Home » Posts tagged with » hezbollah (Page 5)

Hezbollah

No Comment
Hezbollah

Iran War Ships Enter Suez Canal A Revolução Democrática Islâmica de 2011 READ THIS, Texas Tea Party, Arizona Tea Party, National Tea Party, Waco Tea Party, Tyler Texas Tea Party, Alaska Tea Party Video: Hezbollah starting to work with drug cartels in Mexico … My military and Department of Homeland Security contacts are insistent…it’s not if Hezbollah operatives have been smuggled into the U.S….but how many? They note that drug tunnels are becoming much more sophisticated and striking similar … Mahfoud: Hezbollah is ready to impose its will on Lebanon | Ya … “With all that has been done, Hezbollah does not have total control of the power in Lebanon, what will happen if [Hassan Nasrallah] is given the opportunity to fully take the reins of power in Lebanon and impose his will. … Mexican cartels | Hezbollah | border security | The Daily Caller … Mexican cartels join forces with Middle East terror group Hezbollah . Mexico Narco News: Hezbollah Link is Proved/Cartel Bribing … This entry was posted in Featured Image, Terrorism, corruption, crime, financial and tagged drug cartel, Felipe Calderon, Hezbollah , Mexico, narco-terrorism, police, Tony Garza. Bookmark the permalink. ← Tuesday Night Showdown: US Navy … Terror group Hezbollah raking in $$hundreds of millions right on … Terror group Hezbollah raking in $$hundreds of millions right on our southern border. You didn’t really think all those headless bodies turning up lately were the work of Mexicans, did you? By refusing to secure the border, … uncoverage says: Two big stories out of Mexi-Narc War: Hezbollah involvement confirmed and Wikileaks shows cartel bribery all the… http://fb.me/CbxlcsIT

Continue reading …
Middle East braces for more protest after Mubarak resigns

News of Egyptian president’s departure spread rapidly through region, where other authoritarian rulers are in power Algeria In another military dominated north African state with a long-term authoritarian ruler, the Egyptian drama came on the eve of pro-democracy protests that could turn violent. “Even with Mubarak’s departure, it’s not certain that everything will be immediately resolved,” said historian Daho Djerbal. “But a shockwave is running through all the societies of this region, and other despots will go. There is an idea of the birth of a new republic in which sovereignty is being returned to the people. The people are becoming aware of their power. In Algeria it’s slower than elsewhere because we only have a very young new middle class, after it was destroyed under colonialism.” Tunisia Four weeks after Tunisia’s own revolution, the news from Egypt was received with joy. “There has been an explosion of joy on the streets of Tunis. People are gathering outside the Egyptian embassy to express their happiness,” said Abdelraham Hedidhi, a trade unionist. “There has been a great breath of revolution blowing on the wind across the region and Tunisians are very proud to have played their part in starting it. Mubarak’s departure will help us in our efforts to set up our own democracy. Because of the power and importance of Egypt in the Arab world, other countries will follow: Yemen, Jordan, Algeria. There is a new power to the people.” Jordan Six weeks of calls for political change have led to a tense truce between Jordan’s monarchy and a restless opposition. Central Amman, which has played host to waves of protests in recent weeks, was alive with talk of Egypt and the rapid success of the region’s rage against the regimes. Former deputy prime minister Ayman al-Safidi was confident that the people’s demands could be addressed through reform rather than revolution. “The old guard has been forceful in protecting their interests,” he said. “We have to be much more assertive in pushing for the type of reforms that we are going to have. We cannot stand still in the face of time.” Israel Israel will now be uncertain about future relations with Egypt. The peace treaty between the two countries that has been in place for more than 30 years has not exactly made them warm allies, but the peace has held. Israeli ministers have been warning for almost three weeks that regime change in Egypt could end the “cold peace” between the nations. Their worst fears are that the Muslim Brotherhood will gain in power and influence and Egypt will adopt a hostile attitude towards the Jewish state. There was no immediate reaction to Mubarak’s resignation from the prime minister’s office. Binyamin Netanyahu has been telling international counterparts that Israel expects any future Egyptian government to honour the peace treaty and that the international community should be making that clear. Gaza Hamas called on people to rally all over Gaza on Friday night to celebrate Mubarak’s resignation. People were raising Egyptian flags, and some Hamas fighters have fired weapons into the air since the announcement. Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, said Hamas hoped to benefit from the developments, calling for improved relations between Egypt and the Islamic movement. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’s close allies, “are present everywhere”, he said. He would not be drawn on whether a new Egyptian regime may wish to review the peace treaty it signed with Israel more than 30 years ago. “There is no clear picture about the new government, but it will be controlled by the army to begin with,” he said. “We are hoping to benefit.” Lebanon Guns were fired into the air in the Shia Muslim stronghold suburbs of south Beirut last night as residents celebrated the news. Mubarak had been the subject of regular taunts from Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, particularly over Egypt’s strict control of the Rafah border crossing in southern Gaza, which was rarely opened to allow Palestinians to cross. In the predominantly Sunni Muslim west Beirut, the public reaction was muted, although there was keen interest in cafes and bars where television coverage of the momentous events in Cairo was screening continuously. Middle East Egypt Hosni Mubarak Algeria Tunisia Jordan Israel Gaza Palestinian territories Lebanon Harriet Sherwood Angelique Chrisafis Martin Chulov Hazem Balousha guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

