Here is what I wrote in October 2010. The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad al-Badi, had just given a sermon calling for the overthrow of Egypt’s government, which happened four months later, and a jihad against the United States, a country he considered weak, foolish, and retreating from the Middle East. I declared that this was:
-
“One of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.”
Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood? There were hints in President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, yet now it is clear that this is the new basis for regional security sought by the Obama Administration.
For all practical purposes the closest allies to the United States are no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a moderate Egypt but an Islamist Egypt, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian rebels led by the Brotherhood.
And literally every mainstream media outlet, every expert who speaks in public, every Democrat and the majority of Republican politicians still don’t realize that this is true.
There have been in American history the Truman Doctrine (help countries fight Communist takeover), the Nixon Doctrine (get local middle-sized powers to take part of the burden of the Cold War from the United States), the Carter Doctrine (defend Gulf Arab states from Iranian aggression), and the Reagan Doctrine (go on the offensive against Soviet expansionism). Now we have the Obama Doctrine: An alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East.
Is this really an improvement on a situation based on alliances with pro-Western dictators? Now they are still dictators but are also anti-American and even more oppressive than their predecessors. After all, the old dictators, as horrible as they were, were content with the status quo (except for Iraq where the overthrow came without a new extremist regime taking power) . The Islamist ones want the fundamental transformation of their societies. By our times, the old dictators were resigned to the regional situation. The Islamist ones want a wave of new revolutions, terrorism, wars against Israel. And sooner or later they will strike out against America, just as they give their Salafist allies a free rein to do so.
The occasion for declaring that an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups is the new Obama Doctrine is, of course, the decision to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As recently as April 28—a mere six weeks ago!—the New York Times was talking of an imminent rebel victory! Now, however, panic has set in about a total rebel collapse. This has prompted a rush to give weapons to the rebels.
The weapons will be given to the Supreme Military Council which runs the Free Syrian Army (FSA). But while the FSA is nominally led by defected military officers, in fact most of its soldiers hold views close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, the fig leaf will be that these guns are being given to “moderates”—like the people Senator John McCain met with—while actually they will be given to people whose politics encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, the West generally, and ready to engage in what in American politics has come to be known as Homophobia and a War on Women.
If the rebels were to win, this would mean imposing a Muslim Brotherhood government on Syria. Let’s remember that the political opposition organization the United States recognizes and has financially supported is overwhelmingly run by the Brotherhood and it refuses to admit real moderates and Kurds on a serious level.
Note that this is the second Muslim Brotherhood entity the U.S. government has provided with weapons. The first was the Egyptian government, to which despite its questionable human rights record the Obama Administration has no objection to helping. The shipment of weapons is not even postponed as a gesture.
Thus, Egypt is an anti-American client state of America. And so is Tunisia. So, too, is Turkey, which is sort of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Turkish style. The Turkish regime, it should be remembered, is the chief adviser to the Obama Administration on Syrian affairs and its favorite government in the region.
Why did Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt endorse an American no-fly zone in Syria? In Islamic terms to invite in an infidel power to “invade” an Arab land cannot be justified by any Islamist in contrast to a non-Islamist Muslim-majority state. The Muslim Brotherhood can justify this support because the goal of this action will be to install a Muslim Brotherhood government, that’s why.
There are four places where U.S. policy is not (not yet?) backing the Brotherhood.
First, because of pro-Israel sentiment in the United States, the Obama Administration is still anti-Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood group which rules the Gaza Strip. Hamas has also committed too many terrorist attacks and is in revolt against the U.S.-backed nationalist Palestinian Authority.
In an unguarded moment, Obama’s then counterterrorism advisor let slip that he would engage Hamas if he thought he could get away with it. But this would be too big a step for even pro-Obama Democrats to accept. And besides right now Hamas is in a conflict with Egypt so that doesn’t have to be faced right now.
The second problem is with Jordan, where the Obama Administration still supports the monarchy though it often seems only absent-mindedly so. The Brotherhood, which is the chief opposition group, wants to overthrow the king but is afraid—precisely because the regime is so tough–to try violence. Who knows what will happen, though, if Syria is ever taken over by the rebels?
The third case is in Lebanon. The leadership of the Sunni Muslims there is pro-Western and moderate. Radical Islamists are in a small minority. Both Sunni groups hate Hizballah, which is of course the ally and now co-belligerent of Iran and the Syrian regime. Still, there is no sign that the United States is going to do anything on Hizballah’s home court. It is somewhat ironic that the one place where the Sunni Muslim leadership is most moderate is where Obama isn’t acting even though Hizballah (another force Brennan declared moderately not long ago) is now a proven enemy beyond denial.
And fourth, the Obama Administration has not yet supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Israel. The strategy on this point is to get a two-state peace agreement and thus defuse the issue. Of course, the Islamists will not be satisfied with that result even if it happens, which it won’t.
Why is the United States backing the Brotherhood in Syria? Most immediately it is being done in order to prevent an Iranian bloc victory in Syria, even though the Brotherhood and al-Qaida are on the same side there. Except in Iraq, U.S. policy is backing the Sunnis over the Shia.
Beyond that, however, the Obama Administration has argued that the Brotherhood is the best way to defeat al-Qaida, which wants to attack American directly. It has also claimed that the Brotherhood will inevitably moderate, the same argument that was once heard about Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Yasir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Saddam Hussein.
