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

Army of lions lead by lamb

UPDATE: When I originally posted this the State Department had ordered all of its people out of Syria. I posed the question if it was to establish plausible deniability. Well, check this link and reread my post
http://infidelsarecool.com/2011/09/syria-islamist-sheikh-implores-muslims-to-kill-christians/

On August 22 I published my take on the newly signed oil ban that was said to be a sanction against Basher al-Assad (http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syrian-oil-banned.html). I had called that an empty action by an empty suit. I still believe that. This country burns more oil in one day than Syria exports in a year.

Yesterday Hillary CLinton expanded on her early instructions to US citiznes in Syria, she told them it was time to get out. This comes one day after Obama made his statement that regime change and overthrowing dictators leads to religious persecution within that country (http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/threats-to-religious-freedom-in-post.html).

I want to recap the situation;
For six months Baher al-Assad has been slaughtering sunni muslims in his country with more vigor than previous purgings (see Syrian Slaughter A Family Tradition
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syrian-slaughter-is-family-tradition.html)
At month five, August, Obama has said next to nothing about Syria while touting his success in Libya
In contrast, he signed an executive order banning financial transactions, business deals between the US/US Persons and the government of Syria
Yesterday the State Department tells US Citizens to leave

Meanwhile, there are calls from the White House for Assad to step down, but, not so that we would notice.It seems that most of what Obama has said and done in relation to Syria has been somewhat visible if 1) you knew to look, 2) you knew where to look, and 3) were paying attention. Why? Why is it that Libya had all the press while al-Assad continues on as the second generation of dictatorial butcherous legacy?

I said in What is in Syria That Keeps Obama Quiet? (http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-is-in-syria-that-keeps-obama-quiet.html) that the presence of Iran is what is keeping the administration quiet. Iran, in spite of one or two recent comments about a split between Ahmedinijad and Khamaeni, is still focused on destroying Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both parts of the Iranian government believe that this is the only way to go. Take a look at a map of the middle east. You will see that Israel is surrounded on nine fronts and that Saudi Arabia (no friend of Iran) is also surrounded with Iranian proxies in Yemen  and the Sinai Peninsula, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

With all the unrest why wouldn't the State Department warn US citizens living in the region? They have, as pointed out, but why is all this happeneing now? Slowly I turn and look towards Capitol Hill. Obama is no friend to Israel. Right now Israel and Saudi Arabia are surrounded by their enemies as well as ours. I think Obama is pulling back, not to get people out of harms way, but to get people out of the way. If there are no US citizens in the region to witness or fall victim to the coming rise of violence, then the administration can claim plausible deniability. If there are no direct interests in the area then we do not have to stop anything.

If there are no US citizens in the region to witness or fall victim to the coming rise of violence, then the administration can claim plausible deniability.

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

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/