The growing possibility of a radically Islamist Egypt has serious Middle East security implications The Israeli perspective of the historic events currently under way in Egypt is quite different from those commonly found in western countries. The US and Europe are more likely to support the removal of a government that denies its citizens basic freedoms, while Israel’s main concern is that the unrest in Egypt will have serious regional security implications. If Hosni Mubarak’s regime collapses it could endanger the peace agreements Israel has with Jordan and Egypt, Israel’s main strategic assets after its alliance with Washington. In the longer run, the new reality on its southern border may also require structural military changes and place an extra burden on the Israeli economy. Israel’s political leadership and security branches have been struggling to decode the US’s Middle East policies. The surprise of Obama’s speech in Cairo in 2009 has been replaced with amazement at just how quickly the US has abandoned its old ally. Like Jimmy Carter when the Iranian shah’s regime collapsed in 1979, Obama is wavering between supporting a dedicated partner and the basic American inclination to back a popular freedom struggle. Like Carter, a Democrat, Obama chose the second option. Jerusalem has reservations about the American tendency to see events in Cairo as an Arabic version of the Boston tea party . In the Middle East people generally prefer bitter coffee. Israel suspects that behind ordinary citizens protesting about the economic situation and election fraud stands a new Islamist order. The Muslim Brotherhood does not yet pull the strings, but it remains the only organised force within the Egyptian opposition. Israel believes that, if Mubarak falls, it will be first to recover and exploit the confusion and seize power. Although the Brotherhood has threatened to pull out of talks, Israel is still worried that it might come out victorious. Seared in Israeli memory is a fresh precedent: in January 2006 parliamentary elections were held in the Palestinian territories, under pressure from President George W Bush. Hamas’s victory encouraged its takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Today a radical Islamist regime is in control of Gaza, severely depressing its residents, much more repressive than the Mubarak regime – and of course very hostile to Israel. If Mubarak is overthrown there will be serious consequences for Israel and its quiet co-operation with Egypt. It may also lead to a thaw between Egypt and the Hamas government in Gaza. It could damage the status of the international peacekeeping force in Sinai and lead to a refusal by Egypt to allow movement of Israeli military submarines and ships in the Suez Canal, employed in the last two years as a deterrent against Iran and to combat weapons-smuggling from the Red Sea to the Gaza Strip. In the long run, if a radical government gains power, there is likely to be a real freeze in the already cold peace with Israel. For the army, this will require reorganisation. It is more than 20 years since it had to prepare to deal with a real threat from Egypt. The army is trained for clashes with Hezbollah and Hamas, at the most in combination with Syria. No one has seriously planned for a scenario in which, for example, Egypt identifies with Hamas in the event of an Israeli attack in Gaza. The Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, signed in 1979, enabled a gradual cutback in the deployment of forces, a reduction in the age of those exempt from reserve duty, and a sweeping diversion of resources toward social and economic goals, assisting the economic recovery in the mid-80s. This happened after the “lost decade” (1974-1984) in which Israel has invested huge sums to its army, following the trauma of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It is still too soon to reach conclusions, but it seems that if the Mubarak regime collapses, the pendulum will swing back, and Israel will have to gradually prepare its army for worst-case scenarios. The 1973 intelligence failure was again mentioned this week, after both military intelligence the Mossad did not foresee the intensity of popular unrest in Egypt. In all fairness, neither did anybody else. After that first turbulent weekend in Cairo, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, asked his ministers not to speak on the subject due to its sensitivity. But he could not restrain himself at a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem, and warned against takeover of Egypt by a radical Islamist regime. The last thing Mubarak needed was a hug from Netanyahu – yet he got it. Anyone watching the broadcasts from Egypt could hear the protesters repeating words of hostility towards Israel in Independence Square. When Mubarak announced the appointment of the veteran intelligence minister Omar Suleiman as his deputy , al-Jazeera rushed to the archives to broadcast pictures of Suleiman with senior Israeli officials. The subtext was clear: the likely heir is an Israeli agent. In recent years, Israeli spokesmen described the developments in the Middle East as a struggle between the moderates – primarily Egypt and Saudi Arabia – and Iran and its partners in radicalism. Events in Cairo indicate the moderate Sunni states are in retreat. Within Israel, the Egyptian revolution will be interpreted as an ideological victory for those warning against territorial concessions, even as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. For most of the public in Israel, the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces from South Lebanon (in 2000) and Gaza (in 2005) led to rocket fire from the territories that were evacuated. Now, as Cairo plunges into an uncertain transition, a question mark hangs even over the fate of the old peace agreement with Egypt. The conclusion of the right is clear – and has already been expressed in recent days: as long as its neighbours are undemocratic and under constant threat of an Islamist coup, Israel must not take unnecessary risks. • Comments on this article are set to remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight Egypt Israel Hamas Hosni Mubarak Gaza Palestinian territories Islam Religion Obama administration US foreign policy United States Middle East Amos Harel guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fox talkers use Reagan’s birthday as an opportunity to bash Obama