Are the Sunnis the lesser of two evils compared to Iran? Arguably, yes. But that doesn’t mean that the Sunni Islamists are better than the non-Islamists who range from nationalist army officers to traditionalist conservatives, and pro-democratic liberals.
At any rate, the new policy is in place. America has had many unlikely allies in its history—including Stalin and a number of Third World dictators. But have any been such strange partners as those who would like to kill all the Jews, wipe out Christianity, reduce women to permanent second-class citizens, and murder gays? Indeed, these are not only strange but unnecessary and mistaken allies.
An interesting MEMRI piece gives an example of Sunni closing of ranks. Muslim Brotherhood and chief Sunni Islamist guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi attacks Hizballah (Islamist but on the Shia side) and extols his friendship with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia (anti-Islamist but on the Sunni side).
And here’s another Sunni Islamist, a Kuwaiti, wishing in a MEMRI video that he could personally slit the throats of Hizballah soldiers. Why is this significant? Because Kuwait has a lot of Shia with whom the Sunni Islamists have worked pretty well. The new Sunni-Shia conflict may also bitterly divide Kuwait. What this all means is that the Sunni Islamist war against the Shia supersedes the Islamist war against the non-Islamists.
And on demonstrations in Turkey see this source: On Turkish demonstrations for English-speakers.
This article is published on PJMedia.
@ bernard ross:
American tendency for second presidential terms to be troubled and often unsuccessful. Second terms are particularly vulnerable to scandal.
At the same time, constitutional changes made after World War II have guaranteed that every second term president is a lame duck, and therefore less feared by his enemies. It is impossible to predict the future, but it is also clear that the second Obama administration bears a major vulnerability: this is a foreign policy heavily reliant on support from irregular military forces which can only be described as “al-Qaeda.” Obama has in fact gone far beyond any of his predecessors in his use of terrorist fighters as the infantry component in the NATO-backed assaults on countries like Libya and Syria, as well as for operations in Pakistan and Yemen. This is often what “leading from behind” really means.
The declared goal of the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in Somalia and Yemen, is to kill any al-Qaeda fighters which they manage to locate. But when it comes to Libya and Syria, al-Qaeda fighters are welcomed, provided with transportation, given logistical support, armed, paid, and given diplomatic assistance by the Pentagon and the State Department. This blatant contradiction has been building up since the early months of 2011, and it may now be reaching critical mass.
In the case of Libya, much of the country, and especially the eastern province of Cyrenaica – including the Benghazi-Derna-Tobruk corridor – is now under the control of warlords and militias from the orbit of al Qaeda. The September 11 assassination of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi – already a cause célèbre for Republicans — was largely the handiwork of a pro-Romney network inside the Pentagon and General David Petraeus’ CIA, but one of the reasons the Obama administration has been forced on the defensive regarding this incident is that a main task of the Benghazi consulate/CIA post has been to maintain relations with al-Qaeda death squads, especially for the purpose of moving them through Turkey into Syria to wage war against the Assad government. Any serious inquiry into the Stevens assassination thus risks exposing his role as an ambassador to al- Qaeda. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/16/278374/scenarios-for-obama-alqaeda-partnership/
yamit82 Said:
a likely story, what with the US and Saudi collaborating
bernard ross Said:
“Secret” Iraqi Document Connects Saudis to Al Queda. Saudis Scramble To Arrest Those Who Leaked Document
Bill Narvey Said:
this is a good example of our difference in that I do not believe the GCC is playing a duplicitous game but that these networks are funded and controlled by the GCC and that the west is in collaboration with that effort, notwithstanding the appearances. I do not believe the GCC would be able to fund and support these networks against US interests without the consent of the US. there is no reason to assume that the MO which existed in the 1980’s and existing today was not existing in the 20 years in between. We believe what we want to believe and are fed but those explanations contradict common sense and logic plus such explanations are repeatedly discredited. Why is it difficult to believe simple explanations which best explains and relate the unfolding events? No one wants to be played for the sucker.Bill Narvey Said:
I don’t think I missed your point but rather that I disagree that the policies are on the “fly” or wishfully opportunistic or reactionary. I believe the US is the major player along with the GCC to reshape the ME. The context of Rubins article is too narrow because it does not evaluate recent small events within the greater context which has emerged over the past 2-3 years regarding the same obama islamic alliance. This is why he does not see that the MB,salafi, AQ are subordinate to GCC and operate at their behest. How else would he explain the turnaround of the MB and Egypt towards hamas? The weaning of hamas from Iran? The strange gaza cease-fire after Israel targeted iranian controlled jihadis in gaza(for GCC?)in a deal brokered by Qatar.
