Saturday, June 18, 2016

Hezbollah Sinking in the Syrian Quagmire - Jonathan Spyer

by Jonathan Spyer

Hezbollah remains by far the most formidable non-state military actor facing Israel

Originally published under the title "Sinking in the Syrian Quagmire."

In a speech last month Hezbollah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem attempted to portray Israel and the Sunni jihadis it is fighting in Syria as being in league together.
Speaking at a gathering in southern Lebanon last month, Hezbollah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem reiterated the movement's readiness for war with Israel. At the same time, the sheikh made clear that war this summer would not take place unless Israel initiates it.

In his speech, Qassem, who is considered the chief ideologue of Hezbollah, recalled the "divine victory" of the movement, which brought about Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon in May 2000. He asserted, in a reiteration of the movement's "muqawama" or resistance doctrine, that the 2000 withdrawal had begun the period of Israel's decline. This period, he suggested, will end with the Jewish state's disappearance.

So far, so predictable. The latter point is classic Hezbollah rhetoric. The movement's "resistance" doctrine inherited the old Pan-Arab and then Palestinian-nationalist viewpoint, according to which Israel's physical strength was belied by an inner weakness that would ensure its eventual defeat.

According to Qassem, Hezbollah will not attack Israel unless provoked.
But, this time, the rhetoric was being used to frame a rather pacifist message – the supposedly weakened and doomed enemy would not be attacked unless Hezbollah was provoked.

As Qassem went on to develop his theme, the reason for this contradiction became clear. In a rather strained rhetorical jump, he exposed the current strategic dilemma Hezbollah faces. What was the reason for the "divine victory" of 2000, he asked. Answering his own question, he declared: "We did not defeat Israel because of the rifle, but because we have educated our children against the international takfiris [apostates]. God gives us victory because of their faith, and today we are honored with the land, thanks to this belief."

Hezbollah has a variety of not very flattering terms for Israelis and Jews. takfiris, however, is not one of them. Rather, it is a term favored by Shi'a Islamists for their Sunni jihadi enemies. It references the attempts of the latter to declare other non-Muslims apostates and implicitly links today's Sunni jihadis with extremist sects in the early Islamic period, which normative Islam opposes.

With a rhetorical sleight of hand, Qassem was seeking to establish a sort of seamless link between the Zionist enemies who suffered the "Divine Victory" of 2000, and the takfiri (Sunni jihadi) enemies against whom the movement is mainly engaged today.

This link does not work in logical terms. But Qassem's reasons for wanting to make it are nevertheless entirely understandable. How simple things must have seemed for Hezbollah only a decade ago. And how much more complicated now.

Iran's Crown Jewel

Hezbollah was riding high 10 years ago.
In the aftermath of the 33-day 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the movement and its Iranian backers appeared on the edge of a major strategic breakthrough. Established by Iran in the first years of the 1980s, Hezbollah was the prototype of the Shi'a political-military organizations through which Teheran has sought to advance its interests across the Middle East.

Hezbollah was the jewel in the crown of this array. It gave Iran entry to the Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic cause of the war against Israel. In May 2000, the movement ended a long guerrilla insurgency with success as Israel ended its occupation of southern Lebanon. In the summer of 2006, a confused and flailing Israeli campaign could again be plausibly depicted as an achievement for Hezbollah and hence the cause of Teheran.

The tactical goals, of course, were the departure of Israel from south Lebanon before 2000, and the preservation of the movement's ability to continue to strike at Israel in 2006. Strategically, however, these events had a greater significance.

Following the 2006 war, the popularity of Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah soared, according to all available measures. The 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, conducted at the very height of Hezbollah's prestige in early 2008, found that 26 percent of respondents cited the Hezbollah leader as the most-valued world leader outside of their own country. President Bashar Assad of Syria was second at 16%. The latter's increased popularity was also almost certainly due to his close association with Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's perceived achievements appeared to justify the long Iranian investment in the movement. If the Palestinian cause was the way to the hearts of the Arabs (even for a Shi'a, non-Arab power like Iran), and if Arab support was essential for Iran's goal of regional leadership, the strategy of using Hezbollah as a generator of legitimacy appeared to be paying dividends.

Iran marketed Hezbollah as an exemplar to the Arabs that its methods produced victories against Israel.
Hezbollah's growing strength was significant in other ways. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq had the inadvertent effect of turning the country over to the country's Shi'a-Arab majority. The Iranians offered active support to Shi'a insurgency against Western occupation from the beginning. Groups such as the Badr Organization and Ktaeb Hezbollah followed the, by now, well-known formula of combining political and military activity to serve the local Shi'a and Iranian interest.

The rise of Shi'a dominance of Iraq raised the possibility of the emergence of a contiguous line of pro-Iranian states stretching through Iraq to Syria and thence Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. The achievement of this situation would give Teheran domination of a great swathe of the heartland of the Arab Middle East, access to the Mediterranean, and a direct, contiguous route to the frontline with Israel.

In the feverish period following the 2006 war with Israel, such a prospect appeared within reach. The Lebanese Hezbollah was set to play a starring role in this production –as the exemplar to the Arabs that Iranian methods produced victories against the Jews, and hence as the factor that would trump anti-Shi'a and anti-Persian sentiments.

Things Fall Apart

Then, almost imperceptibly at first, things began to go awry. They did so, predictably, along the lines of the sectarian fault line.

In May, 2008, Hezbollah turned its hard power against its local Sunni rivals. Since the Syrian withdrawal under pressure from Lebanon in 2005, a contest had been under way for the country's future. Facing the armed camp of Hezbollah and its allies was a Sunni-led, pro-western alliance called March 14. In May 2008, Hezbollah reacted with force to an attempt by the then March 14-led government to restrict the autonomy of the movement's independent security infrastructure in Lebanon.

Hezbollah's May 2008 takeover of Beirut led to a precipitous decline in its popularity in the Arab world.
In a matter of days, Hezbollah and its Amal allies took over West Beirut, delivering a clear, hard power message to their pro-western rivals that no attempt to brook their authority would be tolerated.

Hezbollah's force could not be resisted. But the movement's claim to represent a Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab spearhead against Israel and the West suffered a severe dent. In the 2010 version of the Arab Public Opinion Poll, Nasrallah's popularity had shrunk from 26% to 9%, a year before the outbreak of the Arab Spring.

It is, of course, the events in Syria, and the wider emergence of sectarian conflict and rivalry as the key dynamic of the current Middle East that has brought Hezbollah to the confusing impasse at which it now finds itself – of which Qassem's latest speech is an exemplar.

Hezbollah's intervention in Syria was born out of dire necessity. Had Assad fallen, both the movement itself and the Iran-led regional bloc of which it is a part would have faced disaster. Syria, after a rebel victory, would have been ruled by its Sunni majority and aligned with Sunni regional powers. Such an outcome would have left Hezbollah isolated on the Mediterranean, cut off from any hinterland and from any possibility of resupply by the Iranians in the event of war. For Iran, Assad's fall would have meant the end of any hope of a contiguous link to the Mediterranean or the chance to intervene forcefully against Israel via Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's intervention in Syria was born out of dire necessity.
Therefore, Teheran, and its client, were determined to prevent this. Furthermore, the specific difficulty Assad faced was one Hezbollah was uniquely well placed to help remedy.

