Well, that was depressing. Seriously. How, after the worst first term of any President ever, could Obama have won a second term? Well, despite constant talk all day of "the longest lines we've ever seen" at polling locations, it turns out that the number of people who actually voted were at historic lows, much lower than the number of people who voted in 2008. What's done is done, and whining won't change what happened. Instead of asking why people didn't show up or what Romney could have done differently (or if rampant corruption screwed up the system so thoroughly the truth will be lost in the mist), I will instead be looking forward. It's not a pretty picture, but it's one we must all face if we are to move on to better days.
For those of us in the United States, the future isn't rosy. Even if Romney had won in a landslide, the nation's debt, entitlement problems, and foreign relations would have made the next four years difficult at best. But instead we have more Obama (Mo-bama?) and, instead of putting our political will into stemming the tide of potential disasters the Democrats will be doubling down. Now they are free to do whatever they please without needing to worry about petty things like what the American people think about them. That may seem politically short-sighted (Obama will not be the last Democrat to run for President. Probably. Maybe. Actually, I'll get back to you on that), but the thinking goes that if the administration can push through enough legislation, regulation, and appointments to the Supreme Court it will ensure that any future administrations will be forced to play inside a sandbox the Left controls. Fortunately, the Republicans held control of the House of Representatives, so we will not see a total repeat of the 2008-2010 time frame when Washington was a one-party town. I urgently pray that it will be enough to slow the bleeding before the nation goes into a shock from which we may never recover.
For our friends who live outside the United States, please remember one thing: the President is not the people of this country. Obama has said that a second term would give him more "flexibility" on foreign policy matters (to the Russian government. Not exactly our best friends in the world. Heck, not even our best friends in Russia), though what exactly what that will mean remains unclear for the time being. Even if our President abandons you, know that you still have friends here. But I want to warn you that the days when the United States would come in to save the day may have passed into the history books. The world is growing darker by the hour, and the unfortunate truth is that many of you will have to stand and fight for freedom without our support.
Finally, I want to make one thing clear. God Almighty is not asleep at the wheel. No matter how dark things will get, no matter how much blood is shed, the Creator of the universe is still in control. He will not give anyone a burden they cannot handle. Remember this simple fact and do not fall into despair.
The Middle East is on fire. The Caliphate is re-emerging. The economy is on the verge of collapse. Old hatreds are rising anew. Monsters though long banished are creeping back onto the world stage as eager for blood as ever. But remember this: when monsters arise, so do heroes. It is up to each of us to determine which path we will choose.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Thanks For Your Patience
Thank you all for your patience. I have been forced to deal with a myriad of other matters, and my posting has suffered as a result. But there will be a post-election (for those of us in the States) post on Wednesday and, hopefully, next weekend I will be back to my usual schedule. Again, thank you for being patient with me over the past month or so.
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Better Dead than Dhimmi!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Remembrance and Rage on 9/11
Tuesday was the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It was a solemn day for America and our allies, a day to remember boundless courage and sacrifice as well honor the victims and their families. Elsewhere in the world, however, Tuesday was the day of massive anti-American protests across the Middle East. In the midst of America's most solemn day of remembrance, ruthless animals in Cairo climbed the walls of the American embassy and tore down the American flag, replacing it with the black flag of al-Qaeda. The protesters claimed that it was in response to a film which defamed Mohammed (right, and the al-Qaeda flag on the anniversary of al-Qaeda's greatest triumph was just a coincidence). During the (completely illegal) assault upon sovereign U.S. soil by the same crazed Islamist mobs the Obama administration helped put in charge of the country, the State Department just could not apologize fast enough to the lunatics ripping the Stars and Stripes into thin strips of cloth. The Cairo embassy staff tweeted a condemnation of "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" while those same poor, sweet Muslims were committing an act of war against the United States. Granted, once word of that degrading act got out to the concerned (read "voting") public, the administration quickly slapped on the old cowboy boots and... kind of, sort of walked back the apology. But recent statement from Hillary Clinton walked back that walk-back, condemning the movie and praising Islam as a great religion that is, like, deep and thoughtful and stuff. The State Department has also come under fire for reportedly ordering the Marine guards to carry weapons without ammunition in them, a charge that the Pentagon has denied. However, the State Department has remained silent on the matter.
