Category Archives: History

Lessons Taught on College Campuses

Posted on by

The anti-Semites across the United States and hundreds in our own federal government refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. That leaves Israel as the only country in the world without a capitol. Even the U.S. State Department historically has never had an embassy in Jerusalem, but rather in Tel Aviv. In fact, Jerusalem is the most disputed city across the globe. Yet real history versus revisionist history proves there should be no dispute.

Yet, in American there is an educational system being challenged in all 50 states called CommonCore and with good reason. So, what do you know about the lessons your child is being taught?

Here is a hint, Hamas is a terror organization.

PROF’S ‘WHOSE JERUSALEM?’ COMMON CORE LESSON TEACHES STUDENTS TO SUPPORT HAMAS

A “Whose Jerusalem?” workshop created by a Boston University professor that’s been taught in many high schools in recent years and was added to the Common Core-approved national curriculum has come under fire by critics who contend it whitewashes terrorism, promotes an anti-Israel and anti-American political agenda, and encourages young people to sympathize with Hamas.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance released an expose video April 23 that aims to prove “Whose Jerusalem?” fails “to meet the basic rules of evidence and logic and attempt[s] to indoctrinate students, especially Jewish students, against the state of Israel.”

The workshop teaches that Hamas – a U.S.-designated terrorist group – and Fatah are political parties that support “more peaceful means than intifada,” among other lessons. The group argues the lesson abandons “academic integrity” and enlists students as political activists for an ideological cause.

“Despite its bias and serious flaws, the … workshop is Common Core compliant,” APT president Charles Jacobs said.

The workshop’s curriculum, designed for students in middle and high schools, requires students play the parts of Arab, Israeli, or American leaders to negotiate a “BATNA” (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) for the division of Jerusalem using the materials provided by the workshop.

According to Americans for Peace and Tolerance’s video, the workshop also includes exercises that asks instructors to have Jewish students empathize with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that calls for the death of all Jews in its founding charter.

Boston University Profesor Carl Hobert, who developed the workshop, has defined “Whose Jerusalem?” as “educational civil disobedience” guided by a hands-on approach. Included in APT’s video is a clip of Hobert speaking to an audience about the simulations done in his workshop on the Arab-Israeli conflict. When describing the roles students play in the simulation he says:

“When a student goes, I am devoutly Jewish and I’ve got family members in Israel. I would like to be a member of Likud Party. Guess what we make that student? A member of Hamas.”

In APT’s video, Hobert is also quoted saying that students learn through the workshop that Hamas and Fatah are political parties that support “more peaceful means than intifada.” APT uses the lesson plan’s paperwork to show students are taught to equate these “political parties” with Israel’s democratically elected parties, such as Likud and Labor.
The workshop also suggests an equivalence between the use of military drones by the United States and terrorist suicide bombing. APT’s video shows Hobert telling students that drones “kill people who  are supposedly terrorists.” He asks, “Isn’t that a form of terrorism?”
Hobert did openly admit in an interview with Al-Jazeera that through these exercises students will learn to “put pressure on our government to create a Palestinian state.”


Noam Chomsky of MIT and Denis Sullivan of Northeastern, both outspoken critics of Israel and America, assisted Hobert in the creation of the course, according to APT. Hobert even brought Chomsky, who is described in BU Today as his “friend and longtime inspiration,” to speak about the Middle East at Boston University in 2009.
Hobert did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The College Fix.
Stand With Us released a statement May 7 thanking APT for exposing the bias in the workshop.
“Under the guise of ‘global education’ and ‘conflict resolution,’ it distorts facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict, promotes an anti-Israel political agenda, and encourages sympathy for terrorist groups,” the nonprofit stated. “It is shameful that Boston University would sponsor a program that degrades academic standards, misinforms students, and gives its imprimatur to indoctrination masquerading as scholarship.”
Zionist Organization of America’s Northeast Campus Coordinator Zach Stern said he is also worried about the impact this course will have on students’ understanding of the Middle East.
“This workshop is very troubling,” Stern told The College Fix. “Why pretend that Hamas and the PA are reasonable actors when both openly call for the genocide of the Jewish people and the destruction of the Jewish state? This workshop seems to ignore the actual facts; and its impossible to solve anything without recognizing the facts.”

But Hobert described the workshop as simply “a conflict resolution case study used in middle and high schools around the U.S.” It was created with state and federal education dollars, and is an approved Common Core State Standards-based curriculum workshop, his professor profile notes.
Already the controversial “Whose Jerusalem?”  is conducted in many high schools. It is offered through the nonprofit “Axis of Hope,” which operates out of the Boston University Global Literary Institute and works with at least 25 high schools in various states and three foreign schools, according to the nonprofit’s website.


