Iran Terror Plot-Will Obama Miss His 3AM Phone Call?

By Barry Rubin

Remember that Hillary Clinton ad about it being the early morning hours and the phone’s ringing in the White House? Well it’s arrived in real life, and the phone is — or isn’t — going to be answered by Barack Obama. And the question is: What are you going to do about the dramatic announcement of an Iranian plot to attack targets in Washington, D.C.?

True, it’s a bizarre story about Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Mexican drug lords. But, after all, the United States was impelled a step toward entering World War One by the Zimmerman Note in which German agents sought to entice Mexico to go to war against the United States.

Vice President Joe Biden has said that “nothing has been taken off the table” when it comes to the U.S. response. The Saudis, who are famous for keeping a low profile and trying to avoid problems — often through money — are openly livid. They’re basically saying something along the lines of, “We told you so.” They tried and gave up because they didn’t get U.S. or Western help. Will anything change now?

Is This Story True?

There are some points that would make one question this whole garish tale. Most important:

–This does not match past Iranian practice. Many “experts” think this is the clincher, but precedent is not always a reliable guide. Things change. Be careful on this point. But clearly this does not correspond with past Iranian operations that went through either direct agents or trusted Muslim Islamist clients.

–Why should some Iranian-American businessman in Texas be a key Iranian agent? It’s called secret agent work for a reason. A sleeper cell should not be obvious. And he did have a relative in the Revolutionary Guards hierarchy, if the indictment is to be believed, who helped him.

–Why didn’t Iran use its own assets? Again, I think this is a strongest argument against the story. The whole thing is amateurish but more importantly it was Iran’s most sensitive operation ever and the absurdly high danger of exposure was obvious. Even if Iran was going to do this kind of operation, it would have developed these contacts with the Mexicans and not immediately entrusted some drug gang official that one of their guys barely knew.

–What was the Iranian goal? Certainly, Iran has been threatening the United States with dire consequences for a while. But why the sudden decision to escalate? Revenge for sanctions? And what was their plan for concealing Iranian involvement if the attack did happen? One can explain such a change, but one cannot explain it very well. This raises questions, but again is not a definitive answer.

The Administration is telling its favored reporters that the Iranians were desperate (sanctions are biting; Tehran is become more aggressive in Syria to fight the revolution there and in Afghanistan. I don’t buy it. Iran’s operations are designed to spread or protect existing influence among Muslims and not to launch a direct bin Ladin style Jihad on American soil. Again, if the evidence exists I’ll accept it but on an analytical basis it doesn’t compute.

Did the Administration make the whole thing up to protect itself politically? No, it wouldn’t dare since such behavior would eventually be easily exposed and backfire big-time. And besides, if it were going to do such a thing it would invent a free-lance terror plot, not drag the United States into a potential confrontation with Iran, a country that it’s been trying to avoid confrontation with.

(If I had to make a guess–and it is too early to do so–I’d speculate that the Iranian agent(s) involved didn’t have full authorization to organize such attacks but that’s an educated guess. The problem with that theory is that Iranian regime organizations tend to be heavily top-down, Iran is a dictatorship, and the counter-intelligence groups keep an eye on everyone. But even if my theory were to be correct, since the Iranians would never admit it was a rogue operation that wouldn’t save the regime from potential consequences, if any. )

All that’s important is this: If the U.S. government has persuasive evidence that it can present, then it happened. Since the main defendent has turned state’s evidence then he will supply details and we would see that the story is true and the trail does lead back to Iran’s government. BUT if the Obama Administration can make the charges stick that is only the beginning of its problems!

Might This Blow Up in the Obama’s Administration’s Face?

Absolutely yes. If they were fooled by a fabricator, if revealing the case too soon (to stave off criticism of Attorney General Holder over the gun-smuggling case) damaged the chance of success in uncovering the terrorist network, or if the government’s response is not equal to the crisis they’ve developed, then the Obama administration will look worse.

This whole affair is extremely dangerous for the White House. Any idea that this is an easy win for the administration — see how good we are at protecting America — is dead wrong.

I am not arguing and do not believe that they created this plot, but this would not be the first time that U.S. officials have been fooled by Iranians with an agenda to fool them.

What Will the Administration Do about It?

The response is fraught with peril. The immediate reaction — we’ll mobilize world opinion! — makes the administration look buffoonish. If this is true, it is an act of war by Iran, at least by elements in the Iranian government (you know, the kind of people who could one day give nuclear weapons to terrorists).

Response A: Do Nothing

Wow, can you see that in the presidential debates in 2012? An enemy chose to attack the very capital city and the Obama administration could only respond with press releases and Biden growling!

Response B: The “Sunni Strategy”

This really scares me. This administration is quite capable of saying: Iran is the enemy so what we must do is work with our good Muslim friends, you know the Muslim Brotherhood? We need to win over Hamas and Hizballah from Iran by proving we are nice to them. Oh, and we need to work closely with that wonderful Turkish government, like letting them organize the political succession in Syria!

And so on. Do not underestimate the stupidity, incompetence, and ignorance of this administration regarding the Middle East.

Response C: A United Front against Revolutionary Islamism

The U.S. government takes the lead in organizing and supporting Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf monarchies, Israel, and Jordan into a cooperative alignment. Back the oppositions in Iran, Turkey, and Lebanon. Punish enemies and reward friends. Whatever shortcomings Saudi Arabia has, its leaders have been correct about the Iranian threat and their frustration with Obama’s failure to lead. The Saudis even tried to save Lebanon from Iranian-Syrian domination but gave up when Washington wouldn’t help them.

The point is not to go to war with Iran but to oppose Iranian interests and allies everywhere, including the use of covert operations. Challenge Iranian agents of influence in Lebanon and Iraq. Containment is not just about nuclear weapons for Tehran, but about the spreading influence of that regime and, more broadly, the gains being made by revolutionary Islamists throughout the region.

That also means the United States must seem like a strong and determined leader. It must have very serious credibility. And it will have to identify revolutionary Islamism as the enemy.

Look, this is the Obama administration we are talking about. I don’t think they can do it. Hopefully, the next president can do so. There better be a next president in sight because there are a lot more crises on the way.

As I said at the start, I do not think this is some brilliant maneuver that will end up being to the Obama administration’s advantage. They have either made a huge mistake that’s going to be exposed or presented themselves with a challenge they cannot meet.

Ring! Ring! It’s your telephone, Mr. President.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Threaten Her In Danger

"…never send to know for whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee."

--John Dunne

By Barry Rubin

Rome, Italy

I’m standing on the edge of the Roman Forum, by the Arch of Titus. This is the marble structure built by the Empire to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple about 1941 years ago. Legionnaires are shown carrying off the Menorah and other items from the sanctuary. The inhabitants are sold into slavery, The Jews are finished.

Well, not really. Today, the great empire has long vanished and Israel is not just a living country but by every social, economic, and security standard a successful country.

In the late 1960s, more than 40 years ago, the Palestinian and Arab leaders were certain that Israel would not survive. The fact that they were completely wrong has not prevented a whole new rash of contemporary speculations.


The PLO view, shared by virtually all Arabs at the time, was very clearly defined. The two main points boil down to the following. First, Israel would not survive because there was no real basis for such a state and people. Second, the Arabs would destroy it using various strategies.


Here is the ultimate quote from Yasir Arafat in1968—that’s 43 years ago--on why this would work:

Terrorism would “create and maintain an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel….The Israelis have one great fear, the fear of casualties….”

The PLO's attacks would "prevent immigration and encourage emigration....to destroy tourism, to prevent immigrants becoming attached to the land, to weaken the Israeli economy and to divert the greater part of it to security requirements.” This would "inevitably" prevent Israel's consolidation and bring its disintegration. The final step would be “a quick blow by the regular armies at the right moment" to finish Israel off.

All of these things failed. More immigrants came than expected and were successfully integrated. People weren’t frightened into fleeing. Casualties were absorbed and limited. The country became economically successful and militarily victorious. Thus, today Israel is stronger—far stronger—than ever.