But as bad as the events in Cairo were, they were nothing compared to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. The embassy staff in Cairo knew that something was coming and were evacuated shortly before the riots began. The consulate in Benghazi was not so lucky. While the mob in Cairo destroyed government property and trespassed on American soil, the assault in Libya had far more devastating results. During protests that echoed those in Cairo, a heavily armed mob laid siege to and then stormed the United States Consulate. In the course of the evening the mob murdered four American citizens, including the Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information manager Sean Smith, and two Marines (possibly part of the ambassador's security detail) who attempted to break the siege but found themselves vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Intelligence experts are highly suspicious of the timing of the attack as Stevens, who is based out of Libya and not Benghazi, should not have been at the consulate at a time when serious riots were expected. What makes it even worse is that virtually no extra security was in place at the "interim facility" that was housing the consulate for the ambassador's visit, which is particularly unusual considering that the consulate did not actually have any Marine guards on staff and was instead relying upon the kindness of strangers, whoops, I mean Libyan security officers (who, according to reports, promptly told the violent mob exactly where the ambassador was hiding). Originally, it was believed that the ambassador had died as a result of the rocket blast that leveled the main building in the embassy compound. Unfortunately, it now appears that the ambassador did not go out so mercifully and may have even been raped before he suffocated to death. I truly hope that this was not the case.
In the days since, the threat of violence has spread even further. Protesters in Yemen stormed the U.S. Embassy on Thursday, burning cars and smashing windows while chanting, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." The U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria (the least creative name combination since New York, New York, which I actually think is a more recent city) has warned all American citizens to avoid non-essential travel as protests take root across North Africa. A Shia group in Iraq (that is all but certainly backed by the Iranian government) has threatened American interests in the region as retribution for supposedly defaming Mohammed. The protests even reached Indonesia as a group named "Sharia for Indonesia" demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta with signs that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. How charming.
Despite the destruction of property and the loss of life, perhaps the most dangerous aim of these attacks was to prohibit the exercise of free speech, especially when it comes to criticizing Islam. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that it is America needs to do a better job of defending Islam's honor. "It isn't a matter of freedom of speech," Mahmoud Gozlan said. "It's a matter of a holy Islamic symbol." Oh, well, if it's a matter of protecting symbols, how about the Egyptian government apologize to America for defaming the holiest symbol we have: our flag. Of course, this event is not the first time that Islamists have excused horrific actions using the good ol' fashioned rapist's excuse of, "She was asking for it." But this was different, with our attackers operating from a greater position of power than they had ever previously known. Now that they have power, the Islamists are focused on one goal: to make the act of "slandering" Islam illegal on an international level. Tuesday's attacks were particularly severe, especially considering the attacks were carried out by the same people that the U.S. helped in their struggle for "democracy." When al-Qaeda struck the U.S. eleven years ago, the media couldn't shut up about how America had "created" Osama bin Laden by training him, his followers, and the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. Never mind that it actually wasn't true, and that bin Laden and the Taliban both stemmed from the Pakistani ISI and not the CIA, but where is that sort of outcry and "we caused this" attitude when the perpetrators went from ally to murderer within the space of a year?
Finally, I have to say that the media's manipulation of the coverage has been nothing less than disgusting. Instead of demanding answers from the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department (aka, the guys who ignored the threats, failed to put adequate security in place, and then scrambled to lick the boots of the monsters who killed Americans on sovereign U.S. soil), the American media has pounced at the throat of Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." And the media have hammered Romney for those statements. Here is just a brief run-down on the articles a quick Google search for "Romney embassy attacks" brought up (I'd link to the sites, but frankly I don't want to give them traffic. Feel free to search for yourself, though): "FactCheck: Romney gets it backward on embassy attacks," "Foreign Policy Hands Rip Romney's Cairo Statement" (from the always fair Huffington Post), "Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980," then we go to, "Embassy politics: the eerie similarities between 1980 and 2012," and finally the piece-of-crap de resistance "The Mohammed movie and the embassy attacks: Romney betrays free speech" which actually says that the rioting, murdering Islamists are protecting free speech by limiting it, or some crap. When you look at the headlines, some truly eerie similarities emerge, with different authors sometimes using the same supposedly "catchy" phrase word-for-word (yes, I know that happens sometimes, but I'm going somewhere with this). All of this anger and animosity toward Romney makes a lot of sense in light of a "hot mic" moment caught on tape at Romney's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were recorded coordinating questions to focus on Romney's "tone" and then the follow-up questions based on that line of reasoning. The thinking by the media was to control the course of the press conference and put Romney on the defensive from the beginning, no matter who he called on to ask a question. To be fair, this happens quite often, according to experts, but it also goes to show that the mainstream media have simply become conformist lapdogs to the administration instead of honest, bold journalists willing to break from the pack to get the scoop.
