Wherefore By Their Fruits, Part 1

It was not my intention to write about this, but military operations have begun, this will end neither well nor soon, and this ties in to other series I am writing, so here begins another series. :)

As you of course know, after high-profile beheadings of Western journalists, multinational operations have begun against the self-proclaimed Islamic State or IS, known among Western governments as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL, and known among Western media as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS.

There has been much debate over which name to use. The term Islamic State is not commonly used in the West, which leaves the debate between ISIS and ISIL. For a variety of reasons, the media has settled on ISIS, and that will be the term I will use in this series.

Some of the discussion over which name to use is significant, however. By calling itself simply "the Islamic State", the group has doubled-down on its establishment of a caliphate, basically making a unilateral claim to lead the world's Islamic terrorist movement in battle against all infidels. While many other terrorist groups around the world have expressed support, including Boko Haram of Nigerian fame and Abu Sayyaf of the Philippines, ultimately, if all these guys get their way and start collectively defeating world infidel forces (to include all the apostate Muslim forces from countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia), there will have to be a decision as to who will really lead the jihadists. It is obvious to me that, amid many uses of the word "takfir" (apostate), such a decision would be arrived at violently.

__________

Basically, Al Qaeda had two horses in the Syrian civil war race: the Al Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, ISIS left the Al Qaeda fold to go it alone. From The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, page 16 (28 of 81 in the pdf; numbers in ^superscript refer to notes - in cases where I have not reproduced them, see the original):

While ISIS and the Al Nusrah Front attract media attention because of their al-Qaeda affiliation, past or still existing, the other fighting factions in Syria deserve attention regarding their ideology and makeup as "moderate" forces, possible counterweights to al-Qaeda. The Syrian Islamic Front is the biggest alliance of salafi-jihadis, and, while many would like to see them as "moderate," they are committed first to defeating Assad's troops and then to creating an Islamic state, as opposed to al-Qaeda which is committed first and foremost to global jihad.

So in other words, the differences among the factions boil down to this: 1) Al Qaeda wants to go on a global jihad; 2) ISIS has by its name "The Islamic State" declared itself a caliphate, and now wants to go on a global jihad; 3) the "moderates" want to depose the current Syrian government of Assad, then declare an Islamic State, then expand their jihad on to other targets.

The very next paragraph explains how this Islamic state would work. Continuing with The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, page 16 (28 of 81 in the pdf):

Aron Lund's recent comprehensive reporting for Syria in Crisis³² notes that the Islamic Front wants "to establish an independent state where God's merciful law is sovereign and where the individuals of this state enjoy justice and a dignified life." It spurns the term "civil state" (dawla madaniya) as misleading and rejects democracy and parliamentary rule. They appear to be envisioning "a republican theocracy supervised by religious scholars where there is some degree of political competition within sharia-compliant but otherwise modern institutions and where the role of politicians is to administer a strict application of sharia rather than to make laws of their own."

In other words, there will be dictatorship by a small group of individuals who will decide what is Islamic and what is not, and membership in the group can be expected to change, and the group itself may be replaced with other groups.

It is not difficult to imagine that this will happen not democratically, since democratic processes are generally spurned, but rather by the will of Allah, which will naturally manifest itself in a violent manner as internal politics becomes a matter of convincing a strong enough faction to make takfir (apostate) out of the targeted faction.

However, this process of extremists declaring each other takfir has resulted not only in a great deal of violence within and among extremist groups; it has also alienated many Muslims. Skipping back in The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, to page 13 (25 of 81 in the pdf):

Al-Zawahiri, from his refuge in Pakistan, has belatedly realized that the militants' increasing ferocity and widespread practice of takfir (declaring other Muslims infidels) is not winning over the Muslim world.²³

To understand better the relationship between ISIS and Al Qaeda's Al Nusrah Front, as well as the relationship between these two and other Sunni militant groups in Syria, we skip ahead in The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, to page 18 (30 of 81 in the pdf):

The Al Nusrah Front (Jahbat al-Nusrah) is directly subordinate to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. The rival ISIS, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, despite its resurgence in Iraq, is being run as a renegade operation since al-Baghdadi defied al-Zawahiri's leadership. These two al-Qaeda branches have an estimated 6,000-7,000 operatives,³⁶ and new recruits are continuing to arrive in large numbers. The other salafist rebel groups in Syria total about 100,000;³⁷ thus the proportion of fighters with formal al-Qaeda loyalty is comparatively small. There are many groups who are on record as disavowing al-Qaeda, but that adhere to the salafi-jihadi objectives, adding to the complexity of predicting the strength of al-Qaeda as a distinct ideology, network, and organization.

