Saturday, January 29, 2022

Video: Documented Proof Trump Ordered 10,000 National Guardsmen Ahead of Jan. 6 - Frontpage editors

 

by Frontpage editors

Kash Patel explains how things REALLY went down.

 

Former Trump advisor Kash Patel brings documented proof to the Fox News Channel's Hannity show that then-President Donald Trump ordered 10,000 National Guardsmen prior to the January 6 demonstration on Capitol Hill, but Democrat leaders obstructed the request.

Don't miss this truth bomb below:

 

Frontpage editors

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/video-documented-proof-trump-ordered-10000-frontpage-editors/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ukraine and the American Crack-Up - Caroline Glick

 

​ by Caroline Glick

Without firing a bullet, Putin and his 120,000 soldiers have fomented the unofficial – but very real – break-up of the NATO alliance.

 


From Washington to Berlin to Warsaw to Kyiv, everyone says that only Russian President Vladimir Putin knows what he plans to do with the 120,000 troops he has deployed to the Ukrainian border. But at this point, even if Putin decides not to invade, even if he withdraws all of his forces from the border zone he has already won a strategic victory of historic proportions against the United States.

Without firing a bullet, Putin and his 120,000 soldiers have fomented the unofficial – but very real – break-up of the NATO alliance. NATO is rightly considered one of the most successful military alliances in history. It was founded in 1949 at the outset of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Its purpose was to deter the Soviets from trying to expand their empire from Eastern and Central Europe into Western Europe. NATO’s success derived from two main factors. First, NATO member states were by and large agreed that their common interest in preventing Soviet expansion outweighed their separate national interests, and so required collective action under the U.S. strategic umbrella. Second, the Soviets and America’s NATO allies all believed that the U.S. was strategically credible. The Soviets believed that the U.S. was serious about fulfilling its commitments to its NATO partners. And NATO members believed that the U.S. would make them pay a very severe price if they opted to blow off the alliance and cut a separate deal with the Soviet Union.

Today, NATO cannot act collectively against Putin in a coherent way because Germany no longer views Russia as a strategic threat, and no longer views the U.S. has a leader it needs to follow.

How has this situation come about?

Much of the credit goes to Putin, who has been working towards this point for 15 years. Putin recognized that when used strategically, Russian energy exports could drive a wedge between NATO members. Traditionally, Russian natural gas exports to Europe went overland through Poland and Ukraine. This meant that energy supplies to Germany and Western Europe were dependent on Russian energy exports to former Soviet bloc countries, and Germany needed to protect Poland and Ukraine to protect its own interests.

In 2006, Gazprom, Russia’s oil and gas conglomerate unveiled its plan to lay an underwater pipeline across the Baltic Sea that would transport natural gas directly to Germany, bypassing Poland the Ukraine. Shortly thereafter, then German Chancellor Gerhardt Shroeder left office. And a month after he departed the chancery, Shroeder announced that he had taken a position as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom’s subsidiary responsible for laying the gas pipeline.

The message was clear. Germany had agreed to delink its strategic energy and economic interests from the former Soviet republics and Poland, which had joined NATO in the aftermath of the Cold War, and from Ukraine.

Today we see that Putin’s Baltic Sea gas pipeline – now known as Nord Stream 2 – did precisely what he hoped it would do. Over the past few weeks, the Germans have made little effort to hide that they are siding with Russia against Ukraine and their NATO allies. Germany prohibited NATO member Estonia from transferring weapons to Kyiv. And when Britain sent an arms shipment to Kyiv earlier in the week, the British were careful not to fly over Germany. They didn’t ask the Germans for permission to overfly their airspace, because they assumed the Germans would deny their request. In other words, London recognized that Germany, the linchpin of NATO is pitching for the other team, but didn’t want to didn’t want to make a stink about it.

But with all due respect to Putin and his successful use of energy exports as a strategic weapon, Putin couldn’t have pulled Germany away from NATO without Biden. Indeed, gas exports from Russia are more an excuse than an explanation for Germany’s moves.

The Germans feel free to walk away from their commitments to their NATO allies because they realize that the Biden administration won’t make them pay a price for their behavior. Like German Chancellor Olaf Sholtz, Biden has no intention of lifting a finger to protect Ukraine from Russia.

When Nord Stream 2 was announced, the Bush administration immediately understood the implications for NATO and strongly objected to the project. Barak Obama and his vice president Joe Biden also strongly opposed the pipeline. As the construction of Nord Stream 2 neared conclusion in 2019, then President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on all firms involved in the project. Trump’s intention was clear. Since Nord Stream 2 is geared towards breaking up NATO by driving a wedge between Germany and the Western European members on the one hand and NATO members Poland and the Baltic states on the other, to protect NATO, Trump decided to make every entity that endangers it pay a steep price.

Given Biden’s long record of opposing Nord Stream 2, going back to his days in the Senate, there was good reason to believe that he would maintain Trump’s sanctions. But President Joe Biden rejected the views of Vice President and Senator Biden.

Last May President Biden cancelled Trump’s sanctions on Nord Stream 2 participants. And last August, the Biden administration cut a deal with Germany over Nord Stream 2. The deal was one which no German leader in their right mind could object to, and no U.S. President who sought to prevent the NATO crack up could support. Under the terms of the deal, the U.S. dropped its opposition to the operation of Nord Stream 2 in exchange for a vague German commitment to do something for Ukraine.

If Biden’s abandonment of U.S. opposition to Nord Stream 2 wasn’t enough to convince Germany and Russia, (and Ukraine) of his rank unseriousness in everything related to Ukraine and NATO, Biden’s amazing acknowledgment during his news conference last week that “a minor incursion” of Russian forces into Ukraine would not be met with a unified response from NATO ended any residual doubt. Despite the administration’s fervent clean-up efforts, Putin got the message, and so did the rest of the world.  

It’s important to note that Biden’s decision not to block Russia from invading Ukraine is eminently defensible. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. And while the U.S. certainly supports Ukrainian independence, America’s interest in Ukraine’s sovereignty does not outweigh its interest in avoiding a war with Russia.

Had they been inclined to do so, Biden and his advisors could have easily made the case for non-intervention in a way that would have secured both NATO and America’s credibility as a superpower to its adversaries and allies alike.

Biden could have expressed support for Ukraine while noting rightly that Russia’s aggressive behavior threatens the nations of Europe more than it threatens the U.S. And while the U.S. would be happy to stand with its European allies to confront Russia, it will not confront Russia for them. That would have put the ball in Germany’s court, and whatever the outcome, the U.S. would have emerged unscathed.

Instead, seemingly on an hourly basis, the administration is ratcheting up its war mongering rhetoric and threats against Russia. Tuesday Pentagon spokesman James Kirby said that Biden had ordered 8,500 troops in Europe on alert.