APT’s Jacobs noted “at a time of growing anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses, it is very disturbing [Boston University] would permit or promote such biased educational materials in the classroom.”
Axis of Hope describes itself as a nonprofit “dedicated to developing in young adults an understanding of alternative, non-violent approaches to resolving complex conflicts locally, nationally and internationally.”

 

 

U.S. Ships 1000 missiles to Iraq, Palmyra Falls

Posted on by

Islamic State now controls half of the Syrian territory. Control of Palmyra, a 2000 year old archeological site which predates Islam is in the hands of less than 1000 Islamic State fighters.

Palmyra is also the site of a prison and a military air base along with an Assad regime intelligence center. An estimated 65,000 residents of Palmyra are in peril as under 2000 have been able to flee.

Inside Palmyra, the Ancient City ISIS Just Sacked

Hours after the terror group grabbed its second city in a week, Palmyra was pitch-black and silent. But residents are bracing for bloody reprisals—and the destruction of historic sites.
by: Michael Weiss

Palmyra holds a dual significance to Syrians as being home to some of the world’s most celebrated ruins and one of the Assad regime’s most feared detention and torture facilities. Both, as it happens, will gain new prominence in the days ahead, as ISIS has just swept through the desert tableland, sacking its second city in the course of a week in which a few hundreds of its militants stormed Ramadi, the provincial capital of al-Anbar, largely uncontested by skedaddling Iraqi Security Forces. That sacking put ISIS in firm control of strategic foothold some 70 miles north of Baghdad, and well within striking distance of the Iraqi capital, where suicide and car bombings have spiked recently.

Similarly, the taking of Palmyra puts ISIS on a theoretically straight trajectory for mounting an incursion into Homs—once the cradle of Syria’s revolution and now mostly retaken by the Assad regime—and then possibly onto Damascus, where the terror organization had briefly conquered the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp last month. The loss of Palmyra is a clear threat to Syria’s cultural patrimony, consisting as it does of the standing remnants of 2,000 year-old temples and tombs, because of ISIS’s designation of “idolatrous” pre-Islamic art and architecture—or anything too big for ISIS to hawk on the black market—as worthy only of powdering.

“The fighting is putting at risk one of the most significant sites in the Middle East,” Irina Bokova, the director-general of UNESCO, said in a statement, while Syria’s chief of antiquities, Mamoun Abdulkarim, told AFP that many statues and artifacts in Palmyra’s museum been relocated already but that immovable monuments were now helpless.

The same can practically be said for the evaporated Syrian army. So desperate were Assad’s troops that they resorted to freeing Palmyra’s prisoners to get them to fortify the city in a last-ditch and pathetically unsuccessful attempt to hang on, one local resident told The Daily Beast.

According to Khaled Omran, a member of the Palmyra’s anti-Assad Coordinating Committee, the regime tried to reinforce its collapsing front lines Wednesday with detainees from the notorious Tadmour Prison. Most, however, ran away from the ISIS onslaught rather than stay and fight for their jailers. “I saw about 10 busloads of prisoners being driven to the front,” Omran said Wednesday evening via Skype. “Maybe 1,000 men.” They added to the regime’s “thousands” of soldiers and forcibly conscripted tribal militias who were used, in Omran’s words, as “cannon fodder.”

Assad’s military were stationed throughout the city and its outlying districts, which are home to several security installations, including an important airbase that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has used in the past to deliver resupplies to its overstretched and attrited ally, and the Syrian air force has used to wage sorties on mostly civilian and non-ISIS targets in the war-torn country. However, the use of prisoners to defend against ISIS stands as an interesting contrast to how the terror army did the jailbreaking in Ramadi earlier in the week in order to swell their own ranks.

“Four days ago, ISIS started their preparations to storm” Palmyra, Omran explained. “Regime forces called in reinforcements, mainly to the military security branch and the citadel, but relied heavily on their air force. The number of ISIS fighters was quite small—they were in the hundreds. They weren’t very heavily equipped, save for antiaircraft guns mounted on trucks in six positions around the city.” These rudimentary air defenses were enough to deter to the fighter planes and attack helicopters. “I didn’t see them down any jets, but the guns were enough to deter most of the aerial assaults.”