Assad, in Russia and Iran, had capable and supportive allies who were prepared in the Russian case to support him diplomatically and sell him arms, and in the Iranian case to provide money and expert advice.

Neither state, however, was willing to address the issue of most pressing concern to Assad – namely, the absence of determined and capable infantry in sufficient numbers willing to engage on his behalf. On paper, Assad possessed an army, when fully mobilized, of 510,000 soldiers. In practice, he was unable to mobilize a large part of this force. Sectarian considerations (the army, like the population, was overwhelmingly Sunni Arab in composition), meant he could not trust a large part of it.

As this problem grew more acute in the course of 2012, so Iran elected to mobilize its regional proxies to assist Assad. Hezbollah, by far the ablest of Teheran's clients and also the one with the greatest interest in seeing Assad survive, played a vital role in this mobilization.

According to a US Treasury designation dated August 2012, Hezbollah had by that time "directly trained Syrian government personnel inside Syria and has facilitated the training of Syrian forces by Iran's terrorist arm, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ‒ Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Hezbollah also has played a substantial role in efforts to expel Syrian opposition forces from areas within Syria."

In the course of 2013, Hezbollah's role in Syria increased dramatically. Fighters of the movement began to play a direct role in combat. Hezbollah also took responsibility for training a new, largely Alawi paramilitary force, the National Defense Forces, which would play a crucial role in filling the gap caused by the regime's lack of reliable infantry in sufficient numbers.

Hezbollah fighters patrolling the Syrian-Lebanese border, April 2014.
In April 2013, Hezbollah took primary responsibility for a vital ground operation in central Syria – the taking of al-Qusayr, a mainly Sunni town in Homs province close to the Lebanese border. Around 1,700 fighters took part in the operation, which saw Hezbollah for the first time taking part in urban combat on a large scale. The rebels withdrew from al-Qusayr some two months later. Hezbollah's victory was costly, however. Around 200 fighters died in the course of the operation.

The movement also played a vital role in fighting in Aleppo province, in the Damascus area and in the Homs province at this time. The increasingly direct involvement came with a heavy price. Senior commanders and veteran fighters such as Ali Fayad and Mustafa Badreddine were killed in Syria. More than 1,000 Hezbollah men have died in Syria.

Hezbollah fighters played a vital role in the reconquest of the Qalamoun mountains area, and later in the regime offensive in Latakia and Idleb provinces in late 2015.

Aware of the difficulties to its image resulting from its being engaged in a war against fellow Muslims, Hezbollah sought to justify its involvement in various ways. For a while, the supposed need to protect the shrine of Saida Zeinab in Damascus from the destructive attentions of Sunni Salafis (who regard all such shrines as un-Islamic) was stressed. Subsequently, Hezbollah has tended to frame its engagement in terms of the need to protect Lebanon from the threat of the takfiris by engaging them in Syria.

As of now, Hezbollah remains fully committed to the regime effort in Syria. Around 6,000 fighters of the movement are deployed in the country at any given time. With the Geneva negotiations stalled, the Syrian war appears to be nowhere close to conclusion. This means that Syria looks set to be Hezbollah's main focus for a considerable period to come. The pro-Iranian camp of which Hezbollah is a part remains centrally committed to the survival of the Assad regime.

Around 6,000 Hezbollah fighters are deployed in Syria at any given time.
The problem is that while they are sufficiently strong to prevent Assad's destruction, they do not appear to be able to deliver the rebellion against him a final defeat. So Hezbollah fighters will be needed to fight the takfiris in Syria for the foreseeable future. The martyrs' funerals will continue. The faces of ever younger men killed in Syria will continue to appear on the movement's posters in the villages of south Lebanon.

For the movement, all this has a number of implications, most of them not positive.
Firstly, while Hezbollah remains dominant in Lebanon, the role it is playing in Syria has effectively put an end to its strategic function as a generator of legitimacy for its patron, Iran.

Hezbollah is now seen throughout the Arab world as a Shi'a sectarian force, engaged mainly in the killing of Sunnis. For as long as the Syrian war continues, it will be impossible for Hezbollah to shake this image. There are also indications of growing discontent even among Hezbollah's own Lebanese Shi'a community at the seemingly endless bloodletting in Syria and the movement's role in it.

Secondly, for as long as the movement remains committed in Syria, aggression against Israel is unlikely.

Hezbollah has rearmed and expanded since the war of 2006, and Israeli planners consider that it now possesses as many as 150,000 rockets and missiles. But with so many fighters committed to essential tasks in Syria, opening a second front against a vastly more powerful enemy than the Syrian rebels is likely to be a luxury neither Hezbollah nor its Iranian patron can afford.

Thirdly, Hezbollah's ability to retaliate for actions against it also may be limited because of its desire to avoid entering major confrontation with Israel. A number of prominent movement members have been killed over the last couple of years including Hassan Lakkis, Samir Kuntar, Jihad Mughniyeh and, most recently, Badreddine. In all but the most recent of these killings (Badreddine's), Hezbollah blamed Israel.

But the movement's retaliations, when they have come, have been small scale. Once again, the modest nature of Hezbollah's counterstrikes probably derives from a desire not to risk open confrontation with Israel at a time when the movement is engaged in Syria.

Hezbollah's predicament reflects the broader situation of the Iran-led regional bloc. In terms of hard power, the Iranians and their allies are doing passably well across the current strife-filled Middle East. They have not yet won any of the conflicts in which they are engaged (in Yemen, Iraq and Syria), but the Iranian client in each of these contexts is not close to defeat.

But, Iran today constitutes, and is seen to constitute, one side in a Shi'a-Sunni sectarian war.
As of now, the Iranians appear unable to develop strong alliances outside of the Shi'a communities of the Arab world. But the region cannot be dominated through the Shi'a alone.

If the Iranians once hoped to use Hezbollah and its fight against Israel as a way to generate legitimacy among non-Shi'a Arab populations, as of now Hezbollah itself is seen by Sunnis as an alien, sectarian and hostile force. When forced to choose between the imperative of preserving the Assad regime, and the ambition to be seen as a Pan-Islamic force, the Iranians, and hence their clients, unsurprisingly chose to favor immediate material interests over broader strategic goals.

Hezbollah remains by far the most formidable non-state military actor facing Israel.
The result of all this is that Hezbollah today faces the prospect of continued involvement in the mincing machine of the Syrian war, hemorrhaging personnel and legitimacy (though gaining, of course, experience and expertise). For as long as this situation pertains, one may expect Hezbollah leaders to continue in their speeches to recall distant "victories" against Israel, and to seek to clothe their current struggle against Sunnis in the finery of the previous war.

The present phase will not necessarily last forever, of course, and Hezbollah remains by far the most formidable non-state military actor facing Israel. But Hezbollah's Pan-Islamic "resistance" narrative may be numbered among the casualties of the Syrian civil war.