Click here to view this media As you might imagine, Fox News was practically a nonstop Ronald Reagan 100th birthday commemorative channel over the weekend, with practically wall-to-wall coverage of events and speeches at the Reagan Library. And at times it was so maudlin that it was embarrassing. Pretty typical of this was a segment yesterday featuring Greg Jarrett and Casey Stegall discussing the day’s events, as Stegall gushed over what a moving tribute it all was, and Jarrett eagerly agreed. And of course, this also meant that Fox couldn’t miss the chance to bash President Obama by comparison. So immediately afterward, Heather Childers — a new weekend co-anchor at Fox — came on with a George W. Bush lackey named Christian Whiton, speculating about how Reagan might have handled the crisis in Egypt. Interestingly, Whiton insisted that Reagan would have been on the side of the pro-democracy marchers because “he just believed in freedom that much.” Then he and Childers proceeded to slag Obama: CHILDERS: You just mentioned ‘tear down this wall’ — four words, changed the worlds, helping end Communism, and of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall — those words, pretty straightforward, unlike President Obama’s initial words to Hosni Mubarak calling for an ‘orderly transition.’ Did Obama do the right thing initially? WHITON: No. And you know, Ronald Reagan also believed in being somewhat concise in foreign policy, especially the big goals. And he knew what was really behind the threats we faced — he had spent the better part of three decades before he took office in 1981 thinking about the threat from Russia — not just its more apparent manifestations like the Red Army in Eastern Europe, the Red Army in Afghanistan, ICBMs, but understood what drove it, the Communist ideology. And he understood that ultimate victory meant undermining Communism. But in the same way, not only President Obama but his predecessor in the White House have not really made the same analogy of our current conflict. We haven’t identified Islamism as the chief thing that unites groups from Al Qaeda to the Islamic Brotherhood, the Hezbollah. Nor have we figured out how to fight it, and President Obama, the Obama administration saying that it would be fine for the Muslim Brotherhood to be part of a future Egyptian government shows that our Washington foreign-policy establishment really doesn’t understand today’s threats the way Ronald Reagan used to. CHILDERS: And while President Reagan had some dramatic successes, there still remain some questions regarding his policies with South Africa and apartheid. He maintained a constructive-engagement policy. Are there lessons to be learned from that in dealing with Egypt. WHITON: There are. You know, President Reagan was a very principled person, but he was not a Boy Scout, nor should we want our presidents to be Boy Scouts. You know, one analogy, the Philippines was run by an autocrat, and we partnered with that autocrat, Ferdinand Marcos, out of necessity, because the bigger objective we were working toward was the defeat of Communism. But we still always behind the scenes and sometimes in front of the scenes put pressure on Marcos to reform politically, to liberalize. And then when the Filipinos took to the streets to demand his ouster, we helped facilitate that ouster. So you can work with unsavory characters, and unfortunately often you have to do that in diplomacy, but keeping your eyes on the bigger picture, which at that point was the defeat of Communism, and at this point ought to be the defeat of Islamism — you know, keep your eye on that ball and you’ll do OK. And I think Ronald Reagan knew that. CHILDERS: It’s so obvious from the ceremony today — Ronald Reagan followed words with action — he believed in being clear — famously called for the Soviet Union, called it an ‘evil empire’ — pretty clear words. Do you think Obama’s problem is that he appears to waver, or was that necessary in the initial stages of the revolution going on in Egypt? WHITON: Well, there was tremendous wavering at first, then the president came out and said a few positive things about democracy and freedom, but he has no credibility on that issue, and actions have not been followed with words. You can’t say that and then turn around later and say that, you know, the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood ought to be welcomed into an Egyptian government. You can’t welcome people into your political system who want to destroy that political system unless you’re willing to have it be destroyed. You know, Reagan backed up his rhetoric against the Soviet Union — we supported freedom movements in the Eastern Bloc, we supported Solidarity in Poland, we fielded a 600-ship Navy, a Strategic Defense Initiative missile defense, all sorts of other things. So when President Obama, and frankly before him, with President George W. Bush, when they say nice things about democracy, people around the world judge us on our actions, not on our words, and frankly, actions haven’t followed words as they did under the Reagan administration. This is all just so incoherent that it’s laughable. If Ronald Reagan was so clear and straightforward about dealing with threats to the United States, then how does Whiton explain the fact that Reagan secretly traded arms for hostages in his dealings with Iran? Indeed, Reagan’s “clarity” and obsessive focus on Communism at the expense of all other potential threats led to the Reagan administration financing and creating monsters who later became real threats to American security themselves. We can’t forget, after all, that is was the Reagan administration that propped up the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom we later engaged not just in one but in two wars. Nor can we forget that it was the Reagan administration that underwrote the Afghanistan resistance that then gave birth to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But comparing Mubarak to Marcos is indeed worthwhile — though not in the way Whiton seems to think. Because in fact the Reagan administration — which had been Marcos’ staunchest ally — notoriously dithered while the “People Power Revolution” gathered. It was only when Marcos’ removal became a fair accompli that the Reagan White House acted to help him remove to Hawaii — absconding with millions of dollars in gold bullion certificates. In contrast, the Obama administration has been a model of quiet consistency on the situation in Egypt, where it has been pushing Mubarak to liberalize consistently, and has been consistent in supporting the pro-democracy forces marching in the streets, as Whiton clearly believes we should. Meanwhile, right on Fox News, we have right-wingers like Dick Morris arguing loudly that, in order to defeat Islamism — which Whiton thinks is our top priority now — we need to strongly support Mubarak and his thugs. Really, right-wingers can’t seem to be able to decide whether to crap or go blind when it comes to Obama and Egypt. The only thing they know: Obama Bad, Reagan Good.