Video footage uploaded by activists does show what appear to be some aerial bombing.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition-linked monitor, claimed that the regime withdrew or evacuated its forces on Wednesday, though Omran insisted that many of these also deserted because of fear of inevitable ISIS atrocities, such as beheadings, photographs of which were circulated on social media as the militants invaded in a now characteristic form of psychological warfare. “Regime troops were fleeing left and right,” he said. “Most of the senior Alawite officers in the army fled earlier and left their men—Sunnis—to their own devices.” Assad’s forces also evidently pulled away from the phosphate mines abutting the main M3 highway system, theoretically giving ISIS a straight shot to Homs and Damascus.

If Omran’s account is true, it would signal a uncanny replay of another ignominious regime defeat in August 2014, at Tabqa Airbase in the eastern province of Raqqa, when ISIS seized the installation and captured or executed hundreds of Syrian soldiers, some of whose heads were cut off and stuck on pikes. A video later posted online by Assad loyalists accused the regime of treason after Syrian generals reassured their rank-and-file that helicopters were en route to deliver 50 tons of ammunition and resupplies when in fact those aircraft turned up only to spirit away the generals, leaving the rank-and-file to perish. The video also accused Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi of covering up this betrayal of Syrian soldiers and led many pro-Assad activists to begin to seriously question the competence and willingness of the dictator to combat terrorism.

Mohammed Ghanem, the director of government relations at the Washington D.C.-based Syrian American Council, said he could not understand how an imminent ISIS advance wasn’t stopped by either regime or coalition aircraft. “We are mystified as to how ISIS columns with hundreds of fighters were able to traverse the Syrian desert and reach Palmyra without suffering a single air raid,” he told The Daily Beast. “The areas between ISIS-controlled cities and Palmyra are sparsely populated, and any significant military convoy should have been extremely easy to spot. Yet neither Assad nor the coalition conducted raids against ISIS.”

For now, Palmyra remains “calm,” but the mood is undeniable anxious. The departing army destroyed the electrical transformers, Omran said, bathing the ancient city in darkness. Batteries are being used to power computers, but Internet access is spotty. Another source of concern is regime propaganda after the withdrawal: State television has made false claims that Damascus evacuated all of Palmyra’s civilians before its men withdrew. “We’re worried that this was to lay the groundwork for an imminent bombing raid that will make no distinction between Daesh and us,” Omran said, using the derogatory Arabic word for ISIS.

Word on the street is that ISIS has already begun its barbarous counterintelligence work, claiming to have compiled a list of regime agents and sympathizers—a number that, in its view, includes opposition activists opposed to both Assad and ISIS. “The search is on for them,” Omran said.

How were the city’s some 50,000 residents coping, less than 24 hours into ISIS rule? “There’s almost no movement inside the city itself,” he said. “ISIS didn’t introduce a curfew yet, but there’s no one on the street, so you’d think there was one.”

And the mood? “Some people have resigned to their fate,” Omran said. “Most of the key services have been shut down. The bakery has run out of flour. The regime shut the lights. People are fearful. They’re not sure what tomorrow holds.”

bin Ladin Wrote a Letter to America

Posted on by

Guest house at the bin Ladin compound.

If you wanted to be an al Qaeda fighter, you had to fill out an application, found here.

The entire file of released documents are found here.  You will likely never see all the documents and that should be accepted as it would reveal the sources and methods on the actions today by intelligence and the rules of engagement against global enemies but al Qaeda was never on the run.

Curious timing of the declassification on the documents seized from the Usama bin Ladin compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, altering the focus from the failed campaign against ISIS in Ramadi to released bin Ladin documents by DNI.

George Bush was right, this was going to be a long slog of a war. Once control was gained in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since 2011, the wider slog of war continues without any campaign definition from the White House that provided a comprehensive foundation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) delivered from Obama to Congress.

The Usama bin Ladin bookshelf is found here.

Here’s Osama Bin Laden’s Letter to the American People

Usama bin Laden wanted to speak directly to the American people.

An undated letter promising endless war is one of hundreds of documents collected in the May 2, 2011 raid on his compound in Pakistan that was released Wednesday. The full text is below.

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

From Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin to the American people,

I speak to you about the subject of the ongoing war between you
and us. Even though the consensus of your wise thinkers and
others is that your time (TN: of defeat) will come, compassion
for the women and children who are being unjustly killed,
wounded, and displaced in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
motivates me to speak to you.

First of all, I would like to say that your war with us is the
longest war in your history and the most expensive for you
financially. As for us, we see it as being only halfway
finished. If you were to ask your wise thinkers, they would tell
you that there is no way to win it because the indications are
against it. How will you win a war whose leaders are pessimistic
and whose soldiers are committing suicide? If fear enters the
hearts of men, winning the war becomes impossible. How will you
win a war whose cost is like a hurricane blowing violently at
your economy and weakening your dollar?

