Is the US Changing Sides in the Regional Conflict between Iran and its Enemies?

by by Jonathan Spyer


A report by respected Washington DC based journalist Hussein Abdul Hussein in the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper this week revealed details of an indirect US channel with Hizballah. The report comes, of course, close on the heels of the interim agreement concluded between the P5 + 1 and Iran allowing the latter to continue to enrich uranium.

News items are also surfacing suggesting a stark split between the US and Saudi Arabia over regional policy in general and policy toward Syria in particular. Saudi officials are going on the record expressing their alarm at the direction of American policy. Happily stirring the pot, some Iran-associated outlets have suggested that Washington is actively seeking to rein back Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who favors a hard line against Iranian interference in the region.

Meanwhile, agreement has now been reached over the long postponed 'Geneva 2' conference to discuss the war in Syria. The conference will go ahead because US-backed Syrian opposition representatives abandoned their demand that President Assad could have no part in any transitional phase of government in the country.

What does all this add up to? There are an increasing number of voices who perceive a shape behind all these details: namely, an effort by the current US Administration to turn the Iranian regime from an adversary into a partner. The method: acceding in part or whole to key Iranian demands.

Let's take a look at each item in more detail.

The usually reliable Hussein Abdul Hussein's report details the mechanism by which the US is speaking to Hizballah, in spite of that organization being a US-designated terrorist group. British diplomats are the ones who do the talking. The channel of communication between UK officials and the 'political wing' of the movement was recently revived, in tune with the improving relations between London and Teheran. It is now serving to transfer messages between Washington and Teheran.

An un-named diplomatic source quoted by Abdul Hussein explained that this dialogue is 'designed to keep pace with the changes in the region and the world, and the potential return of Iran to the international community.' The official went on to explain that because the US does not concur with the (British, entirely fictitious) division of Hizballah into 'political' and 'military' wings, direct dialogue is currently not possible.

The report goes on to outline moments in recent months when the US has found itself on the 'same page' as Hizballah. One of these, very notably, was the occasion in June when the Lebanese Army, together with Hizballah fighters, fought against the partisans of the pro al-Qaeda Salafi preacher Ahmed al-Assir in the Lebanese town of Sidon. The US backed the army, without reference to the key role played by Hizballah fighters in the action, which resulted in al-Assir's defeat.

The other was the US condemnation of the recent al-Qaeda linked bombing at the Iranian embassy in Beirut. The condemnation, well noted in Lebanon, did not contain any reference to the presence of Iranian and Hizballah fighters in Syria.

Thus far the Abdul Hussein report. It tells us that the US 'outreach' to Iran is not on the nuclear file alone. Rather, even before any comprehensive agreement is reached, Washington appears to have begun to dismantle the carefully assembled diplomatic structure seeking to contain Iranian regional ambitions.

Even Teheran's proxy Hizballah, which killed 241 US Marines in Beirut in 1983, is evidently now a fit subject for communication, as part of Iran's return to the 'international community.'

Reports suggesting US reining in of Bandar are somewhat less reliable, coming as they do from pro-Iran and pro-Hizballah media outlets (al-Manar and the Revolutionary Guards associated Fars News Agency). But certainly the deep Saudi frustrations with the direction of US policy are not an invention of pro-Iran propagandists.

Nawaf Obeid, a senior adviser to the Saudi royal family, this week accused Washington of deceiving Riyadh over the Iran nuclear deal. 'We were lied to, things were hidden from us,' Obeid told an audience in London, as quoted in the Daily Telegraph.

He went on to vow continued Saudi resistance to Iranian machinations across the region. In particular, he expressed Saudi determination to turn back the Iranians in Syria. 'We cannot accept Revolutionary Guards running around Homs,' the adviser said.

But this defiant tone appears in stark contrast to the developing US position. The Geneva 2 conference is now scheduled to take place on January 22nd. It is a US-sponsored affair. It is not yet clear if Iran itself will be there.

But what is clear is that the conference will take place entirely according to the agenda of the Assad regime and its backers. That is – the US backed Syrian National Coalition will directly face the regime, while the regime now flatly rejects any notion of its stepping down.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, humming with the old Ba'athist rhetoric, the Syrian foreign ministry said that 'The official Syrian delegation is not going to Geneva to surrender power… The age of colonialism, with the installation and toppling of governments, is over. They must wake from their dreams.'

The armed rebels will not be sending representatives to the conference. They, financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have formed a new 'Islamic Front' which is battling the regime around Damascus, in Aleppo, and in the border region of Qalamun this week. The military advantage continues to ebb and flow.

But the stark contrast between the US-led diplomacy and the events on the ground is another clear reminder of the extent to which Washington's position has moved away from confrontation, away from Riyadh – and toward Teheran.

Assad has revived his fortunes in the course of 2013 mainly because of the massive Iranian assistance he has received. Washington, which officially backs the opposition, appears to be sponsoring a conference which will crown this achievement.

So is the US in fact changing sides in the contest between Iran and those regional forces seeking to contain and turn back its advance?

Michael Doran of the Brookings Institute, suggested this week that Washington is in the first phase of seeking a 'strategic partnership' with Iran, an 'entente cordiale' which would see a US-Iranian alliance forming a lynchpin of regional stability.

If this is indeed what the welter of evidence detailed above portends, then the Middle East is headed into a dangerous period indeed. As Doran also notes, there is no reason at all to think that Iranian designs for regional hegemony have been abandoned.

The effect of US overtures to Teheran and undermining of allies will be to build the Iranians' appetite. This will serve to intensify their continued efforts at expansion. The corresponding efforts by other regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia chief among them, to resist this process will also increase. That, in turn, is likely to mean greater instability across the region. An eventual direct collision could result.


Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3686/us-iran-switch

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

Obama has Accepted a Nuclear Iran

by Dan Margalit

The interim deal on Iran's nuclear program has upgraded the level of discussions of its significance in the defense establishment, in academia and in joint seminars for both communities. First because the agreement is important, and second because Iran experts are unable to reach a consensus on the deal's meaning for the future of dialogue with Tehran. 

The more facts that come to light from the negotiations in Geneva, the more the agreement appears to resemble Swiss cheese. There are many holes in the agreement as well as some serious vagueness. Barack Obama and John Kerry are not persuading the average American that this was any kind of achievement. They simply assume that most of the American public are willing to have their leaders deceive them. This is what the fight is about on Capitol Hill. In the present round, Israel is not holding back its criticism of the agreement, but neither is it taking steps against the While House. 

Analyzing the administration's conduct leads to the conclusion -- for which there is yet no proof -- that Obama has made a decision to reconcile himself to Iran's nuclearization. Perhaps full nuclearization, perhaps stopping at a point where Iran is a threshold country that can assemble four nuclear bombs in a very short period of time. There is no "smoking gun" to prove this circumstantial belief, but the evidence is getting stronger by the day.

