JUDAISM INTO ZIONISM AND ISLAM INTO TERROR

By Daniel Mabsout

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted

(يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوباً وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ) سورة الحجرات : الآية : 13
———————————————————————————————

There is no doubt that terrorism has been hosted in the Arab and Muslim world and has succeeded in finding an auspicious environment at the great surprise of all . Average people , average citizens and average Muslims , Syrians , Iraqis , Palestinians and Lebanese and others as well, have identified with terrorists , they have welcomed them and hosted them and cooperated and collaborated with them and this is something that cannot be denied and that is extremely dangerous at the same time .

It is not the religion that is to be blamed because there is nothing in the religion itself that is not opposed and totally alien to the practices of groups like al Qa’ida and its like . No doubt, money played a role as well as the spiritual , mental and social overall condition, as also the growing dissatisfaction of the people from the rule they are subject to . All this might justify this identification and collaboration of an important portion of the society with thugs that claim Islam .

But what cannot be explained is the use of mosques in order to promote terrorism and recruit people and send terrorists to Syria under the label of Jihad . The role played by mosques all over the Muslim and Arab world in calling for “ Jihad “ against Syria and rallying against its president and recruiting thousands of thugs for this purpose cannot be forgiven . These campaigns used thousands of Mosques as tribunes to poison the minds and hearts of believers .

Corrupt Sheikhs were thus ordained to rally against Syria while al Azhar never condemned these practices and most religious references instead of denouncing what was happening and label it as Kufr remained silently complacent when not supporting it fully and openly. Thus, true Muslims from all sects are facing a real challenge and would have to meet this challenge in one way or another and restitute to Islam its real dimension of mercy and tolerance and forgiveness .

This extremism attributed to the religion should not only be denounced as alien to it but should be totally uprooted. Islam is tolerance, but this superiority assumed by Muslims over adherents of other religions, should be taken care of . Approving of the two other religions that are Abrahamic is not significant in itself because these religions are considered part of Islam .We are talking here about other faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism and also the different faiths of the Natives of Africa and America , all these are shunned and discarded and despised by the Muslim.

The average Muslim does not seem to understand that these faiths are followed by billions and should be respected . No doubt that this arrogant attitude of unjustified superiority of the Muslim over others is source of evil . This same attitude was exploited by the colonialist who knew how to play on the superiority complex of the Muslims and resorted to partition India along the line of religious differences giving the Muslims a separate state and causing millions to die in a religious massacre whose repercussions are not over yet.

It is the same attitude that is behind the abnormal growth of terrorism sweeping the Arab and Muslim world nowadays killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, as it is behind the silent complacency of the majority of Muslims . It is ignorance that is behind this attitude and not Religion .

There is no merit for a Muslim over another except by devotion says the scripture. Such a verse of the Holy Koran should be extended to all .This superiority that a Muslim assumes de facto over others of different faiths is not beneficial to Islam in any way . As a matter of fact this is what distorted Judaism into Zionism and Islam into Terror .