Apparently, the Russians, Ukrainians and the rest of the world were supposed to take Kirby’s announcement as proof of Biden’s seriousness of purpose. But the opposite is the case. Kirby’s statement was utterly meaningless. He didn’t say which troops were on alert, or on alert for what. He didn’t mention what mission the alerted troops had received. And almost at the same time Kirby made his meaningless announcement, Biden said that no U.S. forces would be deployed to Ukraine.

More than Biden’s surrender on Nord Stream 2, it is the complete disconnect between Biden’s actual policy and his strategic messaging policies that make governments like Germany’s realize that they will pay no price for acting with U.S. adversaries against the U.S. Busy turning America into a joke on the world stage, Biden will have no interest in punishing Berlin for betraying NATO, and America.

Ukraine is far from the only place where there is zero connection between the Biden administration’s policies and its communications strategy. Biden’s Iran policy is equally disingenuous and self-destructive. Biden and his team claim that the purpose of the nuclear talks with Iran in the Vienna is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. But the agreement the U.S. is negotiating with Iran will guarantee Tehran will become a nuclear armed state in short order.

The implications of Biden’s foreign policy for the United States are clear enough. Not only is the administration enabling the break-up of NATO. The Biden administration is destroying America’s deterrent power and superpower position.

As for Israelis, and other threatened U.S. allies watching from the sidelines, the take-home lesson of Ukraine is clear. No U.S. security guarantee can outweigh independence of action. To survive, a nation requires strategic, economic and energy independence, and the will to wield it.

 

Caroline Glick

Source: https://carolineglick.com/ukraine-and-the-american-crack-up/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinian online campaign accuses Hamas of ‘kidnapping’ Gaza - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

Hamas supporters claimed that the Palestinian Authority and Israel were behind the new campaign.

Palestinians have launched a new social media campaign in protest of Hamas’s rule of the Gaza Strip, holding the Islamist movement responsible for poverty, unemployment and harsh economic and humanitarian conditions.

Hamas supporters claimed that the Palestinian Authority and Israel were behind the new 
campaign.

The supporters launched counter campaigns in which they accused the PA of financial and administrative corruption, collaboration with Israel and imposing financial and economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip as part of an attempt to instigate a revolt against Hamas.

They also defended Hamas by arguing that it had “kidnapped” the Gaza Strip from the corrupt PA leadership, adding that the movement continues to enjoy large support among the Palestinian public.

The anti-Hamas campaign, titled “They Hijacked Gaza,” came following a report by the Geneva-based Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor according to which “about 1.5 million of the Gaza Strip’s total population of 2.3 million have become impoverished due to the Israeli blockade and restrictions imposed since 2006.”

The report pointed out that poverty has risen sharply, from 40% in 2005 to 69% in 2021.

But several anti-Hamas activists rejected the attempt to shift the blame onto Israel. They also condemned Hamas for its alliance with Iran and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups in the Middle East.

“Who said that the [Israeli] occupation is the reason for the situation in Gaza?” asked Hosam Elmadhon, a resident of the Gaza Strip. “Does the occupation impose taxes? Is the occupation collecting $30 million in taxes on [cigarettes and tobacco] every month? Is the occupation responsible for the [emigration] of 60,000 young people?”

In another post, Elmadhon wrote, “A question for the leadership of Gaza, which trades in our siege and suffering: How did the siege that made me poor make you wealthy? How did the siege that forced many young people to emigrate give you [foreign] citizenship and enable you to live in mansions and hotels? How did the siege that starved our children allow your children to live in prosperity? How did the siege that cut off electricity from my family allow you to light your house for 24 hours?”

“Hamas’s failed policy has made half the world hate us, and sympathy with our cause has declined,” lamented social media user Khaled Noor. “Hamas wants to appease Iran, which has destroyed Arab cities.”

He was referring to Iran’s direct and indirect involvement in the civil wars of Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

The last anti-Hamas campaign, launched in 2019 under the title “We Want To Live!” was ruthlessly suppressed by Hamas security forces with the help of the movement’s armed wing, Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades. Hundreds of Palestinian protesters, including human rights and political activists who took to the streets to protest against Hamas were physically assaulted or detained.

The campaign was organized in protest of taxes imposed by Hamas on the residents of the Gaza Strip, as well as the high rate of unemployment and poverty and the high cost of living.

In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary election, triggering a crisis with its rivals in the Fatah faction headed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
A year later, Hamas staged a violent coup, overthrowing the PA and seizing full control of the Gaza Strip.

The latest campaign came amid ongoing tensions between Hamas and Fatah and the failure of Arab efforts to solve the dispute between the two rival parties.

Earlier this month, Fatah and Hamas representatives were invited by Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune for “reconciliation” talks.

Many Palestinians, however, said they did not expect a breakthrough in the discussions due to the wide gap between the rival sides.

Hamas officials over the weekend accused the PA of continuing its security crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank and called for the immediate release of all those being held in Palestinian detention.

The campaign, which began four days ago, came as the body of 14-year-old Osama Arafat Sarsak –who went missing while collecting aluminum, copper and plastic – was found at a landfill site near Gaza City.

Some Palestinians claimed that Sarsak was hit by a bulldozer belonging to the Gaza City Municipality.

A Palestinian human rights organization said an autopsy showed that Sarsak had died of asphyxia. Hamas said it has launched an investigation into the incident, which sparked widespread anger throughout the Gaza Strip.

Rehab Adel wrote on Twitter, “Every tweet written on the hashtag ‘They Hijacked Gaza’ is a tale of suffering that has been going on for 15 years. Gaza tried all kinds of death. Isn’t it time to try the taste of life, even for once?”

Bassem Othman, a Palestinian engineer, complained, “All over the world, taxes are imposed in return for services that the citizen receives.” Under Hamas, he noted, even those who are unemployed are being asked to pay taxes.”

Freelance photojournalist and activist Walid Mahmoud commented, “The Islamic movement [Hamas] has failed to manage the crises in Gaza. It has failed to create any solution for the residents of Gaza, and this is something no sane person can deny. Shouldn’t that resident be given the right to speak out and talk about his/her experience under Islamic rule?”

Bisan Issam, another Gaza resident, tweeted, “Fifteen years ago, two million people were kidnapped on the land of the Gaza Strip by the [Hamas] gang of Change and Reform [Hamas’s parliamentary electoral list in 2006]. The lives and dreams of an entire generation were lost, crushed by despair and lack of resourcefulness. They are now ready to endanger their lives to escape the constant death in Gaza.”