The weakness of this decision from the White House's point of view is that Obama is not able to and does not want to admit it. It represents a collapse of all America's obligations, and a serious violation of its alliance not just with Israel, but with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf states and to a certain extent even Turkey. 

Because the administration refuses to admit that it has decided to live with the Iranian nuclear program, it is exposed to criticism in the Senate and House of Representatives, which may yet thwart the White House's intentions. 

The danger persists even if Iran does not complete the construction of a nuclear bomb and remains a threshold nation. Because if Iran is that close to a nuclear bomb, any diplomatic crisis, real or manufactured, any refusal to accept an ultimatum from Tehran, could serve as a pretext for the ayatollahs to announce that their country is completing construction of a weapon. 

Who under such circumstances would use military force against Iran? Not Obama's America. He is a president that many countries disdain. The conflict erupting at present on a different front, on the open seas near China, is an interesting example of American foreign policy's quality control. Except that, in reality, Obama doesn't really care. 

He is turning his back on allies that arose following an imperialist agreement with Britain and France (with the involvement of czarist Russia) orchestrated by the diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot.

These men laid the foundation for the current division of the Middle East, establishing ruling dynasties under the auspices of the great powers in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Obama is responding to America's longtime allies in the region with a shrug or even worse. 

His America is capitulating. The alliance with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan does not speak to him. It's not just the world that will pay the price. His own country will too, on his successors' watch.

Dan Margalit

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6523

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

Pakistani Islamists Unleash Media Campaign Against Malala Yousafzai - Girls' Education Advocate