Continue reading …

Politicians and civil servants have been too willing to treat with religious bigots Not the least of the pleasures the North African revolutions are bringing is the look of astonishment on the face of the foreign policy establishment. The world has become a constant source of surprise for diplomats and ministers, as each news bulletins lands a fresh blow on their crumbling certainties. “Tunisia, who knew?” “Egypt? Egypt! WTF?” So lost has Whitehall become, Alistair Burt, the Middle East minister, admits that the Foreign Office no longer understood foreign affairs. “The tide is turning very strongly,” he sighed. “It’s not for us to sit here in London and work out where that tide is going to go.” We are witnessing a diplomatic failure as great as the failure to predict the collapse of Soviet communism. Revolts in the Arab world are coming in a manner and from a quarter the experts never expected. With luck, we are also seeing the end of one of the most discreditable episodes in British diplomacy since Chamberlain and Halifax appeased the European fascists in the 1930s. Like America and France, Britain has sought to charm the Arab dictators and not only in Cairo and Riyadh. WikiLeaks tells us that in the interests of “realism” and “stability”, the Foreign Office also embraced the unhinged Muammar Gaddafi and briefed the old despot’s courtiers on how they could secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber, before the courts had acquitted him of responsibility for the worst murder in recent British history. What set the Foreign Office apart from other cynical western chancelleries was that it was not content with appeasing today’s secular dictators. It went on to embrace the theocrats of the Muslim Brotherhood it expected to become the religious dictators of the future. At no time did it seek to promote the interests of those in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and elsewhere who do not wish to live under dictatorship in any of its forms. Appeasement is a slippery tactic. Diplomats convince themselves they are “engaging” with repulsive movements because the national interest demands it. But the longer they engage the more willing they become to take the side of their partners and find excuses for their life-denying ideologies. A series of leaks to the Observer from a brave Foreign Office civil servant called Derek Pasquill showed that Britain never spent a moment worrying about what Muslim Brotherhood rule would mean for the Christian and Bahá’í religious minorities, or for Egypt’s democrats, liberals, trade unionists, women and homosexuals. Typical of Whitehall’s casuistry was a briefing by Mockbul Ali , a graduate of the religious right, the Foreign Office hired as an adviser. He told ministers that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the Brotherhood’s favourite theologians, was a mainstream figure Britain should do business with. He neglected to mention the cleric’s endorsement of wife-beating and female genital mutilation and of the murder of gays, Jews and Muslim “apostates”. The careers of Foreign Office diplomats provide a measure of how compromised Whitehall became. Frances Guy, the head of the Engaging with the Islamic World Group , which led the drive to support radical Islam, give it aid money and involve the Brotherhood in British foreign policy, is now our ambassador to Lebanon, from where she writes sinister blog posts announcing her admiration for the leaders of Hezbollah . Derek Pasquill lost his job, his home and his marriage for blowing the whistle. Such was the price of defending liberal values in “liberal” Britain. There is an old and by no means disreputable leftwing argument that the British establishment retains a colonialist mentality. It wants to be friends with the Islamist right in case its adherents gain control of oil fields, and does not believe that Arabs or Muslims deserve democracy because Johnny Arab cannot handle basic freedoms. You can find echoes of the old prejudice in the BBC’s attempts to portray the Muslim Brothers as moderates, as if they were the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Anglican Communion, or in the willingness of the Home Office and Metropolitan Police as well as the Foreign Office to treat the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami as the sole legitimate voices of Muslim Britain. (If you cannot see what is wrong with that manoeuvre, imagine how you would feel if officialdom treated the BNP as the legitimate voice of white Britain and the BBC praised Nick Griffin’s moderation.) As anyone with eyes to see must know by now, those who say they are the British establishment’s sworn enemies are no better than the ruling elite. To the take the most egregious case, “progressive” Londoners still appear willing to vote for Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral elections next year, even though he backed Qaradawi and went on to take the money of the Iranian regime’s propaganda station Press TV, after the mullahs’ secret policemen had killed and raped pro-democracy demonstrators in Tehran. London is one of the world’s centres of Arab journalism and political activism. The failure of left and right, the establishment and its opposition, to mount principled arguments against clerical reaction has had global ramifications. Ideas minted in Britain – the notion that it is bigoted to oppose bigotry; “Islamophobic” to oppose clerics whose first desire is to oppress Muslims – swirl out through the press and the net to lands where they can do real harm. David Cameron seems to be prepared to stand up for elementary principles. He was almost pitch-perfect in his speech in Germany as he rejected with the required scorn the right’s argument that a clash of civilisations made Muslims and democracy incompatible and the double-standard of the multi-culturalists, who hold that one can oppose fascistic doctrines when they are held by white-skinned demagogues but not when they are propagated by brown-skinned reactionaries. I am not sure the prime minister understands that he is taking on a sensibility as much as a political platform. Because Britain was never invaded by the Nazis, and never suffered from any of the other versions of 20th-century tyranny, there is an unforgivable frivolity about our dealings with totalitarianism. Dilettante bureaucrats, journalists and intellectuals play with extremists and their ideas with the insouciance of men and women who know that they will never have to suffer the consequences of coping with extremists in power. The best gift the British can give the world in this moment of crisis is to imitate the crowds in North Africa and say enough of all of that. It is time to break away from a shameful past. Egypt Islam Foreign policy Nick Cohen guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The Longest War by Peter Bergen | Review