And who were the biggest losers in this conflict? Naturally, Israel has lost a great deal, especially in lives. But the biggest losers have been the Arabs who wasted resources, lost more lives, faced repeated humiliations, and ended up with dictatorship and stagnant societies. And they will be the biggest losers if they spend the next 60 years playing the same game.

And if Arab states that were relatively united and had a superpower sponsor couldn’t destroy Israel in 60 years how are they going to do so today? With Israel outpacing its neighbors on every index of social and economic development, with so much oil money spent without really advancing Arab societies, who has the advantage today?

Remember what happened in 1948. True, all the Arab states invaded the new state of Israel But they didn’t coordinate with each other and all wanted to grab territory for themselves. With Iran and Turkey all jostling for power and leadership today, the conflict and disorder is intensified.

Yet now there is a revival of the claim—sometimes among ill-informed well-wishers, more often among antagonistic haters—that Israel might not survive. This is based partly on wishful thinking, partly on ignorance. Underlying these factors, however, is a basic disbelief that Jews are a people and can be a state.

And that reflects a lack of knowledge—often among Western Jews themselves—about Jewish history as well as a naïve acceptance of anti-Israel propaganda, claims that have proven to be false for decades.

Actually, then, the shoe is on the other foot entirely from what is being claimed. It is not Israel’s existence that is threatened but that of its adversaries and in some ways of Western Europe, too.

Its enemy neighbors and near-neighbors are about to embark on a decades’-long horrifying series of civil wars: Islamists against Arab nationalists; Sunni against Shia Muslims; economic collapse; and much more. Syria is on the verge of an inter-communal bloodbath; Egypt faces not some bright new economic dawn but a terrible reckoning. At some point the oil will run out with much of that wealth squandered. Recent discoveries even suggest that Israel itself will be a rising exporter of petroleum and natural gas.

Periodically, some radical Muslim writes that if only each Muslim would kill one Jew then Israel would vanish. High hopes are held for nuclear weapons that Iran still doesn’t have. But such schemes never get off the ground. Indeed, it is Arab nationalism that is endangered with extinction under a wave of revolutionary Islamism. By leaving the path of pragmatism for that of doctrinaire Islamism, Turkey is likely to lose the success it enjoyed for so many decades.

There is not one regime in a Muslim-majority country that should feel confident about its future; not one such state whose continued existence can be taken for granted.

In contrast, there are only two ways Israel might perhaps disappear. First, it might happen if Arabs and Muslims dropped radicalism, ideology, and bickering to concentrate on technological and economic progress for 50 years, only then turning on Israel. That would require, for example, the Palestinians quickly dropping all of their rejectionism and demands to make a compromise agreement with Israel that they had no intention of keeping.

Yet quite the opposite is happening now. It is radicalism, not pragmatic development strategies that is in control. Besides, the problem is that a focus on material development and moderate democracy would erode Arab and Muslim tempers to the point that they would no longer want to engage in such a foolish and futile life-and-death struggle, which is why the Islamists reject that approach.

The other way Israel might be wiped off the map is if its leaders heeded the advice they are getting from the West. That’s the irony of the situation. Those stubborn, stiff-necked people are not going to doom themselves by implementing the mistaken ideas told to them by Western media, experts, intellectuals, and governments who claim such policies are the road to safety.

Part of the problem here is that all too many Western intellectuals no longer believe in fighting—or even sacrificing--for your country; patriotic pride or nationalism or religion; or even the nation-state itself. Consequently, while many Arabs and Muslims don’t believe Israel can exist because of contempt for Jews and belief in the superiority of their nations and religion, many Westerners now believe in the wickedness of their countries and religion and the unviability of the national model.

In thinking about Israel, both these opposite arguments amount to the same thing. Yet they tell more about those having these ideas than about Israel.

When a European cabinet minister says his country has no distinct culture and another urges the locals to be nice to Muslims so they will reciprocate after they take over; when a European country’s counterintelligence chief .tells me his country has no future, and a quartet of professors from another remark to me over cocktails that they believe their country is finished, is it Israel that is in danger of collapse?

Who’s really facing the abyss? That doesn’t mean destruction will come to Europe’s existing states and societies but it does mean they are more likely to go than Israel is. You want to talk about demographic threats? In Europe, the majority is often having children at half the rate needed for mere replacement of the existing native population.

Yet all of this also shows why Israel is the key to understanding today’s world. Israel’s survival shows that democratic societies can fight and defeat dictators and totalitarian ideologies, Western religions do have a continuing place in Western societies and nation-states are still a viable—perhaps the most viable—way to organize many political structures.

That’s precisely why so many are working so hard to demonize and discredit Israel. If people in the West understand what Israel is and what it is doing, they will comprehend the value of those approaches and values. And if they understand how Israel is lied about and mistreated they will comprehend much wider problems with the people, ideas, and institutions governing their own lives today.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

Those Who Are Always Wrong About the Middle East Never Lose A Gram of Arrogance or Moment of Sleep Over the Tragedies They Create

By Barry Rubin

On the occasion of your supporting Palestinian unilateral independence despite the dangers this presents for Israel while simultaneously criticizing Israel for not giving massive concessions in exchange for nothing. On the occasion of the world groveling before Mahmoud Abbas, a ruler of a mere one million people who is in partnership with an explicity genocidal terrorist group, is dependent on Western hand-out, refuses to negotiate or compromise, and has cancelled elections at a time when democracy is supposedly the big thing in the Middle East.

On the occasion of your ignoring the fact that Turkey is ruled by an Islamist party engaged in massive repression and the transformation of the country into a dictatorship, holding that regime up as a model for other Muslim-majority states as it arrests dissidents on a massive scale and keeps them under lock and key while threatening war with Israel. The U.S. government chooses this regime as its co-director in the most important new international counter-terrorist initiative and as its manager of the political transition in Syria.

On the occasion of your whitewashing revolutionary Islamism andglorifying anti-Western forces that will yield a harvest of bloodshed and misery in future.

And most of all on the occasion of your ridiculing, censoring, or ignoring far more accurate assessments of the situation.

Here’s the record

1970s

• You were wrong about Iran’s revolution.

• You were wrong about Saddam not invading Iran.

1980s

• You were wrong about Saddam becoming moderate and wrong about him invading Kuwait.

1990s

• You were wrong about the 1990s peace process (me, too, but I learned real fast in 2000).

• You were wrong about the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

• You were wrong about the promise that you’d support Israel if it took risks for peace and then things got bad.

Early 2000s

• You were wrong about the rise of a stealth Islamist regime in Turkey.

• You were wrong about Islamist terrorists attacking America (ridiculing the idea before September 11)

• You were wrong about Iran’s nuclear program (during the initial years, you said it wasn’t happening when Israel was warning about it).

You were wrong about letting Hamas participate in the Palestinian election even though it didn’t qualify.

• You were wrong in thinking Fatah would win the Palestinian election.

• You were wrong in not supporting moderate force in Lebanon and strenuously opposing the power of the Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance there.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against Israel.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against the United States.

Obama Era

• You were wrong about the Egyptian revolution.

• You were wrong about Turkey (being Islamist).

• You were wrong about Iran again (engagement).

• You were wrong about Syria (being winnable from Iran).

• You were wrong about Lebanon (not being taken over by Iran, Syria, Hizballah).

• You were wrong about Obama (sorry, I only get 800 words total here).

• You were wrong about Israel, (a country you never understand).

• You were wrong about Islamism (understanding what it’s all about—revolution, not hurt feelings).

• You were wrong about Pakistan (helping in a war against terrorism when it sponsors terrorism).

• You were wrong about Obama’s policy in the Middle East making America popular there.

• You were wrong about flattering Islamists into becoming moderate.

• You were wrong about the whole settlement freeze mess (including the wrong claim that it would win moderate gestures from the Arab world).

• You were wrong about throwing a tantrum regarding east Jerusalem construction which you’d already agreed was okay to continue.