 

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-694921

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden voter 'disgusted' with the president, says Dem party has become 'unrecognizable' - Teny Sahakian

 

​ by Teny Sahakian

'I am seeing the Democratic party, I'm seeing my party, headed into the wrong direction,' said Carter

 

 

A Joe Biden voter explained why he became "disgusted" with the president's administration and raised concerns about the direction the Democratic Party is headed. 

"A year in and I'm disgusted with them both. I'm disgusted with [Vice President] Kamala Harris and Joe Biden," Isaiah Carter, a New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) worker and member of the Democratic Party, told Fox News.

Carter listed critical race theory and the Afghanistan withdrawal as key issues he has with Biden. He also faulted the president's COVID-19 policies and his propagating of gender ideology issues, especially among school-age children, by the administration. 

Carter has voted Democrat in the past four presidential elections and has actively supported Democratic candidates and policies for over 16 years. 

MIKE PENCE: JOE BIDEN WON HIS PARTY'S NOMINATION, BUT BERNIE SANDERS 'WON THE PARTY'

During the 2020 election, Carter did not support the Trump administration but was also concerned about how far-left candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would govern. He said he voted for Biden thinking he was the "safest choice." 

"I donated to Biden ... I supported Kamala Harris from day one ... I even starred in Biden's victory video ‘America the Beautiful,’" Carter said, referring to a post-election video on Biden’s YouTube page.

"I did more than I've ever done in my entire life for any candidate whatsoever, and I'm disgusted," the 40-year-old Brooklynite said. 

Biden’s low approval rating has declined in recent weeks. A recent Gallup poll showed Biden at 40% approval, his lowest to date and down from 43% in December. 

"I don’t like critical race theory," Carter, a Black man, told Fox News. "Critical race theory is a Trojan horse that has a lot of darker elements hiding inside."

"I don't like the idea of kids – Black kids, White kids, whatever – separated by race and then made to feel like one group is oppressed and the other group is not," he continued.

On Afghanistan, Carter said, "I’m not upset that we left, I’m upset about how we left." 

He said Biden didn't do enough to secure U.S. property, troops and its allies.   

"The video of refugees dropping from C-17s to their deaths will haunt this presidency and will haunt this country for decades to come," he said. 

"I don't like where we are now with COVID," Carter told Fox News. He said the Biden administration did a good job with vaccine distribution initially but criticized the president for pushing additional restrictions and mandates he didn’t believe were consistent with scientific data. 

Finally, Carter said Biden’s use of Title VII and IX to promote progressives' gender identity agenda has harmed women’s rights and has negatively affected young children who are being subjected to gender ideology discussions in schools across the country.

His first day in office Biden signed an executive order expanding federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

"If I had known Biden was this much of a genderist … there's no way I would have voted for that man," Carter said. 

A self-proclaimed classical liberal, Carter said modern liberals have moved so far to the left that they have become unrecognizable.

"I don't recognize where we're at anymore. And I'm pissed about it," he said. 

Carter has received significant backlash from people on the left for expressing his thoughts online. He criticized groupthink, which he said has overtaken the political left.

"Democrats, I need you to listen to me carefully," Carter said.

"The fact that I, a blue-collar Democratic worker, am speaking to Fox News, should scare you," he said. 

"The fact that they're willing to talk to me and MSNBC and CNN are not, that is a problem," he continued. "That should tell you all how far we've fallen away from the common man."

 

Teny Sahakian 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/biden-voter-explains-disgusted-with-president

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Hezbollah-Linked Pakistani Shia Islamists Fundraise Across North America and Europe - Isabella Meibauer

 

​ by Isabella Meibauer

Banned in Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Jafaria Pakistan (TJP) has changed its name multiple times to circumvent government restrictions.

A Shiite Islamist extremist group in Pakistan, tied to Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, fundraises for the families of its fallen martyrs using a global network of nonprofits, including 501(c) organizations in the United States.

Alongside its other Islamist activities—including anti-Sunni violence as well as pro-Tehran protests against America and Israel—Tehreek-e-Jafaria Pakistan (TJP) works to raise funds for the family members of Pakistani Shiite "martyrs" through an international network headed in Pakistan by TJP's chief proxy, Shaheed Foundation Pakistan, which operates in coordination with organizations throughout Pakistan, Europe, and North America.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the TJP has called for the creation of a "popular Islamic army based on compulsory military training for all able-bodied males ... to encourage the spirit of holy war." Banned in Pakistan, TJP has changed its name multiple times to circumvent government restrictions. For some years, it went by Islami Tehreek Pakistan (ITP), which was also proscribed. Today, according to Muhammad Amir Rana in his study, A to Z of Jehadi Organizations in Pakistan, the TJP operates as Millat-e-Jaffaria or Millat-e-Jafria; a name also used to reference the collection of organizations that operate under the umbrella of TJP leader Allama Syed Sajid Ali Naqvi, the personal representative of Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei in Pakistan.

Given its parent network, it is perhaps hardly surprising that the Shaheed Foundation Pakistan is overtly linked to terrorist groups. A 2006 post on its website includes details of a rally organized by the group in "Celebration of the Great Victory of Hizbullah over Israel and tribute to the Islamic Hero, [Hezbollah leader] Syed Hasan Nasrullah."

Additional mentions of "martyrs" of the U.S.-designated terror group Hezbollah, as well as Hezbollah posters, are found throughout the Shaheed Foundation's website.

 

Photos of a Shaheed Foundation Rally for Hezbollah, published on Shaheed Foundation's own website.

In the U.S, multiple registered nonprofit organizations are connected back to TJP through the Shaheed Foundation and its main U.S. proxy, a New Jersey nonprofit named Al-Kauser.

While the humanitarian efforts of some of the American organizations in the network may appear admirable at an initial glance, ultimately, tax-free donations are moving through the 501(c) public charity system and being sent to a nonprofit founded by a banned terrorist group.

As Al-Kauser noted on its website in 2018: "Al Kauser has used over $200k to date in 2018 for education and support for orphans and families of Shuhada [martyrs] in Pakistan and India."

It is difficult to know exactly what qualifies a TJP recruit's death as "martyrdom." Along with the evidence of close ties to Hezbollah, and reports that TJP splinter groups such as Sipah-e-Muhammad recruited Pakistani fighters to paramilitary groups such as Iran's Zainabiyoun Brigade in Syria, the chief generator of TJP's "martyrs" is most likely, as Ashley J. Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has noted, the group's commitment to "bloody internal sectarian violence." The English-language web pages of the Shaheed Foundation, meanwhile, portray its martyrs merely as innocent victims of bomb blasts targeting Shiites specifically.

The latest tax return documents reveal that Al-Kauser's total income was $285,022 in 2019, of which $242,975 was sent directly to South Asia.