Opportunist Erdogan backpedals on Yemen

By Ahmet Aslan

Before his visit, Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan lashed out at Iran for its alleged meddling in Yemen. Once in Tehran and having witnessed the trade opportunities, Erdogan’s tune changed showing his opportunistic side. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has yet again succumbed to his temper and made a preposterous remark regarding the illegal Saudi assault on Yemen. Instead of condemning the Saudi-led offensive he placed the blame on the Islamic Republic, “Iran is trying to dominate the region. This [attempt] has been annoying us, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. It is not possible to cope with this. [Iran] must withdraw whatever forces it has, from Yemen, Syria and Iraq. We may provide logistical support to the operation [in Yemen].” The remarks understandably upset Tehran and led to strong reaction from several senior Iranian officials. Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Javad Zarif said Turkey was making a “strategic mistake.” Further, in an unusual move that perhaps more accurately reflected Tehran’s irritation, Iran summoned Turkey’s charge d’affaires to demand an explanation of Erdogan’s remarks. There are several reasons for Turkey to be prudent in dealing with the Islamic Republic. Iran with its independent technology, vast natural resources, large population and most importantly unwavering leadership has survived all kinds of plots, attacks and sanctions for almost four decades. Even the US could not handle the long struggle with Iran and realized that there was no option but to negotiate with Tehran. Thus, Turkish President Erdogan’s imprudent remarks confused many. In this regard veteran Turkish journalist Cengiz Candar in his Al-Monitor piece (April 8) stated that Erdogan’s statement “may be the most imprudent statement ever heard from a Turkish official on Iran… Irrespective of whoever holds office in Ankara and Tehran, they have generally refrained from making statements that could be seen as offensive to the other side.” Thanks to his unchallenged authority in Turkey, Erdogan has become intoxicated by power, making foolish and offensive remarks pertaining to domestic opponents. His undiplomatic comments may lead to undesirable consequences especially in politics and it will take time for Erdogan to learn his lesson. Iran’s unstoppable rise in world politics has been increasingly frustrating Erdogan and in turn in a moment of anger, he could not help himself but express his real feelings toward Iran. Nevertheless, Erdogan soon understood the gravity of the situation caused by his blunder and did not respond to the Iranian officials’ harsh rebukes. Yet, despite Erdogan’s non-reaction, before his visit to Tehran, pro-AKP media had reported that Erdogan would issue a warning against so-called “Shi‘i expansionism.” Further, the media speculated that Erdogan would pass the Saudis’ message to Tehran as he received Saudi Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayef in his palace just a day before his visit to Iran on April 7. However, the alleged warning was not issued. During the visit, Erdogan appeared to reverse his position on the issue. There was no mention of “Iranian exit” from Yemen (Iran has no forces in Yemen!) or the Saudi message delivered to Tehran. Instead Erdogan tried hard to give a non-sectarian impression by stating, “I don’t care about Shi‘i or Sunni, I am concerned about the blood spilled in Iraq.” He further stated, “We should become united with each other and negotiate and prevent this bloodshed…” In the end the two countries reached an agreement to launch an initiative that would bring peace and stability to Yemen. It was obvious that Erdogan was worried that Turkey’s relations with Iran would be harmed due to his blunder. Fehim Tastekin, a respected columnist of the Turkish daily Radikal Newspaper explained why Erdogan is keen not to harm relations between the two countries. For him the reasons are purely economic, “Both parties in the meetings held in Tehran have mentioned the situations in Syria, Iraq and Yemen from their perspectives but these differences did not shadow inking eight different economic agreements, and it will never happen.” He further stated that Turkey is heavily dependent on Iranian natural gas and petrol imports and due to Turkey’s problems with Syria, Iraq and recently with Egypt, Iran presented itself to be an important alternative to transport Turkish goods to the Muslim East market. Especially considering the anticipated US-Iran nuclear agreement, Turkey will find a great opportunity to reach the Iranian market and export its goods. Therefore, Turkey cannot afford to upset Iran any further. Erdogan’s businessman-like agenda strongly supported Tastekin’s arguments. During his visit Erdogan proposed that the two countries should use national currencies in their trade instead of relying on dollars or euros. He also complained that the natural gas that Turkey purchases from Iran is the most expensive and pleaded with Tehran to consider reducing the price. He pledged increased gas imports if there was a price reduction. Cengiz Candar also emphasised the US-Iran nuclear agreement’s role in forcing Erdogan to retreat, “The nuclear framework deal reached might be a game changer in Turkey’s — meaning Erdogan’s — attitude toward Iran. It sent signals to Turks that Iran will escape its international isolation, with even greater weight in regional and international affairs. Turkey, which already has problems with its Western allies on Middle East issues, particularly Syria, cannot afford to be at loggerheads with Iran.” Further, Graham Fuller, former vice chairman, CIA’s National Intelligence Council and CIA’s Turkey station chief, pointed out that Turkey’s changing attitude toward Yemen is an indication of Iran’s rising influence in the Muslim East and the diminishing influence of the Saudis, “Perhaps Erdogan’s early decision was best understood as opportunism — an initial concern not to be left out of what might become a ‘new Arab force.’ Yet, during a relatively tense visit to Tehran in early April, Erdogan backed away from further criticism of Iran and from participation in the Saudi campaign against Yemen — a notable slap in the face to Riyadh. Iran is still the most important country to Turkey in the Middle East in economic, energy and geopolitical terms. And Ankara must be mindful of its own large Alevi (quasi-Shiite) minority. How much did Iran influence this sudden change of heart?” In terms of the Iranian position, Fehim Tastekin in the same article mentioned that in order to gain insight about Iran’s reaction to Erdogan’s remarks he spoke to sources in Tehran; one is a journalist and the other is a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry. Based on his discussions with the sources Tastekin wrote, “From Tehran front this is the picture: as it is known some Iranian MPs has confronted Erdogan to either apologise [for the remarks that he made against Iran] or not come to Iran and 65 MPs wrote a letter to Rouhani to demand that ‘he must pressure [Erdogan] for an apology.’ Despite this [tension], Erdogan’s visit to Tehran and his remarks in the joint press conference appeared to indicate that he ‘backpedalled’ on Yemen and this was perceived by Iranians as a tacit apology.” Erdogan has since been really trying hard to repair the damage caused by his remarks, especially the sectarian undertone that he used to support the Saudi-led offensive. According to Hurriyet Daily News columnist Verda Ozer who accompanied Erdogan on his visit, on his way back from Tehran Erdogan strongly emphasised that Turkey does not pursue a sectarian policy, “Erdogan repeated five times on the plane that Ankara stands at equal distance to all sects, through the use of very strong expressions. ‘My biggest fear is sectarianism. Some people might be Shiite. My country might be predominantly Sunni. However the main thing for us is neither Sunni, nor Shiite. It is Islam itself,’ he said.” Despite his effort to clear the mess, the episode is yet another indication of Erdogan’s opportunist foreign policy. While he tries to create the impression that under his leadership Turkey pursues a “moral” foreign policy, when it comes to choosing between “moral” and “interest,” Erdogan does not hesitate to choose what is in the interest of his political future (and not necessarily that of Turkey). In this ironic example, Erdogan and his sycophants have always boasted of pursuing a “moral” foreign policy when they defended Turkey’s support for the Egyptian Ikhwan and Turkey’s uncompromising stance against the rule of General Abdel Fatah el-Sisi. Yet they felt no embarrassment at Erdogan extending his unreserved support for the Saudi-led attack on Yemen. The Saudis singlehandedly plotted and funded el-Sisi’s military coup against President Mohamed Mursi but Erdogan has not uttered a word against Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the coup. More ironically, Erdogan has abstained from even appearing in the same frame with el-Sisi, let alone making peace with him, but he showed a strong interest in joining the anti-Yemini alliance alongside el-Sisi’s soldiers. Erdogan’s politics are strange indeed!

Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs

Sharmine Narwani

(Image by Robert Christine)

Sharmine Narwani says: “If you want to understand what’s going on in the Middle East today, go back to see what the US Military was doing 4 years ago, as the ‘Arab Spring’ kicked off, and US-backed dictators were falling like flies. Shia-vs-Sunni and Iran-vs-Arabs was the script being developed by the Pentagon. My article in 2011: “Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs”

This secret exercise would not have been remarkable except for its timing in March 2011. Washington was losing stalwart allies – Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Egypt’s Mubarak – and at the time there was unrest brewing in Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen too. So why, of all things, was the Pentagon test-driving “Iran-vs-Arabs” narratives during the height of this crisis?

The introduction to the article follows with a link to see the full story, read on:

Analysts and pundits have spent the past two weeks puzzling over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington, in part because of a complete lack of either motive or benefit for the Islamic Republic. Iran, reputed to place much stock in cost-benefit analyses of its geopolitical calculations, clearly fails to gain materially or politically from any part of the allegations thus far. So what gives?

Instead of scrutinizing the “whys” of Iran’s involvement, it may be more illuminating to examine Washington’s motivation in advancing this bit of political theater.  The criminal charges were followed by high-profile statements and sanctioned leaks from the White House, the departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, FBI and the CIA, well orchestrated for maximum impact. The U.S. government then sought to persuade the global community via the U.N. Security Council and “phone calls to many capitals” of the gravity of the charges.

Such fanfare went beyond the service of prosecuting a single crime.  More likely, the charges being leveled at Iran came in the service of “public diplomacy,” an attempt to establish a broad narrative that serves a policy decision. Pushing the narrative of the Iranian “boogeyman” is not unusual in U.S. policy circles. What may be new is the emphasis on this story in the aftermath of Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East.

Bring in the “Red Team”

Last March, as the Arab revolts swept through the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. military’s Central Command for military operations in 20 countries — including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan — held a “Red Team” exercise to examine a political narrative that perpetually pits Arabs and Iranians against each other, according to a source involved in the project.

CENTCOM’s Red Team was formed in 2006,  a spokesman told me last year, to “think outside the box, offer contrarian thinking [and] … sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials.

 Here are some of the premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s Arabs versus Iranians exercise. (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians.”)

• Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide.  History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
• Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East.  In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.”
•  Premise: “Barring a “clash of civilizations” – i.e., a modern crusades, Islam vs Judeo-Christians, warfare between the West/Israel vs Arabs/Persians – there does not appear to be a scenario where Arabs and Persians will join forces against the US/West.”
•  Question: “Is it appropriate to frame the discussion as Arab-Persian or is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework?”
•  Question: “Assuming a schism, what could unite Arabs and Persians, even temporarily?”