Taking one or 2 facts out of an ongoing context shows Rubins poor analytical abilities or perhaps an effort to perpetuate the idea that these are all unrelated events and…..wait for it(LOL)….that the saudis have not been knee-deep in the arming, funding and recruitment of jihadis to syria.
this statement appears to seek to obscure saudi involvement, the saudi/qatar/GCC relationship and the up front involvement of qatar as point man for the GCC. I expect that the withdrawing of saudi to the background, and the emergence of qatar to the forground is that saudi has had too much negative exposure in the public global eye. However, they are working together. (a form of good cop bad cop?)
my reply 33 to bill narvey in moderation
@ Bill Narvey: I think our main difference, and mine with Rubin, is that I do not accept that there has been a fluid “arab spring”. I believe it was planned,intentional and carried out by the GCC using their usual jihadi mercenaries, their sunni islamic network of clerics and fatwas and their big bucks. I believe that this was done with the complete agreement and support, albeit clandestinely, of the present administration. i belive the admin brokered and coordinated the various interests and major participants(nato, GCC, turkey, EU,Israel,egypt, kurds) and the GCC executed the “rebellions” through their networks. The US saw that everyone received a benefit and everyone paid a price. Islam provides the mind control, with money, to get the ignorant muslims to participate.(Please note the increased use of fatwas the latest being that muslim women should service the sex needs of jihadis in syria). My evaluation of the connected events demands intentionality over a period of at least 2 years or more. I do not see the US as an innocent participant just reacting to events but rather as the major player along with the EU and GCC. I see the motives of the main players being to establish new govts to deal with in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt and to weaken and destabilize Iran’s proxies and ultimately Iran. As to the exact reason behind Libya, egypt and tunisia there are many possibilities including their locations on the med and north africa, for resources or influence, but the common factor is the GCC and their islamic networks. the relations ship between the US and the GCC has been reliable, dependable, stable and allows for carrying out clandestine operations which would be illegal by western govt standards. A marriage made in heaven. It is only because we have been involved in an apparent war with islamic terrorists over the past 20 years that we find it difficult to accept the alliances. However, this alliance and MO goes on now just as it went on in the 1980’s. Therefore, I suspect that the jihadis have been working under the GCC in collaboration with western interests throughout the period.( continuing on next post)
yamit82 Said:
crafted like a true orwellian “double speak”politician. Use of the word “evolving”, which implies future growth, to convey finality. The word ends the sentence.
yamit82 Said:
It appears that when the public veers left they are given their apparent messiah and by the time the messiah is finished everyone chooses back the opposite of what they were trying to be rid of. The US was given the crooked peanut farmer as an antidote to Nixon but when they finished with him they had the public clamoring to be led by the hollywood actor. Interesting how the hostage rescue was sabotaged so that the actor could get the hostages released o his inauguration day. the actors austerity package of unimaginable interest rates was swallowed like a child swallows a bitter pill. It’s as if they were saying: we’ll give you a taste of the change you want but when it’s over you will beg us to come back and be your masters. we must watch for the next “rescuer” to be anointed. I expect a republican because Hillary has been discredited along with obama. Perhaps rand paul because he is already getting the media hype. Whether a dem or a republican high rates and austerity will likely proceed. What’s amusing to me is that folks speak of the reagan years as something good, with interest rates up to 24%. Those are the times when cash is king and the rich get everything back at bargain prices until the next bubble. I do not know all the ramifications surrounding benghazi but I do believe they were shipping arms to syria in collaborations with saudi/qatar. It could have been an operation to discredit obama and hillary and expose the arms shipment, it could have been an operation to get rid of stevens as the link to Hilary, it could have been a deal gone wrong, or a message from syria/iran/russia; but one thing i believe is that they were shipping arms to AQ/MB/salafis in collaboration with GCC. Once accepting this fact, then many conclusions and explanations as to outcomes fall into place.
Obama: America’s War With Jihadists Is Coming To An End…
Of course he didn’t use the word “jihadists,” but that is exactly what we are engaged in, and no, they won’t stop just because he says so.
Washington Examiner:
During his speech in Berlin today, President Obama declared once again that the “decade of war” against terrorism was coming to an end.
“The Iraq war is now over, the Afghan war is coming to an end Osama bin Laden is no more. Our efforts against al Qaeda are evolving.”
Obama reminded the crowd that it was time to move beyond the mindset of perpetual war.
Does anyone believe the military Industrial complex/Wall St and the military are going to take this without a fight?
The secret US establishment (Real American Power Structure) uses the Hegelian dialectic (create thesis & antithesis to control synthesis) to create, manage and perpetuate conflict.
There is a theory that this power structure through leaks, scandals and even blackmail are trying to bring Obama down before the next elections through impeachment process. Viewing the situation from narrow partisan American politics only helps to shield and distract the real moves being played out through seemingly unconnected events. This is a Power game of “3 Card Monte”.
Seems the FED will now play their part by cutting the printing press output. Stock markets ready to tank and interest rates to begin climbing. The process of vacuuming all those excess digital dollars I think has begun. This will bring Obama and America down. Everyone will now turn against him, Everyone!!!!
Bill Narvey Said:
The original statement you made(shown below), with which I took issue, intimated that the US was simply reacting to emerging events in the ME. I stated my view that if one evaluates the events within a context that includes other ME events then a pattern emerges which suggests intentionality and planning. I interpret your phrase “fluid nature” to refer to unintended, unrelated, unplanned events hence my description of spontaneous or random. Bill Narvey Said:
Rubin agrees with you but I do not. Rubin appears to believe that the MB/US relationship is new. He also does not seem to view them as being under the direction and influence of the GCC/qataris/saudis. I do not agree with this view, it views related events in isolation. My view is that the MB and Jihadis are operating on the directions of the GCC who have an ongoing understanding with the US re libya, egypt, syria, iran. Note the egyptian govt turnaround re Hamas and Qatars involvement with hamas and the MB($$$$); this is related to the strange gaza cease fire. Please note the most recent clerical fatwa out of egypt exhorting the Egyptian sunnis(GCC) to destroy the alawite/shias of Syria. These are all related as are the kurdish/Turkish cease-fire.