Al-Kauser has not always been the Shaheed Foundation's primary partner. Before 2019, the Shaheed Foundation worked with Saviour USA, a Texas-based 501(c)(3). Although Saviour USA's website has since changed, in the past it stated that "Shaheed Foundation Pakistan is an ace institution of Millat-e-Jaffaria Pakistan ... In its current form this institution began functioning in 1997 based on the teachings of ... Imam Khomeini."

Today, Al-Kauser's website lists a number of additional current partner charities both in the U.S. and abroad. It is unclear how these partnerships work exactly, although it seems likely that the partner organizations serve at least partly as funding arms for Al-Kauser.

In response to a media request for more information about Al-Kauser's relationship to Shaheed Foundation and TJP, President Raees Zaidi denied that Al-Kauser supports or engages in any political activities and insisted that the group follows all "applicable rules and regulations of the State of New Jersey and the US Government."

Alongside its charitable partners, Al-Kauser also lists over half a dozen Shiite mosques found across Virginia and New Jersey as its additional "partner organizations." Furthermore, the Shaheed Foundation's own website has previously included a list of "Islamic links," in which several additional Shiite institutions across Europe and North America were named (listed alongside a direct link to the website of U.S-designated terrorist organization Hezbollah).

Previously ignored by those studying Islamism and the influence of the Iranian regime, there appears clearly to be a significant and wealthy South Asian Islamist network within the United States acting to support the interests of a violent Shiite movement in Pakistan.

What is TJP and its Shaheed Foundation? And what is the extent of its reach?

A close disciple of the 1979 Iranian Revolution leader Imam Khomeini, Arif ul-Hussain Al-Hussaini was chosen as the first leader of TJP (then Tehreek Nifaz Fiqah Jafaria) in 1978 to represent the interests of Shiite Muslims oppressed under Pakistan's theocratic Sunni dictator Zia ul-Haq. Khomeini appointed Hussaini as Wilayat-e-Fiqah, or the Shiite religious leader, of Pakistan, and upon Hussaini's 1988 assassination, Khomeini addressed him as his "dear son." According to Mohammad Rana, Hussaini also sent many young men to train with the Hezbollah of Lebanon. Hussaini was eventually succeeded by Allama Sajid Naqvi, who was also appointed a religious representative of Iran under Ayatollah Khameini.

To address the growing number of families left behind by martyred Shiites amid sectarian, terrorist violence between Shiites and Deobandi militant organizations, Hussaini founded the Shaheed Foundation to support them.

Today, the Shaheed Foundation's general operations are overseen by Hossein Hosseini (Hussaini's son) and six others, four of whom are reportedly family members of other shohadas (martyrs). In addition to caring for the children of martyrs, the Shaheed Foundation also has a department to provide "spiritual support" to the families and a publications department, which serves to "publish and propagate the thoughts and courage of martyrs."

Shaheed Foundation's current website states that it is a "non-political, welfare organization." In 2013, however, pages on Shaheed Foundation's website clarified that it is "is an independent institution of Millat-e-Jaffaria." When asked directly about its connections to TJP through a media request, a spokesman for Shaheed Foundation wrote that "we don't have any political background, nor do we have any future plan to become a part of any political organization whatsoever. Also, we have never been a part of any banned organization, nor have we endorsed any."

Of course, the Hezbollah flags at Shaheed Foundation "celebrations" cast doubts on such claims. Elsewhere, Shaheed Foundation's website glorifies martyrdom in length, writing that "there is no greater achievement for a momin [Muslim believer] than to leave his abode with wounds that are medals on his chest, and his face covered in blood, in the struggle for justice."

This is a full-fledged, terror-tied Islamist community, operating in a similar manner to other Shiite Islamist networks around the world that back the Iranian regime.

It is not limited to the United States. Shaheed Foundation has additional counterparts, or "partner charities," across the rest of the West. In Canada, the U.K., Denmark, Norway, and Sweden it is represented by the identically-named Shaheed Foundation; in Germany and the rest of Europe, it has Support Light for Life; and in Australia and New Zealand, Light for Life. These branches raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually according to tax documents.

Indeed, this global network provides richly for Shaheed Foundation Pakistan. In total for the year ending in June 2019, Shaheed Foundation Pakistan supported more than 2,000 families with a total equivalent to $2 million.

Across the Western world, multiple nonprofits, in connection with groups such as Al-Kauser, are able to send tax-free money overseas to an Islamist organization with that openly supports Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, all ostensibly in aid of martyrs for a banned violent organization. The full extent of this network, and of the efforts of South Asian Shia Islamists operating in North America, must be investigated further. Most importantly, this abuse of Western nonprofit systems by terror-tied extremists must be halted.

 

Isabella Meibauer is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/62975/hezbollah-linked-pakistani-shia-islamists
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

South Africa: Former Chief Justice Told to Apologize for Pro-Israel Sentiment - Hugh Fitzgerald

 

by Hugh Fitzgerald

Taken to the woodshed for an "unpardonable sin."

 


 

Mogoeng Mogoeng is a greatly respected jurist in South Africa, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court until he retired in October 2021. But now he is in hot water, for what is apparently an unpardonable sin. In an online seminar in 2020, he dared to defend Israel, criticizing the South African government for its implacable hostility toward the Jewish state. A report on what he said, and its outrageous consequences, is here: “Ex-South African Justice Must Apologize for Pro-Israel Comments, Panel Rules,” Algemeiner, January 21, 2022:

A South African judicial panel has ordered former chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to issue a public apology within 10 days for comments criticizing his government’s hostile stance towards Israel, dismissing his appeal of a ruling last year.

In a statement released Thursday, the Judicial Conduct Appeals Committee directed Mogoeng to issue an “unconditional apology for becoming involved in political controversy,” over comments made at a 2020 online seminar.

Mogoeng Mogoeng is being asked to apologize not for “becoming involved in political controversy” as the Judicial Conduct Appeals Committee pretends, but for being “involved” and taking the wrong side in daring to defend Israel. Had he instead said that he was appalled by the “apartheid state of Israel” and thoroughly approved of the South African government having withdrawn its ambassador from Israel in 2018, he would have been praised to the skies by the late Bishop Tutu, and Nelson Mandela’s anti-Israel grandson, and by the pro-Palestinian claque in the African National Congress. No one would have complained about him; no Judicial Service Commission would have investigated complaints against him; no one would have demanded that he issue a public apology for “becoming involved in political controversy.”

South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC) — which investigates complaints made against judges — found against Mogoeng in March 2021, when he was still serving as chief justice, for misconduct during the seminar, in which he appeared alongside South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein.

Among other remarks, Mogoeng invoked his Christian faith as a source for his “love” of Israel, and criticized the South African government for maintaining close ties with the country’s former colonizers yet still frequently attacking the Jewish state.