This would support the view that al-Qaeda is divided effectively from other jihadist groups in Syria. Thus, not only is it at war with the regime and those who follow the Shia traditions, but is also at variance to other radical Sunni groups. In addition, even those who directly share its ideology are split into two factions. This may indicate that there are limits to its ability to influence events. However, in combination with its resurgence in Iraq, it is clear that al-Qaeda is again a major force.

The analysis of that paper had its focus on Al Qaeda. However, since then, ISIS has come to the forefront.

What distinguishes ISIS from the other groups, then, is this: 1) unlike the other Sunni groups, the so-called "moderate" forces, ISIS feels it is ready to take on the entire world, both infidels and takfir alike, beginning right now; 2) unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS has gone ahead and declared itself a caliphate, seizing and claiming territory as a base for the jihad against the rest of the world; and, 3) unlike Al Qaeda, which is trying to profit from lessons about how past atrocious behavior alienated potential supporters, ISIS seems bent on behaving as atrociously as Allah wills.

Hazy Shade of Winter, Part 3

In Part 1 we looked at President Obama's call for Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 "borders" and began considering how suicidal that would be for Israel; in Part 2 we saw how a former Mossad chief, considered a "hawk", picked up the same refrain, contradicting Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that the 1967 borders would not work - this at a time when Israel should present a united front against the Obama Administration, whose pronouncements, if implemented, would literally lead to Israel's destruction.

We now pick up the story from a very different angle.

The "Arab Spring" is a name given to a wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, as Arab unrest leads to the overthrow of long-established regimes. Use of the term "Spring" implies that this should be counted on the plus side for the Arabs in those lands, and for humanity as a whole.

However, revolutionary fervor tends to get misdirected, misguided and hijacked; it doesn't take a senior analyst in the US intelligence or diplomatic community to recognize the possibility that things could quickly become worse than ever.

We begin with excerpts from Historic Relations Between Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, dated April 10, 2010, by Nabil Al-Bukairi. The first addresses how different factions of the Muslim Brotherhood view the situation with the Houthi rebels (a Shia insurgent group in Yemen):

The press releases of Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and Syria concerning the development of Houthi invasion to Saudi lands raised an exaggerated argument about the reality of the Iranian-Muslim brotherhood relation. The Egyptian release urged King Abdullah of Saudi to immediately stop the war against Houthi rebels calling him to increase his efforts to reach consolation between the two Yemeni fighting sides instead. Some have understood this stance as support for Houthi rebels in the war, and therefore support for Iran.

However, in contrast, the Syrian Muslim brotherhood laid the blame for the war on Houthi rebels who according to the release is a tool in the hands of regional parties who have an extension project in the region; indirectly referring to Iran.

These two contrary stances display the scale of differences between the different Muslim brotherhood sections and Tehran, and therefore reflect how mysterious is the Iranian-Muslim brotherhood relation.

In other words, the Egyption MB seemed to support the Houthi rebels as proxies of Iran. But, Syria seemed to support Riyadh. At first glance, this may seem surprising, since we normally consider Syria as having closer ties to Iran.

The lesson I draw from this is that, like anything else in the Middle East, alliances are not always what we might expect just by examining the surface. In that part of the world, there is factionalism that often seems to be the driving factor in events.

Skipping down:

Iran and Muslim Brotherhood Today

Since the fall of Baghdad, the Iranian-Muslim brothers relation have not been well. There are some of the Muslim brotherhood who doubt the Iranian policy towards regional and Arabian issues like the issues of Afghanistan and Iraq and afterward Lebanon and Yemen. It is true that Egyptian and Palestinian Muslim brotherhood have an intimate relationship with Iran; a result of Iran's support for the right struggle of Palestinian people against the Israeli invaders.