This fair-minded and accessible expert guide to the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida is essential reading On around the fifth day of the demonstrations in Cairo, there was a rapid but revealing exchange on CNN. Presenter Wolf Blitzer introduced the channel’s national security analyst Peter Bergen, “the author of the new and best-selling book The Longest War and expert on the Middle East”. After recapping recent events in Egypt, he asked his guest, “Where, if at all, does al-Qaida fit into this entire equation?” Bergen replied, slightly taken aback, “I would say not at all.” This is not the first time Bergen has had to field such startling questions about al-Qaida or Islamic militancy in general. Since first becoming interested in the topic in the mid-90s, and meeting Osama bin Laden in 1997, Bergen has, through his books, journalism and lecturing, established a reputation as one of America’s foremost al-Qaida experts. Though there are some with a more specialised knowledge of certain corners of the vast field that is “jihadi studies”, few rival Bergen’s overall knowledge or ability to explain, patiently and intelligibly, complicated concepts to people whose knowledge of the subject is, at best, variable. He is also one of the very rare such figures to consistently spent time on the ground: in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and most recently in Egypt. The Longest War is ambitious both in scope and aims. It sets out to chart “the enduring conflict between America and al-Qaida”. Its goal, the author says, “is to tell a history of the ‘war on terror’ in one volume.” In particular it aims to tell the story from all sides. Events in the US have been well covered by a series of instant histories by Bob Woodward and through the wonderful American tradition of senior figures releasing detailed memoirs soon after leaving office. Though some of the material in The Longest War is familiar, Bergen, through interviews with lesser-known figures, particularly from the world of counter-terrorism, adds much to what is already known. However, it is on the other side that the book is revelatory. The internal workings of bin Laden’s group are still largely obscure, at least to the general public, and Bergen does a fine job of negotiating the maze of personalities and ideologies to explain the various evolutions al-Qaida has undergone. One valuable early point is that the 9/11 attacks were deeply controversial within al-Qaida itself, and the broader Islamic militant community. Many believed that to risk the overthrowing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the consequent loss of a safe haven was a mistake. Noman Benotman, a Libyan former militant and Afghan veteran, now in London, told Bergen that “the tactics took over the strategy”. Some, though far fewer, believed it was theologically unjustified. These debates, often acrimonious, continued. By 2007, senior figures, among them founder members of al-Qaida and senior Gulf clerics with strong militant credentials, were renouncing violence, or at least bin Laden’s leadership. Another debate within militant ranks was over whether to favour an “open front” strategy, where non-conventional but overt campaigns would aim to “liberate” territory, or a broader, decentralised strategy, which would aim to spark a “global uprising” and a host of miniature al-Qaidas would spring up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the latter was the brainchild of Syrian-born Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, better known as Abu Musab al’Suri, who was one of those in Afghanistan pre-9/11 who was deeply suspicious of bin Laden and his pretensions to primacy within the world of Islamic extremism. This argument reflects a broader one among analysts over the centrality of al-Qaida in contemporary militant Islam. Bergen is very clear: al-Qaida and bin Laden remain critical. They are at the centre of many plots, providing leadership, inspiration and focus. In the unlikely event of the capture or killing of bin Laden – and Bergen surgically slices away the bombast to reveal the deep inadequacies of the hunt for the fugitive terrorist – a huge hole would be left. Here, Bergen perhaps goes too far. Certainly al-Qaida continues to play a major role, particularly in adding the practical knowledge and strategic focus that turns a “bunch of guys” into a terrorist cell. But if the radicalisation process is traced further back, other elements become much more important, not least personal acquaintances and the ideological environment in any given community. A survey of militant Islam around the world shows how limited bin Laden’s influence is on the broader movement, despite the media attention he receives. Though new groups in Somalia and the Yemen are linked, tenuously, to the “AQ hardcore”, many others – in Iraq, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan – are not. If these groups have sometimes come close to al-Qaida’s vision in ideological terms, they would not necessarily evaporate if bin Laden was removed from the scene. Indeed, the current interest of Pakistani groups such as Lashkar e-Taiba or Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami in global agendas could be read as a sign of the end of al-Qaida’s monopoly on international campaigns. This debate has huge implications for the current crisis in Egypt, in which al-Qaida, as Bergen told Blitzer, has played no role whatsoever. Rather than asking about al-Qaida, Blitzer should have been asking about Islamism more generally. One of the most striking developments over recent years in the Middle East has been the growing conservatism, political, social and religious, of much of the population. Often this has been in opposition to the westernised values and lifestyles of an elite unwilling to share power and wealth with the expanding urban middle class. In Egypt, democracy is seen as a tool to oust that elite. Quite what will follow is uncertain. The critical question is the extent to which the population share the social values of the educated, media and tech-savvy activists who have so far been driving events. Though the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organisation founded in Egypt in 1928, would probably win only a third of votes in a free and fair election, it is likely that a “mild or moderate” Islamist worldview is shared by a greater proportion of people. One possibility is an evolution along the lines of Turkey, where an ongoing tension between new conservative, religious moderates and an old secular elite has neither derailed economic growth nor destabilised the country. But other less positive outcomes are entirely feasible. The biggest problem for reformers in Iran, too, is bringing on board the country’s reactionary rural and working-class constituency, who are still suspicious of anything that smacks of westernisation. A second element is worth remembering. Bergen recounts the history and roots of “the longest war” (that there is still no commonly agreed name for the conflict reveals much about the lack of clarity as to its real nature and even the identity of its participants). It is a conflict that is often described as “generational”, meaning that it will last for somewhere between 20 and 25 years. However, there is another sense in which generations play a role. Looking at some of the regions hit by violence associated with militant Islam in recent years, such as Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it is clear that the revulsion most people feel when they see what radical campaigns at home actually mean was the crucial factor in the failure of extremists to convince communities to heed their call-to-arms. The same was true of Algeria and Egypt in the 90s. Yet those out on the streets in Cairo and Alexandria are extremely young. In Egypt, 29% of the population is under 30. Most barely remember the hideous brutality that accompanied the militant campaigns of 15 or 20 years ago. They may, if their aspirations are not met in this new period of change, be tempted to turn once more to the bomb and the bullet. But to understand “the equation”, as Blitzer put it, you need to understand al-Qaida, and Bergen, with this detailed, serious, scrupulously fair, perceptive and sometimes startling work has made a significant contribution to us doing exactly that. Jason Burke’s new book, The 9/11 Wars, will be published by Penguin later this year. al-Qaida Global terrorism History Afghanistan Egypt Islam Jason Burke guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews Rips Obama’s Handling of Egypt Crisis: ‘I Feel Ashamed As an American’