I take Mogoeng Mogoeng to mean that South Africa maintains close ties with Great Britain, its former colonizer, but at the same time attacks the Jewish state, which has done South Africa no harm.

“Did Israel take away our land or the land of Africa? Did Israel take our mineral wealth? We’ve got to move from a position of principle here,” Mogoeng declared at one point during the seminar, which was hosted by the Jerusalem Post.

The questions are purely rhetorical. Israel was never a part – it was founded only in 1948 – of the European colonizers and empire builders who were engaged in the well-known “Scramble For Africa.” It is possible that Mogoeng Mogoeng may also be thinking of the Muslim slaveholders and slave-traffickers, both Arab and Berber, who no longer bring slaves from East Africa as they once did to the Islamic slave markets of the Middle East, but continue to hold black African slaves in Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Chad. In West Africa, too, Arab traders are prominent in the market for conflict diamonds(“our mineral wealth”).

Thursday’s decision by Judges Dumisani Zondi and Nambitha Dambuza found that Mogoeng had been “involved in extra-judicial activities which are incompatible with the confidence in and the impartiality of judges,” citing South Africa’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

Mogoeng Mogoeng is being pilloried, and an attempt is being made to humiliate him by demanding he publicly apologize, in craven Cultural Revolution fashion, for his defense of Israel. I am sure that none of this would have happened to him had he expressed instead an anti-Israel animus. Look at how Bishop Tutu, of late memory, was hailed as a saintly figure despite his decades of spittle-flecked venom directed at the Jewish state.

In a minority opinion, Judge Margaret Victor said she would have set aside the judgement against Mogoeng and upheld his appeal, which invoked his constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression.

Mogoeng, who served as chief justice until October 2021, has so far refused to apologize, telling a prayer meeting after the committee ruling last year that his comments on Israel were a matter of faith.

Judge Victor was willing to overturn the judgment against Mogoeng in the court below based on his right to free speech and freedom of religion. His Christian faith, he has explained, has led to his “love for Israel”; he is being punished, in essence, for expressing views that he regards as dictated by his faith.

Chief Justice Mogoeng had said nothing in that online seminar that remotely related to any cases before his court, nothing that might have compromised the public’s faith in his judicial opinions. Had there been a case involving Israel, however tangentially, that would of course have been a different thing. He might then have recused himself. But would judges who were hostile to Israel, and expressed their views, be similarly criticized If they failed to recuse themselves? You know the answer to that.

“I respect the law. I will not defy the law,” he said. “But if it does come to the point where I am forced to do the abominable, or I am forced to reject God, then I would rather be without money, be without any position. I will never refuse to obey the Lord.”

“If I get to the point where there is a judgment that says, ‘You must say you hate Israel and the Jews’, I would rather cease to be Chief Justice,” he continued. “If I get to the point where they say, ‘Mogoeng, you must say you hate the Palestinians and Palestine,’ I would rather cease to be Chief Justice than to do it, because my God has instructed me to love and not to hate. I hate evil deeds, I don’t hate anybody.

The complaint against Mogoeng was lodged by the groups Africa4Palestine, the South Africa BDS Coalition, and the Women’s Cultural Group.

Mogoeng Mogoeng is free now to express himself; he’s been retired from the Supreme Court since October 2021. But two judges, Dumisani Zondi and Nambitha Dambuza, on the Judicial Service Commission, have insisted on making Mogoeng apologize publicly for remarks he made while still a judge in 2020. He will not humiliate himself in that fashion. And when he refuses to bend to their will, what will Judges Zondi and Dambuza do? They can’t dismiss him from the Court; he’s already retired. This witch hunt unleashed on a respected judge will only hurt the vindictive army of pro-Palestinians in Africa4Palestine and the BDS Coalition, groups that were the first to complain about Mogoeng. They are trying to persecute and prosecute all those who express any support for Israel. Mogoeng Mogoeng, given his prominence, is at the top of their list. He will stand firm against his would-be tormentors. He’ll be seen by many black Christians in South Africa (in opinion polls, despite Bishop Tutu, despite Mandela’s grandson Zwelivelile who claims that Israel’s “apartheid” is the “worst form of apartheid in the world,” more black Africans in the country express support for Israel than support the Palestinians) as an African Thomas More, and the spectacle of the eminent judge, his head unbowed, who “can do no other,” will be a morality play about freedom of belief and freedom of speech. His persecutors will look bad, while Mogoeng Mogoeng will be seen as what, in fact, he now is: a Daniel come to judgment.

 

Hugh Fitzgerald

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/south-africa-former-chief-justice-told-apologize-hugh-fitzgerald/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Istanbul's Mayor: Erdoğan's Worst Nightmare - Burak Bekdil

 

​ by Burak Bekdil

It would be premature to conclude that there will be a historic shift in Turkish politics in 2023. All the same, the reports are real, and so are Erdoğan's fears, panic and increasingly reckless governance.

  • "If we lose Istanbul, we lose Turkey." — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

  • It appears that [Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu's] "terrorists" are actually people who are being probed for links with illegal organizations but who have not been prosecuted -- let alone being found guilty by courts.

  • This kind of intimidation, further victimizing Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu in the eyes of the voters, will simply boost his popularity -- and at a time when Erdoğan's ratings are plummeting.

  • Erdoğan, it seems, did not want opposition mayors to gain further popularity by helping the poor.

  • It would be premature to conclude that there will be a historic shift in Turkish politics in 2023. All the same, the reports are real, and so are Erdoğan's fears, panic and increasingly reckless governance.

Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been running a campaign of intimidation and hatred against Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu (pictured), which has paradoxically boosted him as a perfect contender against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for the next presidential elections in 2023. According to polls, if the two go head to head, İmamoğlu would beat Erdoğan by 48.7% to 36.6%. (Photo by Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images)

Turkey's secular state establishment was shocked when a young militant Islamist won the mayoral elections in Turkey's biggest city, Istanbul, in 1994. "Who wins Istanbul wins Turkey," Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, at that time Istanbul's mayor, would often say. History would prove him right.

Erdoğan's tenure as Istanbul's mayor ended when in 1997 when he recited a pro-Islamist poem. "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers" earned him a 10-month prison term for "inciting religious hatred," four of which he served. In 2002, Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) swept to victory in national elections.

Erdoğan has since remained unchallenged, first as Turkey's prime minister and, since 2014, as president. Observers agree that Erdoğan's skilfully-crafted image-making as the "victim of an authoritarian, secular regime" helped him to win one election after another. "People saw him as the guy from the other side of the tracks who the system had unjustly punished," Soner Çağaptay, author of Erdoğan's Empire, wrote.