But as bad as the events in Cairo were, they were nothing compared to what happened in Benghazi, Libya. The embassy staff in Cairo knew that something was coming and were evacuated shortly before the riots began. The consulate in Benghazi was not so lucky. While the mob in Cairo destroyed government property and trespassed on American soil, the assault in Libya had far more devastating results. During protests that echoed those in Cairo, a heavily armed mob laid siege to and then stormed the United States Consulate. In the course of the evening the mob murdered four American citizens, including the Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information manager Sean Smith, and two Marines (possibly part of the ambassador's security detail) who attempted to break the siege but found themselves vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Intelligence experts are highly suspicious of the timing of the attack as Stevens, who is based out of Libya and not Benghazi, should not have been at the consulate at a time when serious riots were expected. What makes it even worse is that virtually no extra security was in place at the "interim facility" that was housing the consulate for the ambassador's visit, which is particularly unusual considering that the consulate did not actually have any Marine guards on staff and was instead relying upon the kindness of strangers, whoops, I mean Libyan security officers (who, according to reports, promptly told the violent mob exactly where the ambassador was hiding). Originally, it was believed that the ambassador had died as a result of the rocket blast that leveled the main building in the embassy compound. Unfortunately, it now appears that the ambassador did not go out so mercifully and may have even been raped before he suffocated to death. I truly hope that this was not the case.
In the days since, the threat of violence has spread even further. Protesters in Yemen stormed the U.S. Embassy on Thursday, burning cars and smashing windows while chanting, "We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God." The U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria (the least creative name combination since New York, New York, which I actually think is a more recent city) has warned all American citizens to avoid non-essential travel as protests take root across North Africa. A Shia group in Iraq (that is all but certainly backed by the Iranian government) has threatened American interests in the region as retribution for supposedly defaming Mohammed. The protests even reached Indonesia as a group named "Sharia for Indonesia" demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta with signs that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. How charming.
Despite the destruction of property and the loss of life, perhaps the most dangerous aim of these attacks was to prohibit the exercise of free speech, especially when it comes to criticizing Islam. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that it is America needs to do a better job of defending Islam's honor. "It isn't a matter of freedom of speech," Mahmoud Gozlan said. "It's a matter of a holy Islamic symbol." Oh, well, if it's a matter of protecting symbols, how about the Egyptian government apologize to America for defaming the holiest symbol we have: our flag. Of course, this event is not the first time that Islamists have excused horrific actions using the good ol' fashioned rapist's excuse of, "She was asking for it." But this was different, with our attackers operating from a greater position of power than they had ever previously known. Now that they have power, the Islamists are focused on one goal: to make the act of "slandering" Islam illegal on an international level. Tuesday's attacks were particularly severe, especially considering the attacks were carried out by the same people that the U.S. helped in their struggle for "democracy." When al-Qaeda struck the U.S. eleven years ago, the media couldn't shut up about how America had "created" Osama bin Laden by training him, his followers, and the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. Never mind that it actually wasn't true, and that bin Laden and the Taliban both stemmed from the Pakistani ISI and not the CIA, but where is that sort of outcry and "we caused this" attitude when the perpetrators went from ally to murderer within the space of a year?