• You were wrong in not throwing a tantrum about the Turkish regime’s sponsoring terrorists on the Gaza flotilla, sabotaging sanctions on Iran, an creating a virtual state of war with Israel.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Taliban in Afghan politics.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics (saying the United States had no objection to its being in government without anyone even askin).

• You were wrong about moving away from Israel making Arabs and Muslims more moderate and pro-American.

• You were wrong to waste almost a year by not dealing with the Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence strategy.

• You were wrong in sabotaging any possibility of America becoming more energy independence.

• You were wrong in not pressuring the Palestinian Authority to negotiate seriously with Israel.

• You were wrong in not giving Israel strong support when it has faced broken agreements, a massive terrorist onslaught, and the rejection of peace in response to its concessions.

That’s just a partial list.

And now you want Israel to risk its future existence on the basis of your advice, leaving aside also the fact that you’ve never confessed error, rethought the basis of these mistakes, and then formed an alternative policy and worldview?

You dare to suggest that you know better the interests of Israel and how it will survive than its people, voters, and leaders? And yet you are ignorant about Israel itself, its experiences in the last two decades, and the situation it faces!

Then your smug media, your arrogant false experts, call us dummies and ridicule our arguments—acts and arguments you don’t dare to confront directly in serious debate? We’re supposed to be impressed? Persuaded? Ashamed? Americans in general and Jews in particular are supposed to ignore the people who have actually lived the experience, know the facts, fought the wars, and taken the risks?

And besides, what about the people of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran who are horrified by their current governments yet who can expect no real help or understanding from you. How about Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whose strategic plight you ignore. How about the people of Egypt and very possibly Libya and Tunisia who may be facing a tidal wave of repression, economic disaster, and shattered hopes partly due to your mistakes?

The answer is, “No, thanks.”

All I can add is, Take it away, Bob Dylan:

“I just want you to know
I can see through your masks….
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy….
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher….”

–Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

The Sharia Law Measuring Scale, Turkey or Iran, and the Israeli Peace Initiative Contest

By Barry Rubin

1. One of my readers remarked that what we need to study now is the use of fifth columns to subvert and overthrow countries rather than the 1940-era conventional warfare blitzkrieg. Actually, and this was well-known at the time, the Germans used a very sophisticated strategy of ideological and institutional subversion. It is surprising how much this has been forgotten. Political parties and militias were set up or subsidized; newspapers bought up; German minorities organized. If any of you are interested in this I will provide examples in future, some of which I described (using U.S. intelligence archives) in my book, Istanbul Intrigues.

2. Turkey is now going to sell Egypt both unmanned aircraft and swift patrol boats. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, since both are U.S. clients and, according to the Obama Administration, allies. But this is something to watch in the future. Remember that the relatively moderate military commanders in both countries are on their way out and will be replaced by ideologically motivated (or opportunist) officers who will attack whatever they’re told. With excitable, reckless, and anti-American Recep Edrogan running Turkey and excitable, reckless, and anti-American Amr Moussa perhaps soon to be Egypt’s president, old American friends may soon be attacking other old American friends, or even U.S. forces.

Have you noticed that its increasingly difficult to distinguish between remarks about Israel by Erdogan and those by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

3. I like U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen. He gets it. And he has to because his forces have the mission of fighting future wars and threats created by mistaken White House policies. Never forget that the official Quardennial Review of U.S . military plans, 92 pages of Politically Correct pap, doesn’t really mention Islamism, terrorism, Iran, and other real-world threats. Mullen’s 3.5 page letter at the end deals with all the real issues.

Now Mullen has had to say something pretty amazing. In Senate testimony he reported that “the Haqqani [terrorist[ network… acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.” Imagine: America’s highest military officer explains that the intelligence agency of a country receiving massive U.S. aid runs a Taliban-linked terrorist group that, on September 13, attacked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan. Twenty-five people died.

Can you imagine the uproar this should cause in any normal circumstance? There would be demands for congressional inquiries, front-page stories every day, attacks on a president who could run such a policy.

Instead: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Add this to previous U.S. Defense Department warnings based on reliable intelligence:

–Iran is protecting and helping al-Qaida.

–Iran is training Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

–Iran is training and supplying training, weapons, and explosives to kill Americans in Iraq. Mullen also spoke about that. He said: “They (the Iranians) have been warned about continuing it … that if they keep killing our troops, that will not be something we will sit idly by and watch.” Um, wow, does that raise the possibility of an armed confrontation with Iran? What is the White House going to do if Iran continues killing Americans–as I’m sure they will. My prediction is that they will do nothing. You know what that kind of empty threat followed by inaction does to credibility?

–Syria is running a war against America in Iraq.

But White House policies don’t want to deal with these issues.

Congress, do you have any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Experts, any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Media, any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

4. Michael Ledeen has written an excellent article well-worth reading about the hunkered-down White House and its Ripley’s Believe it or Not policies. But I can’t resist adding a bit. Ledeen writes that the White house is awaiting, “The happy moment when Assad falls and Obama takes credit for it and Erdogan calls the White House to get his orders.”

Alas, most people in the region don’t think that Erdogan will be calling the White House to get his orders–the idea of anyone ordering around Erdogan doesn’t fit with his personality–but with Erdogan telling Obama how he’s arranged a great interim government in which the Muslim Brotherhood has all-too-much power.

5. Libya’s new Western-installed leader first announced that Sharia will be “the main source” for Libyan law in future, then a week later met with Obama who praised him as a great guy. A brief guide is in order here about how Muslim-majority countries do this sort of thing:

Option 1: Secular, based on Western law. You know, like Turkey used to be.

Option 2: Sharia is “a source” of legislation, not too bad, like Egypt used to be.

Option 3: Sharia is “the main source” of legislation. Uh-oh.

Option 4: Sharia is “the sole source” of legislation.” Is that a chador you’re wearing or are you just glad to see me? (Yes, I know that it doesnt make sense but this take-off of the famous Mae West line is sort of funny, I hope.)

Now, Turkey is moving from 1 through 2 and perhaps eventually to 3. Egypt from 2 to 3 and perhaps eventually to 4. Libya is starting off at 3. Iran and the Gaza Strip are at 4 with a bullet. That last point is record industry slang for a song headed up the charts. In this case it means, literally, a bullet in your head if you step out of line. Some time next year remind me to do a chart of where every country is at. One thing is for sure: they’re all headed in the same general direction.

6. Here’s the problem with the international community and with the “peace process.” The Paletinian Authority demands full UN membership without doing anything to deserve it, as an alternative to negotiations with Israel. The United States opposes; almost every other country supports. So France comes up with a compromise: Make them a non-member state, in other words moving them up a level. But the problem is not having Palestine as a UN member so much as it is having Palestine as a state, which can do whatever it wants in terms of foreign alliances, buying arms, inviting in foreign troops or advisors, and condemning Israel as occupier and aggressor if it defends itself from cross-border attacks or doesn’t leave all claimed Palestinian territory immediately.

So this is how it works: You don’t give the Palestinians everything they want as a unilateral concession; you just give them half of what they want as a unilateral concessions. Saving the rest as a unilateral concession for the next time they make a demand.

7. The great peace initiative contest! What can Israel give to prove it wants peace and isn’t sabotaging a diplomatic resolution? Come up with ideas. Important rule: Israel cannot ask for anything in exchange because if it does then the Palestinians will reject it and we are back where we began.

Warning: failure to come up with an entry means you are a right-wing extremist who opposes peace and is clinging on to an untenable status quo. Only unilateral concessions will be considered! In case of near-duplicate entries the proposal in which Israel gives up more in exchange for nothing will be judged the winner.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

I Hate Israel! I Hate America! I’m a Muslim! I’ve Got it All! Let Me Be Your Leader!

Scene: A nightclub in Morocco.

Abdul: “I’m sorry, sir, this is a private room.”
German official [from the Nazi-controlled DeutschBank]: “You dare not keep me out of here!”
Rick: “Your cash is good at the bar.”
German official: “What! Do you know who I am?”
Rick: ‘I do. You’re lucky the bar’s open to you.”