However, the case seems to be the opposite with Muslim brotherhood in Yemen, Lebanon, or in the gulf for example. In these countries, the Muslim brotherhood are angry at the Iranian intervention in the internal affairs of their countries like the case in Iraq, Lebanon, and finally in Yemen. Therefore, Muslim brothers are not pro-Iranian policy in their countries as some like to describe them.

Al-Bukairi concludes by assessing that Iran is acting in Iran's own interests, pure and simple, and advises caution to any Arab Sunni groups that may be considering an alliance. But, caution is also advised regarding Sunni/Shi'ite hostilities, which "only served the Israeli goals."

Apparently, in this Houthi/Yemen fight, each side accuses the other of being allied with unsavories. Yemen says the Houthis are backed by Iran; the Houthis say Yemen's government is affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

(Frankly, I suspect both accusations are true.)

According to The Muslim Brotherhood's Ideological Ties to Iran & its Islamic Revolution by Diana Gregor, from earlier this year (numbers in [brackets] are footnotes; see original):

Iran's revolution has served as a model for both Sunni and Shiite Islamist movements seeking power. Thomas Joscelyn from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies concluded that: "[...] ties between the Brotherhood and Iran predate 1979. Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, believed that Sunnis and Shiites should overcome their differences to face their common enemies. So, too, did Ayatollah Khomeini, who openly advocated an alliance between the two main branches of Islam." [8]

Iran has maintained informal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood for many years. Mehdi Khalaji, senior fellow at the Washington Institute, noted: "If Iran were to develop close relations with the Brotherhood, Iranian influence would grow considerably in the Arab world, giving Tehran a significant say among Arab radicals [...]." [9]

This last article footnoted, by Mehdi Khalaji, is interesting. From Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, February 12, 2009:

Ties between Iran and Sunni Extremists

Egypt has long been suspicious of the connection between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, based in large part on Iran's longstanding strong ties to Hamas -- an offshoot of the Brotherhood. The recent conflict in Gaza is likely to further arouse Cairo's suspicions. During the fighting, Iran was highly vocal in their support of Hamas, blasting the Egyptian government for its inaction. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal thanked Iran for its support of his organization, asserting that the "people of Gaza . . . have always appreciated the political and spiritual support of the Iranian leaders and nation." According to Iranian state television, Mashal reportedly said that "Iran has definitely played a big role in the victory of the people of Gaza and is a partner in that victory."

Iran has also forged stronger working relations with other Sunni extremists. According to the New York Times, Saudi authorities allege that the leader of "al-Qaeda in the Persian Gulf," Abdullah al-Qaraqi, lives and moves freely in Iran, along with more than a hundred Saudis working for him. The Treasury Department, in its recent enforcement action, announced that Saad bin Laden, son of Usama bin Laden, was arrested by Iranian authorities in early 2003 but that "[a]s of September 2008, it was possible that Saad bin Laden was no longer in Iranian custody." According to Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, Saad bin Laden is now most likely in Pakistan.

It seems Iran is trying to establish itself as the leader of the anti-Western jihad, and is cultivating necessary contacts to do so. While Arab governments have oppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran has reached across the Sunni/Shi'ite aisle to lend a helping hand.

On February 26, 2011, Brian Fairchild began WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Muslim Brotherhood Ties to Iran with the following:

The Obama administration believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is an acceptable player in forming a new government in Egypt despite the fact that about a dozen very public quotes from the former and current leaders of the Brotherhood, which I provided in a Pajamas Media article last week, reveal the Brotherhood's Salafi-jihadi worldview and support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

These quotes are readily available to anyone who wants to take the time to look for them, but the Obama team's acceptance of the Brotherhood is all the more mystifying due to the fact that the government's own classified State Department cables document that Iran, our arch-enemy in the region, has been clandestinely supporting it as a proxy in Egypt.

The link in the passage was in the original; it provides a whole list of quotes from the Muslim Brotherhood showing how the MB supports terrorism and is a threat to everything that should be important to the United States.