Bernard, I have no idea what you are referring to either in relation to what I am saying or what Rubin argued when you keep harping away at saying:
You keep repeating that general statement without specificity. Nothing I said was about spontaneous or random events, but rather events that emerge in the fluid nature of Mid East politics and society, which is a fair characterization. I chose not to elaborate with specifics as it was unnecessary to the point I was making.
Further, I am not saying there is no consistency to parts of U.S. overall policy. If memory serves, I spoke of one example. There are of course others, but that is not determinative of all U.S. policies as I contended.
I think you may be hung up on your own thesis expressed in your #11 and measuring my comment against that.
To remind you however, my comments sought to respond to Rubin’s piece within the parameters his piece set. Your approach is I think somewhat tangential in that regard. That is not to take issue with your views in #11.
It’s just that we seem to be talking about different aspects of U.S. Mid East policy, it’s determination, it’s application and its consequences.
it doesn’t matter anymore narvey…the jig is up. No need for me to explain. You will find out what that means in due time…hahaha @ Bill Narvey:
reply 26 to bill narvey in moderation
Bill Narvey Said:
I no longer have any doubt
Admission: Special Forces were only hours from Benghazi.Joint chiefs chairman confirms whistleblower account – See more at: http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/06/15/admission-special-forces-were-only-hours-from-benghazi-joint-chiefs-chairman-confirms-whistleblower-account/#sthash.YXBYFiKd.dpuf
Bill Narvey Said:
the extent of the medias censoring of the news unfavorable to Obama since before the first election cannot be coincidence. It would be illogical to accept that such a consistent pattern is not intentional.
Bill Narvey Said:
Like george bush the next pres will be voted in based on voting out obama, however, obama continued many of george bush major policies.
Bill Narvey Said:
it does not matter which party is in, we rarely get what we think we are going to get, since i am a boy i hear complaints that the elected pol does the opposite of what he was elected for. Members of various political persuasions and parties are groomed on the way up so that there are members of both parties who are malleable and corruptible, ripe for blackmail.
Bill Narvey Said:
We have no facts other than those presented to us by govt or alternative sources. Little is verifiable. We end up saying “I don’t know” or believing the most credible version. Frankly, I cannot imagine anything clearer than the facts presenting themselves now and that those facts are a reflection of intentions rather than spontaneous and random events. To accept randomness and spontaneity is to ignore the consistency of the pattern.
Bernard, your train of thought has gone off the rails with your #20 & 21. As for #20, you have just acknowledged my point about professional guessers who are making guesses as to what is behind U.S. actions in Benghazi. If Congress can keep the pressure on the WH and get the facts that the WH is trying to still cover up and hide, maybe Klein’s guess that you are partial too will be proven true.
As for #21, you say:
Once again your imagination is running away with you. I am not part of the sheeple you mention, but against them. I am hopeful the truth emerges by Congressional efforts to get at the facts, but whether it is as simple a truth as you envision or one more complicated or even more ugly, we can only really know once all the verifiable facts are dragged out of the Obama administration.
As for your #22, I am not clear on exactly what you are saying or positing. You speak of the American people being controlled by both Dems and Repubs, but I am not clear on how you get there. While I agree American opinions are in a number ways influenced by politicians and the media, there have been movements even of recent note like the Tea Party and OWS that act on their own views and agendas, albeit the OWS views were a conglomoration of incoherent ramblings of the frustrated, aggrieved and angry.
Obviously the influence peddling media that are now in Obama’s corner are instrumental in shaping public opinion favorable to Obama. His favorability ratings however are in decline with his office having to deal with so many scandals (some of the WH’s own making) and coupled with the negative consequences of their apparent incompetence in dealing with those scandals altogether.
Bernard #15 – I believe you have by seizing upon only my brief concluding words, failed to grasp the essential point I was making, which has nothing to do with suggesting U.S. policy is not intentional or purposeful.
I was arguing that U.S. Mid East policy that in many instances has been variously accommodating and appeasing to Mid East sensibilities, perceptions and objectives, at least to the extent the U.S. stomach can bear, has further been formulated more in reactive fashion to unfolding changing circumstances in the region than to principled overall U.S. objectives and goals. Perhaps it is in the nature of these fast changing circumstances that it is not possible to have a principled long range policy plan and stick with it.
My comments related to Rubin’s view that there is an Obama Doctrine that has determined the U.S. must be allied with the Muslim Brotherhood to promote M.E. stability.
What you are doing in your #15 is expanding on your own views in your #11 which I did not read until after I had posted my comment #17. You are however, in your #11 and rejoinder to me in your #15, making arguments on another facet of U.S. – Mid East relations and politics that focuses on aspects of those relations that while having some obvious connection to the argument Rubin makes, is not limited to Rubin’s focus for the purpose of his pooint and reasoning to get there.
It seems that your points in #11 and 15 actually have a much different focus than what Rubin was dealing with and what I was responding to, though you sought to be critical of Rubin’s points or some of them based on your focus on other aspects of Mid East issues and U.S.-mid East relations and alliances.
That said, I found it interesting you would say of my comment that
Contrary to your advice, I did allude to many facts in relation to the conclusion I reached and the premise of my comment that as I said, you appear to have missed, likely due to the different focus you have on the points you were making in your #11 and 15.