–“Casablanca,” (1942)

By Barry Rubin

First it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution.

Hey, he said in effect, Yes, I’m a Persian, Yes, I’m a Shia, but I hate Israel and want to destroy it! And besides we’re all Muslims. So let me lead the Middle East. I know the way to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, too. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iran was popular for a while. But the Arabs and Sunni eventually found other heroes, and some became frightened of Iran’s power.

Then there was Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi dictatorship.

Hey, he said in effect, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am a Godless atheist who kills believers. But I not only hate the Americans and Israelis but I also hate the Shia and those Shia heretics. So let me lead the Middle East. I know how to defeat them! By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iraq was popular for a while. But then he led Iraq to disaster, and was defeated and then killed.

Then there was Usama bin Ladin.

He said, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am no trained cleric. But I hate the Americans. What? Oh, yes, forgot about that one. I also hate Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! So let me lead the Middle East. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Usama bin Ladin was popular for a while. And then he was killed, too.

Then there was Muhammad Fadlallah of Hizballah.

He said in effect, I am an Arab, though a Shia. I am a cleric! I have it all. I hate the Americans (though many of them don’t even realize it) and Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! See, I won the war! Oops! Spoke too soon, heh! And the blood spilled and Fadlallah was popular for a while, Lebanon was in ruins though, still, Hizballah seized state power there. But he sided with Iran and the Syrian dictatorship so the Sunni Arabs waxed wroth.

And now, there is Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and they can say: We’re Arab! We’re Muslim! We’ve got it all, including the most respected Sunni Islamist in the world as our guide! We don’t need no stinkin’ Persians or Shias! (Film reference: “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”)

Soon we will take over Egypt. We hate the Americans and Israel. We know how to defeat them! By force! True, Egypt lost in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and, ultimately, in 1973, too. Still, a few Allahu Akhbar’s will take care of that. True, if we were aggressive we might lose all that U.S. aid but what’s money compared to the Will of Allah and the prospect of heaven? Besides, America is collapsing; Israel is losing its support—the more concessions, the more aggressive we will be. And we have our Hamas friends.

There is something different this time, however, since there is still another savior of Islam in the field: Turkish President Recep Erdogan. He says: True, I’m not an Arab but I’m Sunni. And I hate the United States, though I don’t say so in public. And I know how to defeat them: by force! Let’s go and fight! And the Arab League leaders erupt in cheers and chant his name. Then the Muslim Brotherhood discovers he is too subtle for them, he wants to keep the Islamism secret until all power is seized and they disagree with that strategy.

Still, Erdogan is making his leadership bid. Here he is at the Arab League foreign minister’s meeting: “It is time for us to take responsibility for our common future….We are entitled to meet the righteous demands of our people using any legitimate means.”

Note two phrases: “our common future” means forget about Arab nationalism. All us Muslims got to stick together. Seeing Turks as Europeans is an obsolete notion for him. Ninety years of secular, Western-oriented nationalism is over.

“Any legitimate means” means the right and need to go to war against Israel. Of course, the U.S. government still acts as if nothing has changed, that Turkey is not just a reliable ally but an especially honored role model, star ally.

Incidentally, don’t waste any time on the lies and denials, here’s Turkey’s foreign minister explaining the new policy of Turkey being leader of the Middle East as he secretly expressed it to a meeting of high-level ruling party officials and as made available to us by Wikileaks.

And let’s not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Syria’s Assad dynasty; and, of course, Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat. All of them also had the same basic program. All of them failed miserably and left their people worse off.

I keep thinking of George Costanza of “Seinfeld” explaining, “You think sickness like that grows on trees? Nobody is sicker than me, nobody….I’m disturbed! I’m depressed! I’m inadequate! I got it all!”

There were some others—King Abdallah of Jordan; Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt; Bashir al-Gemayel of Lebanon. They were all murdered, though, by other locals. King Hussein of Jordan isn’t around any more. So let’s see, demagogues who back terrorism and violence, hate the West, and refuse compromise fail miserably and become heroes. Moderates who want to focus on economic progress (including here Husni Mubarak) and peacemaking are jeered and killed or deposed by their own people.

Might there be a pattern here?

Meanwhile, like Bart Simpson, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders keep writing on the blackboard one hundred times: Now, if only we prove to them we’re their friends they’ll like us.

Maybe, say the Europeans, if we recognize a Palestinian state they will like us! Maybe if we say enough things about Muslims they’ll like us! After all, it is all our fault, or Israel’s fault, that they are angry. They couldn’t possibly want a revolution based on a radical ideology followed by a repressive dictatorship because that’s what they really want!

Reminds me of the lyrics to “I Hope I Get It” from “A Chorus Line”:

“I think I’ve got it.
I think I’ve got it.
I knew he liked me all the time.
Still it isn’t over….What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?”

In other words, Western leaders aren’t protecting their interests. They’re auditioning for the role of Middle East hero against those who can say they are a Muslim or even an Arab. Guess who’s going to get the part? Are they going to persuade the producers that they hate Israel more than Qaradawi or Erdogan or Fadlallah? That they will promote Islam as well as people like that? That they will kick the West (that is, themselves) out of the Middle East?

In contrast, a Gulf Arab, who hates all this stuff, gave the alternative in a private conversation: “I don’t want an American president to behave like an Arab. I want an American president who will behave like an American.”

The United States and Europe should be preparing to audition for a very different part in a very different production. How about “Casablanca” or “High Noon”? Obama might be better advised (and it would be less of a stretch) to go out for the Noel Coward role for “In Which We Serve.” Or even “The Four Feathers” in which a coward finds his inner hero.(Warning: Watch only the 1939 version.) Funny, they don’t make films like those any more.

They better start making politicians like that very soon!

The good news: If you are reading this you have already learned. Explain it to everyone you know.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Why Does Steve Israel (D-NY) Accept Campaign Donations From a Man Convicted of Selling Arms to Iran ?

You can tell much about a politician from the donations they accept. My Congressman Steve Israel, who is also Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, accepts money from at least one donor who should make people wonder about the Congressman’s sense of morality and his support of the nation of Israel.

The donor’s name is Parviz Lavi and according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) has taken $6,500 from Parviz Lavi since 2006.

Certainly nothing wrong with taking donations within the legal limit for the fact that In March 1998, Parviz Lavi was arrested by federal agents (and pled guilty) for conspiring to illegally smuggle fighter jet engines and their parts to Iran (yes that is the same Iran that wants to blow Israel to smithereens).

As Newsday reported in March 1998:

“The Iranian-born owner of a Hicksville firm was arrested by federal agents yesterday on charges of conspiring to illegally smuggle fighter jet engines and their parts into Iran, according to officials.


Parviz Lavi, 62, the owner of Omega Turbine Corp., 150 Express St., had been under investigation since 1991 by customs agents in Norfolk, Va., for a scheme to smuggle at least six turbine engines for the F-14 jet fighter and thousands of engine parts, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Burton Ryan.


According to court papers, Lavi had been wiretapped since 1992 discussing various schemes to sell the F-14 engines and their parts to Iran by shipping them first to associates in Rotterdam, Holland. At one point Lavi discussed paying between $125,000 and $150,000 for six of the TF-30 jet engines, the court papers said.


The engine is used only on U.S. and Iranian F-14 fighters. The U.S. government sold 80 of the F-14s to the shah’s government before the revolution in Iran in 1979 but since then has barred the export of military equipment to Iran.” (Source: “Man Held In Plot To Sell F-14 Parts,” Newsday, March 4, 1998)

The Next Day, the NY Times corroborated the Newsday story and took it even further:

“Mr. Lavi went to Norfolk several times with a shopping list of prohibited parts, officials said. Undercover agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and businessmen involved in the arms trade who were cooperating with the Government agreed to sell him what he wanted: 500 metal vanes, or blades, for the powerful TF-30 engines on the F-14’s that were made to stringent specifications by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies, in North Haven, Conn.