Ironically, the man who has become Erdoğan's worst nightmare is following a similar path. In March 2019, as the race for municipal elections was barrelling ahead, Islamist parties had controlled Istanbul -- along with Turkey's capital, Ankara -- since 1994. Erdoğan's candidate for Istanbul was a big shot: former Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım. The opposition, however -- including social democrats, liberals, some nationalists and Kurds -- united behind Ekrem İmamoğlu, then a little-known district mayor in Istanbul.

During the run-up to the election, Erdoğan's party officials and trolls launched a smear campaign against İmamoğlu. One AKP deputy chair spoke of "many question marks" surrounding İmamoğlu's ethno-religious identity, demanding İmamoğlu prove "that your spirit, heart and mind is with the Turkish nation." A propaganda machinery started to allege that İmamoğlu was a crypto-Greek, and that his supporters were Greeks disguised as Muslims. He was also accused for having links to Kurdish terrorists.

The vote count, on March 31, 2019, proved to be a political fiasco for Erdoğan and his seemingly invincible AKP: İmamoğlu won by a narrow margin of 13,000 votes (in a city of 18 million people). The AKP-controlled Supreme Election Board ruled for an election rerun on June 23. This time, İmamoğlu won by a margin of 800,000 votes, shocking Erdoğan and his gigantic party establishment.

Just two years earlier, Erdoğan had said, "If we lose Istanbul, we lose Turkey."

Since the restoration of Turkish democracy in 1983, which followed a military coup in 1980, no candidate in Istanbul's mayoral elections had a managed to win with such a majority: İmamoğlu won 54% of the votes, compared to 45% for the AKP candidate -- and compared to 25% for Erdoğan in the 1994 election.

The election result triggered a campaign of intimidation and hatred against İmamoğlu which, paradoxically, has boosted him as a perfect contender against Erdoğan for the next presidential elections in 2023.

During the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Erdoğan launched a national donation campaign, through which wealthier Turks, individuals or businesses, could help poorer Turks. In other words, the Ankara government would collect money from the people to help the people. Unsurprisingly, the campaign collected an embarrassing $245 million in a country of 83 million people -- and most of that came from government-controlled companies.

Parallel to Erdoğan's campaign, İmamoğlu and Ankara's Mayor Mansur Yavaş launched local campaigns to collect donations to help the poorest in Turkey's two biggest cities. But there was a problem. The government said city councils, according to law, must first obtain permission from the Interior Ministry to launch fundraising initiatives. İmamoğlu and Yavaş argued that other government-controlled municipalities were also raising donations to help workers and small business owners who had lost their incomes due to the coronavirus. Yes, the government said, but they had obtained permission whereas Istanbul and Ankara had not. Erdoğan, it seems, did not want opposition mayors to gain further popularity by helping the poor.

In 2020, Vakıfbank, a state-owned lender, froze the Istanbul municipality's account after coronavirus donations had reached $130 million. The Interior Ministry launched criminal investigations against the two mayors on charges of illegal fundraising. "Pathetic," was all İmamoğlu said. In further shows of ire, the central government in Ankara would also suspend Istanbul municipality's campaign to sell the poorest Turks cheap bread.

In one bizarre episode last year, the Interior Ministry launched an investigation into İmamoğlu for "disrespecting Sultan Mehmet II's tomb" -- referring to the Ottoman sultan who conquered Istanbul in 1453. A probe was opened and the mayor of Istanbul was summoned to make a statement. What was the offense? It seems İmamoğlu, in a 2020 visit, had walked in the tomb of Sultan Mehmet II with his hands folded behind his own back! Evidence? A photo showing İmamoğlu in front of the tomb with his hands folded behind himself. "In my opinion," Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu said, "This [behavior] is an offense."

"I feel so much shame," İmamoğlu replied, "on the minister's behalf."

Nevertheless, the Interior Minister is once again on the run to sideline İmamoğlu. On December 27, the ministry launched an investigation into hundreds of staff at the Istanbul municipality, accused of links to terrorist groups.

The probe covers 455 people working at the municipality and municipality-owned companies with alleged connections to Kurdish militants, along with more than 100 allegedly linked to banned leftist and other illegal groups.

The municipality protests that none of its employees has a criminal record, based on data provided by the Justice Ministry. Yes, the Interior Ministry admits, that is true. But, it maintains, the "terrorists" are individuals who are being investigated. Turkey has become more ridiculous than a caricature: the Interior Minister does not know that every suspect is innocent until proven guilty? It appears that the minister's "terrorists" are actually people who are being probed for links with illegal organizations but who have not been prosecuted -- let alone being found guilty by courts.

This kind of intimidation, further victimizing İmamoğlu in the eyes of the voters, will simply boost his popularity -- and a time when Erdoğan's ratings are plummeting.

Surveys by Metropoll Research show Erdoğan's approval rating, at 38.6%, is its lowest since 2015. His popularity, they show, trails that of three potential presidential election rivals. A poll by Sosyo Politik Field Research Center put support for Erdoğan's AKP at 27%, against 37% who said they voted for the party in the last parliamentary election in 2018. The AKP's nationalist ally in parliament, the MHP, was at 6.3%, down from 7.3% who said they voted for the party in 2018.

Metropoll's most recent research found that the mayors of İstanbul and Ankara have a comfortable lead over Erdoğan for the presidential election. If two candidates were to go head to head in the election, the survey showed, İmamoğlu would beat Erdoğan by 48.7% to 36.6%.

It would be premature to conclude that there will be a historic shift in Turkish politics in 2023. All the same, the reports are real, and so are Erdoğan's fears, panic and increasingly reckless governance.

 

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18143/turkey-istanbul-mayor-erdogan

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Can the President Constitutionally Restrict His Nomination to a Black Woman? - Alan M. Dershowitz

 

​ by Alan M. Dershowitz

There are a considerable number of highly qualified Black women, and I would applaud the nomination of any one of them. But that is not the issue. The issue is exclusion.

  • Supporters of President Biden's announcement will argue that there is a big difference between prohibiting a person from serving based on religion, race or gender, and affirmatively giving preference based on these criteria. That is sophistry. By limiting his choice to a Black woman, President Biden has disqualified every non-Black woman and man in America. There are a considerable number of highly qualified Black women, and I would applaud the nomination of any one of them. But that is not the issue. The issue is exclusion.

  • The Supreme Court has a long history of exclusion.... The Supreme Court was [for many years] an institution reserved primarily for white Protestant males. That was wrong and unconstitutional. But two wrongs, even if one of them is a "good" wrong, do not make a constitutional right.

  • The Black woman who is eventually nominated for the job will suffer reputationally from the president's announcement. She will not be regarded as the most qualified person to be nominated, but only as the most qualified Black woman. That is insulting, even if not intended to be.