The Bush administration got you into these wars on the premise
that they were vital to your security. He promised that it would
be a quick war, won within six days or six weeks; however, six
years have passed, and they are still promising you victory and
not achieving it. Then Obama came and delayed the withdrawal
that he had promised you by 16 more months. He promised you
victory in Afghanistan and set a date for withdrawal from there.
Six months later, Petraeus came to you once again with the
number six, requesting that the withdrawal be delayed six months
beyond the date that had been set. All the while you continue to
bleed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You are wading into a war with no
end in sight on the horizon and which has no connection to your
security, which was confirmed by the operation of ‘Umar al-Faruq
(Var.: Umar Farouk), which was not launched from the battlefield
and could have been launched from any place in the world.

As for us, jihad against the tyrants and the aggressors is a
form of great worship in our religion. It is more precious to us
than our fathers and sons. Thus, our jihad against you is
worship, and your killing us is a testimony. Thanks to God, Almighty, we
have been waging jihad for 30 years, against the Russians and
then against you. Not a single one of our men has committed
suicide, whereas every 30 days 30 of your men commit suicide.
Continue the war if you will.

(TN: Two lines of poetry that say the Mujahidin will not stop
fighting until the United States leaves their land.)

Peace be upon those who follow right guidance.

We are defending our right. Jihad against the aggressors is a
form of great worship in our religion, and killing us means a
high status with our Lord. Thanks to God, we have been waging
jihad for 30 years, against the Russians and then against you.
Not a single one of our men has committed suicide, whereas every
30 days 30 of your men commit suicide. Continue the war if you
will. Justice is the strongest army, and security is the best
way of life, but it slipped out of your grasp the day you made
the Jews victorious in occupying our land and killing our
brothers in Palestine. The path to security is for you to lift
your oppression from us.

Kerry’s Groveling Continues

Posted on by

There is not a single State Department mission or a White House global challenge that does not require cooperation, check that, the groveling by Kerry to Iran or Russia. Diplomacy in 140 characters or less. Cant make this up.

Please Iran, we need an agreement to sign with the P5+1 on the nuclear program and we will allow Iranian hostilities to continue in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Kerry has proven to ignore the hegemony of Iran in all corners of the globe and the historical terrorism at the hands of the Ayatollahs. Then enter Russia, where Putin and Lavrov agree to cooperate but there are never any breakthroughs unless Putin’s demands are met and his own aggressions are ignored as witnessed by Crimea and Ukraine. A side note, 6100 people have been killed in Ukraine since Putin occupied the eastern region there.

So, in a rather quick trip to meet with Russian leadership, some clandestine agenda items are in the near future. Twitter is the communication platform of choice, at least for John Kerry. Sheesh…

There the readout of the meeting was ‘frank’ face to face talk. What? Putin is former KGB, frank talk? Hardly.

Ties between Moscow and Washington were shredded when Russia seized the southern Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in early 2014 and allegedly buttressed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Kerry visited Sochi after Obama snubbed Russia’s huge military parade to commemorate Soviet victory over Nazi Germany last week, in what was seen as punishment over Russia’s meddling in Ukraine.

Earlier in the day, Kerry and Lavrov laid wreaths at a World War II memorial to pay tribute to the Soviet dead.

On the balmy shores of the Black Sea, the top US diplomat’s Russian hosts also treated Kerry to locally made sparkling wine, according to Putin’s aides, while Lavrov gave his counterpart two baskets of potatoes and tomatoes.

Kerry-Putin Talks Could Deliver a Global Surprise

At 8:12 a.m. last Tuesday, Secretary of State Kerry Tweeted from Sochi, the Black Sea resort, with this mind-blower: “Had frank discussions with President #Putin & FM #Lavrov on key issues including #IranTalks, #Syria, #Ukraine.”

In 140 characters and a photograph, Kerry may have described the biggest thing he’ll get done as President Obama’s top diplomat. It’s early days and anything can happen between Washington and Moscow—as Kerry just demonstrated—but if this turn toward cordiality and cooperation holds, the consequences will refract like neutrons all over the planet.

And there’s nothing in any of the potential outcomes not to like.

As Kerry’s Tweet made plain, the Obama administration’s motivations in this demarche go to three immediate issues—two key to stability in the Middle East and one that has made the phrase “Cold War II” common currency in the past year and a half. Analysts of all stripes are unanimous: Washington has now concluded that there’s no resolving any of these questions without Moscow’s help.