The grinding conflict to Israel's north has conclusively laid bare the stark sectarian realities underlying political loyalties in the Middle East. Hezbollah, as a result of the Syrian war, is now exposed before all as what it always was: namely, a sectarian Shi'a Islamist proxy of Iran – neither more nor less.

Jonathan Spyer is director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Campus Terrorism - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

The growing tally of victims of the university social justice jihad.

On Monday, DePaul University president, Dennis H. Holtschneider announced his resignation asserting that it would be best for DePaul if he stepped aside.  Holtschneider noted that he wished to avoid a situation where DePaul would have “one president define the next strategic direction for another president to manage.”

The explanation provided was a benign one but belies a more sinister cause having nothing to do with the university’s strategic vision and everything to do with a pernicious ideology that has become pervasive throughout college campuses across the United States. This ideology has taken firm root and is spreading like a malignant cancer, impervious to treatment. It is an ideology firmly rooted in radical leftist fascism, cobbled together from a motley alliance of radical feminists, anarchists, Islamist supremacists and so-called social justice warriors whose sole aim is to stifle free speech through fear, intimidation and bullying.
Holtschneider is the latest victim of campus terrorism and his resignation can be directly linked to the appearance of conservative social commentator and Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos at DePaul in May. DePaul was one of many stops on Yiannopoulos’ “Dangerous Faggot Tour,” which has taken direct aim at university totalitarianism and the need to alter its malevolent trajectory.

Leftists, who despise all forms free speech –except their own – blocked entrances and rushed the stage from where Yiannopoulos addressed the audience forcing the event’s premature termination. On instructions from university officials, police who were on hand did nothing to intervene. This sad spectacle repeated itself at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) where a bomb threat at a Yiannopoulos event forced police to evacuate attendees.

Holtschneider initially defended Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech and the right of others to assemble and listen to his thought-provoking ideas noting that all speakers had the right to a “respectful hearing.” But his bold stand in defense of free speech was brief and just days later, he issued a cowardly retraction after coming under intense pressure from campus fascists and thought police. In addition to their objections to Yiannopoulos, campus radicals griped about campus chalk scrawls which stated “Blue Lives Matter.” Apparently, an expression of concern for the lives of those who uphold the rule of law and protect our streets also falls under the category of forbidden speech.

In an email, Holtschneider apologized for “the harm that was unleashed by a speaker whose intent was to ignite racial tensions and demean those most marginalized, both in our society and at DePaul.” That forced contrition handed a victory to campus totalitarians and caused immeasurable harm to the university’s standing and reputation.

A similar scenario unfolded at San Diego State University where university president, Elliot Hirshman, was forced to issue a rather craven apology to a mob of Islamists for earlier remarks he made in support of free speech. It began with a poster campaign initiated by the David Horowitz Freedom Center that named seven students who “allied themselves with Palestinian terrorists to perpetrate” a campaign of fear and terror against Jewish students on campus. Campus Islamists, who are free to spew the vilest of anti-Semitic calumnies, were enraged but Hirshman correctly assessed the matter as a free speech issue.

On April 27, a group of Islamists and members of the hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine (an organization with links to Muslim extremists) managed to surround a police car in which Hirshman was a passenger and refused to allow the vehicle’s passage, effectively trapping him. Some unfurled Islamic prayer matts and knelt while others chanted the usual slogans and banalities. Eventually, after about an hour, Hirshman emerged from the car and was forced to apologize to the protestors for defending the rightful exercise of free speech.

The two cited examples are not aberrations but reflect a growing trend on university campuses. The concept of the free exchange of ideas has given way to an oppressive, regressive leftism that has taken political correctness to new extremes. Of course, it is still open season on the Jews and there is no limitation to defamatory hate speech directed against Israel. An illustration of this sad reality is best exemplified by a very troubling incident which occurred at San Francisco State University.

On April 6, Israel’s mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat was in the midst of addressing a group of SFSU students when his speech was suddenly interrupted by a rabid group of SJP militants spewing anti-Semitic pejoratives and epithets with the aid of bullhorns. Police stood idly by and did nothing thereby facilitating the disruption. Barkat was eventually forced to leave the podium and addressed audience members in a more informal setting.

The hooligans who committed the disruption were clearly identified by video and the university promised an investigation but to my knowledge, no disciplinary action against the offending students was ever instituted. In addition to permitting the suppression of free speech, the university may also be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin.

Across college campuses throughout the United States, there is a relentless assault on free speech that has had a detrimental muzzling effect on the free exchange of ideas. The radical left and Islamist groups like the SJP have banded together to create a toxic environment of hate, fear and suspicion and it is incumbent on university officials to take back their universities and impose the necessary disciplinary steps to reverse this deleterious trend.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jihad-serving apologetics - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Muslim intellectuals are explaining Jihad by using Freudian analysis, but it just won't wash.

Jihad has reached Orlando, the city that evokes memories of fun-packed family days in Disney World to people all over the world, and Muslim intellectuals are scrambling to find a way to explain what happened. Obviously, they cannot deny the fact that Muslim-perpetrated massacres are occurring with increasing frequency and are aimed both at Muslims and unbelievers, but it is difficult for them to live with the fact that these bloodbaths are said to be in the name of their religion, since they themselves are non-violent and do not promote violence.

An example of the intellectual efforts to deal with "violence for the sake of Islam," is Bahrain's Dr. Ali Mahmoud Fakhro's article in the pan-Arab London-based newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi titled: "The violent Takfeeri Jihad and psychology." (Note: The term Takfeeri refers to the declaring of someone, whether Muslim or not, a heretic and therefore fair game for violence)

The following is the article, brought almost in its entirety, with several explanatory comments of mine in parentheses:

"Most of the efforts to understand the violent Takfeeri Jihad phenomenon are focused on the social and cultural reasons behind it as well as the political opportunism it embodies. Very little has been written on the psychological background and causes of the phenomenon, but most of the unbalanced behaviors which are opposed to mental and psychological equilibrium as well as human values, defy logical and religious explanations, and are perpetrated daily by individuals and groups of Takfeeri through psychological theories and assumptions predicated in psychology.

Sigmund Freud, the founding father of psychology, reached the conclusion that the conscious portion of intelligent behavior is only the tip of the iceberg, the small part above the waters that the eye can see. The large, hidden part is the subconscious, the unknown, and that part is what controls our conscious actions, directs them and decides what they are to be. The unconscious, therefore, is the basis for our personality and determines the way we behave in our surroundings.

"What is pertinent to our subject is the result of research done by Freud and other psychologists who studied the formation of this unknown unconscious and saw that man has wild and animalistic instincts, aggressive inclinations and inner feelings that allow him to turn into a sadistic and violent murderer. If he joins others like him, the group turns into a satanic and destructive entity.

"In this dark corner of man's soul, filled with secrets and contradictions, the will to live and the will to die are side by side. That is why those destructive and easily ignited inclinations and emotions must be given criteria for acceptable behavior and be kept under control – these can be constraints whose sources are cultural values, the rule of law and societal norms, but they must be analyzed and treated in order to bring them out from the darkness of the abnormal unconscious to the light of an intelligent and mentally balanced conscious.