I did not provide footnotes or links to support the facts I cited or alluded to as I figured for purposes of my comment those facts I asserted were known well enough.
You however, in making your points in your #11 and #15 challenging my views, made assertions and referenced facts, some known well enough, some not so well known and some amounting to conjecture, but provided no proof or corroborative authoritative links.
I presume you like me, provided nothing to verify your asserted facts and surmises as to possible scenarios, but felt they accorded well enough with what knowledge, understandings and surmises you have yourself.
As to your saying my reasoning stems from my preferred way of thinking, I expect there is as much truth in that as there in my saying that you have your own preferred way of thinking that guides you in assembling, assessing and analyzing facts to reach your own particular conclusions.
You have mentioned intentional duplicitousness of the U.S. government’s relations with a number of mid East nations or the consortium of the Gulf Cooperation Council. In that regard you note for instance of the U.S. led West allying with the GCC to work cooperatively with western interests, while the GCC is also duplicitly playing a double game of supporting and empowering Jihadi networks against the West while trying to gain some control over those networks.
From there, you make two false assumptions. The first is that I am American and 2ndly, I cannot accept U.S. duplicitous actions in that regard.
I am not American. As for the intentional duplicitous U.S. actions you refer to, I accept them as fact. Acceptance does not however, connote agreement or approval.
Then again that has nothing to do with my reasoning and analysis leading to the conclusion I came to regarding Rubin’s article. My point was not to deny U.S. mid East policy and actions in furtherance thereof were intentional and duplicitous. Indeed you can take from my comment that I say U.S. policy is intentional and purposeful.
That said however, it appears you have entirely missed my essential point. I was offering my view and explanation that the U.S. formulates many of its Mid East policies on the fly as it were in wishfully opportunistic fashion and reaction to Muslim perspectives, sensibilities and emerging exigent circumstances. I offered that opinion within the context and parameters of Rubin’s article.
I trust this answers your concerns and clarifies the context of my views so that you now better understand where I was coming from.
@ bernard ross:
Watch!!!!
7 Days in May circa 2013
Britain, France prodding Obama into attacking Syria
Bill Narvey Said:
there is a reason why obama has not been greatly pressed on many issues before this by congress: many of both parties have skeletons in their closets which are known by blackmailers. At the point that Obama can be of no more use he will be abandoned and his crown of invincibility will be shifted to another corrupt politician controlled by the same crowd. you will know by the grand shift in MSM support. it has nothing to do with parties because both parties are under control. Both parties are a red herring so that the sheeple think they have a choice. You can get angry at Obama or at Bush, in both cases it is pure BS. Bush and Obama are not making the policies or calling the shots.
Bill Narvey Said:
I have no idea where he got that ludicrous notion from but my point was that there has never been any space between the US and saudi and benghazi is very important to realizing the ongoing relationship. the american sheeple ask no questions and get ludicrous answers. you are allowing yourself to be part of the sheeple by not looking closer at benghazi and refusing to see the glaring BS. perhaps the truth is too much because it would raise bigger questions if one accepts the truth. However,, everything points to the simple truth.
Bill Narvey Said:
the “guessers” like aaron klein have much more belivable information than the US govt who is caught over and over is the most ludicrous stories.
Bernard, re: #17, your point re: the U.S.’s presence in Benghazi being part of a collaboration with the Saudis to supply Syrian rebels with Libyan arms has been the subject of high falutin guesses by the professional guessers. That point relates to one of a great many questions Congress is pressing the Obama administration for.
That matter aside, your comment, whether proven true or not, only serves to support my point that Rubin is likely wrong to say that the U.S. and the Saudis are no longer the closest allies.
TALIBAN ‘TO OPEN OFFICE IN QATAR’
Israel is also purported to have set aside a budget for an unamed consular facility in a GCC country. My bet is on Qatar as Israel has had offices there before and appears to have worked with them in the gaza cease-fire. there is also the rumor that qatar will visit israel in novemeber. qatar appears to be the new “face” for the GCC and saudis as the saudis are suffering from their exposure. It appears that Qatar will broker between the US and Taliban.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id=%7B753850D3-91D7-42C8-9F43-98ACAC4ADC19%7D&title=Taliban-To-Open-Office-In-Qatar&utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+18%2C+2013&utm_campaign=20130618_m116382202_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+June+18%2C+2013&utm_term=More
Bill Narvey Said:
you appear to ignore benghazi like rubin which establishes that the US in collaboration with saudi have been supplying arms from the libyan theatre to the syrian theater; also that the CIA helped a saudi prince make massive arms purchases from croatia; also the US has been training the rebels for a long time in Jordan especially in anti tank techniques.
watsa46 Said:
I believe the notion that they are unconnected is a red herring. Saudi openly supports the salafists and qatar openly support the MB. All these organizations must be funded. there are jihadis which operate for Iran but I believe that the rest are GCC operated and funded. a form of good cop bad cop is the red herring. the reason for the Benghazi coverup was not to fool the opposing players of syria, iran, russia because they probably were totally aware of the operation and may have precipitated the attack as a warning. The cover up is to keep the idea that the jihadists are being supported by the US through the saudis. What is most important is to keep damage control and not allow the american sheeple to consider the idea that the US/jihadi relationship of 1980’s afghanistan was continuous through the GCC to this very day. If the US is operating today as it did in the 1980’s it becomes very difficult to believe that all those jihadi attacks on US interests were not concocted. This is the real bombshell. all efforts have been made to distance the US from jihadi elements in syria through the false notion that they have not been supplying arms already through the saudis and turks. The sheeple journalists write as if everything is new.