by MEMRI

Since the summer of 2013, a number of right-wing Islamist advocates and columnists in Pakistan began a campaign to undermine the mass popularity enjoyed by girls' education advocate Malala Yousafzai among the Pakistani people. Malala rose to international fame after she was injured in an attack by the Taliban for writing an anonymous column in 2009 describing how the Taliban were enforcing Islamic sharia rule and imposing total ban on female education. The Taliban were led by Maulana Fazlullah, the emir of Swat Taliban who has now succeeded Hakimullah Mehsud as the emir of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Malala's popularity and acceptance among Pakistani children grew rapidly, especially this year as expectations soared that she might be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Given her mass popularity, it was difficult task for Islamists and right-wing columnists to publicly criticize her. However, as soon as Malala Yousafzai's book 'I Am Malala' - which is written with assistance by noted British journalist Christina Lamb – was published, some columnists selected passages from her book on issues that could be sensitive in Pakistan's deeply religious society and launched a media campaign to discredit the teenage youth icon among Pakistani children. Below are excerpts from television debates and articles from three opinion shapers in Pakistan, who are known for their Islamist positions.[1] The three are: Zaid Hamid, a security analyst who is perceived in Pakistan as a demagogue advocating jihad for the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate; Orya Maqbool Jan, an Urdu-language columnist and Islamist writer who has mass following among Pakistani readers and television viewers; and Ansar Abbasi, a senior editor with the influential Roznama Jang media group, whose columns appear in both English and Urdu. All three are often on Pakistani television channels and wield mass influence.  The last two, Orya Maqbool Jan and Ansar Abbasi, also appeared in a debate on Dunya television channel along with internationally renowned liberal academic and nuclear peace activist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, causing a huge controversy in Pakistan. On the program, Abbasi repeatedly called Hoodbhoy "jahil" (a disparaging term literally meaning "illiterate") and asked him to clarify his stand on religiously sensitive issues such as those involving Salman Rushdie and Prophet Muhammad, as TV host Kamran Shahid handed over control to Abbasi and inserted himself in the debate by noting that at a university of London, he wrote "peace be upon him" with Prophet Muhammad's name in his thesis as a matter of religious conviction, despite his thesis supervisor reminding him that this lacked objectivity.[2] Analyst Zaid Hamid: "[Malala Yousafzai] Is Just A 14-Year-Old Girl And She Is Not A Thinker, A Philosopher, Or An Ideologue, But Now… A Small Innocent Girl Is Being Used And Abused [By The West] Against The State Of Pakistan, Against Muslims" In July 2013, Zaid Hamid was interviewed on a talk show hosted by Kamran Shahid on Dunya television channel. The following are excerpts from the interview, which was conducted in Urdu:[3] Zaid Hamid: "The majority of the people in Pakistan has now begun to understand that more than 100,000 Muslims have been killed at the hands of the TTP. And picking up an injured 14-year-old girl [Malala Yousafzai] from among those over 100,000 dead and attempting through her to give this impression that Pakistan is against girls' education, the religion of Islam is against girls education; to me, it is the similar kind of disinformation and propaganda which was carried out against the Taliban in Afghanistan that they are against the education of Afghan girls. However, the reality is that they were opposed to co-education [system]. We don't justify, in any case, what has happened to Malala. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan was not our creation. It is now a known fact that they are the CIA and [India's] RAW-backed militants who, while sitting in Afghanistan, are waging a war against the state of Pakistan. They are not fighting against women's education only. If Pakistan Army is fighting them, if they carry out bomb attacks in Meena Bazaar [of Peshawar] and martyr 300-odd Peshawaris in Peshawar, if they attack mosques and Imambargahs [Shi'ite mosques] [TV host interjects here]…." Anchor Kamran Shahid: "Zaid Sahib, you are saying that the West is not raising the issue of the killings of 100,000 people but it is picking up the case of a girl, Malala Yousafzai. What are you saying, is there also a conspiracy on the issue of Malala in your view?" Zaid Hamid: "There was a film Saving Face [an Oscar winning documentary by Pakistani filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy] in which acid is thrown on the face of a woman, and that film was awarded to give the impression that all the Pakistani men keep throwing acid on every woman's face in Pakistan. And you never see our positive things being projected in the world. All our sympathies are with Malala. We don't believe the propaganda, whether she got the bullet or not [fired by the Taliban militants]. In short, she was shot at and got injured and suffered atrocities and brutalities. She is just a 14-year-old girl and she is not a thinker, a philosopher, or an ideologue, but now that a small innocent girl is being used and abused against the state of Pakistan, against Muslims, to give this impression that the whole fight of the TTP in Pakistan is perhaps a war against women education…." Columnist Orya Maqbool Jan: "[In Malala's Book] The First Person Who Is Discussed Is Salman Rushdie, A Darling Of The West, Who Had Used Blasphemous Words Against Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)…" Following are excerpts from Orya Maqbool Jan's Urdu-language column, titled "Malala And Her Promoters":[4] "You may not need to read Malala's story, which is 276 pages, if you are aware of what has been said against Islam and Muslims in the past 20 years, and particularly the allegations that are being levelled against Pakistan, and the way Islam, Muslims, and Pakistan are being defamed. If you put these allegations and compare them with excerpts from the story of 16-year-old Malala then the question will come to your mind as to who has put these disgraceful words for my religion, Muslims, and Pakistani people in the mouth of that young girl, and for what purpose.  "[In the book] the first person who is discussed is Salman Rushdie, a darling of the West, who had used blasphemous words against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the mothers of Muslims [i.e. the prophet's wives], and the members of the prophet's household. About him [Rushdie], she writes: 'In Pakistan, the one who started writing about the book was a cleric who was very close to agencies' (page 30) [note: it means Pakistan's intelligence agencies prompted a cleric to write and foment a campaign against Rushdie].Who put this worst lie of history in her mouth? Who forces her to write that Salman Rushdie had every right to [write this] under the 'freedom of expression'? Are these blind men of history so ignorant that they even don't know that the protest against Salman Rushdie's book ['The Satanic Verses'] was done at first in London and European cities, and Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill him? But the courage to link the love of [Muhammad, i.e.] the head of the prophets (pbuh) with the agencies could be shown only with ‘a 16-year-old innocent girl' like Malala.  "After that [in the book], a very mocking caricature of [the former Pakistani President General] Ziaul Haq was presented, and with that there is the same rhetoric which is raised in this country that 'women's life was very restricted during the time of Ziaul Haq' (p.24). If a person picks up the list of television plays shown over television during 1977-89 [the period of military rule of Ziaul Haq], one would know that it was the golden period of TV play on PTV [state-run Pakistan Television]. Hussaina Moin, Fatima Surraiya Bajia, and Noorul Hoda Shah are the symbols of that period.  "It seems as if an attempt has been made to prove through these sentences that all schools, universities, and colleges were closed down and women were put behind the walls [of their homes in Pakistan during the Ziaul Haq era]. But the reality is that [modernist networks of schools] Beckon House, the City School, the American School, the Grammar School all were established during the time of Ziaul Haq, and their branches were opened in the length and breadth of the country." "[Former] U.S. President George Bush's Tongue Has Been Put Into This Girl's Mouth And She Writes On Page 71, 'Everyone Knows That [Military Ruler General] Musharraf Was Double Crossing, Used To Take Money From The U.S. And Used To Aid The Jihadis Also'" "However, to hurl abuses the West needs a person who offers prayer or takes the name of Allah. All Mughals were tyrants but only [the religious one among them] Aurangzeb is cursed. This impression comes up from every page of the entire book and this image is the outcome of the 'great' mind of that 16-year-old Malala. Her love for Pakistan is such that she narrates with pride how her father rejected the celebration of Pakistan's 50th Independence Day on August 14th; her father and his friends tied black bands on their arms (p.45). Veiling and burka are normal things, but making a mockery of it Malala says that 'Burka is like a [boiling] kettle in summers' (p. 51). With extreme sarcasm, she mentions [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar as the 'one-eyed Mullah.' I don't want to give interpretation here, as my forefathers, my religion, and my morality have not taught me to mock in this way.  "After that, [former] U.S. President George Bush's tongue has been put into this girl's mouth and she writes on page 71, 'everyone knows that [Pakistani military ruler General Pervez] Musharraf was double crossing, used to take money from the U.S. and used to aid the jihadis also. The ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence of the Pakistani military] used to consider them a strategic asset.' Speaking the language of the United States, Malala did not feel even a little bit ashamed that this is the same army that got her Swat freed from what she called the 'tyrannical clamps' of the Taliban. What the U.S. and its allies wanted to say, they got uttered through the '16-year-old innocent' Malala. This is the familiar style of making a mockery of Pakistan and Islam, which the whole Western world and its secular allies use in their talks.  "Malala termed all the Islamic education that is taught in our syllabus as the creation of Ziaul Haq. On page 24, she has written that the whole syllabus was prepared in the time of Ziaul Haq to teach us that Pakistan is a fortress of Islam. Malala is also sad about Qadianis [Ahmadi Muslims] being declared a minority [i.e. non-Muslim] because according to her it was not for the parliament [to do so]. According to her, it is also wrong to teach children that ours is a strong nation and we have the capability to win war against India. According to her, they should be told the truth - that we have also lost in wars [against India], and it would be historically correct.  "But are children taught like that in any country? Do the American children get to read that their forefathers had killed the red Indians and had made and broken pacts 50,000 times with them? Malala called Alexander her childhood hero (p.20) because the picture of Alexander was such in her English book that children get impressed, according to that 'innocent.' No one teaches children in the West that Alexander was that kind of a tyrant who got all the residents of Thebes killed, even the children, only because they had written slogan on the walls against him. He began the practice of killing diplomats/messengers for the first time in the world. He had demolished the famous Parsi prayer house Persepolis, only to loot the treasure there. But Alexander is a hero according to what she had read in her childhood in the syllabus of the school that was established by her father. "Lessons to mock our forefathers are given only to the Muslims, and they are told to teach their children the facts, but none implements this ideal in one's own country. This book is now available on every bookshelf in Europe and it is within the reach of every individual in the U.S. and Pakistan who can read English. And people have this belief of what an international thinking an 'innocent girl' has! She only says what the West says. She also finds the same ills in Pakistan, Islam, and Muslims that the whole of Europe finds. What an understanding the 'innocent girl' has! Such a girl should be the apple of everyone's eyes. The girl that blackens the face of family is honorable and the one who hides the ills of the house is old-fashioned, orthodox, and illiterate. This is the standard of those who shout in the media every day and disgrace the country…." Journalist Ansar Abbasi: "Malala Yousafzai's Recently Launched Book… Has A Lot To Make This Teenager Extremely Controversial, Besides Providing Her Critics Something 'Concrete' To Prove Her As An 'Agent' Of The West Against Islam And Pakistan" Leading columnist and journalist Ansar Abbasi Journalist Ansar Abbasi is at the forefront of the campaign against Malala Yousafzai. Following are excerpts from Abbasi's English-language article "Malala Exposes Herself To Criticism":[5] "Malala Yousafzai's recently launched book, I Am Malala, has a lot to make this teenager extremely controversial besides providing her critics something 'concrete' to prove her as an 'agent' of the West against Islam and Pakistan. The book, which is more reflective of Malala's father's experiences and thoughts than her own, softly talks of the most hated blasphemer Salman Rushdie and his sacrilegious book The Satanic Verses. As has been the view of the West in general, she writes: 'My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech… Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam,' she quoted her father as saying, and shifted all the blame on what she called a 'mullah close to our intelligence services' to have ignited the feeling of the people of Pakistan to protest. "Like any Western authors, Malala in her book refers to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on many occasions but does not use what is considered mandatory for every Muslim to say/write - either Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) or Sallallu Alaihi Wasallam (SAW). She even reflected negatively on Islamic laws. She writes: 'But General Zia brought in Islamic laws which reduced woman's evidence in court to count for only half that of a man's.'  "She also found the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan as 'stricter.' 'In Pakistan we have something called the Blasphemy Law, which protects the Holy Quran from desecration. Under General Zia's Islamization campaign, the law was made much stricter so that anyone who 'defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet' can be punished by death or life imprisonment,' her book reads. "As much as her abhorrence for General Ziaul Haq and his Islamization, she was positive in regard to General Musharraf and his policy of enlightened moderation. On page 78-79 of her book, she says: 'In some ways Musharraf was very different from General Zia. Though he usually dressed in uniform, he occasionally wore Western suits and he called himself chief executive instead of chief martial law administrator. He also kept dogs, which we Muslims regard as unclean. Instead of Zia's Islamization he began what he called 'enlightened moderation.' He opened up our media, allowed new private channels and female newscasters, as well as showing dancing on television. The celebration of Western holidays such as Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve was allowed. He even sanctioned an annual pop concert on the eve of Independence Day…" "[In The Book, Malala Talked] About Pakistan's History And Wrote (Page 24), 'Our Textbooks Were Rewritten To Describe Pakistan As A Fortress Of Islam, Which Made It Seem As If We Had Existed Far Longer Than Since 1947, And Denounced Hindus and Jews'" "While referring to Ziaul Haq and the Islamic laws, she wrote on page 24, 'But General Zia brought in Islamic Laws which reduced a woman's evidence in court to count for only half that of a man's. Soon our prisons were full of cases like that of a thirteen-year-old-girl who was raped and became pregnant and was then sent to prison for adultery because she couldn't produce four male witnesses to prove it was a crime. A woman couldn't even open a bank account without a man's permission.' Registering her subtle protest to Zia's policy of preventing sportswomen from wearing shorts, she said, 'As a nation we have always been good at hockey, but Zia made female hockey players wear baggy trousers instead of shorts, and stopped women playing some sports altogether.' She also said during Zia's regime many madrassas were opened. She added, 'In all schools, religious studies, which we call deeniyat, was replaced by Islamiyat, or Islamic studies, which children in Pakistan still have to do today.'  "Then she talked about Pakistan's history and wrote (page 24), 'Our textbooks were rewritten to describe Pakistan as a fortress of Islam, which made it seem as if we had existed far longer than since 1947, and denounced Hindus and Jews.' Then she continued on page 25 to adjudge, 'Anyone reading them (the rewritten textbooks of Zia's era) might think we won the three wars we have fought and lost against our great enemy India.' "About Salman Rushdie and his highly blasphemous book, she wrote (page 36-37), 'It (The Satanic Verses) was a parody of the Prophet's life set in Bombay. Muslims widely considered it blasphemous and it provoked so much outrage that it seemed people were talking of little else. The odd thing was no one had even noticed the publication of the book to start with – it wasn't actually on sale in Pakistan – but then a series of articles appeared in Urdu newspapers by a mullah close to our intelligence service, berating the book as offensive to the prophet and saying it was the duty of good Muslims to protest. Soon mullahs all over Pakistan were denouncing the book, calling for it to be banned, and angry demonstrations were held. The most violence took place in Islamabad on February 12, 1989, when American flags were set alight in front of the American Centre – even though Rushdie and his publishers were British…. "She added, 'My father's college held a heated debate in a packed room. Many students argued that the book should be banned and burnt and the fatwa be upheld. My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech. 'First, let's read the book and then why not respond with our own book,' he suggested. He ended by asking in a thundering voice my grandfather would have been proud of: Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam!' About Zia's policy of supporting Afghan Jihad [of the 1980s], she wrote, 'It was as if under Zia jihad had become the sixth pillar of our religion, on top of the five we grow up to learn…. My father says that in our part of the world this idea of jihad was very much encouraged by the CIA.' On page 45 of her book, she wrote, 'On Pakistan's fiftieth anniversary on August 14, 1997, there were parades and commemorations throughout the country. However, my father and his friends said there was nothing to celebrate as Swat had only suffered since it had merged with Pakistan. They wore black armbands to protest, saying the celebrations were for nothing, and were arrested.'" "In Her Book She Generally Used The Term Mullah [In A Denigrating Manner] For Religious Scholars And Religious Leaders; On Page 55 She Referred To [Taliban Leader] Mullah Omar As 'A One-Eyed Mullah'" "In her book she generally used the term 'mullah' [in a denigrating manner] for religious scholars and religious leaders. On page 55 she referred to [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar as 'a one-eyed mullah' whom she cited in her book for 'burning girls' schools.' She added that the one-eyed mullah forced men to grow beards and coerced women to wear the burqa, about which Malala wrote, 'Wearing a burqa is like walking inside a beige fabric shuttlecock with only a grille to see through, and on hot days it's like an oven. At least I didn't have to wear one.' "She said that Quaid-i-Azam [Great Leader, the founder of Pakistan] Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a Shia and remembered Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [MMA – a religious parties' coalition that ruled Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province during General Musharraf's time], the past alliance of religious political parties, negatively. Referring to the 2002 elections, she said, 'In our province these elections brought what we called a 'mullah government' to power.' She also talked of people jokingly referred to the MMA as the Mullah Military Alliance. Talking about the creation of a number of madrassas during the Afghan jihad in Pakistan, she said that most of them were Saudi-funded, and as per her father that was the start of the 'Arabization' of Pakistan. "On the Lal Masjid issue [the 2007 military operation against armed students of Islamabad's Red Mosque and madrassa], she wrote on page 105, 'Around the same time as our Taliban were emerging in Swat, the girls of the Red Mosque madrassa began terrorizing the streets of Islamabad. They raided houses they claimed were being used as massage centers, they kidnapped women they said were prostitutes, and closed down DVD shops, making bonfires of CDs and DVDs. When it suits the Taliban, women can be vocal and visible…' "About the May 2 incident [the U.S. operation in Abbottabad to kill the Al-Qaeda leader] and Osama bin Laden, she at one point on page 176 said, 'We couldn't believe the army had been oblivious to bin Laden's whereabouts.' She added on page 177, 'My father said it was a shameful day. How could a notorious terrorist be hiding in Pakistan and remain undetected for so many years?, he asked. Others were asking the same thing.' She further explained, 'You could see why anyone would think our intelligence service must have known bin Laden's location. ISI is a huge organization with agents everywhere. How could he have lived so close to the capital [Islamabad] – just sixty miles away? And for so long! Maybe the best place to hide is in plain sight, but he had been living in that house since the 2005 earthquake. Two of his children were even born in the Abbottabad hospital. And he'd been in Pakistan for more than nine years….'" "When Malala Was Sent… [For Medical Treatment In England] The Government Informed The Media That Her Father Ziauddin Has Threatened That If He Was Not Appointed At The Pakistani High Commission In London He Would Take Political Asylum In Britain" Following are excerpts from another column by Ansar Abbasi, this one is Urdu language, titled "Why Is The Media Silent?":[6] "As the controversial part of Malala's book came to the fore it seemed as if a snake has bitten the media. Silence prevails all over. Television channels have imposed a kind of self-censorship; it neither informed people about the controversial excerpts of the book nor organized any talk show on it. Whatever is written in Malala's book, I Am Malala, if anybody else had written those things then there would have come up many breaking news, talk shows after talks shows, and many fatwas [Islamic decrees] would have been issued. But, according to my information, only one talk show could take place in which I too had a chance to participate.  "It was the responsibility of the media to bring forth facts before public. Media introduced Malala to the world and created millions of her fans around the world; it was through media that her struggle for education came to the fore and she got huge appreciation in Pakistan. When Malala was attacked reports were carried night and day about that. Messages of prayer and goodwill started pouring in from around the world. Malala became an icon for children.  "Media presented the vows of every Pakistani child to support Malala. Some people who talked negatively about Malala were rejected. Some people went on to the extent of alleging that Malala has been created as a tool by the anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan forces, and that her father is playing an important role in it. Very few people believed such things. Sympathy with Malala was such that some controversial issues against her father were ignored even in the media.  "When Malala was sent out of the country after the attack [for medical treatment in England], the government informed the media that her father Ziauddin has threatened that if he was not appointed at the Pakistani High Commission in London he would take political asylum in Britain along with his family. Although this point has been repudiated in Malala's book, it was known to some other people, including then-President Asif Ali Zardari and Home Minister Abdur Rahman Malik; in fact, Mr. Malik had told some people about this himself, but media did not give any importance to this news because it was a matter of honor of a victim daughter." "Media Should Discuss All These Issues After These Fresh Controversies, And It Should Be Decided If Malala Is Still To Be Called The 'Daughter Of The Nation'"; "I Would Not Like My Children To Follow Malala In Any Way And Look At Her As A Hero" "After recuperation Malala received many awards from Britain, Europe, and the U.S., so much so that she was nominated for the Nobel Prize too. The world was awaiting her receiving the award, but this could not happen and a large number of people were sad about this in Pakistan. During this period, Malala was considered as a source to earn good name [popularity] for Pakistan. Malala was given the title of 'daughter of the nation.' She wants to become the prime minister of Pakistan in the future; that is why prayers were offered for her. The situation came to the extent that even former President Zardari and Benazir Bhutto's eldest daughter Bakhtawar also supported her wish to become the prime minister. Meanwhile, prominent world personalities seemed passionate to meet Malala. Among others, U.S. President Barack Obama and even Britain's Queen [Elizabeth II] invited Malala to meet her. All these were like a dream for Pakistanis, but when Malala's book came out then everything became suspicious.  "Now it is the responsibility of media to tell people what has been written in that book. I gave information about the controversial excerpt from the book and then I wrote a column entitled 'Is That The Same Malala?'… Another columnist raised this issue a few days before my column. I was hoping that Malala's book would become an important topic of discussion for TV channels and talk shows due to its grave controversy, but nothing happened like that… It is important to tell the children who want to become Malala as to what Malala has written in her book. It should be discussed as to why she wrote about the book of condemned Salman Rushdie to be a matter of freedom of expression with reference to her father, because it was extremely wrong to do so. Similarly, there are other matters which are related to our religion and faith, and why did Malala need to write regarding that? And why did Malala refrain from writing Sallallahu Alaih-e-Wasallam [peace be upon him – pbuh] when mentioning the name of Muhammad (pbuh)? "Media should discuss all these issues after these fresh controversies, and it should be decided if Malala is still to be called the 'daughter of the nation.' No matter whether she gets all kinds of awards or the doors of the White House and Buckingham Palace remain open 24 hours for her, but personally I would not like my children to follow Malala in any way and look at her as a hero. But at the same time I don't want to abuse her. Besides praying to Allah, we should try to save Malala from such people who are using her for their interest. But when media would be partial then how will our people, our children, and our elders know about what sort of people has Malala has been trapped among? Many of the readers of my previous column wrote that it was media which made Malala a hero; that is why now it is reluctant to tell the truth of her book. I think that many people wrote and spoke with a clear heart about Malala [in the past]. Now Malala's book has given many of them a great shock, and there are many who have no objection to this book. Therefore, there should not be any remorse. Media should learn a lesson from this incident of Malala and inform people about the fact. If we did not do so then it would be cheating our children and people, and it would also help those who are using Malala. Here I would like to ask the people cursing Malala to follow the path of our beloved prophet (pbuh) and pray for all of us, including Malala, to guide us on the right path which could become the source of our success in the hereafter. Amen."  Blogger: "What Was … Unsettling Was The Way The [TV] Host, Kamran Shahid, Seems To Have Taken A Backseat … When The Guest Speakers [Ansar Abbasi And Maqbool Orya Jan] Started Exchanging Insults [Against Liberal Academic Pervez Hoodbhoy]" TV Host Kamran Shahid (left) The following are excerpts from a blog by a Pakistani student Nayyar Afaq, about how television host Kamran Shahid allowed insults to be hurled on Pakistan's national channel by Ansar Abbasi and Orya Maqbool Jan against liberal academic Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy:[7]   "[On Kamran Shahid's program] the conversation began with Orya Maqbool and Ansar Abbasi giving their view on the book [by Malala Yousafzai]. Highly sensationalized words were used by the two, and common ground was reached with Malala being framed as offensive towards Islam. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy interjected, stating that he had also read the book but did not find anything against Islam in her book as claimed by the other guests. He suspected either they had not read the book attentively or were deliberately trying to malign her. "The past animosity between Dr. Hoodbhoy and Ansar Abbasi fueled a debate that turned into an ugly verbal brawl on national television, with insensitive comments being exchanged by both parties. Meanwhile, Orya Maqbool Jan yelled out, rather loudly… appealing to the audience to open the book in question and confirm on page 30 that Malala had written these words: 'He (Salman Rushdie) has [sic] all the right under freedom of expression, but my father said that we should write a book against him.' "Visibly astonished, Dr. Hoodbhoy asked, in a calm tone, if Orya Maqbool Jan had the book in front of him, from which he had read that particular excerpt. He further asserted that there was no statement from her that was in support of Rushdie. At that, Orya insisted that these were, in fact, the exact words taken from her book and continued to incite religious sentiments through his sermon against Malala. During the program, Malala was also accused of favoring Ahmadis in her book. Dr. Hoodbhoy, once again, denied the allegation leveled against Malala, stating that this was a lie and not written anywhere in the book. "After watching the show, I opened Malala's book myself and found no statements which Orya Maqbool Jan alleged were in there. Contrary to the text quoted by Orya, Malala has written: 'My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech. First, let's read the book and then why not respond with our own book, he suggested.' Similarly, Malala has mentioned Ahmadis in these words, 'Now we are a country of 180 million and more than 96% are Muslim. We also have around two million Christians and more than two million Ahmadis, who say they are Muslims though our government says they are not. Sadly those minority communities are often attacked.' "After reading the correct phrases from the book myself, it was easy to see that the thesis prepared by Orya Maqbool Jan and Ansar Abbasi against Malala, for allegedly 'supporting' Salman Rushdie and Ahmadis [Ahmadi Muslims], was all based on fabrication. The text quoted by Orya Maqbool Jan happened to be a blatant lie and the exposition of this dishonesty, in effect, justifies Dr. Hoodbhoy's position, along with proving his stance as correct…. "Ansar Abbasi repeatedly referred to Dr. Hoodbhoy as a 'jahil' for advocating Malala…. Abbasi posed two highly sensitive questions towards Dr. Hoodbhoy, and then went on to tarnish his reputation as a professor by stating… ('An ignoramus who has been chosen to teach at one of our prime institutions, I don't understand what this ignoramus teaches there.') Not only was this brouhaha terribly ugly… it was incredibly unprofessional for the news channel to let it stay on-air…. I was in possession of the book and was able to verify the facts for myself; however, those among the audience who have not read the book will be inclined to believe the misleading statements …. What was even more unsettling was the way the host, Kamran Shahid, seems to have taken a backseat during the entire conversation and started giggling when the guest speakers started exchanging insults. He allowed the open use of abuse and hate speech on his show…." Endnotes: [1] The original English of the articles cited in this dispatch has been mildly edited for standardization and clarity. The excerpts of Malala Yousafzai's book cited by the authors in this dispatch have not been cross-checked with the book for their accuracy. [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwW46TWqrMI, October 26, 2013. [3] http://www.currentaffairspk.com/zaid-hamid-about-malala-yousafzai-drama-kamran-shahid-front-line/, July 14, 2013. [4] Roznama Dunya (Pakistan), October 21, 2013. [5] The News (Pakistan), October 22, 2013. [6] Roznama Jang (Pakistan), October 28, 2013. [7] http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/19373/calling-dr-pervez-hoodbhoy-jahil-can-only-happen-in-pakistan/, October 30, 2013.