“The sale price was $25,000, but the authorities said the value of the parts to Iran’s military was inestimable.”(Source: “L.I. Man Is Seized in Scheme To Smuggle Jet Parts to Iran,” The New York Times,March 5, 1998)

After being indicted later that month, Mr Lavi and some of his associates plead guilty to the charges:

“According to an April 2, 1998, Virginian-Pilot article, “A former employee of the alleged mastermind of a plot to smuggle F-14 jet parts to Iran pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to helping negotiate the purchase and sale of the parts. In his plea agreement, Tony Zar agreed to testify against his old friend, Parviz Lavi - charged with heading a conspiracy to purchase and ship the American-built parts - and others allegedly involved in the scheme.


“Zar, also known as Mehrdad Zar, 38, told agents he knew of at least two shipments of jet parts sent to Iran after he began working at Lavi’s Long Island, N.Y., company, Omega Industries International, in 1992.” (Source: “One Pleads Guilty To Smuggling Jet Parts,” The Virginian-Pilot, April 2, 1998)

The mastermind behind a plot to ship F-14 jet engine parts to Iran faces up to five years in prison after admitting in federal court Monday that he conspired to violate the Arms Export Control Act. Parviz Lavi, 62, a multimillionaire from New York and a longtime arms merchant, pleaded guilty to trying to export TF-30 engine parts, designed specifically for the F-14 Tomcat fighter jet, to Iran.” (Source “Man Pleads Guilty In Plot To Send Iran U.S. Jet Parts,” The Virginian-Pilot, July 14, 1998)

Congressman Israel claims to be a huge supporter of the State of Israel and other Jewish causes. His deeds however, do not back up his words. While he has signed letters with other Congressman, not once has he stood up publicly to President Obama to criticize the administration’s anti-Israel policies. When the President was trying to legitimize the anti-Israel group J Street, Steve Israel obeyed orders and lent his name to the organization so they could recruit more people to its convention.

Now we learn that Congressman Israel is taking campaign donations from a man who was convicted of selling arms to a terrorist-supporting regime whose goal is to destroy the Jewish State. It’s time for Mr. Israel to get his partisan head out of his arse and decide what side he is on. Does he support terrorist states and the anti-Israel policies of Barack Obama, or does he support the right of the Jewish State of Israel to exist in peace? His words say one thing, but his actions say another.

Why Is Iran’s Influence in the Arab World Declining? A Look at the New Regional Line-Up

By Barry Rubin

Often, coverage of the Middle East in the mainstream media is beyond belief. Even when the article has good information it often misses the main point. Such is the case with an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Arab Spring Turns Up Heat on Iran.” The article correctly reports that Iran is losing popularity in much of the Arab world:

In Egypt, favorable views of Iran declined from 89 percent in 2006 to 37 percent today. In Saudi Arabia those holding such beliefs declined from 85 percent to 6 percent; and in Jordan from 75 percent to 23 percent. That’s an incredibly steep decline. Incidentally, in these countries, attitudes toward the United States remained highly unfavorable and only got worse under President Obama.

A reader who doesn’t have any understanding of the region–a category probably including most Western leaders, academic “experts,” and journalists–would think: Aha! Democracy is triumphing over radical Islamism. Iran is no longer much of a threat These are great things! This is how the media is presenting this development and no doubt that’s what Western policymakers think.

Such an analysis, however, is ridiculous so I’m glad you are reading this article. Don’t stop now. Here comes the good and original part.

So Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis are turning away from Iran. Now what do these three countries have in common? Answer: they all have big Sunni majorities, 90 percent in Saudi Arabia, 100 percent in Jordan, and 100 percent of the Muslims–who form about 90 percent of the whole population–in Egypt.

So where is Iran losing popularity? Among Sunni Muslim Arabs. Why? Because now they have their own Sunni Muslim Arab Islamists and don’t need Iran’s Shia Persians to be their patrons, leaders, or hope for the triumph of Islamism. Thus, this development shows the deepening schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims and Islamists, not declining support for radical, anti-Western, and Islamist politics.

Read this paragraph from the article:

“Iran and Syria—together with Shiite political and militant group Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas—have for years banked on their anti-Israeli, anti-American posture as a guarantee for popular support in the Arab street as well as a shield against domestic unrest. Iran saw itself as the leader of this resistance group.”

Notice that only Hizballah is identified as Shia Muslim. Actually, the sentence is so poorly constructed one might well think that Hamas is Shia, too, which it isn’t!

True, the article notes in passing: “Its allies supported Iran’s growing influence while rival Sunni Arab countries including Saudi Arabia viewed it as a threat.” But that’s hardly making the point clear.

There’s one more complicating factor: a deep split in the Sunni camp, though, since a radical nationalist and semi-Islamist Egypt headed by Amr Moussa (and aligned with Hamas) is the Saudis worse nightmare. Moreover, Sunni states will not give strong backing to the Palestinian Authority because they’re angry due to its past behavior, despite their general backing for the “Palestinian cause” (including unanimous support for a Palesitinian unilateral declaration of independence).

So here’s the likely line-up:

Shia:

• Radicals: Iran, Hizballah, Syria, Bahrain opposition radical faction

• Moderates: Iranian opposition, Iraqi government; Bahrain opposition moderate faction.

Sunni

• Radicals: Egypt, Hamas, Libya?, Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Jordan, Sudan, Turkish regime.

• Moderates: Algeria, Jordan, Lebanese, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, moderate forces in Syrian opposition, Tunisia, Turkish opposition.

This line-up tells us precisely what needs to be done. The United States should take leadership and work with Europe, Israel, and the moderates of both the Sunni and Shia variety. As for the radicals, none of them are “good guys” who can be allies in the battle against revolutionary Islamism.

A good strategy would not side with Sunni against Shia or vice-versa, nor would it have any illusion about moderating the radicals through appeasement, flattery, or concessions.

What is worrisome is that few Western leaders understand any of these points.

A final note, I didn’t mention the Palestinian Authority (PA). That is partly due to the fact that it isn’t very important in regional politics. While it is Sunni, it doesn’t get real support from either the radicals or the moderates in that camp. The radicals prefer their fellow Islamists in Hamas; the moderates are mostly angry at past backstabbings by the PA leadership. Everyone pretends to love the Palestinians and they will all vote for unilateral Palestinian independence at the UN, badmouth Israel, and compete for control over the Palestinian card. Yet in terms of genuine material support or patronage, the PA is very isolated while Hamas is in a much more favorable position regionally.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> 

Israel’s Strategic Situation: Plenty to Worry About But Little to Fear

By Barry Rubin



Since much of what I write about regional politics seems pessimistic, I periodically remind people why I’m an optimist, at least when it comes to Israel.

Even today, Israel’s security situation is as good as or better than it has been since any time since the establishment of the state. The two main threats have always been either a potential attack by most or all Arab armies or a high level of successful cross-border terrorism.

At present, though, by Israeli standards, these two threats are relatively low. The immediate problem is rocket, missile, and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip. The longer-term threat—that seems to be continually postponed--is an Iranian nuclear capability

On the level of threats from states, the problem is relatively minimal. The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, whose economic support would be vital in any confrontation, don’t want war with Israel. The same point applies to Jordan. Syria is militarily weaker than ever and entangled in a revolution whose effects will convulse the country for years whatever the outcome.

Muammar Qadhafi’s likely overthrow in Libya won’t bring a friendlier regime but will reduce the sponsorship of international terrorism arising from his personal ambitions. Similarly, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict and turned inward, while the Kurdish-ruled sector in the north is friendly toward Israel. A new addition to that short friendly list is the Republic of South Sudan.

What of Iran? The “Arab Spring” may be a victory for Sunni Muslim Islamism but for that reason is an Iranian defeat. Tehran’s ambition of being hegemonic in the Middle East is blocked since it can no longer hope to become leader over the majority Sunni Muslims. Its rival, the Muslim Brotherhood, is the single most powerful force in Egypt, has “stolen” Hamas from Iran, and may do the same with Syria.