Bill Narvey Said:
Your conclusion is not really based on evidence but rather on your preferred way of thinking. If you go back a couple of years and look at all the vents unfolding you must realize that the pattern in which they unfold is so consistent that it most likely infers intentionality. Using occams razor, which many like to quote here, the simplest explanation is that the events which unfolded are intentional and the appearance of randomness and spontaneity attached to the so called “arab spring” was created intentionally. It is only your inability to see the extent of the US govts intentional behavior which prevents you from accepting the facts. the US figured in many aspects of unfolding events which appear to point to collaboration on the issue of weakening Iran’s proxies and the establishment of GCC hegemony and control. By establishing GCC hegemony I beleive it is presumed that the GCC will work cooperatively with western interests. The GCC is able to sustain their control of jihadi networks and govt influence through the combination of money from energy and through political activism, terror and force through their control of the Jihadi networks.
Do you accept that the US govt has been aiding the supply of arms and training jihadis(“rebels”)through the GCC/saudi/qatar networks, Turkey and Jordan?
In my view everyone is getting something for being part of this grand deal which appears to unfold spontaneously but which has been pre-prepared. I am not saying that everyone has agreed to exact roles and actions but that agreement based on US brokerage and pressure has been accepted as it unfolds with accompanying benefits.
You made a long series of unrelated opinions based on the premise that there is no prior plans or agreements but you never evidenced your premise with anything but opinion. I believe, like many americans, you are unable to accept the actions and duplicity of your govt. If you consider this as an option then everything else fits into place. Rather than consider it duplicity you may consider it a clandestine plan to, in their eyes, further western and US interests. I believe that we will see the sunni mercenaries weakening hezbullah and if Israels actions are of “help” to them that they will move next to Iraq to work in tandem with the Kurds. after that I see the Kurds, sunnis and Iranian azeris cooperating in the destabilization of Iran. The great number of events which coincide to further cooperative action are too many to ignore as random and spontaneous.
Fanaticism and extremism come in many shade of grey. It is about the human animal who refuses to submit.
The difference between Al Qaeda and the MBs is a matter of degree ONLY.
A dangerous alliance. The “adage” which says: “Join with them if U can’t defeat them” will turn against us. Who can join with EVIL if not other evils!
For BHO, the MBs are like saviors!!
Rubin’s positing an Obama doctrine of An alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East is very questionable and gives Obama and his administration more credit than it deserves as being competent and able enough to devise, let alone carry out such doctrine.
U.S. mid East policies have been more devised by reacting to circumstances developing, prevailing or anticipated than by forethought given to directing how those circumstances might unfold. Mid East politics and exigent circumstances have been rightly described as fluid. That fluidity is no more apparent than with respect to the wishfully labeled Arab Spring begun in Tunisia in December, 2010 which has quickly spread throughout much of the Middle East in a fashion has caused many Westerners to re-label the unfolding situation as the Arab nighmare.
Said another way, the U.S. is a superpower with obvious interests in the Middle East, largely having to do with ensuring a steady supply of OPEC oil at stable prices. No matter how hard the U.S. might try, its power and wealth are not enough, to significantly control events. The U.S. led West has thus been forced to play the cards it has been dealt and react as best it can to afford it some measure of influence. Its power and wealth is what enables the U.S. led West to stay in the game.
Not only does Mid East political, economic, religious and social instability threaten to mitigate against U.S. interests, so too have former Soviet and now Russian efforts to further their influence and interests in the Mid East as part of their game plan to compete with the U.S. on the superpower stage. Part of that game plan has been executed in various circumstances in the Mid East, not just by trying to gain their own advantages over the U.S., but to take positions that are intended to undermine the interests of the U.S. led West.
One aspect of U.S. Mid East policy that does appear on the surface to be one devised by forethought to control and influence events has to do with U.S. policy as regards the interminable war between Israel and Palestinians. For decades, the assumption of the U.S. State Department, endorsed in various measure by successive U.S. Presidents has been that the central reason for U.S. difficulties in protecting, maintaining and advancing U.S. interests in the Mid East has been the unsettled Israel – Palestinian war and that if the U.S. can bring about peace through settlement of that war, a major impediment to U.S. advancing her Mid East influence and interests will vanish. That assumption has been operative for most U.S. led Western democratic nations in devising their own Mid East policies.
In furtherance of that key operative assumption, the U.S. led West have continuously pushed the so called peace process to win the ultimate prize of making a TSS peace agreement a reality.
The U.S. led Western Israel vs. Palestinian policy intended to influence Mid East events to their advantage however, as noted is only on the surface one that they have devised with forethought primarily on their own without influence by Mid East events, circumstances, perspectives and conventional views.
That U.S. led Western Israel vs. Palestinian policy has in fact been largely reactive and accommodating to Mid East events and circumstances and especially Mid East perspectives and conventional anti-Israel antisemitic views. That bias against Israel and Jews has however, been evident since Britain, for reasons largely bound up in seeing its fortunes in the Mid East being far more served by Arabs than Jews, began early on to breach its trust obligations to the Jews pursuant to the terms of the Palestinian mandate.