"The basic question is: what role is played by irrational, extremist religious baggage based on an erroneous understanding of the Koran and the oral sayings (Hadiths) of the Prophet in causing the Satanic inflaming of the worst elements of man's unconscious and heart, turning him from a rational, moral and stable person into a wild and evil animal?  

"Of course, one can turn this question on its head and ask: do all the dangerous feelings and desires found in the Jihadist unconscious burst forth from behind a religious mask, in the name of religion, so as to keep the perpetrators from being ashamed of their own behavior? In other words, is religion being used to remove all the roadblocks and limitations placed on man by culture, law and morality and intended to prevent acting on impulse without supervision, criticism and punishment? If that is the case, who is using whom? Does the misinterpreted religion use the unconscious to justify its existence and spread its orders and achieve its leaders' despicable goals? Or is it the unconscious that is using the holy religion and the respect people have for its elevated status among men in order to justify its irrational and insane manifestations?

"No matter what the answer is to these two questions, it is indisputable that there is a strong link between the Takfeeri, insane and terrorist Jihad phenomenon as seen in the behavior of its leaders and followers, and a good many of the customary assumptions and interpretations in the science of modern psychology.

"This explains to some extent what we have noticed: the fact that many young people have joined the Takfeeri Jihadists while others refuse to do so even though they live under similar conditions and suffer from the identical economic, political and social problems.  We see that some are psychologically ready and others are not…

"Therefore, do not be surprised that a great deal of the insane Takfeeri Jihad game uses religion to awaken suppressed desires and create new ones, even if the religion being employed has no connection with Islam and its great mission and values, its call for freedom from all kinds of slavery, for equality, mercy and peace. Arab psychologists must study this phenomenon in order to fully understand the madness that has brought the Arabs to a frightening and destructive hell on earth."

That is the article by the Bahrain psychologist, brought here almost in its entirety. His attempt to link Jihadist violence with psychological problems leads to a most difficult impasse, as people with psychological problems talk about their deviant actions and even explain them in what they think are rational terms, but these are, for the most part, individuals, each with his own problems and his own justification for them.

As soon as we see a large group of people, many thousands of them, acting in a deviant manner, all of them providing the same, coherent explanation for what they are doing, we are talking about a collective norm - not a few deviants. And when this large group is spread over various countries and continents, and has members that hail from different ethnicities, social, political and economic backgrounds, includes men and women, young and old,  the educated and the ignorant, all committing violence in the name of the same religion, we are not talking about deviant behavior stemming from the subconscious – which, by definition is different from one man to another – but of behavior stemming from the area that is conscious, rational, acquired and gets its motivation from texts and ideas absorbed by the two critical senses – vision and hearing – and processed by understanding, agreement, internalization, enlistment and action.

Texts that are clear in the Koran and the Hadith, precedents set by Muhammad that appear in his biographies, ideas about controlling the world to be found in many Islamic letters, the lives of the first Caliphs and Islamic history books describe in great detail the massive conquests of the first centuries of Islam and what the conquerors did to the people they subjugated – these are the components of a single, unifying explanation for all the thousands of Takfeeri Jihadists from different nations, backgrounds and positions.

We are not talking about people donning a religious mask behind which hides subconscious violence but about the Draconic enactment of ideas and orders to be found in man's conscious – and that is why the psychological analysis brought by Dr. Ali Mahmud Fakhro is nothing more than a weak excuse and cheap apologetic - whose intention is to leave the impression that Takfeeri Jihad is only shared by a few madmen, each of whose motivations are unclear.

His article in the London-based Arab press is just one example of the attempt at repression by Arabs and Muslims who are not prepared, or not able, to deal with the unequivocal Koranic verses, the clear Hadith sayings and the precedents that appear in all their horror in Islamic history, and reflect the violence embedded in all these sources as methods for spreading the Islamic faith, in the case that more civilized methods are ineffective.

Even the concealed picture that Dr. Fakhro presents which contains an evil Takfeeri Jihad as opposed to the non-Takfeeri and good one, is an exercise in throwing sand in the eyes of the outsider, because the entire idea of Jihad is based on dividing people into believers and heretics, with the believers acting against the heretics. What bothers him is when one Muslim calls another a heretic, but as long as Jihad is aimed against the real heretics – members of other religions – Jihad is not Takfeerii and therefore may even be acceptable.

The time has come for Dr. Fakhro and his intellectual friends to study the Islamic roots of violence against members of other religions and deal with them, before this violence leads them to a devastating end – one that they will share with the rest of us, the true infidels.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

U.S. Mideast Retreat a Boon for Moscow and Tehran - Efraim Inbar

by Efraim Inbar

The gravest consequence of U.S. disengagement from the region is the increased probability of nuclear proliferation

U.S. president Barack Obama (left) toasts Chinese president
Xi Jinping, November 2014. While it makes immense strategic
sense for Washington to pay greater attention to Beijing
considering the rise in its economic power and military
capacity, the "pivot to Asia" remains primarily a slogan with
little policy follow-through. Cuts in defense expenditures
hardly support the goal of containing China while at the
same time leaving fewer military assets available for
projecting power in the Middle East.

The United States is in retreat in the Middle East, and the adverse implications of this policy shift are manifold. These range from acceleration of Tehran's drive to regional hegemony; to the spread of jihadist Islam; to the palpable risk of regional nuclear proliferation following the July 2015 Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA); to Russia's growing penetration of the region; to the possible satellization of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian basin by a resurgent Iran. The manifest U.S. weakness is also bound to have ripple effects far beyond the Middle East as more and more global players question the value of a partnership with a vacillating and feckless Washington.

Washington Disengages

From his early days in power, President Barack Obama has pursued a grand strategy of retrenchment based on the belief that the Bush administration's interventionist policies had severely damaged U.S. standing and that a very different strategy was required: a non-aggressive, multilateral, and noninterventionist approach.[1] This has resulted in the erosion of U.S. clout in several regions, notably Eastern Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East.[2]

Most unambiguous was Obama's intent to reduce the U.S. presence in the Middle East, and the rationale for this policy shift is clear: The region is among the world's most volatile areas with anti-U.S. sentiments particularly rampant.[3] U.S. forces had fought two costly wars there in the past decade, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, in an attempt to prevent these states from becoming hotbeds of terrorism and to promote their democratization, only to be taught a painful lesson about the limits of power and the need for greater foreign policy realism.[4] As Washington's deficiency in political engineering in the Middle East became clearer, overseas interventions became less popular at home. This evolution in domestic attitudes facilitated Obama's strategic shift.

The desire for a lower profile in the Middle East was not the only factor behind Washington's retreat from the region. Dependence on energy resources from the Persian Gulf has been reduced, thanks to new technologies that can extract natural gas and oil within the continental United States. The country has, in fact, become an influential producer in the global energy market and is heading toward energy independence. According to an Energy Department report, even with low prices, U.S crude oil production was expected to hit a new record in 2015.[5] Under these new circumstances, the Middle East appears less directly relevant to U.S. interests. However, in the long run, this perspective might prove short-sighted as the decline in energy dependency could be temporary.