  • President Biden should direct Attorney General Garland to prepare a list of the 25 most qualified nominees. No one should be excluded on the basis of race or gender. Such a list, if fairly compiled would include several Black women. (It should not include Kamala Harris, because she might have to cast a tie-breaking vote on herself!)

The issue is exclusion. No one should be excluded on the basis of race or gender. The Senate is supposed to deliberate on the qualifications of each nominee and confirm or reject her or him on the merits. Photo: United States Supreme Court (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Imagine a president announcing that since no Muslim has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court, he pledges to nominate the first Muslim justice. That would undoubtedly be unconstitutional since Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The spirit of that prohibition — coupled with the 14th and 19th amendments—would certainly seem to apply to race and gender as well. It is wrong, and perhaps unconstitutional, for a president to impose a racial or gender test for nomination to the Supreme Court. If a president were to announce that he intended to nominate only a white male, constitutional scholars would rightfully object. So, what is the difference?

Supporters of President Biden's announcement will argue that there is a big difference between prohibiting a person from serving based on religion, race or gender, and affirmatively giving preference based on these criteria. That is sophistry. By limiting his choice to a Black woman, President Biden has disqualified every non-Black woman and man in America. There are a considerable number of highly qualified Black women, and I would applaud the nomination of any one of them. But that is not the issue. The issue is exclusion.

The Supreme Court has a long history of exclusion. For more than a century-and-a-quarter after the religious prohibition was incorporated into the Constitution, presidents excluded all Jewish candidates and most Catholic candidates. The Supreme Court was an institution reserved primarily for white Protestant males. That was wrong and unconstitutional. But two wrongs, even if one of them is a "good" wrong, do not make a constitutional right.

The Black woman who is eventually nominated for the job will suffer reputationally from the president's announcement. She will not be regarded as the most qualified person to be nominated, but only as the most qualified Black woman. That is insulting, even if not intended to be.

Senator Charles Schumer compounded President Biden's error by announcing that regardless of who the president nominated, she will be confirmed by the Democratic controlled Senate. That, too, politicizes the Supreme Court nominating process. The Senate is supposed to deliberate on the qualifications of each nominee and confirm or reject her or him on the merits, not on the basis of who nominated her.

The Republicans engaged in partisan weaponization of the process when it refused to give a hearing to Judge Garland and then rushed through the confirmation of Judge Barrett. But again, two partisan wrongs do not make a constitutional right.

President Biden should direct Attorney General Garland to prepare a list of the 25 most qualified nominees. No one should be excluded on the basis of race or gender. Such a list, if fairly compiled would include several Black women. (It should not include Kamala Harris, because she might have to cast a tie-breaking vote on herself!) The president should then select his nominee from that list. In doing so, he might follow the example of President Herbert Hoover, who asked his Attorney General to prepare a list of nominees to replace the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Historians recount that Hoover showed the list to Republican Senator William Borah. Benjamin Cardozo's name was at the bottom, along with the three reasons he should not be nominated, despite his great distinction:

"Cardozo [sic] – Jew, Democrat, New York" Borah glanced at it, and, believing Cardozo should be at the top, told Hoover, "Your list is alright, but you handed it to me upside down . . ." Cardozo belongs as much to Idaho as to New York." As for Cardozo's being a Jew, Borsh reportedly told Hoover, "Anyone who raises the question of race is unfit to advise you concerning so important a matter."

Cardozo was nominated and confirmed.

We live in an age of identity politics, when race and gender seem to count more than merit. The Supreme Court may soon confront that issue when it decides whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the law by apparently preferring African American over Asian-American applicants. If the justices decide that race alone may not properly be considered as a factor in admissions, they may well send a message to President Biden and future presidents regarding race and gender as criteria for nominations to the High Court.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and served on the legal team representing President Donald Trump for the first Senate impeachment trial. He is the author of numerous books, including his latest, The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics. His podcast, "The Dershow," is available on Spotify and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18178/can-the-president-constitutionally-restrict-his

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Erdoğan's Neo-Ottoman Ambitions Turning Eastward - Burak Bekdil

 

​ by Burak Bekdil

The idea is to bring together three Muslim nations: NATO member Turkey; Azerbaijan with its rich hydrocarbon resources and growing military capabilities; and Pakistan with its nuclear weapons.

  • Obsessed with reviving Turks' imperial days of glory, Erdoğan is turning to Turkey's east to create a pan-Turkic/Islamist strategic alliance consisting of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan, with part-time, tactical alliances with Iran, Qatar and Bangladesh.

  • The idea is to bring together three Muslim nations: NATO member Turkey; Azerbaijan with its rich hydrocarbon resources and growing military capabilities; and Pakistan with its nuclear weapons.

  • It is not a coincidence that Erdoğan has visited Azerbaijan more than 20 times during his presidency.

  • Ankara appears to hope that the U.S. exit from Afghanistan has created space for the leadership role of Turkey and Pakistan.

  • It all looks promising. Except it is not.

  • The Turkey-led move to upgrade Turkic-speaking states' cooperation into a political unit that could weaken Beijing's and Moscow's influence in Central Asia will no doubt come under close Chinese and Russian scrutiny.

  • In theory, Iran is Turkey's "Muslim brother." In reality, it is (Sunni) Turkey's (Shia) sectarian adversary, historical rival and cross-border contender in Shia-majority Iraq and Shia-ruled Syria.

  • And, finally, Russia. Azerbaijan is still more of a Russian turf, than a Turkish one. More Azeris speak Russian than those who love to roar the Turkic slogan "one nation, two states." Pakistan remains China's strongest ally and appears happy to consider itself Chinese territory.

Obsessed with reviving Turks' imperial days of glory, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is turning east to create a pan-Turkic/Islamist strategic alliance consisting of NATO member Turkey; Azerbaijan with its rich hydrocarbon resources and growing military capabilities; and Pakistan with its nuclear weapons. Pictured: Erdogan (right) and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan meet in Ankara, Turkey on January 4, 2019. (Photo by Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images)

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's ambitious neo-Ottoman policy calculus has earned Turkey unprecedented international isolation. Turkey won the title of being the world's only country that was sanctioned by all of the United States, Russia and the European Union in the past five years. Turkey's negotiations for full membership in the EU have come to a halt and the European Council has started infringement procedures against NATO's only Muslim member state. Obsessed with reviving Turks' imperial days of glory, Erdoğan is turning to Turkey's east to create a pan-Turkic/Islamist strategic alliance consisting of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan, with part-time, tactical alliances with Iran, Qatar and Bangladesh.

The idea is to bring together three Muslim nations: NATO member Turkey; Azerbaijan with its rich hydrocarbon resources and growing military capabilities; and Pakistan with its nuclear weapons.

