The Middle East Mess ... Alan Caruba

 

The Middle East Mess

By Alan Caruba

*********************************
Anyone such as myself who lived through the long years of the Vietnam quagmire knows that the United States is repeating the same errors in the Middle East that we did with that nation. We seem incapable of recognizing a civil war when we see one and incapable of not inserting ourselves in the midst of it.

I speak specifically of Libya and the inchoate decisions and measures taken by the Obama administration. To suggest that the present White House and State Department have a Middle East “policy” is to vastly overstate and misunderstand their ignorance of that region of the world and the forces at work within it.

The United States has been militarily involved in Afghanistan since 2001, shortly after 9/11. What should have been a short sortie to inflict punishment on the al Qaeda and the Taliban has turned into a classic “quagmire”. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 reflects this as well.

Like many, I thought that the application of U.S. military intervention would somehow drag the Middle East into the 21st century, but clearly the region remains subject to the seventh century religion of Islam and its schism between the majority Sunnis and the minority Shiites. Islam, plus a tribalism that reaches back millennia, renders the Middle East intractable to the West’s efforts.

Billions have been squandered in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the real enemy, Iran, has been allowed to go unscathed in its pursuit of regional hegemony and its pursuit of nuclear parity with its “neighbors”, Pakistan, India, and Russia.

As this is written, Saudi Arabia has concluded that the United States will take no action to stop the Iranian nuclear program and is seeking to pull together a Gulf State coalition to end the expansionist ambitions of the Iranian ayatollahs. The Saudis have also consulted with Israel.

Forty years seems to be the limit that Middle Eastern populations will tolerate the various despots that have controlled Islamic nations. In Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria those in charge have found themselves under siege and, in some cases, removed.

In two cases, Libya and Egypt, the Obama administration has openly sided with the rebels. At the same time, it has incomprehensibly offered a weak defense of Syria’s dictator, Bashar el-Assad, Iran’s strongest ally in the region. Sensing a shift in power, even Egypt’s new ruling body has reached out to Iran to thaw decades of antipathy.

The only consistent Middle Eastern policy of the Obama administration has been its hostility to Israel, the region’s only democracy and America’s traditional ally since its founding just over sixty years ago. For all the caterwauling about the Palestinians, they have long since been abandoned by the Arab nations and are now well within the Iranian orbit of influence and support.

The Palestinians could have had a separate state decades ago but have always pursued an all-or-nothing policy aimed at the destruction of Israel. It is widely believed that they will initiate a new war as Iran’s proxies, from Lebanon in the north and Gaza in the south.

The Palestinians, in fact, have a sovereign nation. It is called Jordan which lost the West Bank, part of ancient Israel, to modern Israel after attacking it in 1947-48 and 1967.

Iraq has made it clear to the United States that it wants to see American troops withdrawn as agreed by the end of the year. Its Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki recently ordered an attack on Camp Ashraf, home to 3,500 Iranian dissidents for the past twenty-six years. That should tell even the casual observer that Iraq is now in the Iranian orbit. This is true as well of Lebanon, first occupied by Syria for decades and now in the grip of the Palestinian Hezbollah.

As to the Iranian people, the Obama administration made it clear they have been abandoned after protests against Mamoud Ahmadinejad’s stolen election last year received no support whatever by a U.S.

America has severely weakened itself since 9/11 with ill-advised military excursions that, like the Vietnam debacle, have proven costly in treasure and lives sacrificed in an area that is resentful of our unwanted incursions, coupled with our addled “nation building” schemes.

There is a massive realignment occurring as the result of the popular uprisings against despots across the North African Maghreb and the heart of Middle Eastern nations, several of which were the artificial creations of Western interests. Resentments against the tyrannies of former despots will likely give way to new despots, not democratic reform.

There is no end to the resentment against America and the West.

Lacking any kind of cohesive policy toward Arab nations except for the oil they provide, the only sensible policy America should pursue would be to drill for our own extensive oil reserves to prevent a severe shock to our economy and security. So long as Obama is President, this will not happen.

There is no perceivable policy in place to stand against Iran and has not been since the Carter administration abandoned the Pahlavi regime in 1979. The fall of Tunisia’s Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, Egypt’s Mubarack, Syria’s Assad, and the resistance to Gadhafi, along with unrest in Yemen and Bahrain will be seen, in retrospect, as inevitable.