Finally, I have to say that the media's manipulation of the coverage has been nothing less than disgusting. Instead of demanding answers from the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department (aka, the guys who ignored the threats, failed to put adequate security in place, and then scrambled to lick the boots of the monsters who killed Americans on sovereign U.S. soil), the American media has pounced at the throat of Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Romney said, "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." And the media have hammered Romney for those statements. Here is just a brief run-down on the articles a quick Google search for "Romney embassy attacks" brought up (I'd link to the sites, but frankly I don't want to give them traffic. Feel free to search for yourself, though): "FactCheck: Romney gets it backward on embassy attacks," "Foreign Policy Hands Rip Romney's Cairo Statement" (from the always fair Huffington Post), "Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980," then we go to, "Embassy politics: the eerie similarities between 1980 and 2012," and finally the piece-of-crap de resistance "The Mohammed movie and the embassy attacks: Romney betrays free speech" which actually says that the rioting, murdering Islamists are protecting free speech by limiting it, or some crap. When you look at the headlines, some truly eerie similarities emerge, with different authors sometimes using the same supposedly "catchy" phrase word-for-word (yes, I know that happens sometimes, but I'm going somewhere with this). All of this anger and animosity toward Romney makes a lot of sense in light of a "hot mic" moment caught on tape at Romney's press conference on Wednesday when reporters were recorded coordinating questions to focus on Romney's "tone" and then the follow-up questions based on that line of reasoning. The thinking by the media was to control the course of the press conference and put Romney on the defensive from the beginning, no matter who he called on to ask a question. To be fair, this happens quite often, according to experts, but it also goes to show that the mainstream media have simply become conformist lapdogs to the administration instead of honest, bold journalists willing to break from the pack to get the scoop.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Haqqani Network
The Obama administration has made it very clear that they intend to improve America's image in the Muslim world. They are doing this, of course, by not closing Guantanamo Bay, launching a record number of drone strikes, killing the most notorious Islamist in world history in the middle of Pakistan without Pakistan's permission, and making a public spectacle of the accidental Koran burnings that should have been handled discreetly (not that I have a problem with the first three). Now the administration is taking further steps to make friends in Pakistan by declaring the politically connected Haqqani network as a terrorist organization because of their continued support of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
So who exactly are the Haqqani network? Many officials in the United States government, particularly within the military, have called the Haqqani network the greatest threat to continued operations (and eventual peace) in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network, named after the influential Haqqani clan, operate out of North Waziristan in Pakistan and has thrown their impressive weight behind the Taliban. They provide a level of coordination and sophistication to the Taliban fighters that otherwise might not be possible. The Haqqanis run their own training camps for foreign fighters, secure financial support from wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf as well as money funneled from any number of legitimate (and illegitimate) businesses, engage in kidnappings and smuggling, and extort local tribal leaders to provide resources and to support the Taliban. The Haqqani network has extensive connections within the Pakistani government, especially the Pakistani army (who have refused to launch offensives into Haqqani territory even with concrete evidence of the presence of senior al-Qaeda leaders) and other security services. Pakistan also views the Haqqani network as a useful proxy to push Pakistani interests in the ever-shifting political landscape of Afghanistan. In that way, the Haqqani network could be seen as Pakistan's version of Hezbollah, taking advantage of the chaotic situation in a war-torn region (Lebanon for Hezbollah, Afghanistan for the Haqqani network) for the benefit of a nearby Islamist state. The Haqqani network has been accused of targeting Indian construction projects in Afghanistan as well as attacking NATO forces on the ground. For example, the Haqqani network has been blamed for recent suicide bombing in Kabul carried out by a young man believed to be only 14 years old.
The decision to declare the Haqqani network a distinct terrorist organization, intended to give counter-terrorism officials more authority to shut down Haqqani military operations in Afghanistan and cut off funding, was hotly debated within the administration. While counter-terrorism experts and military analysts praised the move, many officials within the State Department and the White House warned that it would make the eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan even more difficult. That is not an idle worry. According to officials, the attack in Kabul was only the opening salvo in response to the declaration (because the best way to prove that you're not a terrorist group is to organize a suicide bombing). In addition, the declaration has angered many members of the Pakistani government who have connections with the Haqqanis, further eroding an already tenuous diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. The situation within Pakistan is growing increasingly dangerous, as well. Last week a car filled with explosives crashed into a vehicle operated by the United States Consulate in Peshawar and detonated, leaving several members of the consulate staff and dozens of bystanders injured.
In the end, the debate comes down to this: should diplomatic or military options take priority in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in the Comments and by answering this week's poll.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Canada Breaks Ties With Iran
Because I missed the previous two weeks due to increased duties at work (and the weekend-long black hole that was Star Wars Celebration VI), I will be putting up a triple-header tonight and throughout this week to get back on schedule. With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let's begin.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shocked the diplomatic world when he announced that Canada was officially closing its embassy in Tehran. The reasons range from Iran's support for the mass-murder in Syria to its nuclear weapons program. Reaction to the news has been mixed. The Israelis, of course, loved the show of support (however indirect). Meanwhile, a number of former ambassadors for Canada have been highly critical of shutting down Canada's "window" into a highly unstable region. The Iranians, meanwhile, have shown that they are masters of irony by declaring the "extremist government" of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be engaged in a "radical foreign policy." Of course, the Iranians have also accused the Israelis as the masterminds of the move, encouraging Harper's government to put the interests of Jews ahead of those of Canadians (because everybody knows how vital the Canadian-Iranian relationship has been).