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews appeared on Morning Joe, Friday, to slam President Obama's handling of the escalating crisis in Egypt, saying it made him ” ashamed as an American .” Matthews, who famously declared Obama gave him a “thrill” up his leg, excoriated what he perceived to be the President's disloyalty to Egypt's leader, Hosni Mubarak. The Hardball host berated, ” And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling.” He added, “I believe in relationships…You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.” Matthews has previously lauded the authoritarian Mubarak.. Pointing out Mubarak's stand against Hezbollah and other extremist elements in the region, the anchor on January 31 wondered, “How can you say he'll easily be replaced? This guy's the George Washington of peace over there.” [See video below.] Deriding immediate calls for Mubarak to step down, Matthews lamented, “Character and planning…I feel shame about this. I feel ashamed as an American, the way we're doing this. I know he has to change. I know we're for democracy, but the way we've handled it is not the way a friend handles a matter.” Matthews even attacked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's performance: “I watched Secretary Clinton today. I don't get anything. I don't see anything other than two and two are four. I keep waiting for five. Show me you've done your jobs over there.” A transcript of his answer to Joe Scarborough's question, which aired at 8:22am EST, follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chris, a statement yesterday from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, real concern among Arab states, if this is how we treat our ally of 30 years and I know it's tough to bring these facts up to people who want to call for his immediate lynching, but if we treat an ally of 30 years this way, demanding that he leaves quote “now,” Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, are other allies in the region start questioning America's character [sic]? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I think that's the great word, Joe. It's character. Our national character. We do is have a character. And Americans think about ourselves as the good guys and being good friends and loyal. And these are values that mean a lot to us as people. You don't walk down the street and watch your friend get gunned down and not do anything about it. We're not Kitty Genovese here. We're not a situation in New York or something when somebody gets mugged and we watch it happen. Was he our friend for 30 years? Are we denying that? I remember, Joe, when he came to one of those afternoon events they had in the House Foreign Affairs committee back in 1981 after Sadat had been assassinated. And, of course, we Americans loved Sadat. There was a great emotion towards him because of what he had done for peace and his courage. And we just loved his dignity and his personality. And Along came Mubarak, this strong personality. We thought things might come apart over there and he held everything together. He was strong. I was with Tip O'Neil that day and I walked aback from that meeting with him and I said, “He's a strong guy.” And we were just chatting about what an impressive figure he was and we've been with him for 30 years. And now we're saying, it's time for the gate. Well, we should have known this. My second point of view about this, it's friendship. He's 83 in May. He's getting old. We should have prepared this 10, 20 years ago. In friendship, where was the State Department? Don't we have hundreds of people sitting over there in Foggy Bottom with no other job except to know what's going on in Egypt, with no other job, but to know the culture and politics in that country and to understand who the potential leaders and factions that might off set the Muslim Brotherhood? What are they doing? I watched Secretary Clinton today . I don't get anything. I don't see anything other than two and two are four . I keep waiting for five. Show me you've done your jobs over there . And I just wish, in our friendship, we should have been smart and I think we don't have a plan B. I mean, the guy's almost 83. His plan was Gamal]. I was talking to Secretary Powell while ago. I hope it wasn't off the record, because he said it rather clearly to me. I said, “What do you think of Mubarak?” He said, “He's like every other leader in the world there. All they think about is primogeniture.” They want their oldest kid to be their successor, whether it's Gadaffi or Bashar Assad. They call themselves Baathist, monarchist, whatever, Islamists. It all comes down to the same thing. They want their oldest kid to replace them. And what was the plan for transition for our friend? Did we ever talk to him about it? Did we talk about it, encourage him? That's my view. Character and planning. And I don't see- I feel shame about this. I feel ashamed as an American, the way we're doing this. I know he has to change. I know we're for democracy, but the way we've handled it is not the way a friend handles a matter. We're not handling as Americans should handle a matter like this. I don't feel right about it. And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling. I believe in relationships. I think we all do. Relationship politics is what we were brought up with in this country. You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them. And when they're wrong, you try to be with them. You try and stick with them. As the great old line was, “I don't need you when I'm right.” You've got to help out people when they're in trouble and all I'm seeing is transaction. Who we going to get the next deal with? And, by the way, we don't have a plan for the next deal, so we're not even good at transactions, let alone relationships. What are we good at here? That's what I keep asking. What have we done as leaders and friends? Nothing except watch. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Wow! — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter .

Continue reading …

Cable dated:2009-04-30T15:00:00 S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 000746 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/26/2019 TAGS: PREL, MASS, MOPS, PARM, KPAL, IS, IR, SO, EG, SU SUBJECT: ADMIRAL MULLEN’S MEETING WITH EGIS CHIEF SOLIMAN Classified By: Ambassador Margaret Scobey per 1.4 (b) and (d). 1. Key Points: – (S/NF) During an April 21 meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Egyptian General Intelligence Service Chief Omar Soliman explained that his overarching regional goal was combating radicalism, especially in Gaza, Iran, and Sudan. – (S/NF) On Gaza, Soliman said Egypt must “confront” Iranian attempts to smuggle arms to Gaza and “stop” arms smuggling through Egyptian territory. – (S/NF) Soliman shared his vision on Palestinian reconciliation and bringing the Palestinian Authority back to Gaza, saying “a Gaza in the hands of radicals will never be calm.” – (S/NF) On Iran, Soliman said Egypt was “succeeding” in preventing Iran from funneling financial support to Hamas through Egypt. Soliman hoped that the U.S. could encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and stop interfering in regional affairs, but cautioned that Iran “must pay a price” for its actions. – (S/NF) Egypt is “very concerned” with stability in Sudan, Soliman said, and was focusing efforts on convincing the Chadean and Sudanese presidents to stop supporting each others’ insurgencies, supporting negotiations between factions in Darfur, and implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). “Egypt does not want a divided Sudan,” Soliman stressed. —- Gaza —- 2. (S/NF) Soliman said radicalism was the “backbone” of regional security threats, adding that radicalism in Gaza posed a particularly serious threat to Egyptian national security. Soliman said Egypt must “confront” Iranian attempts to smuggle arms to Gaza and stop arms smuggling through Egyptian territory. “Egypt is circled by radicalism,” he continued, expressing concern over instability in Sudan and Somalia as well. Egypt’s own successful campaign against radicalism in the 1990s provided a useful lesson in how to counteract extremist groups by reducing their ability to operate and raise funds, in additional to educating people on the dangers of extremism. Soliman noted that only the Muslim Brotherhood remained and the Egyptian government continued to “make it difficult” for them to operate. 3. (S/NF) “We do not want incidents like Gaza to inflame public anger,” Soliman said, adding that the Gaza conflict put “moderate (Arab) regimes” in a corner. To prevent another outbreak of violence, Egypt is focusing on Palestinian reconciliation and a durable cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. On reconciliation, Soliman explained, the ultimate goal was to return the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, as “Gaza in the hands of radicals will never be calm.” The problem, however, is that the PA cannot return to Gaza without Hamas’ acquiescence. Soliman said the PA must return before the January 2010 Palestinian elections, or else Gazans would be afraid to vote for moderates. 4. (S/NF) Stability in Gaza also depends on giving people a more “normal” life, Soliman continued, saying Israel must be convinced to regularly open the border crossings for legitimate commercial activity. The current system – where Egypt informs Israel of a humanitarian shipment and Israel waits two days before accepting or rejecting the shipment for transfer to Gaza – does not adequately meet people’s needs. 5. (S/NF) On Palestinian reconciliation, Soliman said he expected the factions to return to Egypt on April 26 to discuss his proposal on establishing a high committee comprised of the various factions. The committee would be responsible for preparing for the January 2010 elections, monitoring reconstruction, and reforming the security services in Gaza. On reconstruction, the committee would issue licenses for companies eligible to participate on projects, but the PA would decide who receives the money for private and government contracts. Arab governments would assist with reforming the security services and could base security assistance out of Egypt. Soliman doubted that Hamas would agree to the high committee, but said it was important CAIRO 00000746 002 OF 002 to keep Hamas and Fatah talking, so they would not resort to violence. ———————– Iran, Counter Smuggling ———————– 6. (S/NF) Iran is “very active in Egypt,” Soliman said. Iranian financial support to Hamas amounted to $25 million a month, but he said Egypt was “succeeding” in