What remains is a Maghreb and Middle East in a volatile struggle to determine whether it returns to an Islamism reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire or an enlightened embrace of Western values.

There is little reason to hope for a good outcome.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
***************************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

A War with Iran is Inevitable ... Alan Caruba

A War with Iran is Inevitable

By Alan Caruba

If the U.S. and allies had known that Nazi Germany would embark on the genocide of six million Jews in Europe, along with five million others that included gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents, is there any doubt they would have taken preemptive measures to stop the Holocaust?

What we know about the Iranian regime is that it is led by Shiite fanatics that believe that the only way the mythical Twelfth Imam can return is for the earth to be in a state of complete chaos and anarchy. Almost from the beginning, following the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the regime has engaged in an effort to achieve nuclear weapons. Their use against Israel is a certainty, but they would also be targeted against Europe.

Thus, when Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) recently called for war with Iran, I assumed he has some information I do not. Sen. Graham said, “I think we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies.”

In the 1980s, Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq. It ended in a stalemate, a million casualties, and the need to rebuild from scratch what was left of its military. Iran is located in one of the nastiest neighborhoods of planet Earth. It shares borders with Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan. The Gulf States deeply distrust Iran’s nuclear and other hegemonic ambitions. The Saudis and the Egyptians recently conducted joint military maneuvers for that reason.

Internally, it faces a growing opposition from its mostly young citizens to the rule of the Supreme Ayatollah, Mamoud Ahmadinejad, and others who support the dictatorship that passes for a government there. Given time and covert assistance, one assumes they might prevail, but the real question is whether the world has the time?

Iran’s economy is in a state of collapse. As recently as November 9th there was a report of the arrest of four prominent Iranian student activists and others in anticipation of a government plan to phase out basic food and fuel subsidies. “The government is bracing for social unrest,” said one report.

If Iran’s leadership were rational, the last thing they need at this point is a war. They are not and their openly expressed hatred for Israel gives every indication of that. As the primary source of funding for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza strip, Iran would seem to favor having its proxies take over Lebanon by force and to wage a new war on Israel. This would take some attention and pressure off of Iran as it works its will behind the scenes. The Department of Defense and the CIA have war-gamed various plans against Iran over the years and the feedback was that neither liked the outcome because they always included the problem of an uncontrollable escalation. As a point of reference, we put too few troops into Iraq in the 2003 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime and, while Baghdad quickly fell, the result became a long, unpopular war.

This raises the question of why, before leaving for his Asia trip on November 6, President Obama, according to Debka File, ordered the Pentagon “not just to beef up American and NATO military pressure on Iran, but to do so as conspicuously as possible.” There are three aircraft carriers, four nuclear submarines, and marine assault units in the vicinity of Iranian shores as this is being written. This suggests that U.S. intelligence has picked up some disturbing signs or that the Obama administration simply wants to send a message to Iran that any trouble-making in the Middle East would be unwise.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham called for “sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force, and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guards.” We can do that any time we want. What is the Senator not sharing with us that increases the urgency of such action now?

The problem Iran poses ultimately comes down to choking off the Straits of Harmuz through which flow millions of barrels of oil to the West. That would be a very destabilizing event and not permissible to the U.S., NATO nations, and others. If, however, Iran’s goal is to create world chaos, nuclear-tipped missiles would be the best way to achieve it.

As with so many geopolitical and military options, there are few good choices, but much of Iran’s bellicosity likely comes from its internal situation which, as we have seen, is an increasing threat to its regime. A show of force is a good idea. The use of it before Iran goes nuclear is even better.

© Alan Caruba, 2010
*******************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Faisal Shahzad Warns America ... Alan Caruba

Faisal Shahzad Warns America
By Alan Caruba

Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison on October 6th for trying to kill a lot of innocent Americans in Times Square on May 1, 2010. He was completely unrepentant and we need to understand the funhouse-mirror mentality of Muslims who believe that Allah, through the Koran, has granted them, not just the right, but the duty to kill infidels who offer any defense against their outrages.

There is no question that the U.S. has had to be active militarily in the Middle East ever since the former Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait on President George H.W. Bush’s watch.

The former director of the CIA, ambassador to China, and then leader of the free world understood that, if no action was taken, Saddam would be into Saudi Arabia next. Saddam had previously spent eight fruitless years in a war with Iran. It is one of history’s ironies that his son, George W. Bush was president on September 11, 2001 when the homeland was attacked by Muslim terrorists.