Moreover, Iran is taking far longer to get nuclear weapons than expected due to technical and other problems. The regime also faces potential internal revolt. Of course, Iran is a legitimate Israeli concern but the threat today is far less than it was expected to be several years ago. The likelihood of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear installation has also dropped sharply.

This leaves Egypt. For the moment, the military regime wants to maintain the peace treaty. That could change when an elected government comes to power, especially with a strong Muslim Brotherhood contingent in parliament. The most likely president, Amr Moussa, doesn’t like Israel but he is also experienced and pragmatic enough to avoid a confrontation, even though he is also demagogic enough to talk tough. Egypt is going to be a problem for Israeli security but it might be manageable.

As for non-state actors, to the north, Hizballah is having trouble controlling Lebanon. The loss of its Syrian patron and growing Sunni-Shia tensions make its task tougher. Hizballah doesn’t want a war with Israel now and during the next few years. The threat must be closely watched and no assumptions made, but that front should remain relatively quiet.

The big problem is Hamas, especially as it tries to leverage Egypt into a conflict. Nobody is going to throw Hamas out of power and periodically it will periodically send barrages of missiles and rockets into Israel. Yet if this is Israel’s main security problem it is hardly existential..

A third intifadah on the West Bank is also possible but would be far costlier to the Palestinians than to Israel. Whatever the UN General Assembly decides will change nothing on the ground. The Fatah-Hamas conflict won’t go away and the demographic issue is totally phony. Israel’s intelligence and counterterrorism is in good shape.

Time is not against Israel but it is against the Arabs. They are splintering rather than uniting. Each country faces some level of civil war between Islamists and nationalists, monarchies and oppositions, and religious-communal groups.
We are going to be seeing more assertive Kurdish (in Syria and Iraq) and Berber movements (in North Africa). The Sunni-Shia rift is heating up. Two Islamist blocs will contend, sometimes violently as we have seen in Iraq. True, both sides hate Israel but they are hardly likely to cooperate against it, and neither has a superpower ally.

The vision of a united Arab or Muslim world wiping Israel off the map—or making a serious effort to do so—is as distant as always, more distant than from the 1950s into the 1970s. The Arab Spring is in fact the start of an internal Arab political winter, 20 to 40 years fighting over who will run each country. While they fritter away money, resources, and energy, Israel will continue to advance economically and militarily.

Disastrous populist, radical nationalist, and Islamist domestic policies will also slow Arab development and widen Israel’s advantage. I do not rejoice at the Arab world’s self-made misfortune. A prosperous, happy, moderate, and democratic Arab world at peace with Israel would be a wonderful thing. But that won’t happen. Neither will there be a prosperous, united, radical Islamist world at war with Israel.

As for Israel itself, when one gets beyond all of the usual self-flagellating self-criticism, it is a strong country in both economic and military terms. Israel has weathered the international economic crisis better than any other developed country. When Israelis have time to bicker over housing and cottage cheese prices, it’s a sure sign of an improved security situation and relative consensus on “foreign conflict” issues.

There are, of course, no lack of problems and threats. Yet Israel is in good shape when compared in strategic terms to every other country between Morocco and Pakistan—and even in social and economic terms compared with virtually every European country.

Appendix:


A reader, trying to explore every possible pessimistic scenario, asked me some questions in addition to the above text. Obviously, Israeli policymakers and military officers are thinking about such things--and they should be--but these aren't realistic threats. Below are brief answers:

What are the risks of a military confrontation between Turkey and Israel should Turkey send warships to accompany “civilian” ships trying to reach Gaza ? A defense pact between Turkey and Hamas, Egypt or Hizballah/Lebanon?

--Won't happen in any meaningful way. Erdogan does not want to embroil Turkey in a costly and unnecessary international confrontation that would sacrifice U.S. support, frighten international investors, and divide Turkey. Erdogan's motive is domestic political gain for his plan to Islamize Turkey through demagoguery. He knows precisely what he's doing. And the Arabs neither want nor need Turkish boots on the ground. That would be a public relations' disaster from their standpoint.

Might Syria fire some chemical weapons at Israel as a last ditch to save itself?

--There is no indication of that happening and the Iraqis--who had much more motive to do it--didn't follow that path in 2003. Israel would have plenty of warning time and could take countermeasures. Not a realistic scenario.

--Will Iran let Syria fall and lose her investment ?

--I think clearly Iran cannot determine Syria's future. It is trying to save the Assad dictatorship but already there are signs that Tehran is thinking of jumping ship. Too much effort to help the Syrian regime will create an intense anti-Shia and anti-Persian feeling among Sunni Muslims and be more negative for Iran than even the fall of the Syrian regime.

What about Israel’s porous border with Sinai....and the rush to now build a security fence ? Why was this not done before ?

--Because Israel doesn't have unlimited money and resources. Notice those mass demonstrations wanting the government to spend more money on housing and other things to benefit Israel's people? It cannot spend millions to build new security fences and ask people to devote more reserve days to military service without a clear need to do so.

What is the prospect of an Islamic (Sunni) curtain stretching from Morocco to Turkey....even with temporary gaps in the curtain ?

--If you mean Islamist regimes that's doubtful. It isn't happening in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan or in Saudi Arabia--in the sense we mean it--and the Gulf Arab monarchies. It also isn't going to happen in Lebanon or Iraq which are dominated politically by Shia Muslims.

Will Jordan survive a MB take over of Egypt and the subsequent support by Egypt to Islamists in Jordan ?

Yes, indeed the better the Brotherhood does in Egypt, Libya, or Syria, the more the remaining non-Islamist states will work harder and act tougher to prevent their meeting that fate. Increasingly, the Saudis and other Gulf Arab monarchies are taking Jordan under their protection and the monarchy in Amman has basically brought the unrest there to a standstill, though they could use a lot more foreign economic help.


With Europe increasingly scared of its own muslim populations...what will this mean for Israel’s trade, security cooperation ?

--Trade? Nothing. Security cooperation? Precisely because of nervousness about Islamists at home and in the Middle East, a number of European countries--notably France, Italy, and Germany are increasing security cooperation with Israel. European states can play their usual game of pro-Palestinian rhetoric combined with little or no action in order to cover themselves.

What will Israel do should Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria all start firing missiles into Israel at same time ?

Syria won't. If Damascus attacked Israel it would be the end of the regime. Rather than mobilize mass support, as in the past, Syria's regime would have its armed forces heavily damaged and fall within a week or two, with very poor prospects for the life spans of its elite. As for Hizballah-Hamas cooperation, that's less likely than ever. Those two groups are now on different sides of the Sunni-Shia divide and didn't even work together in 2008-2009 when they were much closer to each other. Reportedly, Hamas asked for help and Hizballah refused, unwilling to risk its own interests to help its "brothers" in the Gaza Strip.

How strong relatively is Israel ?

--Much more so than its neighbors.

The above analysis isn't based on wishful thinking. But there are good reasons why the worst-case scenarios we can think up don't happen. As I said in the original article, my biggest concern is that Hamas will try to drag a post-election Egypt into a war with Israel. Other than that, remaining scenarios of war or high-level terrorism are unlikely.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>

Do Iraqi Documents Give Some Hints About the Iranian Regime’s Nuclear Strategy?

by Barry Rubin


Using captured Iraqi documents, Hal Brands and David Palkki, have published an interesting short paper for the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), “Why did Saddam Want the Bomb? The Israel Factor and the Iraqi Nuclear Program (embedded below).

They begin:

“On March 27, 1979, Saddam Hussein…laid out his vision for a long, grinding war against Israel in a private meeting of high-level Baathist officials. Iraq, he explained, would seek to obtain a nuclear weapon from ‘our Soviet friends,’ use the resulting deterrent power to counteract Israeli threats of nuclear retaliation, and thereby enable a “patient war”—a war of attrition—that would reclaim Arab lands lost in the Six Day War of 1967. As Saddam put it, nuclear weapons would allow Iraq to “guarantee the long war that is destructive to our enemy, and take at our leisure each meter of land and drown the enemy with rivers of blood.”

