduct said attack.

Iran's UN ambassador said in a letter to UN leaders that his country would "not hesitate to act in self-defense to respond to any attack against the Iranian nation." "Iran is a leading nation in rejecting and opposing all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons," said Iranian UN ambassador Khazaee. With the exception of the radical organization known as Gharargahe Asheghane Shahadat (The Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison), some 50,000 men and women for the stated purpose of suicide operations against the United States and Europe. That is, according to Ahmedinijad (http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/world-according-to-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html).

The Obama administration is continuing to use a failing policy of appeasement while Iran is using a policy of expanding. According to FARS, the semi-state owned official newspaper of Iran, the country has been and continue to carry out expansion in Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

In Ecuador there are a number of narco-terror related organizations that have a history of attacking US corporations. These groups include the likes of FARC, the Colombian National Liberation Army, various Marxist-Leninist parties, the Popular Combatants Group, and the Revolutionary Militias of the People. These groups have attacked US companies in Ecuador. Into Ecuador comes the Iranian owned Red Crescent Society, IRCS. The IRCS has conducted itself in support of terrorism and terrorists in, for instance, Somalia. What other group operates under the Iranian flag? Oh, yes, Hezbollah. My assessment is that the IRCS, which is opening a high end medical facility in Ecuador (according to FARS), is going to operate in support of the aforementioned groups. We have seen growth in the relationship between Venezuela and Iran as well as Cuba and Iran. Now we see a growing relationship with Ecuador. Iran is beyond the point where containment will work.

What should the US do? The US administration, or at least its Senators and Congressmen, need to dig deep and find a pair. The West must stand absolutely and resolutely with its allies in the West and in the East. We must hold a firm line and not flinch or waiver.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_tells_UN_it_will_hit_back_at_any_attack_999.html

http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/commemorate-911-by-stopping-iran/

 http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=237237

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/09/07/economic-sanctions-on-iran-havent-been-enough/

Nine Fronts in the Next War

After having written and posted several pieces regarding Iran and its malignant spread I find this piece at Front Page Magazine. The BLUF is that, in case of a war against Israel, nine fronts have the potential to exist. Israel is surrounded and will have to make one of two choices

1.      1. Fight conventionally and die

2.      2. Go nuclear

There will be no help from the Obama administration if it happens before the next election. That’s my take. Please, let me know your take.

Nine Fronts in the Next War

Posted By David Meir-Levi On September 7, 2011 @ 12:30 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |

The current unrest pursuant to the “Arab Spring” is a mixed blessing for Iran. On one hand, if young Bashir were to fall, Iran will lose its most important ally in the western part of the Arab world. A break with Syria would be a serious defeat for Iran, since it would no longer be able to supply Hezbollah directly, nor would it have direct contact and supervision over its proxy terror armies in Lebanon, the Sinai, and the Gaza Strip.  It would also be very bad news for Hezbollah, whose terrorist leaders rely heavily on Iranian supplies, funds, and armaments, all channeled into Lebanon via Syria.  Hamas too would suffer from a break in its link with its Iranian godfather.

But on the other hand, Iran is exploiting the great opportunity created by the chaos and upheaval of the “Arab Spring”.  Iran does not want to see its foothold in the west undermined by this upheaval, so it has helped Bashir in his use of extreme force; and it has also begun to manipulate the “Arab Spring” violence and unrest to its advantage.

To gain maximum benefit from the situation in Egypt and to turn the world’s attention from Syria, Iran has activated two of its proxies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to renew attacks on Israel: blowing up the natural gas pipeline from the northern Sinai to Israel, firing scores of rockets into Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, most recently launching three brutal attacks on civilians near Eilat, and more in the offing.  Igniting a new war between Israel and Egypt, or at least precipitating a crescendo in the incendiary calls for war from the Egyptian populous and neighboring Arab states, would be a marvelous win-win for Iran and for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the best organized and most popular of the political groups contending for power in post-Mubarak Egypt.

If Israel’s response to the attacks from the Gaza Strip and Sinai were to trigger a war with Egypt, Israel is likely to win; but the turmoil and upheaval in the wake of that war would weaken the Egyptian generals currently ruling Egypt with a temporary de facto mandate.  Once shamed in defeat, they would lose credibility and popularity (there already have been protests against their continued rule and postponed elections).  This scenario would create the perfect storm into which the MB could sail to political control.  If, despite the attacks, Israel shows restraint, the MB can still shame the generals for not confronting Israel, and then either provoke a war or use the failure of the generals to confront Israel as a way to shame and weaken them and pave the way for the MB’s own rise to power.

Better yet, if Iran, through its proxies, could spark a war with Israel, and the other forces confronting Israel were to join in, Israel would be fighting on many fronts at once.  In that case, the likelihood of Israel’s victory is in question.

El Qaeda is thoroughly ensconced in the Sinai.  Currently Israel and Egypt are said to be in conversation about Egypt’s re-militarizing the Sinai, so perhaps the Egyptian army could be deployed against al-Qaeda and Hamas there.  But if the MB succeeds in gaining a position of political strength in Egypt, it is not likely that the Egyptian military will be deployed in the Sinai to drive al-Qaeda out.  Quite the opposite, the MB wants a military confrontation with Israel. So it is likely to see al-Qaeda in Sinai as an ally in such a war. And if the MB and al-Qaeda go to war against Israel, then Hamas in the Gaza Strip is sure to follow.  Hamas cannot stand idly by while its Egyptian brethren initiate the great final jihad against Israel.