preventing financial support from entering Gaza through Egypt. Iran has tried several times to pay the salaries for the al-Qassam Battalions, but Egypt had succeeded in preventing the money from reaching Gaza. Soliman said the Egyptian government had arrested a “big Hezbollah cell,” which was Hezbollah’s first attempt to stand up a cell within Egypt. Iran was also trying to recruit support from the Sinai Bedouins, he claimed, in order to facilitate arms smuggling to Gaza. So far, he continued, Egypt had successfully stopped Hamas from rearming. Soliman noted that in six months, MOD will have completed the construction of a subterranean steel wall along the Egypt-Gaza border to prevent smuggling. He warned, however, that people will find an alternative to the tunnels to smuggle arms, goods, people, and money. Admiral Mullen expressed appreciation for Egypt’s efforts to combat smuggling, adding that he hoped Egypt felt comfortable enough to ask for additional border security assistance at any time. 7. (S/NF) Egypt has “started a confrontation with Hezbollah and Iran,” Soliman stressed, and “we will not allow Iran to operate in Egypt.” Soliman said Egypt had sent a clear message to Iran that if they interfere in Egypt, Egypt will interfere in Iran, adding that EGIS had already begun recruiting agents in Iraq and Syria. Soliman hoped the U.S. would “not walk the same track as the Europeans” in regards to negotiating with Iran and warned against only focusing on one issue at time, like Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran must “pay the price” for its actions and not be allowed to interfere in regional affairs. “If you want Egypt to cooperate with you on Iran, we will,” Soliman added, “it would take a big burden off our shoulders.” —– Sudan —– 8. (S/NF) Egypt is very concerned with stability in Sudan, Soliman said, but asked for the U.S. to be “patient” with the Sudanese government and give Egypt time to help the Sudanese government deal with its problems. He applauded the appointment of Special Envoy Gration and recent U.S. statements on Sudan. Soliman said Egypt was focused on three areas for promoting stability in Sudan: 1) repairing the relationship between Chadean President Deby and Sudanese President Bashir and stopping their support for each others’ insurgencies 2) supporting negotiations between the various factions in Darfur, and 3) implementing the CPA. Soliman encouraged a larger role for French President Sarkozy in mediating between Chad and Sudan. He said that Southern Sudan “feels no benefits from unity,” and Egypt is trying to bridge the “physiological gap” between north and south itself by providing humanitarian assistance. “Egypt does not want a divided Sudan,” he stressed. Admiral Mullen replied that Egypt’s leadership on Sudan was critical and looked forward to increased cooperation between Egypt and Special Envoy Gration. —————— Piracy and Somalia —————— 9. (S/NF) Admiral Mullen stressed that piracy was an international crime that needed an international solution, especially on support for trying captured pirates. The U.S. did not want Somalia to become the next safe haven for al-Qaeda after Pakistan, he stressed. Soliman replied that there were not enough ships in the region to provide adequate security against pirate attacks and recommended that the international community, through the UN Security Council, focus counter piracy efforts on the Somali shore. 10. (U) Admiral Mullen did not have the opportunity to clear before his departure. SCOBEY Egypt Iran The US embassy cables Middle East US foreign policy guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Arab world on the brink: an interactive guide

What is the likelihood of the current unrest in Egypt spreading to other countries in the region? Ian Black looks at the evidence … Ian Black Paddy Allen Christine Oliver

Continue reading …
Mikati urges unity in Lebanon

BEIRUT ‘ The billionaire businessman chosen by Hezbollah and its allies as Lebanon’s prime minister has called for a unity government. In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that formation of a government dominated by Hezbollah would mean changes in US relations with Lebanon. The group and its allies ousted the government backed by Washington two weeks ago when they walked out of the Cabinet. “A Hezbollah-controlled government would clearly have an impact on our bilateral relationship with Lebanon,” Clinton said on Tuesday. The United States deems Hezbollah a terrorist organization and has imposed sanctions against the group and its members. The ascendancy of…

Continue reading …