So, as many have asked, why evacuate embassy personnel now? Baird told reports that the primary reason for the move was to protect the diplomatic staff. That begs the question of what type of threat has the Canadian government spooked. It would not be the first time that an embassy in Tehran has experienced trouble. Last November a horde of protesters stormed the British Embassy, destroying government property and holding seven members of the diplomatic staff hostage until their uneventful release a short time later. And, of course, there was the siege of the American embassy in 1979 that saw over fifty Americans held captive for 444 days. But there have been no apparent threats of such actions against the Canadian embassy. Some regional experts, such as University of Toronto professor Ramin Jahanbegloo (winner of U of T's prestigious "coolest name" award) believe that the evacuation was a preemptive move to protect Canadian diplomats in the event of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program. If (at this point, it's more like when) the Israeli's strike, any country that has shown significant support will be targeted by Islamic terrorists with ties to Tehran. Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah, has threatened that the United States will be targeted whether it assists the Israelis strike Iran or not, in essence playing a game of political chicken that could very well blow up in his face (though, as a terrorist, it's a hazard of the job). The Canadians are in the same boat, and Prime Minister Harper's government is taking precautions to mitigate the hazards. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Obama is spending his time coming up with a story to either take credit for a successful Israeli strike or place the blame for a failed attack on the Republicans. When he's not golfing, that is. That man loves his golf.
In an unrelated (but shockingly upbeat) story out of Iran, Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been released from prison. For those of you who have not been following the story, Nadarkhani was arrested and sentenced to death for apostasy. His case sparked international outrage. It is unknown how influential the outcry was in the decision to release the pastor, but it certainly didn't hurt. While this is truly great news, there are still many Christians and others (including Muslims) who continue to languish in jails in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia for the ambiguous crime of "apostasy." But Nadarkhani's release is a step in the right direction. One down, hundreds more to go.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Iran's Connections in the Middle East
As the threat of war looms larger over the Middle East thanks to Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, the various actors in the region are beginning to pick sides. Well, to be honest, hardly anyone in the Middle East with any significant power is willing to openly back Israel. More accurately, the various actors in the region are beginning to settle on whether or not they would be involved in such a conflict. Hatred for Israel still burns brightly in the hearts of many of the Jewish nation's neighbors, but other political forces, such as the Arab Spring, are influencing the decision-making of the region's leaders.
As perhaps the poster-boy for the Arab Spring, it seems most appropriate to begin by discussing Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi is planning to attend a summit in Iran sometime this month. Since 1979, the year of both Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and Iran's Islamic Revolution, diplomatic relations between the two Muslim nations have been frosty. But Morsi apparently intends to reverse many of the policies of ousted President Hosni Mubarak which threw Egypt's political weight behind other predominantly Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Whether Morsi's decision to reach out to Shiite Iran indicates worsening relations between Egypt's new leadership and their Sunni neighbors is not yet clear, but Morsi has made several statements attempting to reassure the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Only time will tell which side Egypt will commit to joining, but the thawing relationship between Cairo and Tehran should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, it is not exactly news that the economic sanctions against Iran have accomplished something between diddly and squat. Now new reports have been released indicating that two countries, in particular, have been instrumental in providing a way for Tehran to skirt the tough sanctions leveled against the regime: Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the two countries in which the United States has been fighting for the past decade and whose governments live and die based on economic aid from Washington have betrayed American efforts to maintain order in the region. The Iraqi banking sector has done shady business with Iranian companies for years despite explicit sanctions prohibiting such activity, helping Tehran maintain a steady cash flow while smuggling oil out of Iran. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has become a popular center for Iranian currency traders looking to get rid of devalued rials in exchange for American dollars, dollars that flow freely as a result of the war and subsequent reconstruction projects paid for by American taxpayers.