This thinking has become accepted Western thinking to this day, albeit, Western leaders have through the many passing decades sought to palatably rationalize their positions by explaining same in terms that reflect Judeo-Christian democratic values, morals, desire to resolve differences through fair minded settlement of differences by negotiation as opposed to war.
As regards Obama’s policy that Assad must go and his recent declaration that the U.S. will support the Syrian rebels and supply them with small arms and munitions, Rubin argues that Obama’s positions have been devised by virtue of an underlying policy to support the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve Mid East stability.
Noting that Obama’s policy and position to support the Syrian rebels aligns with Egypt’s MB position, Rubin reasons that Obama has cast America’s lot in with the MB and foresaken U.S. traditional allies like Israel and Saudi Arabi. Rubin states:
Rubin appears to discount or ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia has since the Syrian civil war really got going, increasingly sided with the Syrian rebels, called for supporting and supplying the Syrian rebels with not just small arms and has since been supplying those rebels with anti-aircraft munitions including shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles. Doubtless Saudi calls for providing military support for the rebels were made to Obama.
He also discounts or ignores in his calculation that Turkey and Jordan for instance have been no fan of Assad and their positions, whether supporting the Islamist or so called moderate Syrian rebels, amounts to supporting the rebels, which puts them onside with the MB against Iran and its proxies. In effect, as Turkey turns increasingly Islamist, it will be increasingly more difficult for Obama to call Turkey one of America’s closest allies.
Recall Obama’s apology tour to Cairo when he insisted members of the MB be present at his address. He did so, recognizing the MB’s growing influence in Egypt and the region. He acted on his assumption that at some point he would have to adjust his Mid East policy to in some way accommodate them, while still supporting Mubarek. At the same time, Obama was not oblivious to the growing threat of Islamism to not only American interests in the Mid East, but threats within America.
In furtherance of that thinking Obama gathered a number of Muslim advisers, with MB connections to be affiliated with security departments such as Homeland Security and other intelligence, national policing and military departments. With the so called Arab Spring reaching Egypt, the Obama administration saw in this that Mubarek’s days were numbered. Knowing that with Mubarek gone, the U.S. still would need a relationship with Egypt so he opportunistically aligned with those, including the MB, that called for Mubarek to leave.
With the MB being the only organized force set against Mubarek and winning power by election, Obama had no choice but to support the MB’s leadership of Egypt, rationalizing that support by ignoring the MB’s Islamist anti-Israel, antisemitic and anti-Western character and singling out the fact that the MB took power in what was considered a free and fair election, or at least one free and fair enough to meet one democratic indicia. The MB however, does not reflect many if any other indicia of a Western democracy.
Since then, Obama has directed support of the MB with international influence on the MB’S behalf, money and munitions. Obama’s obvious ulterior motive for such support of the MB is the hope of establishing a workable relationship with the MB that will enable the U.S. and the MB to be aligned and work to achieve mutual interests and for the U.S. to gain some degree of meaningful influence on the MB’s policies and positions that are more connected to U.S. interests and goals.
With the MB leading an Egypt on the verge of economic collapse, one wonders whether the MB’s leadership of Egypt will be stable and enduring?
If not, that would be a blow to the MB in terms of its regional and global aspirations. Perhaps seeing events as a threat to its power in Egypt and its own aspirations that extend beyond Egypt, may account for the MB taking the stance it has against Assad.
It appears that the MB’s ultimate objectives in seeking the end of the Assad regime is to replace it with an MB regime or MB Islamist ally regime which in either case, will extend the MB’s reach in the Mid East and deepen and strengthen its power and influence, even if their power in Egypt collapses with the economic collapse of Egypt. If that occured, the MB would be in a situation of great uncertainty as to whether they could again gain power in Egypt once Egypt begins to recover with the certain support of the IMF, the West and others.
Perceptions of those threats to the MB’s aspirations and goals might also account for its heightened anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-Western and anti-U.S. bellicosity which the Obama administration is having difficulty digesting. If the MB’s rhetoric aforeaid continues and it acts even more in furtherance of that rhetoric, the Obama administration will almost certainly have greater difficulty supporting the MB led Egypt including difficulty in throwing in with the MB as a force for stabilizing the Mid East, if Rubin is right in his assessment of the Obama administration in that regard.
To conclude, Obama and his administration, like former U.S. administrations, formulate their Mid East policies, not so much by design but rather by wishful thinking opportunism reactive to unfolding Mid East events, instability, changing allieances and strife in order to protect, defend, maintain and advance U.S. interests.
Time and again that reactive wishful thinking opportunism is betrayed not just by perspectives and views that predominate Mid East thinking as regards Israel, the West and playing the U.S. led West against the Russians and Chinese, but by circumstances unfolding that are continuously precipitated by religious and political rivalries often leading to open hostile strife in the Mid East and a variety of anti-Western positions and actions taken by both some Mid East nations and numerous Islamist organizations including Muslim terrorist organizations.
Rubin is way behind the times. Saudi arabia is in alliance with the united states today as it was in 1980’s afghanistan. the bengahzigate is about the exposure of this alliance to ship arms and jihadis mercenaries to syria. SA and Qatar fund and organize the jihadis in syria. I must say loudly DUH, barry???????
Again, DUH, Barry??????