These narratives assume two things: that the division between Iranians and Arabs is a fact and that the greater unity of the two groups in the wake of the Arab uprisings is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Hence the worried question:  What could unite them, even temporarily?

Does the goal then become to ensure a state of chronic hostility between Iranians and Arabs?

Read more:

Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs

A military planning exercise illuminates the story driving Washington's response to the Arab Spring

OCTOBER 26, 2011

SHARMINE NARWANI

Analysts and pundits have spent the past two weeks puzzling over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington, in part because of a complete lack of either motive or benefit for the Islamic Republic. Iran, reputed to place much stock in cost-benefit analyses of its geopolitical calculations, clearly fails to gain materially or politically from any part of the allegations thus far. So what gives?

Instead of scrutinizing the “whys” of Iran’s involvement, it may be more illuminating to examine Washington’s motivation in advancing this bit of political theater.  The criminal charges were followed by high-profile statements and sanctioned leaks from the White House, the departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, FBI and the CIA, well orchestrated for maximum impact. The U.S. government then sought to persuade the global community via the U.N. Security Council and “phone calls to many capitals” of the gravity of the charges.

Such fanfare went beyond the service of prosecuting a single crime.  More likely, the charges being leveled at Iran came in the service of “public diplomacy,” an attempt to establish a broad narrative that serves a policy decision. Pushing the narrative of the Iranian "boogeyman" is not unusual in U.S. policy circles. What may be new is the emphasis on this story in the aftermath of Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East.

Bring in the "Red Team"

Last March, as the Arab revolts swept through the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. military’s Central Command for military operations in 20 countries -- including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan -- held a “Red Team” exercise to examine a political narrative that perpetually pits Arabs and Iranians against each other, according to a source involved in the project.

CENTCOM’s Red Team was formed in 2006,  a spokesman told me last year, to “think outside the box, offer contrarian thinking [and] ... sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials.

 Here are some of the premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s Arabs versus Iranians exercise. (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians.”)

• Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide.  History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
• Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East.  In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.”
•  Premise: “Barring a “clash of civilizations” - i.e., a modern crusades, Islam vs Judeo-Christians, warfare between the West/Israel vs Arabs/Persians - there does not appear to be a scenario where Arabs and Persians will join forces against the US/West.”
•  Question: “Is it appropriate to frame the discussion as Arab-Persian or is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework?”
•  Question: “Assuming a schism, what could unite Arabs and Persians, even temporarily?”

These narratives assume two things: that the division between Iranians and Arabs is a fact and that the greater unity of the two groups in the wake of the Arab uprisings is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Hence the worried question:  What could unite them, even temporarily?

Does the goal then become to ensure a state of chronic hostility between Iranians and Arabs?

Spokesman Maj. T.G. Taylor told Salon that CENTCOM planners "postulate multiple scenarios and potential outcomes to better anticipate and understand the nature of a complex and diverse region.  It is through this prudent military planning and cultural research that we are able to evaluate how to best protect U.S. and partner interests while reducing the risk of miscalculation stemming from ethnic and national differences."

There is no disputing the region is rife with fault lines that divide populations.  I call the three biggest the Stink Bombs of the Middle East: Sunni versus Shia, Arabs versus Iran, Islamists versus secularists.  While there may be some natural tension between these groups, since the 1979 Iranian revolution there has been a marked increase in narratives that create fear of Shiites, Iranians and Islamists for geopolitical advantage.  And U.S. allies in the region -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen -- have been at the forefront of these efforts.

“... is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework? Arabs are afraid of Persian hegemony ...  Islam vs Judeo-Christians ...”

Such  themes have been embedded in superficial narratives of the Middle East that recur in our media.  The Red Team exercise was not particularly exceptional in many respects. But two things are highly unusual about this drill: the timing and its sponsor. The question baffles: Why did the U.S. militarydecide to shine a spotlight on the Arabs vs. Iran narrative three months into the uprisings sweeping through the Arab world?

Why not a broader, more urgent evaluation of how to realign U.S. interests with emerging democratic actors in the region?

The balance of power shifts

At the time of the Red Team exercise, peaceful, political protest had swept away pro-American regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and reached a critical mass in Bahrain and Yemen. The former is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. The latter is an operational center for al-Qaida and a recent proxy battleground for Saudi-Iranian tensions.