The preference to downgrade U.S. involvement in the Middle East was reinforced by Washington's pronounced decision to "pivot" toward China, an emerging global challenger. While Asia has always been important for the United States, Obama emphasized that his administration would no longer be diverted by secondary arenas such as the Middle East and would instead elevate Asia to top priority.[6] Despite such declarations, however, "pivoting to China" remains primarily a slogan with little policy content, only underscoring Washington's inaction and weakness.

As a result of this re-prioritization, the Obama administration has reduced military assets available for projecting power in the Middle East. To take one example, there was a recent period during which there were no aircraft carriers in either the eastern Mediterranean or the Gulf—an unprecedented situation since October 2015. And while officials within the Navy continue to recognize the need for a permanent aircraft carrier presence in the gulf or in its vicinity, the department is going ahead with plans for longer periods during which there will be no carriers in the area at all. A U.S. spokesperson has said that the reduced presence is due, not to lack of need, but to the availability of fewer carriers and the prioritization of the Asia-Pacific.[7]

Obama's policies were viewed as projecting a lack of understanding of Middle Eastern politics.
As President Obama's reluctance to act in the Middle East became clearer, his policies were often viewed within the region as unwise, projecting both weakness and a lack of understanding of Middle Eastern politics. One early example was the administration's initial inclination to try to engage foes, such as Iran or Syria. 
Other defining moments were the passive approach toward the mass protests against the rigged June 2009 Iranian presidential elections; the desertion of long-time ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in February 2011; the "leading from behind" strategy in the Western intervention in Libya in March-October 2011, and the retreat from threats to use force against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for crossing a chemical weapons "red line" that Obama himself had promulgated in August 2012. These decisions contributed to widespread perceptions, both in the Middle East and beyond, that Obama is a weak, unreliable ally with a questionable grasp of regional realities.[8]

The campaign against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sha'm [Greater Syria]) provides additional evidence of the retreat of U.S. power in the Middle East. In August 2014, after a long and confused decision-making process, Washington concluded that ISIS's land conquests were evolving into a significant threat to U.S. interests and ordered its air force to attack ISIS installations and forces in Syria and Iraq.[9] By the summer of 2015, the territory in those areas under ISIS control had indeed shrunk, but ISIS had made gains elsewhere. Unfortunately, the gap between the administration's goals and its willingness to allow its troops to pursue them on the ground has only bolstered ISIS's dual message about the weakness of the decadent West and the group's ability to withstand military pressure.[10] The campaign also illuminated the daunting political and logistical challenges involved in organizing proxies to fight ISIS.[11]

Washington wants to transform ISIS into a manageable problem rather than vanquish it.
While Washington remains reluctant to reinsert ground forces, it still hopes to reduce ISIS's potency. The expectation is that a protracted air campaign, accompanied by special operations, will break the group's momentum while buying time for local forces to organize and then to conduct ground operations. Washington wants thus to transform ISIS into a manageable problem rather than build a coalition to vanquish it and hopes to place the onus for ground fighting and the ultimate defeat of the group on the actors directly affected.

The problem with this approach is that while the administration wants the Arab states to fight ISIS, these states want Washington to do the job for them. The administration has failed to induce local actors to cooperate effectively against ISIS, and the limited air campaign appears insufficient. Nevertheless, the administration continues to express its commitment to a war on ISIS. This is partly because a high threat perception helps legitimize its nuclear deal with the Islamist regime in Tehran. In effect, the administration is telling its critics that Tehran is a legitimate partner in defeating ISIS since it too views the extremist Sunni group as a threat.

The Russian intervention in Syria, which began at the end of September 2015, has similarly underscored the U.S. weakness. In typical fashion, Obama issued dismissive statements on Russia's involvement and called the intervention a likely quagmire for Russian forces thereby absolving himself of the need to do anything. He did not specify how he would respond to Russian aircraft targeting U.S.-supported rebel factions but underlined that Washington would not directly confront Moscow.[12]

The tacit expectation that Syria would turn into a replay of the previous Afghanistan experience for Russia has proved to be unfounded. Putin's intervention, limited in scope and with no ground component, helped Assad consolidate his grip on some parts of Syria, particularly on the Mediterranean littoral where Russian bases are located. The tepid U.S. reaction to Turkey's November 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24M aircraft also highlighted the administration's over-whelming desire to avoid escalation.

While U.S. secretary of state John Kerry (left), his European counterparts, and Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif (right) were delighted to conclude the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Vienna, July 14,2014, U.S. allies in the region were alarmed at what they perceived as their abandonment. The "Iran deal" ignores the fundamental national security interests of Israel, Egypt, the Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia.
Above all, Washington has desisted from confronting Iran on its nuclear program, instead going to great lengths to ac-accommodate it. President Obama proudly contends that by concluding the July 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, he has resolved one of the outstanding security risks in the region before leaving office. In fact, the deal legitimizes a large nuclear infrastructure in Iran, leaves it with the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a relatively short time, and ignores the fundamental national security interests of at least two key U.S. allies: Israel and Saudi Arabia. The subsequent removal of international economic sanctions—with no reciprocal requirement for any change in Iranian regional policy—positions Tehran to reap great financial benefits at no cost.

Since the conclusion of the deal, Iran has deliberately put the United States, the U.N. Security Council, and the European Union to the test by firing off long-range ballistic missiles. Even if the development of its nuclear program has been postponed by the deal, Tehran is doing what it can to ensure that it will be able to deliver a nuclear warhead once the stipulated fifteen-year delay is up. It is also using these missile tests to bolster its image as a regional powerhouse. Washington's response to these provocations has been weak: White House press secretary Josh Earnest declared that the missile test was "not a violation of the nuclear agreement" but reassured reporters that "we're still reviewing the launch ... to determine what the appropriate response is."[13] President Obama's Iran policy has occasioned a dramatic change in the regional balance of power, yet he and his administration appear largely unperturbed.

To add insult to injury, Washington is withdrawing in a manner that does not command respect.[14] It left Iraq without waiting to build up the Iraqi army adequately. It is withdrawing from Afghanistan without leaving a government strong enough to withstand the pressure of the Taliban. It refrained from attacking Assad when the dictator used chemical weapons on his citizens in flagrant defiance of a red line enunciated by the U.S. president. Washington has ruled out the military option in its negotiations with Iran and now conducts a very low-profile campaign against ISIS with limited success. Overall, the United States projects an image of pathetic fatigue and weakness—an image of which both friends and foes are acutely aware.

The Regional Consequences

Whereas the Obama administration's Iran policy has been primarily guided by wishful thinking about the possibility of encouraging moderation in that country, the apprehensions of regional actors with regard to Tehran's hegemonic ambitions have correspondingly multiplied, especially in response to the nuclear deal. While Washington says it welcomes Iranian assurances "to work on regional stability,"[15] leaders in Ankara, Cairo, Jerusalem, and Riyadh see Tehran's behavior as almost entirely unaltered from its pre-deal state in any meaningful political sense, with the added potential of its ability to produce nuclear bombs in a short time.