What else is of concern is that the Muslim Brotherhood is very organized and in a strong position to leverage unrest throughout the region into political power. From Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Lurks as a Long-Term Threat to Freedom by James Phillips, February 8, 2011, which begins:

Although Egypt's widely supported protest movement was reportedly instigated by secular opposition activists, the largest and most well-organized group within Egypt's diverse coalition of opposition groups remains the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement determined to transform Egypt into an Islamic state that is hostile to freedom.

In other words, the MB is going to pull an Iranian Revolution on us.

Skipping down to the end of the article:

Hijack Prevention

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood pursues a radical long-term Islamist agenda while masking its hostility to freedom and genuine democracy with self-serving tactical rhetorical moderation. The Obama Administration should patiently seek to advance freedom and stability in Egypt through a transition to a more representative government that gives the Muslim Brotherhood the smallest possible opportunity to hijack the reform process.

The worst possible outcome of the present crisis would be to open the door to a takeover by a totalitarian Islamist group hostile to the United States while working to replace President Mubarak's authoritarian regime.

This "worst possible outcome" is exactly what the Obama Administration seems to be engineering.

The Obama team has given the green light to French involvement in Côte d'Ivoire. Under the auspices of the UN, Sarkozy has installed his friend Ouattara as strongman of Côte d'Ivoire, deposing President Gbagbo, in violation of Ivoirian law and with a terrible toll of civilian casualties. Many of those civilians were killed by French air attacks, but many were also killed by Ouattara's supporters, who are mostly Muslims, and whose atrocities often take the form of religious attacks on Gbagbo's predominantly Christian supporters: jihad by any other name....

In Sudan, the Bashir regime is committing a preplanned genocide in Southern Kordofan. I have written about this in previous posts, especially in Land of the Blacks, Part 5, where I call attention to the fact that Bashir appointed his henchman Harun, also under ICC indictment for his activities in Darfur, as governor of Southern Kordofan two years ago. Obviously, Bashir saw an opportunity with Obama coming into office to rework the ethnic composition of the Nuba Mountains. From The Abandoned Army: War Returns to Sudan's Nuba Mountains (notice the different spelling of Harun; I adopt the spelling on the ICC indictment and arrest warrant):

Under the current regime, there have been extensive efforts to "Islamize" the Nuba, by force if necessary.

[snip]

The new governor, Ahmad Haroun, is a veteran of the largely Arab Murahileen mounted militias formed to raid Southern Sudanese tribes in the border regions during the 1980s. In the 1990s Haroun was involved in the brutal campaign to punish the Nuba of South Kordofan for supporting the SPLA, a reprisal campaign that did not differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim and left roughly 200,000 civilians dead. By 2003 Haroun was Minister of the State for the Interior and played a major part in organizing the Arab Janjaweed militia to attack non-Arab Muslim civilians suspected of supporting the Darfur insurgency. In respect to these activities, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Haroun on multiple charges of crimes against humanity in April 2007. In response, Khartoum appointed Haroun to head an investigation into human rights abuses in Darfur.

Wow!

And, Obama does nothing about this.

In Egypt, the Obama Administration supported ousting Mubarak, knowing the Muslim Brotherhood would be the best situated to replace him. In Libya, Obama used US forces to begin ousting Gadaffi Khadafy whatever, knowing Libyan rebels would have a healthy sprinkling of Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

And then Obama calls for Israel to suicidally return to the 1967 "borders", which are completely indefensible, and which would thus invite yet another Arab attack, akin to all the previous Arab attacks that were beaten back resulting in the lines of control that exist today in the West Bank and Golan Heights.

It seems quite clear to me that the Obama Administration's strategy is to promote, at every opportunity, the success of Islam's holy warriors throughout the region, giving preference to the worst of the bunch, who are allied to Tehran, where Iranian President Adminijihad whatever has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. The only thing keeping Obama from throwing Israel under the bus is a substantial pro-Israel lobby, which he needs to please America's Jewish voters to win re-election. (In 2008, he had roughly three quarters of America's Jewish vote.)

This "Arab Spring" is turning out to be a very cold "spring", full of murky maneuverings. In fact, to me, it looks more like a hazy shade of winter.