In this case occams razor does in fact apply to those simple hypotheses which explain everything taking place:
Fact:US/western interests have a decades long reliable, dependable, stable relationship with saudi/GCC ensuring energy supply
Hypothesis: Western Interest view GCC hegemony over ME as desirable based on prior experience.
Fact:GCC, especially saudi rely on a political pact with islamic fundamentalists(wahabbi) to ensure their stable rule.
Fact: US and SA have used and continue to use jihist mercenaries to further their common interests.(afghan then, syria, now)
Potential conclusions which must be considered if one accepts the faact that US and SA are curently allied in supporting jihi mercenaries in Syria:
US govt has been lying re syria, bengazi and therefore may be lying about the last 20 years hiatus regarding US jihadi relationships in period between afghan and syria.
If one accepts the notion that support of jihadis is intentional in syria then the presidents charade is also a lie regarding arms to FSA as the saudis have already been supplying arms to the jihadis. The seculars are a fig leaf to the real goals.
The “jihadis” are paid mercenaries and they are controlled by money and fatwas both of which originate in the GCC.
The jihadi and islamic networks in various nations are operated and controlled by the GCC in alliance with western interests. Jihadi networks in africa are funded and controled the same as the islamic “peaceful” networks in the US and western europe in alliance with shadow western interests. This explains simply the govt acceptance of muslims into all aspects of govt institutions following 911.
A US/GCC alliance provides a simple explantion for all of the following: faux pal state, revived jordan/pal confed talk,gaza war resulting in Israel targeting Iranian linked jihadis in gaza(to hamas benefit), strange gaza cease fire, Qatar brokerage of cease fire, qatar requesst of israel to make 500 mill investment into gaza for redevelopment, qatar having largest offshore gas field, offshore gaza gas awaiting development, qatar/jordan vists to PA after fauz state declaration, qatar funding and supplying mercenaries in syria,GCC sunni war against iranian proxies, gcc fear of iran, irans hijacking of anti israel card to sabotage GCC nations internally, Turkish/kurdish cease fire, turkish kurdish oil agreements in iraq, turkish pipeline to med,need for arabian oil to have alternate routes to europe,etc etc etc. the desirability of the GCC hegemony explains all simply.
Israel appears to be playing along with the GCC plan, perhaps cautiously. The weakening of irans proxies as a prelude to a large internal destabilization of Iran would be considered in Israels interests and they may play along wholeheartedly or just reap benefits with sparing output as it unfolds. If Israel is in the plan then hezbullah and iraq are the jihadis next paid contract. After that a joining with the kurds and azeris in destabilizing Iran internally and esternally with proxies. Russia is the fly in the ointment, but do they have their price? What is Israels price?
Comment to Devolin in moderation?
M Devolin Said:
Pls read all comments and the dates to gain some perspective. We old timers have traveled this road long before you arrived on the scene:
https://www.israpundit.org/2008/?p=19091
https://www.israpundit.org/2008/?p=20718
These are only two threads of hundreds that are similar. 🙂
I apologize for making these barbs at you, Bill. Uncalled for. Enough already.
“But have any been such strange partners as those who would like to kill all the Jews, wipe out Christianity, reduce women to permanent second-class citizens, and murder gays? Indeed, these are not only strange but unnecessary and mistaken allies.”
These people are living in Toronto. We need to reach out to them…
‘And there are so many Americans who excuse their criminality blaming it on problems of “assimilation”.’
Didn’t you know, Canadian Otter? Bill Narvey says we must change our attitude toward those Muslims who feel excluded (to borrow a term from Justin Trudeau; “don’t count him out,” as Bill has so fondly written of the son of the father of multiculturalism in Canada) and driven to silence and murder.
“Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood”
This is Bill Narvey style outreach.
He’s not promoting “M.E. Stability.” he’s promoting the Muslim Brotherhood.
Most Israpundit commentators would be considered suspects of terrorism by the IRS and the US military –
“Applications of pro-Israel groups for tax-exempt status are routinely routed to an antiterrorism unit within the Internal Revenue Service for additional screening, according to the testimony of a Cincinnati-based IRS agent. Asked whether Jewish or pro-Israel applications are treated differently from other applications, he told House Oversight Committee investigators that they are considered ‘specialty cases’ and that ‘probably’ all are sent to an IRS unit that examines groups for potential terrorist ties.” ~~~ The article further clarifies that it is pro-settlement groups that first raised the alert at the IRS for further scrutiny of all pro-Israel groups. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351208/irs-vs-pro-israel-groups-eliana-johnson
This US govt attitude partly explains the inclusion of Zionists among suspects of terrorism on a US military manual.
PICTURES – These were the conditions endured by America’s immigrants in 19th century New York. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343204/Welcome-America-Poignant-black-white-pictures-brutal-hardships-endured-immigrant-families-19th-century-New-York.html
The Jews, the Irish and others, they all worked hard and tried to do their best. Only Muslims feel compelled to commit murder as a result of “hardship” in their new country. And there are so many Americans who excuse their criminality blaming it on problems of “assimilation”.
Mass murderer sworn in by Mursi – Militant from terror group behind Luxor massacre which left 58 foreigners dead is sworn in to govern same region by Egypt’s Islamist president –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343296/Militant-terror-group-Luxor-massacre-left-58-foreigners-dead-sworn-govern-region-Egypts-Islamist-president.html
But then, Israeli authorities shake hands with Abbas – one of the masterminds of the Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes – and actually beg him to take Jewish land for a state of his own.