The gravest consequence of the U.S. policy of disengagement from the region is the increased probability of nuclear proliferation. Powers contending for regional leadership, such as Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, will not stand idly by in the nuclear arena particularly as Washington is no longer seen as a reliable security provider. Riyadh has made it eminently clear that it desires a nuclear infrastructure on par with that of Iran,[16] and Turkey and Egypt are in the process of enhancing their nuclear programs.[17] It will take considerable time for such programs to come to fruition, but the nuclear race is on. The Obama administration's attempts to convince regional powers to rely on a U.S. nuclear umbrella in a bid to prevent nuclear proliferation are likely to fail because of the fecklessness on display. The emergence of a multi-polar nuclear Middle East, which is a plausible consequence of the U.S. nuclear accommodation with Iran, will be a strategic nightmare for the world.

The gravest consequence of U.S. disengagement from the region is the increased probability of nuclear proliferation.
As noted, the nuclear deal with Iran is not linked to any demand for a change in Tehran's foreign policy or its military build-up. The Islamist regime continues to invest in its missile program and naval capabilities and to pursue its interventionist policies with great vigor, boasting the control of four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa (Yemen).[18] The February 2016 parliamentary elections produced an Iranian Majlis scarcely more moderate than its predecessor, and any change in Iranian policies is highly unlikely.[19] An emboldened Tehran, which traditionally acts through proxies rather than direct military conquest, might intensify its campaign to subvert Saudi Arabia, possibly by agitating the population in the country's oil-rich Eastern province where Shiites are a majority. The loss of that province would seriously weaken the Saudi state and might even bring about its disintegration. The visible consequences of the unraveling of statist structures in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen do not augur well for the desert kingdom.

Tehran could use subversion, terrorist attacks, and intimidation of the Persian Gulf states to evict the thinning U.S. presence completely from the gulf. This is a stated goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran,[20] and in the absence of U.S. determination and ability to project force, an Iranian superior power might turn the gulf monarchies into satellites though these states have enjoyed a U.S. security umbrella up to this point. Bahrain, home to the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, is particularly vulnerable to Iranian subversion as its majority Shiite population has many grievances against the ruling Sunni monarchy, hence could be readily manipulated by Iran.

The satellization of the Caspian basin, where Iran shares the coast with important energy producers such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, is another plausible scenario. This area and the Persian Gulf form an "energy ellipse" containing a large part of the world's energy resources. Tehran wants to link its massive energy resources to key regional projects that transport energy via the South Caucasus to European markets. Iranian activism in the south Caucasus and Central Asia has increased following the lifting of sanctions that accompanied the nuclear deal.[21] The satellization of the "energy ellipse," if it occurs, would bestow upon Tehran a central role in the world energy market.

Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are very fearful of growing Iranian influence. It is possible that those countries, which adopted a pro-Western foreign policy orientation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, might either bow to Tehran's wishes or decide to return to the Russian orbit, as Moscow appears to be a much more reliable ally than Washington. The Western loss would be considerable.

Russia Benefits

Russia is fully alive to the potential for a reassertion of its historic role in the region. Though NATO proclaims that the European theater has diminished in strategic importance,[22] Moscow seems to have other thoughts. The Mediterranean region, bordering NATO's southern flank and the Middle East, was the core of all essential dangers to Russia's national interests according to Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu,[23] and continued fallout from the Arab upheavals of the past five years has only increased the region's importance. Shortly after releasing the previous statement, Shoigu announced the decision to establish a navy department task force in the Mediterranean "on a permanent basis."[24]

Russian president Vladimir Putin (right) meets with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah Sisi. Russia understands the potential for a reassertion of its role in the Middle East in the wake of a U.S. retreat. In addition to intervening in Syria, the Russians are also engaging with Cairo: selling weapons, negotiating port rights, and supplying nuclear reactors.
The Russian naval facility in Tartus, on the Syrian littoral (leased since 1971), is a vital base for enhanced Russian naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, and Moscow has gradually improved its fleet size and stepped up patrols in the area. Its greater military footprint in the eastern Mediterranean is intended to project in-creased power into the Middle East. Putin has taken the major step of intervening militarily in Syria to assure the survival of the Assad regime and, with it, continued access to the Russian naval base. In addition, as a major player in the global energy market, he also wants to protect energy prospects that depend on Assad's survival. Moscow has already signed exploration contracts with Damascus with regard to recent gas discoveries in the Mediterranean basin.[25]

The preservation of the Assad regime is also vital for Tehran because Damascus is the corridor to Hezbollah, its Shiite proxy in Lebanon. Syria has been an ally of Iran since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979—one of the longest alliances in the Middle East. Moreover, Syria could serve as a launching pad for Iranian destabilization of Jordan, a longstanding U.S. ally. Moscow's efforts on Assad's behalf thus directly serve the interests of the Iranian regime. If successful, those efforts will further Tehran's influence in the region.

The confluence of Iranian-Russian interests is also visible outside Syria. Putin is certainly not averse to the Iranian goal of pushing Washington out of the Persian Gulf. Russia is also a clear beneficiary of the nuclear deal, which frees it from international constraints on exporting arms to Tehran.

A further outcome of the U.S. withdrawal may well be Iran joining Russia in supporting Kurdish political ambitions in order to weaken Turkey, its main rival for regional leadership. Kurdish aspirations have long been a thorn in Turkey's side. While Tehran and Ankara are supporting opposing sides in the Syrian civil war, the Kurds are busy carving out autonomous regions from the moribund state. Kurdish national dreams might, therefore, actually benefit from the power vacuum created by the disruption of Arab statist structures and the U.S. exit from the region. The emergence of an independent Kurdish entity in northern Iraq seems more probable nowadays with Washington seemingly taking no clear position on such a contingency.

Another consequence of the U.S. exit can be seen in changes in Egypt. Moscow, for one, has been well served by Washington's reluctance to support the regime of Abdel Fattah Sisi, who came to power following a military coup against President Muhammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Russians are selling the Egyptians weapons, negotiating port rights in Alexandria, and supplying them with nuclear reactors. In Iraq, too, there are harbingers of a Russian presence in coordination with Iran as U.S. influence in that state continues to wane. Iraq signed an arms deal with Russia in October 2012, and a joint intelligence center was set up in Baghdad in October 2015. Baghdad is also seeking Russian military support in its anti-terrorist campaign.[26] Moscow's and Washington's different approaches to the region tell the regional protagonists, "America is feckless; Russia and Iran are strong."

Regional Losses

In the meantime, the rise of a more aggressive Iran—a direct consequence of the U.S. retreat—may bring about greater tacit cooperation between Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. A big question is whether Ankara would join this anti-Iranian alignment. The Turks and the Persians have long been rivals who have nonetheless displayed great caution toward each other in the more recent past. Moreover, Turkey under Erdo─čan has been at loggerheads with both Egypt and Israel while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent upon energy from Iran.