While an analogy doesn’t prove the point, I think that contemporary Iranian thinking is equivalent: get nuclear weapons and use them for what I call a defensive umbrella for aggression. By possessing nuclear weapons, Tehran would ensure that nobody would challenge it seriously so that it could continue sponsoring revolution and terrorism with little fear of retaliation from either Israel or the United States.

Of course, accidents can happen, an ideological obsession could lead to using nuclear weapons even if that led to a devastating war of destruction on Iran, or parts of the government possessing particular revolutionary zeal could give such weapons to terrorist groups. But the basic idea—which could easily go astray—seems parallel to that of the Iraqi dictator.

It is important to remember that the desire to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes is not inconsistent with an aggressive policy. After all, why else would anyone want to attack Iran? And having nuclear weapons makes it much easier for the government in Tehran to spread both Islamist revolution and Iran’s own influence, two factors that are also not contradictory.

Full paper is embedded at bottom of page:

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  


201108.Brands Palkki.iraqnuclear

Iranian Troops Are Killing American's In Iraq-Where is the US Policy Response?

By Barry Rubin

Let’s pretend we are living in a sane and normal era with a sane and normal U.S. government. In that context, read the following paragraph from the Wall Street Journal and then let’s think out loud about it.

“The top U.S. military officer accused Iran…of shipping new supplies of deadly weapons to its militia allies in Iraq, in what he described as Tehran’s bid to take credit for forcing American troops to go home….`Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups which are killing our troops,’ said Adm[iral] Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. `There is no question they are shipping high-tech weapons in there…that are killing our people. And the forensics prove that.’”

Let’s begin with an abstract approach. The government of Country A is sending weapons to forces attacking Country B. Country B is in fact pulling out of territory and doesn’t want a war. Nevertheless, Country A is escalating its aggression so it can claim the withdrawal as a great victory. Why? Because the government of Country A doesn’t want peace; it wants to destroy Country B and hates it so passionately that no conciliation is possible.

Wow, this is so familiar! Where else in the Middle East have I heard about this pattern?

Back to the Iraq case. What does the United States do about the fact that it has proof of a war being waged against it by Iran? I’m not proposing the United States go to war with Iran at all. That would be a mistake, no question about it. But how about a few time-tested activities like these:

–The United States stages some covert operations to discomfit Iran’s regime? Some economic sabotage, a few oil fields or factories have…problems. The message is: If you want this to stop, don’t attack us. You escalate; we escalate.

–The U.S. government tells all of its allies, trading partners, and anyone it can influence that sanctions against Iran of all types are going to go to the absolute maximum and that Washington will tolerate no breaches, including from China, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

–The U.S. ambassador to the UN goes to the General Assembly (as Ambassador Adlai Stevenson did over the Cuban missile crisis) and presents the evidence of Iran’s terrorism in Iraq and aid to al-Qaida, demanding strong action.

–The U.S. government tells the Turkish regime to stop cooperating with Iran. Will the Turkish government get angry and claim that its sovereignty and dignity have been violated? Yep. And then, if the costs are high enough, it might back down in some material ways.

–The president of the United States goes on television and says, “My fellow Americans….” to lay out the case against Iran, including the “forensics.” He explains that even though America does not want a conflict that one is being forced on it by its enemies. And then he lists Iran’s allies in this anti-American effort: Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah. He will tell the American people what U.S. intelligence has known for years: that Iran is sheltering al-Qaida leaders and letting them use its territory as a safe haven from which to organize attacks against Americans.

–And in line with that presentation, the United States tells Israel that it supports stronger sanctions on the Gaza Strip; refuses to recognize or give aid to a Hizballah (Syria, Iran)-dominated government in Lebanon (which has just officially taken office); gives strong support to the Lebanese opposition; breaks relations with Syria and does everything possible in terms of sanctions against that government while supporting the democratic elements in the opposition.

I suspect that not one thing on this list will happen. The problem is with the specific government now in place in the White House, not the fact that it is a Democratic Party president or a supposedly liberal president. In the background is the dominant ideology nowadays in the United States which throws out the window all of the traditional attitudes and tools used by previous presidents–realpolitik, deterrence, power politics, supporting your friends, and punishing your enemies.

One might call it a combination of proud-to-be-weak, America-is-too-evil-to-be-a-world-leader, old-fashioned appeasement, and left-wing “neo-conservatism.”

A government that will not protect the soldiers it has sent into danger by acting against those who would kill them does not deserve to lead those troops. Admiral Mullen knows it (his statement above sounds like a plea for help from Congress and the American people) and so does the recently resigned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and so does everyone who works at the Pentagon and serves in the U.S. armed forces. But they cannot speak publicly because they are serving. That’s the real “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy.”

Go back and read that paragraph about what Mullen said. Revolutionary Islamism, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others are at war with the United States. America needs a president who recognizes that fact and will do something about it.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

The Benefits of the 'Arab Spring'

 By BARRY RUBIN


There are two types of strategic perspectives in Israel today. They aren’t contradictory, but they have different priorities. These can be called the “northern” and the “southern” views.

The “northern” approach is the more traditional one, focusing on the situation in that direction. The key longer-term concern is over Iran and its drive for nuclear weapons. More closely, there are both concerns and hopes regarding Lebanon and Syria.

Regarding Iran, the new feature is the assumption that Israel will not attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. This means Israel will be constructing a multi-level defensive system that includes long-range attack planes, the ability to subvert Iran’s nuclear force through covert operations, possibly submarine platforms, and several types of anti-missile missiles and defenses.

The goal here is fourfold:

• To delay as long as possible Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and to minimize the size and effectiveness of its arsenal through sanctions, international pressure, sabotage and other means.

• To have the maximum ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear attack and demonstrating the ability to stop its missiles. The aim is to discourage Iran from launching such an attack, given a nearcertainty that it can be stopped and, as a result, it would suffer very heavy damage.

• Of course, ordinary deterrence is not a sufficient safeguard against Iran, given the Islamic regime’s ideological extremism and passionate hatred of Israel, the recklessness of some key elements there, and the rulers’ shortcomings in assessing reality.

Consequently Israel must put a high priority on stopping any Iranian attack from happening or succeeding.

•  To be able, if Israel determines there is a real danger of an Iranian attack, to launch a first strike to inflict maximum damage on Iran’s nuclear strike force. In other words, an Israeli attack would be premised not on Iran getting nuclear weapons, but on Iran being likely to use them.

US deterrence, early-warning, and anti-missile efforts would supplement this system, but this strategy is not premised on any dependence on the US government.

BUT ISRAEL also knows that an equal or even greater danger is the spread of Iranian influence, taking over Arab countries or turning them into proxies. Here, the northern focus is on Syria and Lebanon.

On the surface, the news from these two countries is potentially bad. Lebanon is now controlled by Hezbollah and other Syrian or Syrian-Iranian clients. Hezbollah can thus use Lebanon as a virtual fiefdom for building its military power and attacking Israel. This is much worse than the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, when Lebanon as a government and army had a separate identity.

Syria itself is faced with a serious internal upheaval that seems likely to bring down President Bashar Assad. Here the “glass halfempty” analysis is that Assad might be replaced by a regime even more hostile to Israel.

There is also a “glass half-full” analysis. As long as Syria is in such turmoil, it cannot so effectively threaten Israel. And if Assad is overthrown, a government that is more preoccupied by internal affairs, and less eager to start a conflict, might take power.

Iraq offers a good model here.

Between the interests of the Kurds, the internal conflict, a greater focus on domestic development and other factors, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict with Israel.