U.S policymakers had reason to worry. The de facto beneficiary of the uprisings was Iran, a country that for three decades has challenged the primacy of U.S. and Israeli interests in the Middle East.  The fall of pro-U.S. dictators all but guaranteed that, in the hands of new populist leaders, the region’s foreign policy outlook would likely shift toward Iran’s perspective, although not be steered by Iran.

According to the New York Times’ David Sanger, the U.S. administration never lost sight of this development. Last February, a month before the Red Team exercise, he wrote;

“Every decision — from Libya to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria — is being examined under the prism of how it will affect what was, until mid-January, the dominating calculus in the Obama administration’s regional strategy: how to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, and speed the arrival of opportunities for a successful uprising there.”

Viewing the Arab uprisings through an Iranian lens offered a possible advantage for the United States. Arab public polls consistently favor Iran when it is contrasted with the United States, but not nearly as much when it is compared to other Arab regimes, even unpopular ones.  This tendency has long provided opponents of Iran to sow discord in the Arab world– even before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but especially afterward. Narratives about expansionist, aggressive aspirations of the Iranian Shia have been sown far and wide in the largely Saudi-controlled Arab media, even though there has not been a serious conflict between Iranians and Arabs since the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988.

A testimony to the power of propaganda and the knowledge deficit it encourages, mistrust between Iran and many Arab nations has simmered on low boil ever since. As Washington seeks to manage its losses and assert some control over future developments in the region, this narrative tool becomes a cost-effective way to wrest back some of its primacy by defining a new Middle East and drawing others into those  assumptions.

The Pentagon and social media

 The Red Team exercise did not take place in a vacuum. The Arab revolts have, to a large degree, been driven by the existence of social media platforms, valuable communication assets in countries where public congregation is not encouraged, or is altogether banned.

The Pentagon is actively seeking to understand, influence and control these platforms and the messages they transmit. In July, the technology arm of the Department of Defense, DARPA, announced a $42 million program to enable the U.S. military to “detect, classify, measure and track the formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)” within social media.

Wired magazine calls the project the Pentagon’s “social media propaganda machine” because of its plans for “counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.”

In order to “allow more agile use of information in support of [military] operations” and “defend” against “adverse outcomes,” the project will enable the automation of processes to “identify participants and intent, measure effects of persuasion campaigns,” and ultimately, infiltrate and redirect social media-based campaigns overseas, when deemed necessary.

With cyberspace now designated an “operational domain” for the armed forces, we don't know when and where these online tools will be mobilized. But we can be certain one of the most likely targets is Iran, which earlier this year announced plans to disconnect from the rest of the world and establish its own national Internet.

Manufacturing narratives

Promoting the narrative that casts Iran as a regional threat to Arab nations serves several urgent interests today: It justifies the upcoming sale of more than $120 billion in weapons to Arab governments, and works toward preventing Iran from gaining a further foothold in Iraq once U.S. troops complete their withdrawal in December.

But the Arab uprisings have interfered with Washington’s story. Saudi Arabia, Iran’s main rival and the U.S’s closest Arab ally, has sent troops into Bahrain to violently quell protests, has offered sanctuary to embattled dictators and is subsidizing many of the remaining autocratic Arab regimes throughout the region.

Counter-revolutionary Saudi Arabia's substantial treasury insures its perspective will be heard in Washington. The Saudis will pay for more than half -- $67 billion -- of the total value of the region's controversial arms purchases. The monarchy is also developing an elite 35,000-man force to “protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites,” to be overseen by none other than CENTCOM.

The Arab revolts pose a threat to such business. In recent months, the Obama administration has been hard-pressed to gain approval for even a mere $53 million slice of its weapons sale to Bahrain, which has been censured internationally for its suppression of peaceful protests.  Withstanding pressures from Congress and human rights groups, a State Department official last week finally announced the approval of the sale.

 “The deal is part of a move to defend Bahrain from aggression,” a spokesman told the Gulf News, a not so subtle reference to Iran.

As these Arab uprisings continue to dismantle the regional status quo – for better or for worse – it appears the United States is acting not in accordance with its declared values, but is instead allowing financial and hegemonic calculations to drive foreign policy. Narratives manufactured to support myopic interests over fundamental values cast a long shadow over our ability to play a leading role in global affairs.  We don’t reason, we spin.  And, in the case of this newly vulnerable Middle East, nobody is more proficient in the business of keeping conflict humming.

SHARMINE NARWANI