With Egypt, al-Qaeda and Hamas attacking Israel on its southern and western fronts, Iran will want Hezbollah to get in on the action and make use of the thousands of rockets and missiles that it has stockpiled just for this very moment, thus opening a northern front.

Syria may have difficulty deploying a large military force on the Golan front if it must use its military against its civilian demonstrators; but Iran will be in a position to aid Syria in suppressing unrest (probably in a manner similar to what Bashir’s father Hafez el-Assad did in 1982), and young Bashir will want a distraction on the Golan front to turn his citizenry’s attention, and the opprobrium of the world, from his slaughter of unarmed demonstrators. Even if Bashir falls, undesirable for Iran but an eventuality that the Mullahs may be anticipating, a Syrian government run by the MB or other Islamo-fascists of that ilk will be delighted to join Egypt and others in a pincer-movement assault on Israel. So a Syrian Golan front is very likely to open once Israel is at war with Egypt, Hamas, el-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

In the West Bank, Hamas is strong because its extreme Islamo-fascist ideology and commitment to Israel’s annihilation hold the sympathies of many.  Fatah and the PLO, the main components of the PA, are condemned in some circles for their collaboration with Israel.  The PA will not be able to maintain a position of power if it chooses to sit out a war against Israel; especially since the PA is in stiff competition with Hamas for the hearts and minds of the West Bank electorate, and it looks like entering a shooting war with Israel is a good way to win those hearts and minds.  So it is very likely that another intifada could erupt once the southern, western and northern fronts are aflame, probably targeting the Israeli communities scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.  Such a terror offensive could cause high numbers of casualties but is not likely to create an existential military threat.  However, a West Bank terror war would be a serious distraction for Israel and would reduce Israel’s ability to concentrate its military on the fronts that are existential threats.

And then there are the Arab Israelis.  No one knows for sure how many Arab Israelis are active supporters of Hamas et al, but however many there are, they could be mobilized for fifth column terrorism against Israeli military bases, infrastructure, and civilians: another distraction that would sap Israel’s ability to face the greater threats on its borders.

Egypt, al-Qaeda in Sinai, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria in the Golan, Palestinian terrorist forces in the West Bank, and Arab Israelis in downtown Israel: Seven fronts.

But there’s more!

Jordan sits on a powder keg and the MB is itching to light the fuse.  If the MB succeeds in supplanting the Hashemites, there can be little doubt that the newly Islamized Jordan will join the war against Israel, at very least by aiding and abetting the West Bank Arab terrorists, and perhaps by launching their own invasion from the east: front number eight.

Iran is moving ahead with alacrity to achieve WMD capabilities, despite some setbacks engineered by Israel over the past 5 years (Stuxnet being the most recent). Iran already has missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads to Israel and beyond.  West Bank or Israeli Muslims vaporized by Iran’s nuclear attack are not part of the Mullahs’ concerns.  Muslim men will be martyrs, united with their celestial virgins (unclear what happens to the women and children), and besides, “Allah knows best who is wounded in His way.”[i] The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel are merely expendable pawns , collateral damage, just part of the price that the Arab world must pay for its final victory over Israel.  Syria is a very important part of this equation, because Syria has substantial stockpiles of missiles and chemical warheads which can be deployed against all of Israel at very close range, to augment the internal terrorism from the West Bank and from Arab Israelis, and to mop up whatever of Israel may survive Iran’s nuclear attack.

So Iran is front number nine – and it will be a nuclear front.

In short, Israel is in greater danger now than it has ever been, even more so than during its 1948 war of survival.

Notes:

[i] A quote from Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from his writings on Jihad, quoting a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari.  See http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/ and http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx for Qur’anic and extra-Qur’anic sources.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/07/nine-fronts-in-the-next-war/print/

More on the Imminent Threat of Iran

I found the below article in Town Hall. It seems that, after MSMII has been looking at Iran, others start to think and openly talk about the dangers of appeasing Iran and its proxies. For the coming damage, you can thank Obama ( http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/thank-obama.html?m=1) The Telescope feature editorial in the August issue of A Line of Sight, "Iran at our Doorstep," documented increased uranium enrichment and the announced plans for an Iranian missile base being constructed on the extreme northern borders of Venezuela stocked with Russian weapons. A Line of Sight contributing editor, Major General Paul Vallely, an acclaimed national security expert, and his sources at Stand Up America have just released the following analysis that also confirms increased uranium enrichment by Iran. Vallely also states that SUA believes Iran "now possesses low yield nuclear war heads that can be mounted on the Shehab missile and deployed on the oceans in container ships with the Russian provided Club K missile launch systems." Those unfamiliar with the Club K system may watch at a short video here . In April, 2011 MG Vallely wrote the following about the Russian Club K container system for A Line of Sight: "Moscow markets cruise missiles launched from a freight container -- Russia's Club-K Freight Container cruise missile. This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market (Iran is the first acquirer), allows cruise missiles or Shehabs to be concealed in freight containers which can then be launched from a sea platform container ship. I have warned of this "spear" threat for over a year now; with no response from the powers-to-be. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia for $15 million." http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/09/05/vallely_iran_goal_emps_on_us_coastal_cities_in_reach