Hezbollah also suffers from this turmoil. Since it has sided with the Assad regime, it has gone from being wildly popular to widely hated by the Syrian people. Hamas, which has sided against the Syrian regime and in favor of its Muslim Brotherhood comrades, has thus lost Syrian patronage. Finally, Syria’s aggressive behavior has opened a rift between that country and Turkey’s government, which has been increasingly acting like an ally of the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE this is no ideal situation, Israel can be considered to have benefitted from this aspect of the “Arab spring.” From Israel’s standpoint, the relative stability in Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a plus, since these countries are unlikely to be transformed into radical Islamist states under a government linked to al-Qaida, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. The turmoil in Bahrain, Yemen and Tunisia is of relatively little strategic significance to Israel.

Generally there can be a hope that democracy and domestic development will become a higher priority than fighting Israel, thus easing the pressure on Israel, or at least preoccupying Arabs and Muslims for a while. Clearly, merely calling dissidents Zionist agents and hoping to unite the people around an anti-Israel platform no longer works for incumbent governments.

In time, this strategy might work for replacing Islamist governments, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Moreover, American weakness and the Obama administration’s cooler view toward Israel is worrisome. So is the possibility that things might be moving in a way to strengthen Iran.

IF ONE looks at the southern front, though, it is harder to find a silver lining. Egypt is likely to elect a radical government more hostile than anything Israel has faced there since about 1974. The future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is gloomy.

Peace between Israel and the Arab world’s most populous country cannot be taken for granted.

There is also the problem of the Egypt-Hamas relationship. Egypt is likely to see itself as Hamas’s ally and patron. In a future Hamas-led conflict with Israel, Egypt could take the side of the Palestinian Islamists, and will certainly help them. The long-quiet southern front now has to be treated as a very possible war zone.

This is the basic way things look for Israeli strategists.

One can stress better- or worse-case scenarios and different parts of the challenge, but there is a general consensus on the fundamental challenges – and on whether they will be met successfully.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.     

The Myth That the Mainstream Media Helps Us Understand The World

By Barry Rubin

People ask me why I write so much and I explain that I don’t want to do so but keep coming across such important events, missed stories, and outrageous nonsense that I feel compelled to say something. So it is in this case.

Here’s the problem: a remarkable amount of what's written on the Middle East in the mass media—and certainly the efforts to analyze it as opposed to reporting events—is nonsensical. It makes the region harder to understand. It misleads the reader.

An example is Anatol Lieven, “5 Myths about Pakistan,” Washington Post, June 5, 2011. Lieven is a professor at Kings College London and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has just written a book on Pakistan.

One of the techniques often employed in the creation of the Fantasy Middle East is to misstate totally the issues at stake. Note the use of that technique in Lieven's article.

Alleged Myth One: Pakistan is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.”

Pakistan, he writes, just follows its own interests. Sometimes it’s helpful and sometimes it isn’t. Fair enough, that’s what allies generally do. But the policy question is: whether Pakistan is helpful often enough to merit being treated like an ally and given huge amounts of aid. The answer is”no.” Neither the question nor the answer is addressed.

Incidentally, it’s pretty outrageous that Lieven suggests that Pakistan supports the Taliban because India is inciting other groups in Afghanistan to seize power. Yet since Pakistan’s policy has been the same for 30 years--it has long supported radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan--how can India be to blame for relatively recent policies? To bash India for Pakistan's behavior in Afghanistan is absurd.

If a country supports to a major degree the two groups that attacked America on September 11—the Taliban and al-Qaida—plus is a major sponsor of terrorism against India, the answer to question 1 isn’t “Sometimes” but "Definitely not!"

Alleged Myth 2: ”Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban.”

Again, Lieven turns this into a “straw man” argument. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, he says. But the real answer is "yes," if one is talking about the Afghan Taliban, which is what the United States is mainly concerned about! It is only an enemy of the [Pakistani] Taliban that tries to take over Pakistan. So, again, Pakistan IS an ally of the [Afghan] Taliban, the group--along with al-Qaida--that the United States gives it billions of dollars to fight against!

Alleged Myth 3: “Islamist revolution is coming to Pakistan.”

Why is this a myth? Because, says Lieven, less than one-fifth of Pakistanis view the Taliban favorably in a poll. As if, that’s the only Islamist group! He cites one Pew poll number but other polls and other questions show a remarkably high level of support for Islamism among Pakistanis. Putting such a spin on one item and leaving out others verges, to put it politely, on deliberate dishonesty.

Indeed, a recent Pew poll shows that Pakistanis support Islamism by a whopping 47 to 15 percent margin. Thus, this argument that Pakistanis don't want Islamism is a total myth. That's why Lieven misrepresents the issue to "prove" that Pakistanis don't want the Taliban's specific brand of Islamism.

I'm not saying that Pakistan will have a radical Islamist revolution. But it is certainly possible. If Turkey and Egypt can become Islamist, surely Pakistan could do so.

Alleged Myth 4 “Massive U.S. aid lets Washington dictate Pakistani policy.”

This one really made me angry. Nobody seriously argues such a thing. The real issue is whether the large amount of aid and support the United States gives Pakistan provides some American leverage to get Pakistan to do things that the United States wants and needs to be done. If this aid does no good at all then it shouldn’t be given in the first place.

The correct formulation is: Does giving Pakistan massive aid provide Washington with any ability at all to have the slightest effect on Pakistani policy.” If billions of dollars cannot even get them to help find Usama bin Laden what good are they?

Alleged Myth 5 “Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the front in the war on terrorism.”

The front? I don’t know anyone who says this either. That's just a phony issue. The real question is: Does Pakistan provide really positive aid in fighting terrorism or not? But if one frames the question in that way the answer is not likely to be in the affirmative, which is presumably why this question isn't asked.

So what’s the bottom line? The author writes what he's been setting up for that entire misleading essay:

“None of this means that the United States should pursue more aggressive policies against Pakistan to win the war on terrorism….Any U.S. action that endangered the stability of the Pakistani government would be insane.”

In other words, U.S. policy is just fine and there's no need to change anything. Who cares if they support the Taliban, hide al-Qaida leaders, and launch terrorist attacks on India? Just keep sending them money and keep giving them support.

Precisely the same argument has and will be used to rationalize such things as:

U.S. aid and support to the Palestinian Authority (even if it refuses to negotiate or make peace and brings Hamas into the government);

Turkey (despite its regime's growing support for Iran,

Syria (the regime supposedly wants to reform itself and you can't expect it to abandon the alliance with Iran so who cares if they shoot down thousands of unarmed citizens and help terrorist groups along with opposing U.S. policies and interests);

Lebanon (even if Hizballah will be in the government and the country is dominated by Syria and Iran);

and no doubt soon Egypt (with a radical nationalist-Islamist regime that will be against the United States.

You can easily adjust the five "myths" to suit each circumstance. Indeed, if Iran's leaders didn't keep "stubbornly" refusing to make some phony deal on their nuclear program the Obama administration and many "experts" would no doubt be advocating the same ideas about Iran, too.

Why was that article written? Like so many, to turn something obvious through "sophistication" into a brain-dead conclusion. Let's state it briefly to make the point stand out:

High-ranking elements in Pakistan have just got caught hiding Usama bin Ladin, the world's number-one wanted terrorist who killed 3000 Americans on September 11and have repeatedly been caught helping bin Ladin's enablers, the Afghan Taliban, and terrorists murdering people in India. No apology, no investigation, no change of policy by Pakistan.

The expert recommendation? U.S. policy toward Pakistan shouldn't change at all.

This is the foolishness dressed up with deception and double-talk that so often substitutes for serious debate in America's mass media today.

I would call the kind of article I'm analyzing here not only “misinformation” but ”anti-information.” In other words, the person reading it would be worse informed afterward than they were beforehand!

And the same goes for much—most? Almost all?—of the material of this nature in the mass media. Not only do we face this propaganda barrage but contrary opinions are generally  barred from mass media publication or broadcast altogether.

What I've done with this article and others can be done with many of the items on the Middle East that appear daily in prestigious publications. It's not just about getting details wrong, it's about total misdirection. A few minutes of serious analysis can totally demolish what they are saying while exposing their hidden (wrong) assumptions.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.