Regardless of Ankara's behavior, a reduced U.S. commitment in the region is also likely to influence the destiny of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, a long-standing pro-Western country and a beneficiary of U.S. support. Amman could have more and more difficulty insulating itself from what is happening just beyond its borders—the mayhem in Syria and the growing Iranian role in Iraq. Iran or ISIS, given their greater freedom of action following the U.S. retrenchment, may also increase attempts to destabilize Jordan.

The rise of Iran and the potential for nuclear proliferation are detrimental to Israel's national security.
However, for Israel, the stability of Jordan as a buffer state is critical. Their joint border is the longest and closest to the Jewish state's heartland, and the Hashemite dynasty has been both an informal and a formal ally of Jerusalem for decades. While the dissolution of neighboring Arab states has reduced the threat of large-scale conventional military attacks against Israel (with the additional positive effect of reducing somewhat its dependence on U.S. weaponry), Jerusalem cannot be happy with the turn of events. The growing Iranian threat, and the greater appeal of radical Islam in the region, facilitates cooperation between Israel and "moderate" Sunni states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, but they are the proverbial weak reeds.

Sunni forces are, however, losing in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. The rise of Iran and the consequent change in the regional balance of power, together with the growing potential for nuclear proliferation, are detrimental to Israel's national security. Jerusalem is being pushed into a preemptive mode to minimize the repercussions of Obama's nuclear deal and mitigate its effect on the regional strategic equation, but it may well choose to wait until the president is out of office to take significant action.

In President Obama's rush to engage foes such as Iran, he has turned his back, for example, on the Iranian people who protested against the stolen June 2009 presidential elections. The disengagement of the United States from the Middle East may be the final chapter in its longstanding support for liberty and democratic movements around the world.
Nonetheless, the U.S. retreat from the Middle East, and the manner of that retreat, weakens Israel's deterrence. The perception that Washington will come to Israel's aid in case of need has been a longstanding and important component of Jerusalem's ability to project a deterrent threat. The new perception of the U.S. administration as a vacillating ally damages that deterrence. In addition, Washington's attempt to compensate its Arab allies for the Iranian nuclear deal by providing them with the latest state-of-the-art weapons erodes Israel's qualitative edge.

As a result, the U.S. exit from the Middle East ironically increases Israel's leeway to do as it sees fit. It is left with less of an obligation to weigh the consequences of its own actions on U.S. interests and personnel in the region. Moreover, the logic of "offshore balancing," whereby one country uses favored regional powers to check the rise of potential hostile powers, if pursued post-Obama, ought to see an increase in Washington's dependence on Jerusalem as the latter is the strongest and friendliest military power in a highly volatile region.[27]

Lastly, Washington's disengagement from the Middle East appears to be the final chapter in its longstanding support for liberty and democratic movements around the world. It undermines the relatively small and weak pro-democratic forces in the Arab world, which need greater U.S. involvement and support for their causes. The option of regime change in Tehran has faded away as challengers to the mullahs see little hope of getting substantial assistance from Washington. Similarly, in Turkey, where a struggle is taking place over the identity and soul of the nation, pro-democratic, pro-Western forces are discouraged by Washington's regional policies.

The International Consequences

U.S. weakness in the Middle East will inevitably have ripple effects in other parts of the globe. Its credibility is now subject to question, and allies elsewhere may determine that it would be wise to hedge their bets and look elsewhere for support.

The decision to exit the Middle East, while leaving intact a large part of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, has created incentives for nuclear proliferation in other regions of the world. Credible U.S. guarantees backed by military presence were once an effective way of encouraging states to make the strategic calculation in favor of nuclear restraint.[28] Such credibility has been drastically eroded.
Parts of Europe are within range of Iranian missiles, an arms program not even addressed in the U.S.-brokered deal.
Washington's reluctance to confront Tehran on the nuclear issue sends the message that new nuclear aspirants need not fear direct U.S. intervention, despite the administration's stated commitments to counter proliferation. In addition, states that are ready to sell sensitive technologies are now less deterred by Washington. One can already see increased cooperation between North Korea and Iran.[29] The difficulties the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has had in inspecting Tehran's nuclear facilities, and the ridiculously ineffective verification clauses accepted by the Obama administration in the JCPOA, do not augur well for the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While the NPT is not a panacea for preventing global nuclear proliferation, it was a useful tool insofar as it restrained modest nuclear aspirations.

Russian assertiveness, in parallel with U.S. feebleness, has also increased the threat perception in countries such as Poland, which might decide that its security would be enhanced by nuclear weapons. A similar rationale could lead Australia, facing increased Chinese clout, to consider a nuclear program. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan share similar apprehensions about U.S. determination and power and might also conclude that nuclear weapons have become a necessity.[30]

The U.S. exit from the Middle East further exacerbates European weakness. The European Union—lacking military force, dis-playing questionable political will, and becoming an aging political entity—is hardly a strategic player. It now faces a huge demographic challenge as migrants from the Middle East and North Africa pour into its borders. Capitalizing on EU weakness and U.S. indifference, Turkey is pushing immigrants into Europe even while it is being paid by the EU not to do so. Europe's record on absorbing immigrants from Muslim countries is already problematic, and the continent will need seriously to address this new problem if it is to maintain its identity. The recent terror attacks in Brussels and Paris vividly demonstrate these dual concerns: Jihadists, posing as refugees, can murder scores of European citizens and manage to evade domestic security services by hiding in the midst of their Muslim compatriots, hosted by these very same European countries.

Meanwhile, parts of Europe are within range of Iranian missiles, an arms program that was not even addressed by the U.S.-brokered JCPOA. Europe may, therefore, be in even greater danger from events in the Middle East that are partly the result of the U.S. abandonment of the region.

The advent of a nuclear Iran will likely also have a negative effect on the stability of the Indian sub-continent. Tehran's neighbors will inevitably have to adjust their nuclear posture in response to a new nuclear player. Sunni Islamabad may be eyeing Shiite Iran with even greater suspicion while any change in Pakistan's nuclear posture is apt to prompt a response by India, potentially increasing tensions between them. Nuclear arsenals at the disposal of the two states have not induced greater caution on the Pakistani side. Furthermore, upheaval in the Persian Gulf, threatened as it is by Tehran's aspirations, could disrupt oil supplies to both nations and harm their economies. The Indian sub-continent—India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan—which benefits from remittances from a large diaspora in the Gulf region, might be particularly vulnerable.

Washington's behavior in the Middle East is also increasing its difficulties in the Muslim world at large. Obama started his presidency by visiting Turkey and Egypt in a clear effort to improve U.S. relations with Muslim-majority states. Notwithstanding that effort, the president's subsequent policies have resulted in a widespread perception that his administration has sided with the Shiites rather than with the huge Sunni majority in the Muslim world. The nuclear deal with Iran, a Shiite power, was opposed by most Sunni states in the Middle East.[31] Moreover, the limited U.S. military effort against ISIS— a barbaric, radical organization, albeit Sunni—has helped consolidate the Assad regime in Syria, a key component of the perceived Shiite axis. While the Sunni-Shiite religious divide does not necessarily resonate the same way across all Muslim realms, U.S. policy undoubtedly leaves important Sunni states such as Indonesia and Malaysia uneasy.