On the other side of things, it appears that Hezbollah's stranglehold on Lebanon may be weakening, thanks in no small part to the Syrian civil war. An alleged plot by Syrian leadership to ignite a new civil war in Lebanon by using a campaign of targeted bombings has been discovered. This fact is not unusual given Syria's confrontational and expansionist attitude toward Lebanon, but what is surprising is that the Lebanese have made several stunning arrests, including a friend of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and indictments of two other Syrian officials. It represents a fundamental shift in Lebanese politics: Lebanon is no longer content to be the errand boys of a regime that may not be in power this time next year. Members of Hezbollah, the country's ruling party and puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, have been strangely quiet about the case. It is likely that even Hezbollah is unwilling to commit to Iran unconditionally until the situation in Syria has stabilized.
As perhaps the poster-boy for the Arab Spring, it seems most appropriate to begin by discussing Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi is planning to attend a summit in Iran sometime this month. Since 1979, the year of both Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and Iran's Islamic Revolution, diplomatic relations between the two Muslim nations have been frosty. But Morsi apparently intends to reverse many of the policies of ousted President Hosni Mubarak which threw Egypt's political weight behind other predominantly Sunni regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Whether Morsi's decision to reach out to Shiite Iran indicates worsening relations between Egypt's new leadership and their Sunni neighbors is not yet clear, but Morsi has made several statements attempting to reassure the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Only time will tell which side Egypt will commit to joining, but the thawing relationship between Cairo and Tehran should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, it is not exactly news that the economic sanctions against Iran have accomplished something between diddly and squat. Now new reports have been released indicating that two countries, in particular, have been instrumental in providing a way for Tehran to skirt the tough sanctions leveled against the regime: Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the two countries in which the United States has been fighting for the past decade and whose governments live and die based on economic aid from Washington have betrayed American efforts to maintain order in the region. The Iraqi banking sector has done shady business with Iranian companies for years despite explicit sanctions prohibiting such activity, helping Tehran maintain a steady cash flow while smuggling oil out of Iran. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has become a popular center for Iranian currency traders looking to get rid of devalued rials in exchange for American dollars, dollars that flow freely as a result of the war and subsequent reconstruction projects paid for by American taxpayers.
On the other side of things, it appears that Hezbollah's stranglehold on Lebanon may be weakening, thanks in no small part to the Syrian civil war. An alleged plot by Syrian leadership to ignite a new civil war in Lebanon by using a campaign of targeted bombings has been discovered. This fact is not unusual given Syria's confrontational and expansionist attitude toward Lebanon, but what is surprising is that the Lebanese have made several stunning arrests, including a friend of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and indictments of two other Syrian officials. It represents a fundamental shift in Lebanese politics: Lebanon is no longer content to be the errand boys of a regime that may not be in power this time next year. Members of Hezbollah, the country's ruling party and puppet of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, have been strangely quiet about the case. It is likely that even Hezbollah is unwilling to commit to Iran unconditionally until the situation in Syria has stabilized.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Ignored Plight of Egypt's Christians
Before I begin, I want to apologize for my lengthy absence. Another project popped up unexpectedly and demanded my attention throughout the past month or so. Well, I'm back and will do my best to get back to the normal schedule of posting. With that out of the way, let's begin.
As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand its influence in Egypt, the Christian minority have begun to feel the pressure. During the Mubarak years, the Coptic Christians would see occasional acts of brutality committed against them, but it was generally limited because of Mubarak's efforts to slow the growth of the Islamist movement in Egypt. Mubarak had good reason to try to retain the loyalty of the Coptic minority. Egypt's Christians are among the best educated in the country, many having reached positions of influence in politics, business, and finance. Ironically, Mubarak's successors among the military, who do much of the work of ruling the country, have been assaulting Christian communities and using the chaos to secure their power.
Recently, a nasty incident occurred in which an angry mob (is there any other kind?) of Muslims burned down the homes of Christians close to Cairo. What instigated this violence? It all started when a Muslim man accused a Coptic laundry worker of improperly ironing his shirt and leaving it singed. The next day, the Muslim man gathered up a couple dozen friends and assaulted the Christian's house. The Copt, however, must have suspected something was going to go down because he was prepared for the mob, even injuring another man with a Molotov cocktail. The day after that, over 2,000 Muslims went on a rampage, burning and looting the homes of any Christians they could find.