MEMRI

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7594.htm

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

Anti-Semitism Becomes Respectable in D.C.

by Evelyn Gordon


Anti-Zionism, as Jonathan noted, is acquiring “an undeserved veneer of respectability in Barack Obama’s Washington”: The latest anti-Zionist screed to hit the bookstores will receive a prominent platform at an event organized by the New America Foundation, a prestigious Washington think tank headed by a former senior Obama administration official. But frankly, I don’t see why anyone should be surprised. After all, anti-Zionism is merely an offshoot of a much older evil, anti-Semitism. And since the original has become perfectly respectable in Barack Obama’s Washington over the last month, why be surprised that the offshoot is as well?

Exhibit A occurred at the Geneva talks with Iran earlier this month, when an unnamed senior U.S. official refused to condemn the latest rant by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Though many commentators found this silence disturbing mainly because Khamenei termed Israel a “rabid dog,” I was even more disturbed by the American representative’s tolerance of the part of the diatribe aimed at France, in which Khamenei used one of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes in the book.

Since France had singlehandedly thwarted what it termed a “sucker’s deal” in the previous round of talks with Iran, forcing its negotiating partners to make some significant (though still insufficient) improvements, it was understandably in Khamenei’s bad graces. But rather than admit that France could possibly have had its own concerns about Tehran, he accused it of simply “kneeling before the Israeli regime.” Paris was furious and condemned the remarks, but neither the senior U.S. official nor a spokesman for EU foreign-policy czar Catherine Ashton would do the same. The best America’s official representative could do was mutter that yes, such rhetoric is “uncomfortable,” but Americans also “say difficult things about Iran and Iranians” (is it any wonder he or she was too embarrassed to be named?).

The claim that Jews control the world–or in this case, France’s foreign policy–is classic anti-Semitism; this alone makes it worthy of condemnation. But the official’s silence was particularly outrageous because the target of this slur was America’s negotiating partner in the talks: France’s representative was on the same side of the table as the U.S. official and Ashton, with Khamenei’s representatives on the opposite side. If American officials aren’t willing to condemn anti-Semitic slurs hurled at their own negotiating partner by their mutual opponent while the talks are taking place, when would they be willing to do so?

Answer: Never, as proven by Exhibit B–the administration’s silence in the face of an anti-Semitic slur against some even closer allies that same week. I’m referring, of course, to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s outrageous assertion that lawmakers are siding with Israel against Obama on Iran not “from any careful consideration of the facts,” but “from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.”

Not only is this another classic example of the anti-Semitic “Jews control the world” trope, but many of the lawmakers whom Friedman accused of blindly obeying Jewish dictates rather than thinking for themselves are President Obama’s fellow Democrats, who have loyally shepherded his domestic agenda through Congress. Yet even so, the administration couldn’t be bothered to utter a word in their defense.

When an administration doesn’t see fit to condemn anti-Semitic slurs even against its closest allies–its negotiating partner abroad and congressional Democrats at home–you know anti-Semitism has attained the height of respectability. My only question is when all the American Jews who voted for this administration are going to wake up and start objecting.


Evelyn Gordon

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/01/anti-semitism-becomes-respectable-in-d-c/

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

Who Runs Israel?

by Elise Cooper

Now in the midst of Hanukkah, and having just seen the relationship between the U.S. and Israel fall to an all-time low, there is a need to understand how the American president and the Israeli prime minister can impact the survival of the Jewish state.  This is powerfully emphasized with the newly released film, The Prime Ministers: The Pioneers.


The first of two parts, this film focuses on the years former Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Avner spent working with Prime Ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir, as well as U.S. Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin.  Avner's recollections bring to light new details about the Six-Day War, the development of Israel's close strategic relationship with the United States, the fight against terrorism, and the Yom Kippur War and its aftermath.  American Thinker interviewed the film's director and producer, Richard Trank, as well as Andrew Kaplan, the author of the Homeland and Scorpion series who also was a former military aide to Moshe Dayan, the fourth chief of staff of the IDF, during those years.