In more general terms, a weaker United States strengthens anti-American and anti-democratic forces around the globe. Apprehensions in Central Asia have already been mentioned, and Russia under Putin has become more assertive in Eastern Europe and might try to exert greater influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

But it is with regard to China that the greatest potential for a major realignment exists due largely to perceived U.S. exhaustion. Beijing may become even less cooperative in the future, primarily in its immediate region. North Korea is, after all, a Chinese satellite, and Pyongyang could adopt a more destabilizing posture toward South Korea. China could become more aggressive in the sale of missile and nuclear advanced technologies. Beijing's creation of artificial islands on disputed South China Sea reefs—the actual dredging and pumping of sand, ongoing since 2014—represents its latest attempt to extend Chinese territory and exert pressure over the five other countries that claim parts of the sea. So far, Washington has displayed great reluctance to confront Beijing.[32]

U.S. allies in Asia could decide that their interests are served better by a realignment of relationships. Taking into consideration the rise of China, they might calculate using traditional balance of power thinking and opt to be on the stronger side. The image now projected by the United States is a country in decline that can no longer be assumed to be a reliable ally. China may benefit by comparison.


Washington is retrenching; it is projecting weakness and eliciting doubts about its value as an ally. While the United States under a different leadership has the potential to snap back, this could take time. Building military assets is a lengthy process, particularly when it comes to training qualified military forces. Overcoming mistrust is perhaps more difficult. Certain strategic losses, such as foreign policy reorientation by former allies, are not easily reversible.

Washington is retrenching, projecting weakness, and eliciting doubts about its value as an ally.
U.S. allies in the Middle East believe Washington needs a different lens through which to view international affairs.[33] It needs a clear conceptual framework to identify friends and foes. This is a basic mechanism for any military activity and has to be deployed from within the politico-strategic sphere. As Samuel Johnson observed, despite the twilight, there is still light and darkness. Strategic clarity is vital, even if—or particularly if—situations are obscure.

Washington's reluctance to deploy ground forces is understandable, and such military involvement is not always useful. Conserving blood and treasure, rather than expending them to pursue ambitious political schemes, is a good instinct. But the Obama-style disengagement has produced harmful outcomes for the United States and its allies. While the Middle East seems to have become gradually less important in the international arena, it is still very relevant with respect to several global challenges: Islamic radicalism, nuclear proliferation, and energy security. For the time being, there is no alternative to a responsible and well-calibrated U.S. role in world affairs. A strong and selective U.S. position is also important for spreading the values for which it stands—democracy and the free market. Abdicating such a role is simply irresponsible.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

[1] See Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Obama Doctrine," The Atlantic, Apr. 2016; Daniel Drezner, "Does Obama Have a Grand Strategy?" Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2011; Colin Dueck, The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Steven David, "Obama: The Reluctant Realist," in Efraim Inbar and Jonathan Rynhold, eds., US Foreign Policy and Global Standing in the 21st Century. Realities and Perceptions (London: Routledge, 2016).
[2] Such an approach is commonly known as "offshore balancing." See, for example, Christopher Lane, "From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: The United States' Future Grand Strategy," International Security, Summer1997, pp. 86-124; John Mearsheimer, "Imperial by Design," The National Interest, Jan./Feb. 2011, pp. 16-34; Stephen Walt, Taming US Power. The Global Response to US Primacy (New York: Norton 2006); Barry Posen, Restraint. A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014). For a criticism of the offshore balancing strategy, see Hal Brands, "Fools Rush Out? The Flawed Logic of Offshore Balancing," Washington Quarterly, Summer 2015, pp. 7-28.
[3] Richard Wike, Bruce Stokes, and Jacob Poushter, "America's Global Image," Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., June 23, 2015; Bruce Stokes, "Which countries don't like America and which do," Pew, July 15, 2014.
[4] See, for example, Posen, Restraint, pp. 87-130; Efraim Karsh, The Tail Wags the Dog: International Politics and the Middle East (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), chaps. 3-4.
[5] CNN, Apr. 15, 2015.
[6] David Shambaugh, "Assessing the US 'Pivot' to Asia," Strategic Studies Quarterly, Summer 2013, pp. 10-9.
[7] The Hill (Washington, D.C.), Aug. 16, 2015.
[8] For a critique of Obama's foreign policy toward the Middle East, see Efraim Karsh, "Obama and the Middle East. Illusions and Delusions," in Inbar and Rynhold, US Foreign Policy and Global Standing in the 21st Century, pp. 181-97.
[9] For the Obama administration's approach to terror, see Jessica Stern, "Obama and Terrorism. Like It or Not, the War Goes On," Foreign Affairs, Sept./Oct. 2015, pp. 62-71.
[10] For an assessment of the U.S. campaign against ISIS, see Yaroslav Trofimov, "Regional Discord Fuels Islamic State's Rise in Mideast," The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17-18, 2015.
[11] The New York Times, Nov. 2, 2015.
[12] The Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2015.
[13] Ibid., Mar. 8, 2016.
[14] Yaakov Amidror, Perfect Storm: The Implications of Middle East Chaos, BESA Memorandum, no.8 (Ramat Gan: Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, July 2015), p. 25.
[15] PBS News Hour, July 17, 2015; MSNBC, Apr. 21, 2016.
[16] The Guardian, June 29, 2011.
[17] "Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries," World Nuclear Organization, London, Feb. 2016.
[18] Middle East Eye (London), Mar. 10, 2015.
[19] Patrick Clawson, "Third Time the Charm for Reform in Iran?" PolicyWatch 2578, Mar. 4, 2016.
[20] The Fars News Agency (Tehran), May 16, 2015.
[21] Ilan Berman, "Iran's Eurasian Adventure. Tehran Builds Its OPEC with Bombs," Foreign Affairs, Feb. 24, 2016.
[22] Thomas R. Fedyszyn, "The Russian Navy 'Rebalances' to the Mediterranean," U.S. Naval Institute, Dec. 2013.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] See, for example, Jiri and Leni Valenta, "Why Putin Wants Syria," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2016.
[26] RT TV (Moscow), Oct. 7, 2015.
[27] Colin Cahl and March Lynch, "U.S. Strategy after the Arab Uprisings: Toward Progressive Engagement," Washington Quarterly, Spring 2013, p. 52.
[28] Brands, "Fools Rush Out?" pp. 18-9.
[29] Paul K. Kerr, Steven A. Hildreth, and Mary Beth D. Nikitin, "Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Coopertion," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2016; see also, Emily B. Landau and Alon Levkowitz, "Will Iran Continue Its Nuclear Program Abroad?" The National Interest, Feb. 19, 2016.
[30] Mark Fitzpatrick, Asia's Latent Nuclear Powers. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (New York: Routledge for IISS, 2016).
[31] The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 6, 2015.
[32] Aaron L Friedberg, "The Debate Over US China Strategy," Survival, June-July 2015, pp. 89-110.
[33] See, for example, The Huffington Post (New York), Oct. 25, 2013.

Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.