This is only the most recent act of violence targeting Egypt's Coptic population. Tragically, the Obama administration seems more interested in making nice with the "mostly secular" Muslim Brotherhood as it takes over key positions within the government. There is a popular feeling among the Egyptian expatriates in the West, particularly the United States, that the world is ignoring the plight of the Copts because they feel the Copts will not organize to protest like radical Islamists do. But the reality is actually far worse than simply ignoring evidence. Legislation designed to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia that passed in the House of Representatives by a large margin has been stalled by Senator James Webb of Virginia.
As bad as Congress may be, the U.S. State Department is leading the charge when it comes to hiding the truth about persecution of Christians around the world. It was the State Department that labeled anti-Christian violence in Nigeria a simple case of tribal rivalry. But the worst (so far) came when the U.S. State Department released their "Country Reports on Human Rights" on May 24. Not only was the report three months behind the Congressional deadline, they had also removed the sections covering freedom of religion (you'd think a shorter report would get out faster!). The State Department, instead, directed its readers to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report. In other words, the State Department is actively covering up the conditions of the Christian minorities throughout the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that, trust me when I say you're not the only one. Thomas Farr, a former U.S. diplomat who served under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and was the first director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, said, "it is important to note here that I do not know-I have no personal knowledge of the logic that went into removing religious freedom from the broader human rights report; but I also have observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed." He pointed out that while some positions at the State Department, like the ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, were filled only a few months into the new administration, the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom "did not even step foot into her office until two-and-a-half years were gone of a four-year administration."
"Four-year administration." I like Mr. Farr's optimism.
As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand its influence in Egypt, the Christian minority have begun to feel the pressure. During the Mubarak years, the Coptic Christians would see occasional acts of brutality committed against them, but it was generally limited because of Mubarak's efforts to slow the growth of the Islamist movement in Egypt. Mubarak had good reason to try to retain the loyalty of the Coptic minority. Egypt's Christians are among the best educated in the country, many having reached positions of influence in politics, business, and finance. Ironically, Mubarak's successors among the military, who do much of the work of ruling the country, have been assaulting Christian communities and using the chaos to secure their power.
Recently, a nasty incident occurred in which an angry mob (is there any other kind?) of Muslims burned down the homes of Christians close to Cairo. What instigated this violence? It all started when a Muslim man accused a Coptic laundry worker of improperly ironing his shirt and leaving it singed. The next day, the Muslim man gathered up a couple dozen friends and assaulted the Christian's house. The Copt, however, must have suspected something was going to go down because he was prepared for the mob, even injuring another man with a Molotov cocktail. The day after that, over 2,000 Muslims went on a rampage, burning and looting the homes of any Christians they could find.
This is only the most recent act of violence targeting Egypt's Coptic population. Tragically, the Obama administration seems more interested in making nice with the "mostly secular" Muslim Brotherhood as it takes over key positions within the government. There is a popular feeling among the Egyptian expatriates in the West, particularly the United States, that the world is ignoring the plight of the Copts because they feel the Copts will not organize to protest like radical Islamists do. But the reality is actually far worse than simply ignoring evidence. Legislation designed to create a special envoy for religious minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia that passed in the House of Representatives by a large margin has been stalled by Senator James Webb of Virginia.
As bad as Congress may be, the U.S. State Department is leading the charge when it comes to hiding the truth about persecution of Christians around the world. It was the State Department that labeled anti-Christian violence in Nigeria a simple case of tribal rivalry. But the worst (so far) came when the U.S. State Department released their "Country Reports on Human Rights" on May 24. Not only was the report three months behind the Congressional deadline, they had also removed the sections covering freedom of religion (you'd think a shorter report would get out faster!). The State Department, instead, directed its readers to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report. In other words, the State Department is actively covering up the conditions of the Christian minorities throughout the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that, trust me when I say you're not the only one. Thomas Farr, a former U.S. diplomat who served under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and was the first director of the Office of International Religious Freedom, said, "it is important to note here that I do not know-I have no personal knowledge of the logic that went into removing religious freedom from the broader human rights report; but I also have observed during the three-and-a-half years of the Obama administration that the issue of religious freedom has been distinctly downplayed." He pointed out that while some positions at the State Department, like the ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, were filled only a few months into the new administration, the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom "did not even step foot into her office until two-and-a-half years were gone of a four-year administration."
"Four-year administration." I like Mr. Farr's optimism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)