There are a number of amusing anecdotes, such as the humorous story regarding Avner's visit to former President Harry Truman's residence, in 1966, to thank him for his support, or how Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol arrived at President Johnson's Texas ranch to plead for American aid to replenish Israel's depleted arsenal after the Six-Day War.  He bonded with the U.S. president as they tended to cattle.


A minor critical point is that the film used the voices of well-known actors, such as Sandra Bullock (Meier), Michael Douglas (Rabin), Leonard Nimoy (Eshkol), and Christoph Waltz (Begin).  It was somewhat distracting, since many of those chosen do not sound like the real historical figures, but unfortunately, there was probably no other way to verbally present the quotes and thoughts.


The most interesting part of the film was the exploration of the politicians' varied reactions, personalities, and relationships.  Levi Eshkol appears to be the forgotten prime minister, yet he was responsible for making the strategic and pivotal decisions during the Six-Day War and its aftermath.  It is explained how Eshkol was an underrated figure because he was not physically imposing or a good orator, and many times reverted to speaking Yiddish instead of Hebrew. 


Yet Eshkol put Israel above the world leaders' wishes.  Up until the 1967 war, France supplied arms to Israel, but as the fourteen Arab armies escalated, both France and America told Israel to stand down.  They wanted the Arabs to attack first and threatened to withhold military aid to Israel if it was seen as the aggressor.  Because all of his military leaders had advised Eshkol that Israel must attack first, he did not acquiesce to the foreign leaders.  This strategy resulted in the historic Israeli victory; however, Israel depleted its military weapons in the process and needed America to help re-supply them.


Trank told American Thinker that he wanted to show how Eshkol "helped to forge a strategic relationship with the U.S.  He related the conflict between Israel and the Arab states as part of the same global conflict involving the Cold War.  Eshkol played on the U.S. desire to counter Russia.  The relationship was solidified between the U.S. and Israel during the LBJ Ranch visit, with Eshkol able to achieve his goal."


The film shows that given the same parameters, Prime Minister Golda Meir did the direct opposite during the Yom Kippur War.  She withheld firing the first shot and did not even call up the reserves -- actions that led ultimately to devastating defeats in the first few days of the conflict.  Kaplan explains that Meir was provided with many warnings, including one by Jordan's King Hussein.  "He actually came to Israel to have a secret meeting, but was not believed, especially since the military intelligence misinformed her.  The Israeli leaders were guilty of an overconfident mindset from the success of the Six-Day War.  This haunted Meir's career and legacy, but people forget the other part -- that she was able to hold the country together during the war and ultimately pulled through an impressive victory."


Trank is hoping this film shows that there is more to Golda Meir's legacy than the first few days of the Yom Kippur War.  He refers to a powerful scene in the movie where she confronted Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky over his decision to capitulate to the Palestinian terrorists during the 1973 hostage incident.  She met with the European ministers and blasted them, mincing no words: "What happened in Vienna is that a Democratic government came to an agreement with terrorists.  In doing so, it brought shame upon itself.  Oh, what a victory for terrorism this is."


Both Kaplan and Trank concur that the movie shows both sides to Golda Meir -- that she could be like everybody's mother or grandmother and yet could be tough and focused.  Kaplan explained, "You could go to her apartment when she was Prime Minister and she talked to you like a Bubie [grandmother].  She made coffee and cake for her guests.  She would want to know all about what you were doing.  Then all of a sudden she would move to policy issues, where she was total business."


Part I of The Prime Ministers: The Pioneers helps people understand the mindset of Israel's prime ministers.  Part II, The Prime Ministers: Soldiers and Peacemakers, scheduled to be released sometime next year, will shed a light on Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Shimon Peres.  These documentaries show the David-and-Goliath battles that Israel had to face in order to survive.  Unfortunately, it is likely that similar battles are yet to come.   



Elise Cooper writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/who_runs_israel.html

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

FBI Stats Further Debunk 'Islamophobia' Myth

by David J. Rusin


The FBI's newly released hate crime statistics covering 2012 have once again thrown cold water on the tired narrative that American Muslims find themselves under siege from increasingly violent "Islamophobes." The 2012 numbers reinforce the conclusion drawn by Islamist Watch's previous analysis of post-9/11 (2002–11) FBI data: Muslims endure fewer hate crimes per capita than other prominent minorities. A closer look at the details:

• FBI-tabulated incidents of anti-Islamic hate crime fell from 157 in 2011 to 130 in 2012, a decrease of 17.2 percent. Incidents of hate crime spanning all victim groups dropped by only 6.8 percent, 6,222 to 5,796.
  
• Of the 1,099 incidents of hate crime motivated by religion in 2012, anti-Islamic ones constituted just 11.8 percent. Anti-Jewish crimes dominated the tally with 674 incidents, comprising 61.3 percent. This distribution saw little change from 2011.
  
• An estimated Muslim population of 2.85 million, based on Pew's 2011 value and annual growth of 100,000, yields 4.6 anti-Islamic incidents per 100,000 Muslims in 2012, lower than the average rate of 6.0 per 100,000 for the prior decade. In comparison, the 674 anti-Jewish incidents among approximately 6.5 million Jews imply a rate of 10.4 per 100,000 in 2012, more than twice the Muslim figure. Homosexuals and bisexuals (1,111 incidents) experienced a per capita rate similar to that of Jews, while blacks (1,805 incidents) were targeted about as often as Muslims. This is in line with the 2002–11 results.
  
• Critics correctly note the poor quality of the 2012 report. Only 13,022 local agencies, representing 248,809,710 Americans, submitted data to the FBI in 2012, decreases of 10.7 and 13.0 percent, respectively, from 2011. Incompleteness issues likely contributed to the broad dip in FBI-collected hate crimes, but the fall in anti-Islamic incidents, 17.2 percent, was large enough that at least part of it should be real.
  
• Two lost their lives in anti-Islamic hate crimes last year, the first such fatalities to be recorded by the FBI. Ten people were killed in all classes of hate crime in 2012 and 74 from 2002 to 2011. The FBI tables contain insufficient information to identify precisely the anti-Islamic incidents that led to deaths, but one of the deceased may be Sunando Sen, a Hindu man pushed from a New York City subway platform by a mentally disturbed woman who later told police that she had believed him to be Muslim. Further investigation is required. It is clear which 2012 slayings the FBI wisely did not label as anti-Islamic: the murder of California Muslim Shaima Alawadi, which had been touted as a hate crime before her husband was charged, and the slaughter of six Sikhs at a Wisconsin temple, which some had tried to blame on misdirected "Islamophobia."
  

Muslims are not uniquely victimized by hate crimes in the U.S., a fact that no amount of spin can erase. To most Americans, evidence of relatively low and gradually declining frequencies of bias crime is welcome news. However, it is a disaster for Islamists, who wish to employ hate crimes against Muslims as weapons to smear and silence opponents of jihad. In short, FBI statistics published on Thanksgiving week left American Islamists with one fewer reason to be thankful this year. And that, in turn, offers the rest of us one more cause for gratitude.


David J. Rusin

Source: http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2013/11/iw-blog-fbi-stats-further-debunk-islamophobia-myth

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

US Releases Iranian Scientist as part of Backchannel Negotiations

by Rick Moran

The arrest in 2011 of Mojtaba Atarod for violating export controls went mostly unnoticed in the US. But his release in April of this year is apparently tied to backchannel negotiations between Iran and the US that have been going on in Oman for years.


Times of Israel:

American and Iranian officials have been meeting secretly in Oman on and off for years, according to a respected Israeli intelligence analyst, Ronen Solomon. And in the past three years as a consequence of those talks, Iran released three American prisoners, all via Oman, and the US responded in kind. Then, most critically, in April, when the back channel was reactivated in advance of the Geneva P5+1 meetings, the US released a fourth Iranian prisoner, high-ranking Iranian scientist Atarodi, who was arrested in California on charges that remain sealed but relate to his attempt to acquire what are known as dual-use technologies, or equipment that could be used for Iran's military-nuclear programs. Iran has not reciprocated for that latest release.
Solomon, an independent intelligence analyst (who in 2009 revealed the crucial role played by German Federal Intelligence Service officer Gerhard Conrad in the negotiations that led to the 2011 Gilad Shalit Israel-Hamas prisoner deal), has been following the US-Iran meetings in Oman for years. Detailing what he termed the "unwritten prisoner exchange deals" agreed over the years in Oman by the US and Iran, Solomon told The Times of Israel that "It's clear what the Iranians got" with the release of top scientist Atarodi in April. "What's unclear is what the US got."
The history of these deals, though, he said, would suggest that in the coming months Iran will release at least one of three US citizens who are currently believed to be in Iranian custody. One of these three is former FBI agent Robert Levinson.
Solomon told The Times of Israel that the interlocutor in the Oman talks is a man named Salem Ben Nasser al Ismaily, who is the executive president of the Omani Center for Investment Promotion and Export Development and a close confidant of the Omani leader Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

The American hikers arrested in Iran in 2009 and released a year later were apparently part of these backchannel prisoner releases. But it isn't clear what other US citizens have been released by Iran. 

The release of Atarod was unexpected. The indictment against him is sealed, suggesting national security might be an issue. In other, similar cases involving Iranians, there were attempts to circumvent export controls and purchase "dual use" equipment that could be utilized by the military in construction of a nuclear bomb.

We don't know if that's the case here, but it doesn't matter now that Atarod is back in Iran.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/us_releases_iranian_scientist_as_part_of_backchannel_negotiations.html

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

Egyptian Islamist Leader Issues Warning from Exile

by Reuters

Assem Abdel-Maged of Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya tells Qatar-based Al Jazeera network he expects situation in Egypt to deteriorate, saying protests 'will be what breaks this coup'

Gamaa Islamiya's Assem Abdel-Maged (Photo: Ahram)

A leader of a hardline Egyptian Islamist group that fought the state in the 1990s warned that the army had driven the nation to the "edge of a precipice" since he fled the country after president Mohamed Morsi's ouster in July.

The state and Islamists are old foes in Egypt, a strategic US ally which has a peace treaty with Israel and controls the Suez Canal.

Egypt has been torn by the worst internal strife in its modern history since the army deposed the Islamist Morsi amid mass protests against his rule.

Assem Abdel-Maged of the Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya told the Qatar-based Al Jazeera network he expected the situation in Egypt to deteriorate, saying protests "will be what breaks this coup."

He said the military made a "major mistake" by siding with "religious, political, and social minorities," an allusion to Christians and secular-minded Egyptians.

"Everything that happens in Egypt now is in the interests of the minorities. Therefore the situation cannot continue this way, and the army must review its position quickly because the country is on the edge of a precipice," Abdel-Maged said.

Abdel-Maged, who once shared a prison cell with Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri, was jailed for 25 years until 2006 for a role in the 1981 assassination of president Anwar Sadat. He now faces charges of inciting the killing of protesters.

Egyptian security officials said Abdel-Maged fled to Qatar via the sea or the border with Libya. Qatar is one of the few Arab states that were sympathetic to Islamists during Morsi's year in power, supplying Egypt with billions of dollars in aid.

Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya renounced violence more than a decade ago and entered mainstream politics after president Hosni Mubarak's downfall in 2011. It became a close ally of Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood during his one year in office.

"If the army leadership do not wake up and realise what is happening, then, unfortunately, matters will become worse in Egypt," Abdel-Maged said in the interview with Al Jazeera late on Saturday. "They will find that in the end they'll have only the tanks and soldiers on their side in a confrontation with the entire Umma (Islamic nation)."

The army deposed Morsi after mass protests against his rule. Since then hundreds of his supporters have been killed in a security crackdown while bomb attacks and shootings targeting the security forces have become commonplace, killing around 200 soldiers and policemen, most of them in the Sinai Peninsula.

The state has declared a war on Islamist militants.

In his last weeks in office, Morsi appointed a Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya member as governor of Luxor, a city on the Nile south of Cairo where members of the group killed 58 tourists in 1997.

*This story has been edited by Ahram Online


Reuters

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/87961/Egypt/Politics-/Egyptian-Islamist-leader-issues-warning-from-exile.aspx

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

Israel Invited to Join UNHRC's Western Nations Group

by Israel Hayom Staff

The United Nations Human Rights Council upgrades Israel's status in the Geneva-based body's Western European and Others group • New position to increase Jerusalem's ability promote Israel's interest, block attempts to internationally isolate it.

Human Rights Council hall on Geneva | Photo credit: Wiki commons

The United Nations Human Rights Council has invited Israel to join its Western European and Others Group nations group, Israel Radio reported Sunday.

The move will upgrade Israel's status at the Geneva-based agency, and, according to a Foreign Ministry official, Jerusalem's new status will allow it to better promote Israel's interest while blocking various attempts, mostly by the U.N.'s Arab bloc, to internationally isolate it.

The U.N. Human Rights Council's invitation is a major diplomatic achievement for Jerusalem, especially since none of the group's member states voiced any opposition to the move. 

The council’s Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is one of several unofficial regional groups that act as voting blocs within the U.N. The group includes Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, to name a few. The U.S., which is not a member of any of the regional groups, serves as an observer.

Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13693

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