According to Iran’s president, Mamoud Ahmadinejad, and most of the people in the Middle East, 9/11 was an “inside job”, staged by the CIA or even the White House for the sole purpose of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq. You have to be able to believe the unbelievable to be a Muslim and the more absurd the better.

That’s the background to the story of Shahzad who was born in Pakistan in 1979 and, on December 22, 1998, was issued a student visa in Islamabad to come to America. In a stunning article by Jessica Vaughan, “Faisal Shahzad: So Easy, Anyone Can Do It”, the author spells out why America, before and ever since 9/11, has been allowing Middle Easterners to come here and plot to kill us.

Vaughan, a former U.S. consulate officer who dealt with the issuance and denial of visas, spelled out why Shahzad was a poor candidate for the bounties America would bestow upon him. To begin with, he failed to demonstrate that he had the academic qualifications to study here.

“He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, show a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F in basic statistics.” Moreover, there has been no information released regarding how Shahzad claimed he would pay for his education, “another common deal-buster for student visa application.”

Vaughn speculates that since Shahzad’s father was “supposedly a prominent military officer” the consulate did not want to deal with his or his government’s complaints if his son was refused a visa. Oddly, the visa was for four years when two would have sufficed for him to complete his degree requirements.

What emerged was a pattern of behavior that should have gotten Shahzad on the next plane home to Pakistan, but did not. In 2001 he began working for a temporary staffing agency even though his student visa did not include permission to work. A year later he was issued a H-1B visa. This particular visa is intended to bring in the best and the brightest to work here, not some middling, ordinary worker.

For reasons unknown, in 2004, Shahzad came under the scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. Despite this, his U.S. born wife filed a green card petition for him and it was approved in January 2006 even though the marriage was quite sudden, a red flag as some foreigners marry to establish grounds to stay.

Vaughn notes that “the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen.” In October 2008, Shahzad applied for U.S. citizenship. The fact that most immigrants wait six to ten years before applying didn’t raise any suspicions seven years after 9/11. And this one was from Pakistan, a hotbed of jihadist activity.

The U.S. is in a virtual state of war with Pakistan. It is blocking a major supply route to ours and NATO troops in Afghanistan and it is harboring the Taliban. It is a nuclear state so the stakes are quite high.

On April 17, 2009 Shahzad was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. In the vast bureaucracy of the immigration process, the fact that he had earlier aroused some suspicion was lost.

After that, it gets very dicey. On June 2, 2009, Shahzad left for Pakistan and did not return until February 3, 2010. Three months later, he attempted to kill Americans in Times Square.

At his sentencing, he told the court, “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow. We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land, but if you call us terrorists, then we are proud terrorists and we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace.”

This does not, of course, explain why Muslims have been committing acts of terror worldwide in London, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in Bali, and everywhere else they seize the opportunity to use terror to advance their ultimate goal of global domination. Claiming to be victims is bizarre.

Every step of the way, the U.S. made it easy for Shahzad to betray a nation that offered him an opportunity that countless thousands around the world want; the chance to become an American.
We need to pay attention to the warning Shahzad gave us. Somewhere in the huge bureaucracy of our immigration, our homeland security, and our intelligence services, those issuing visas and those charged with protecting us need to make it far more difficult to permit anyone from the Middle East to arrive, to blend in, and to plot the next terrorist act.

We are all just that much more vulnerable because in 2008 we elected a president who has made it clear that one of his objectives is to “reach out” to the Middle East in order to convince Muslims we are their friends. They are not our friends, nor even friends to one another.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Obama Continues to Appease Iran

Appeasing Iran

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If the President of the US sits down, in a face to face meeting with the President of Iran, and discusses Iran’s attempt to develop an Atomic Bomb, discusses Iran’s meddling in Iraq… including the training and supplying of insurgents in Iraq who are killing America military personnel, discusses Iran’s declared intention of wiping Israel from the map, discusses Iran’s threatening of shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, discusses Iran’s arming and training of terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon and sundry other places around the globe, … would that be appeasement ?

Of COURSE it would be appeasement! Why? Because… it would raise Iran’s President up to the level of the US President in perceived prestige and power around the world (I mean, of course, the “OFFICE” of the President). Plus, it would embolden the terrorist organizations that would read it as “bringing the US to heel”.