The slogan "one nation, two states" has gained momentum particularly after Turkey's military and logistical support to Azerbaijan during the Nagorno-Karabakh war of 2020, which ended up with major Azeri gains over Armenia. Azerbaijan has become an increasingly demanding customer of Turkish-made weapons systems. Turkey has invited Azerbaijan and Pakistan to its TF-X program, an ambitious plan to build a new generation of an indigenous fighter aircraft.

Turkey's arms sales to Azerbaijan have surged in recent years. In 2020, Turkish-made defense and aerospace exports to Azerbaijan increased six-fold. Similarly, between 2016 and 2019, Turkey became Pakistan's fourth-largest arms supplier, surpassing the U.S., while Pakistan became Turkey's third-biggest arms market.

In 1988, Turkey and Pakistan established a Military Consultative Group aiming to strengthen military and defense procurement relations. As cooperation deepened, the group expanded and evolved into the High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council (HLSCC). In early 2020, Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan co-chaired the sixth session of HLSCC and signed 13 memorandums of understanding (MOUs), five of them related to the defense industry.

Under one contract, Turkey would build and sell four multi-purpose corvettes to the Pakistani Navy. Earlier, in 2018, Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) signed a $1.5 billion contract to sell a batch of 30 T129 attack helicopters to Pakistan.

It is not a coincidence that Erdoğan has visited Azerbaijan more than 20 times during his presidency. In September 2021, the Azerbaijani, Turkish, and Pakistani militaries carried out an eight-day-long joint military drill in Baku, dubbed "Three Brothers - 2021." Throughout 2021, Ankara, Baku, and Islamabad have discussed ways to bolster trade, investment, transport, banking and tourism after signing the Islamabad Declaration that aims to deepen economic interaction between the three Muslim nations.

To have political clout in Afghanistan's future, Turkey is working closely with its staunch Gulf ally, Qatar. In early December, Erdoğan and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani signed 12 MOUs across various fields, including the military, healthcare, tourism, and education sectors, among others. Qatar's foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, explained, "Qatar will work with ally Turkey and Taliban officials to ensure that Kabul's international airport, the site of chaotic scenes after the Taliban takeover, continues to function."

Ankara appears to hope that the U.S. exit from Afghanistan has created space for the leadership role of Turkey and Pakistan. Some scholars agree.

"For 20 years, we've had the U.S. in the region as an extra-regional force, but with the boots on the ground. And now that they have left there is a political vacuum ... There are geopolitical dynamics," said Rabia Akhtar, who leads the Centre for Security Strategy and Policy Research (CSSPR) at the University of Lahore. "Pakistan is right at the heart of it. And it is not only Pakistan, but it is also Iran, it is Turkey."

On December 23, after a 10-year hiatus, the first freight train from Pakistan to Turkey through Iran, named the Islamabad-Istanbul rail service, departed. It was a major boost to the trading capabilities of the three founders of the Economic Cooperation Organization. The move came after several years in which the U.S. followed a policy of "maximum pressure" against Iran to isolate the country by severing all modes of international trade with the Islamic Republic.

Earlier in December, Iran, Azerbaijan and Georgia reached an agreement on establishing a transit route connecting the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. This transit route can potentially link with the Islamabad-Istanbul rail service and further boost connectivity in the region, given that Pakistan and Turkey are both close allies of Azerbaijan in addition to having strong trade relations with Iran.

It all looks promising. Except it is not.

Take, for example, the Turkish-Pakistani deal for T129 attack helicopters deal. This sale has not moved forward because TAI has failed to secure U.S. export licenses for the contract. The T129 is produced under license from the Italian-British company AgustaWestland. It is powered by engines made by LHTEC, which is a joint venture between the U.S. firm Honeywell and the British company Rolls-Royce.

In short, the Turkish-Pakistani military deal became a casualty of a Turkish-U.S. dispute over Turkey's acquisition of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

Then there is China. Following the Taliban takeover, China was the first foreign country to pledge emergency humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Security on China's western frontiers, and for its Belt and Road projects in Central Asia and Pakistan, is essential for Beijing. It also needs a favorable security system in the region to protect its economic interests. The traditional China-Pakistan alliance is evolving into a Chinese-Pakistani alliance in Afghanistan where there may be only a too-limited role for Turkey. "There is likely to be deeper strategic cooperation between China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, and Iran, on counterterrorism efforts and crackdown on illegal drug trade," said Mercy A. Kuo, executive vice president at Pamir Consulting.

China has also been traditionally suspicious of covert Turkish governmental support for its Turkic-Muslim minority, the Uyghurs, whom the Chinese Communist Party views as a fundamental security threat. Earlier this year, the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States, also known as the Turkic Council, changed its name to the Organisation of Turkic States, adding to Chinese (and Russian) suspicions over potential pan-Turkic separatism. The Turkey-led move to upgrade Turkic-speaking states' cooperation into a political unit that could weaken Beijing's and Moscow's influence in Central Asia will no doubt come under close Chinese and Russian scrutiny.

Then there is the Iranian ambiguity. The "Three Brothers - 2021" military exercises in September sparked heightened tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran as the Islamic Republic perceived it as a security threat, particularly due to Pakistan's involvement. In response, on October 1, the Iranian military kicked off its own military exercise, code-named "Fatehan Khaybar," near Iran's border with Azerbaijan. Shortly after these military drills, Azerbaijan closed down in Baku a mosque and an office operated by the representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Tehran is also faced with the threat of ethno-nationalistic separatist tendencies among its own Azeri Turkic population. The Turkic minority in Iran, the largest, is estimated at 14-20 million people in a country of 84 million people total.

Another Azeri-Iranian friction is about reconstruction contracts after the most recent Nagorno-Karabakh war. Tehran has been disappointed by Baku's generous awards of construction projects to Turkish or Pakistani companies instead of Iranian bidders.

In theory, Iran is Turkey's "Muslim brother." In reality, it is (Sunni) Turkey's (Shia) sectarian adversary, historical rival and cross-border contender in Shia-majority Iraq and Shia-ruled Syria.

Finally, Azerbaijan is still more of a Russian turf than a Turkish one. More Azeris speak Russian than those who love to roar the Turkic slogan "one nation, two states." Pakistan remains China's strongest ally and appears happy to consider itself Chinese territory.

Erdoğan's pan-Turkic/Islamist ambition will be good for both Russian and Chinese interests: it will mean further Turkish engagement eastward and further weakening its already-strained ties with Western institutions, most notably with NATO. Moscow and Beijing will no doubt be able to control any foul play by the infant Turkic/Muslim bloc.

 

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18135/erdogan-ambitions-east

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter