The Return of the Cold War

by Ali Salim
June 6, 2013 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3742/new-cold-war

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

When Iran finishes arming itself, we will witness a dramatic change in the map of the Middle East, with the addition of a dangerous, murderous power that will undermine, subvert or change the orientation of the familiar power group of the United States, Europe, Russia and China.

The Arab television stations, as usual, angrily claim that the West is taking no action to end the slaughter in Syria, and at the same time they represent the Arab leaders as deep in diplomatic negotiations to end the war -- while neatly hiding the mistakes, wrong moves and general inability to have the slightest effect on the horrors playing out.
As Muslims massacre each other in the Arab Spring countries, Sunni Islam finds itself in the incongruous position of expecting to be rescued by the Crusader West -- the United States and the European countries these Islamists say they wish to Islamize by the sword, and to which they occasionally send terrorists to murder civilians.
According to Sunni Islamic extremist thinking, the West has the responsibility to do the dirty work of purging Syria, Iran and Lebanon of their Shi'ite terrorism. In the meantime, jihad fighters from all over the world land in crumbling Syria daily to kill the Alawites, Druze and Christians who are considered Assad collaborators. These jihadists shout "Allahhu Akbar" ["Allah is Greater" – than whom is implied] as they commit the same atrocities inflicted by the regime they are trying to overthrow. It is no wonder the world is squeamish about giving them material support. Faced with both the Western world's hesitation to arm them and its concern over what will happen if and when they take over Syria, the jihadists there have started comparing themselves with the infidel leaders of the militant South American Communist movements in Cuba, Bolivia and Chile – and, in the height of incongruity, even with atheists.
Meanwhile, in the best tradition of Arab and Islamic failure, the Arab media continue churning out diatribes against the Zionist plots in Palestine to deflect attention from what is happening in Syria. They sling mud at each other and sit on the fence while untold amounts of blood are spilled. On one side, those who identify with the Syrian regime boast that it supports Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations against Israel; and claim that the opposition to the regime, the Free Syrian Army, is joined at the hip to Israel and doing its best to destroy Syria. Not only to destroy Syria, but remove it from the resistance camp, which not only bravely supports the Palestinians, but fights against the dictates of American hegemony and that of its ally, and the occupier of the Golan Heights, Israel,.
The supporters of the Assad regime also accuse the rebels of having neutralized Syria's air defense system and even of marking targets for the Israeli Air Force. The supporters of the regime claim that the rebels are just a riffraff gang of opportunistic Islamic terrorists with no common denominator who, attracted by the smell, came to feast on Syrian carrion. They also claim that the Free Syrian Army does not genuinely represent the will of the people, but merely that of the Islamist terrorist organizations, while it is actually Hezbollah that protects the holy sites of the Shi'ites in Syria, such as the grave of Muhammad's (s.a.a.s.) daughter, Zeinab.
On the other side, those who identify with the Syrian opposition claim that Assad's regime represents only the Alawites. Members of the opposition say the regime is bloodthirsty and illegitimate -- especially after slaughtering its own people, including the Palestinians in the Yarmouk refugee camp -- and that it has to be overthrown. They also claim that the regime is supported by Shi'ite terrorists from Iran and by Hezbollah in Lebanon, a great many of whom die helping the regime; that the regime is made up mass-murderers of Syrian civilians, who rape Syrian women and children and carry out a host of other horrors, including the use of poison gas.
Their strongest claim, however, is that the Syrian regime is a cat's paw for Israel – that the regime allowed the Zionists to drop bombs on Syrian territory; that it collaborated with the assassination of Imad Mughnieh (a high-ranking Hezbollah commander); that it abandoned the Golan Heights; that Syria has thus become a hothouse for anti-Israel hatred, and as always, that Israel is responsible for all errors and faults of the Middle East, including turning Syria into the graveyard of the Arab Spring.
Former Israeli Knesset member A'zmi Bishara, who fled from Israel when he was suspected of spying for Shi'ite Hezbollah, recently told Qatar TV that the war in Syria had claimed 100,000 lives, that 400,000 Syrians had been wounded, that 500,000 buildings had been destroyed, and that there are more than a million refugees. The dimensions of the humanitarian catastrophe are so great they have turned the story of the Palestinian refugees (a hereditary title passed down for three generations, and worth less than the paper it is written on) into a saga of little importance which should be consigned to the pages of history. As far as Bishara is concerned, the time has come to focus only on helping the real refugees, the Syrians.
Subversive activities and Iranian terrorism are prominent in an Iranian-based axis: they pass through Maliki's attack-loaded Shi'ite Iraq, carpet Syria with the dead, and continue on into Hezbollah's Lebanon. Every day, Iranian terrorist cells are uncovered in the Persian Gulf states, in Bahrain, in Sudan, in Saudi Arabia and even in Egypt, where Islamic terrorists abducted Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula, demonstrating the weakness of the regime there.
At this point the terrorist organization Hamas has pretty much cut its ties to Iran, but unfortunately, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which suggest possible peace agreements with Israel within the framework of the Arab League initiative, continue using front organizations to finance Hamas, while successfully hiding their activities from the Americans. Their money and support keep the Palestinian blood feud against Israel alive; and worse, it remains alive between Hamas and Fatah, so that the Gulf States make it possible for the Zionists in Israel to develop their state undisturbed while we kill each other.
Rising from the religious and ethnic bloodshed in Syria are the outlines of the little states into which the country will eventually be divided: Kurdish, Sunni and Alawite, with more or less protected enclaves of Christians and Druze. Regardless of how the dice fall, there is no way Assad can remain ruler of the Syrian people, even if he manages, by means of slaughter and oppression, to hold his throne for a time.
The Russians understand that Assad's fate has been sealed and that soon Russia may not have a foothold in Syria. It is not difficult to understand why. The the Syrian people -- most of whom are Sunni, and harbor a deep hatred for Russia., which has been working against them, and helping Assad slaughter their women and children -- will not allow it. However, the need to preserve the market for their arms, a warm water port and their Middle Eastern outpost, leaves the Russians no choice but to aid the regime. Born into Communism they do not believe in democracy, and they will do nothing to help Assad's downfall, regardless of how tempting it might be.
According to some commentators on the Middle East, the bombings in Syria attributed to Israel, which showed the West that Iran could also be struck, revealed that Russian weapons were an empty threat -- a blow to the Russian reputation. The attacks therefore forced the Russians to show their Syrian (and other) allies that they actually had better deterrent capabilities. So they gave the Syrians more modern weapons, quickening the pace of the Cold War. When Putin refused to accede to Netanyahu's request not to supply the collapsing Syrian regime with advanced weapons, he was trying to signal the West that foreign intervention in Syria, and needless to say in Iran, should be impossible. Thus, for its own self defense, Israel found itself in the middle of a battle between world powers with hesitant American backup. It is out of the question for Russia to allow a pro-American regime hostile to itself to rise in Syria; anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
As for Iran, the situation in Syria shows that the Iranian-Shi'ite axis is crumbling, and how deeply the Syrian populace detest Iran. The violent, bloody, mass-casualty confrontations between Shi'ites and Sunnis in the Iranian axis countries, Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, are escalating. Iran's tenacious foothold in the Middle East is weakening, as is the fraud it attempts to perpetrate on the Gulf States: by strengthening its Syrian-Hizbolah-Iraq axis, it aimed to draw attention away from its true goal, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, by lulling them into a false sense of security. In the meantime, Iran profits from having the limelight concentrated on Syria while it cheerfully develops its nuclear bomb and sends its mercenaries and weapons to Hezbollah and Assad. However, when Iran finishes arming itself, we will witness a dramatic change in the map of the Middle East, with the addition of a dangerous, murderous power that will undermine, subvert and change the orientation of the familiar global power group of the United States, Europe, Russia and China.
So far, the situation in Syria has shown that as a result of American hesitation the old Cold War between Russia and the West is now asymmetric. This result can also be seen from the U.S. attitude toward Iran: the Russians openly support the tottering Syrian regime even though, along with Iraq and Hezbollah, it is part of the Iranian axis. Russia has defiantly sent S300 surface-to-air missiles and other deadly weapons to the Syrian regime to deter the West and prevent it from involvement in Syria and Lebanon, both aerial and naval, and thus to deter it from attacking Iran. Israel, for the Russians, is not part of the equation; Russian strength and deterrence have been acquired in the face of the perceived weakening of American resolve.
The American-NATO-Turkish-Arab axis, on the other had, has been providing the Syrian opposition with funds, training, material support and non-combatant military equipment, but has not intervened or armed it. The West faces a dilemma: the opposition is composed, in great part, of extremist Islamic elements affiliated with Al-Qaeda, such as Ahrar al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front. They are not perceived as preferable to Assad, so on the surface, the Russian and American positions on the survival of the Assad regime are close. As in the saying, "Better the devil you know than devil you don't know," the Americans have learned from experience that Islamists who received American arms later turned on their benefactors and used them against American soldiers. Thus the upcoming conference in Geneva and the formulation of its preconditions will be complex for both Americans and Russians.
As Arabs we have to understand that just as Iranian nuclear power will not be turned only against Israel, so Russian arms will not be turned only against Israel or the Syrian people and rebels, but against the entire Arab world. As Arabs we have to decide if we want, of our own free will, to submit to the new Iranian master or to take the initiative and – with American support -- strike the head of the Iranian serpent. In the current situation, the Russians will not interfere and the entire Middle East will benefit. We struck the Persians under the heritage of the prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.s.), and we can do it again today.
Ali Salim is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Related Topics: Ali Salim

"Debating" Beheading

by Douglas Murray
June 6, 2013 at 4:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3749/debating-beheading

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

How can those who claim that killing "infidel" warriors -- or British troops abroad or two-year old Israeli children -- is a good thing hope that people will believe them when they say killing an "infidel" soldier in London is a bad thing?

Here is the problem when it comes to the aftermath of events such as beheading of one of our soldiers in Woolwich recently. It is not that almost every Muslim community spokesperson didn't come out and say that the beheading was bad. That is what they have done before and will continue to do after – and quite rightly so. It is of course a pretty low place to position the bar. Applauding anyone for coming out against beheading is just a symptom of a malaise: "Hurrah – you're for us keeping our heads."
But the other part of the horror is that there are too many people – far too many people – who although they would condemn this attack in London, might not condemn another such attack were it to have happened somewhere else .
Some years ago, around the time Western hostages were being beheaded in Iraq, I ended up doing a number of telephone interviews for a radio station from somewhere in Africa. It was called "Radio Islam" or the like. Anyhow – the striking thing was that they were always scrupulously polite. They even kept trying to give me a doctorate I didn't have – "so, Doctor Murray," and so on. But my relationship with them ended when they called one day to ask if I would debate beheading. I think it was after the American hostage in Iraq, Nick Berg, had just been beheaded in an al-Qaeda snuff-movie.
I said that although I was happy to come on – as ever – what did they mean when they said "debate"? They surely didn't mean that they had someone who was "for" beheading? The fixer responded in the most meticulously polite tone, "You must understand, Dr. Murray, there are very many people who are for this policy." There was something about "policy" that particularly chilled the blood.
It is that same chill that occurs in the aftermath of Woolwich. I wish the people who condemn the murder of the beheaders in Woolwich were completely removed from the beheading game. But they are not. Among those who have come out – which is the majority of course – not nearly enough are far-away enough from the "pro-beheading policy" for any discerning person's liking.
One of our British Cabinet ministers, for instance, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, spoke at a conference of Islamic student societies in London in March. At this conference she said not only said that Muslim student societies in Britain are part of a poor, set-upon minority who not only have no connection with extremism, but she she actually furthered the narrative by continuing that they are, in fact, "demonized." A matter of hours before her speech, the same organization hosted a campus-speaker who believe at the beheading of people who leave Islam ("apostates") is morally right as well as "painless."
And what about all those heads of British Muslim organisations that signed the '"Istanbul declaration" the other year? This document defended – among other things – the use of violence against the Royal Navy if it helped to prevent arms being imported into Gaza. It is comforting that many of the groups to which these signatories belong have condemned the killing of our soldier in Woolwich. But how do such "leaders" manage to rationalize – or get away with – condemning an attack on one of our soldiers while calling for attacks on our sailors?
Elsewhere, those who have been spending the last decade euphemising their way around the killings of British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or finding excuses for those who do the killing there, are having a harder time than normal. Or perhaps they cannot believe their luck that nobody is asking them the difficult questions. Instead of just congratulating them on being "against beheading," the press and politicians should ask these "faith-leaders" in which circumstances British servicemen's lives are in fact forefit. They should ask them about their own records. And receive assurances not only that a British serviceman's life in Woolwich is sacred, but that those of all other soldiers of our country -- and our allies' countries -- are viewed in the same way. This is, of course, exactly the time for such questions to be asked in larger quantity and with greater volume.
People who believe in the murder of British troops abroad are trying to pretend that they can find a way to oppose their murder on British streets. Those who believe in the murder of two-year old Israeli children are trying to find a way to explain why the murder of a British man in his twenties is wrong. How can those who claim that killing "infidel" warriors in war zones is a good thing hope people will believe them when they say that killing an "infidel" soldier in London is a bad thing?
A moment of tragedy like this is a moment to do a little learning. Whether we come out from it wiser, or more fooled, will reveal much about the long-term direction in which we are heading.

Related Topics: Douglas Murray

It Wasn't an Accident
It Was Part of the Plan to Make Israel Nervous

by Shoshana Bryen
June 6, 2013 at 4:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3752/kerry-israel-accident

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Imposition of a solution on unwilling partners is a terrible thing to do, as well as essentially undemocratic. They have elections over there for that.

Yesterday it was revealed that that the current US ("I've Got Israel's back") administration leaked to the media the specifications for the heretofore-secret US-Israel installation for Israel's Arrow 3 missiles. It was quickly called just another leak from an administration already reeling from leaks; someone apologized. But it was more likely a deliberate decision -- by someone. The constellation of players in the administration now contains a heavy contingent of those determined to bring "peace" to Israel. "Peace" is defined as the creation of the State of Palestine under whatever circumstances they can, and the operative question is how to bring Israel in line.
Leaking military secrets is actually the second step in the process -- first was Secretary of State John Kerry last month positing the absurdity that because Israel is successful, democratic and increasingly energy independent, Israelis do not care about peace: "People in Israel aren't waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity."
The implication that Jews care more about money than peace comes ever so close to anti-Semitic caricature.
But immediately, The New York Times parroted the theme. Ethan Bronner, in Israel for a "fascinating and raucous wedding," which he also describes in lavish terms, claimed surprise that, "Few even talk about the Palestinians or the Arab world on their borders, despite the tumult and the renewed peace efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry." "Instead of focusing on what has long been seen as their central challenge -- how to share this land with another nation -- Israelis are largely ignoring it, insisting that the problem is both insoluble for now and less significant than the world thinks."
Again, the premise seems to be that as long as Israelis are rich, they don't care.
Other observers could just as reasonably conclude that Israelis believe the "central challenge" is either the continuing Palestinian insistence that the independence of Israel in 1948 was a mistake which still can be corrected, or, just as easily, the announced determination of Iran to do the correcting with a nuclear weapon.
But the "rich Jews don't care" meme appeared again this week in a meeting of a prominent Washington think tank with close State Department ties. An Israeli professor announced, "I'm not worried about a Third Intifada. I'm worried that there will be NO Third Intifada" to shake Israel out of its complacency about continuing "the occupation." Note to the Israeli professor, who lives in Boston: The Second Intifada killed 1,000 Israelis and injured 5,600 (for comparable U.S. figures, multiply by 40). It ended when Israel resumed security control of the West Bank. How many Israelis should die to make the rest of them want what you want? Do children count double? Soldiers half as much?
Kerry repeated the theme of Israeli intransigence yesterday at a meeting of the American Jewish Committee. He went further this time, blaming Israel for the radicalization of the region. "Everywhere I go -- literally, China, Japan -- foreign ministers, presidents raise this issue. Young people ask me about this conflict and what they can do to help end it... because it affects all of the recruitment and all of the arguments and radicalism that (they) face."
Does he mean us to believe that "young people" express themselves as more concerned by the absence of a Palestinian state than by 80,000 dead in Syria and the gruesome circumstances of that war? Or that foreign leaders think "the occupation" radicalizes young men in the Middle East more than the billions of dollars poured into arms, training and ideological indoctrination by Iran on the Shiite side and Qatar, Saudi Arabia on the Sunni side? Did Kerry miss al-Qaeda Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi calling Alawites and Shiites "even worse than Christians and Jews," and demanding that rebels fight Hezbollah?
Kerry appears also to believe American Jews should undermine the citizens of Israel by pressuring their government to bend to the wishes of the Obama Administration.
No one has a stronger voice in this than the American Jewish community. They can play a critical part in ensuring Israel's long-term security. And as President Obama said in Jerusalem, leaders will take bold steps ONLY if their people push them to. One can help shape the future of this process. And in the end, one can help Israel direct its destiny and be masters of its own fate.
If Israeli voices are not stronger than American voices, they should be; it is their sovereignty and their lives. When President Obama referred to "their people," one would hope he was referring to those who live, vote and pay taxes in Israel -- and who serve in its military and share its risks. Israel is indeed the "master of its own fate" and it is not the job of American Jews to "help Israel direct its destiny." They have elections over there for that.
Samantha Power, however, just named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, does not believe Israel should be master of its own fate. She was prepared in 2002 to put a major American military presence in the West Bank to safeguard Palestinians from presumed Israeli brutality, and she was openly willing to have the United States force its will on Israel:
"Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean… investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is a terrible thing to do -- as well as fundamentally undemocratic. But… it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention."
Is she still so inclined? She hasn't been asked, but at precisely the moment Israel's military installation specs were appearing in print to the elation of its enemies, Kerry solemnly stated, "I come here today to affirm to all of you that we are deeply committed to Israel's security."
The irony appears to have escaped him. But the Administration's frustration with Israel's view of its own security requirements is clear. And its campaign to undermine Israel's independence and security is increasingly clear as well.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.

Related Topics: Israel | Shoshana Bryen

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Gatestone Institute