There is nothing to discuss with Iran. We have demands to make, but there is nothing to discuss.

Look, Iran is skating on very thin ice. Their arrogance is either covering for their stupidity, or a national death wish. Either way the life of their country is in the balance.

Iran is setting itself up for a preemptory military strike by Israel… or the United States, or (most likely), both.

The fact that the US has been fighting a ground war against Iran, for many months now, is not lost on the intelligence communities of Israel, Great Britain and the United States. Although it has not been spoken of by the press in the US, to any great degree, the British press printed the facts about the 12,000 man Iranian force which flooded across the Iraq/Iran border shortly after the US and British Invasion of Iraq. It is certainly a contributing factor in the continuing battle to knock down the so-called “Insurgency” within Iraq.

The plain fact is, folks, we are fighting Iran on the ground, and all over the world right now. If the troops we are fighting against aren’t Iranian in blood, then they are Iranian by proxy.

Iran has a huge bulls eye painted on her today. If the people of Iran do not rise up and overthrow the mullahs and the Imams and whoever is running that pitiful excuse for a country then they can expect to be attacked by outside forces and their regime changed by force. Iran’s hand is raised toward every man and every man’s hand is raised toward Iran.

Iran’s leadership continues to boast of going after Israel. It is the worst mistake they could possibly make.

Israel has a first, and second, strike nuclear capability. She has nuclear-armed subs, at sea, as a back up to her ground based nuclear arsenal. If attacked, she will certainly strike back and… she has the capability to take out the entire metropolitan population of Iran a number of times over.

For many years, now, Israel has warned that she will use her nuclear option rather than be the recipients of another holocaust. Israel is not just whistling Dixie. She will do it as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

Iran finds a democratic Iraq unacceptable as a neighbor. Therefore, they intend to do, and are doing, anything within their power to cripple all efforts to establish such a government in Iraq. In the meantime, their effort to create a nuclear bomb, missiles, etc, is on track and is due to be realized well before the ten years our misled intelligence services led themselves to believe several years ago.

All of this we know. And some in our government want to negotiate??? Some of our presidential candidates want to TALK to Iran? At this point, talking is nothing more than a sign of weakness. On the other hand, if Iran wishes to send an emissary, through back channels, to talk to OUR people in search of a way to save their own behinds, well, that is a different story. We might entertain an offer from Iran to lay down here arms, remove her troops from Iraq, back away from the Straits of Hormuz, stop threatening the free flow of oil from the Middle East, cut off funding and supplying terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon and the other trouble spots around the globe, and basically, behaving themselves… then, we might be open to listening.

But, as long as Iran’s mad mullahs and hallucinating henchmen continue to prance and preen, shine their shields and rattle their sabers, any attempt, on the part of the US (or any other nation at which their vitriol is directed) to talk with them is viewed as appeasement… and rightly so.

Since the beginning of warfare between tribes there has always been those who want to try talking to the enemy tribe in an attempt avoiding open combat. They are, inevitably, the weakest members of the threatened tribe. Unfortunately, it is their protestations that “peace at any price” has cost more lives, in the long run, than would have been lost had the battle begun immediately and ended quickly with one tribe, or the other, wining decisively.

Appeasement does two things: It demonstrates the appeasing side’s weakness and fear and it allows the threatening side to grow stronger and bolder and even more determined to put the pip-squeak nation, begging for peace out of it’s misery.

Even inferring that one might talk to Iran, if one were in a position of power from which to do so, does the nation a disservice. It demonstrates the naiveté, the inexperience, and the lack of security in one’s ability to lead a nation of free people who went to war against a world superpower to gain their freedom and have fought ever since to maintain their freedom.

A great nation does not negotiate peace with another nation threatening war against it. A great nation swats the offending nation, as one would a fly, then dictates the terms of peace to THEM. Great leaders understand that. “Pretenders to Greatness” have never understood that. History records great nations and great leaders. Pretenders to greatness MAY gain mention in the footnotes of history.

So, as our diplomatic elite urge appeasement of Iran by “talking” understand they are not representative of the vast majority of the American people who had much rather act as men, standing on their feet in defense of their nation, than as weaklings on their knees, exposing their necks to the sword of the enemy.

Courage begets greatness. Fear begets timidity. Timidity gives birth to acts of appeasement. There is no place for timidity in the Office of the President of the United States.

J. D. Longstreet