That’s sound thinking except that it’s late by at least a year. One thing above all others prompted Obama and Kerry to get smart quick: These guys have a year and a half to leave a legacy of any value on the foreign side, and there’s not much other than failure in the hopper at the moment.

In Syria, the administration should have come to wiser conclusions in September 2013, when Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, saved Obama’s bacon by persuading Damascus to give up its chemical weapons inventories. Remember Obama’s foolish “red line” gambit? Lavrov threw the life jacket.

Kerry has said since mid-March that he wants new talks toward a political settlement in Syria, and Moscow is essential in making this happen. In this, the administration is straight out of Churchill: “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.”

It’s something of the same on the pending nuclear deal with Iran—which was the No. 1 topic in Sochi. It was Lavrov who got Tehran to consider, if not yet agree, to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia and re-import supplies as needed for peaceful purposes. With two and a half months before the deadline for this deal, Washington needs all five negotiating partners—Russia above all, I’d say—to keep their oars in the water.

As to Ukraine, its economy deserves emergency status, even if you read next to nothing in the news reports. Absent the kind of debt write-down the European Union refuses to grant the Greeks, Lawrence Summers argued in the Financial Times over the weekend, default is now a serious option.

Equally, Kiev has done little to address the terms agreed in Minsk last February, which included new constitutional provisions granting rebellious eastern regions greater autonomy. With Europeans increasingly impatient and Russia not even close to stepping back, Kerry’s assistant secretary for European affairs, the controversial Victoria Nuland, was in Kiev two days after Kerry’s Sochi sit-down to confer on implementing the Minsk II agreement, of which Russia is a primary signatory.

Small wonder Kerry spent seven hours in back-to-back talks—three with Lavrov and four with President Putin. It was his first visit to Russia in two years, and these the objects of his attention—cooperation getting the Syria crisis under control, the final stitching on the Iran deal, and a settlement in Ukraine that—it’s finally clear in Washington—cannot be achieved other than via a negotiated compromise based on Minsk II.

It’s a full agenda, but stop there and you don’t get the half of it. Look at the other factors that sent Kerry to Putin’s Black Sea resort residence:

• It has been clear for months that Washington’s assertive stance toward Russia has been a source of increasing trans-Atlantic tensions. The very real risk of a lasting rift in U.S.-E.U. ties can now be alleviated.

• European leaders are due to meet next month to consider the status of the U.S.-led sanctions regime, and at least six nations are on the record saying they’ve had enough. When Kerry hinted after the Sochi sessions that it could be time to step back, he opened a path away from an embarrassing display of disunity, if not mutiny.

• E.U-Russian relations can begin to mend, too. This is especially key on the economic side. The virtual freeze of banking operations, a drastic slowdown in investment flows, and Russia’s countersanctions against E.U. exports have all hurt the eurozone just as it struggles to recover from seven years of financial and economic crisis.

• Tensions within the E.U., heated of late, also stand to abate. Greece has been the most evident problem in this regard, as the Syriza government draws closer to Moscow in plainly purposeful defiance of the Brussels consensus. But Greece, we should note, is not alone in harboring these sympathies.

Russian officials close to the Kremlin, to the perplexity of many Western analysts, have been advancing a worst-is-over line for several weeks. Putin added his voice when he met Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, just before the Sochi talks.

Indeed, sanctions may have backfired in certain respects. While Moscow announced a 1.9 percent drop in 1Q GDP Friday, it was less than expected, and Russia’s industry seems to have been energized. It reminds me of Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe, when international sanctions forced a not-unimpressive manufacturing sector into being: If you can’t bring it in, make it.

The ruble, meantime, has come back so strongly this year that Moscow started buying $100 million to $200 million in foreign exchange daily last week to hold it down.

Those hours in Sochi, let’s say, were long due, wherever you sit and however you look at it. Now to watch what comes of them.

Foreign Media Readout of Obama Failed Summit

Posted on by

When foreign media, one from Qatar and the other from the United Kingdom provide readouts of Obama’s Gulf State summit at Camp David explaining nicely that it failed, one must worry even more.

Obama’s White House protocol office made a huge gaffe at the front end of the summit by getting a name and history wrong. Then he returned each night to the White House, leaving his invited guests to their own devices. Not only did topics like Iran and Iran get some verbal gymnastics but the matter of Syria and Russia did too. The whole charade boiled down to let us just keep channels open.

For Barack Obama, a sitting president to be so concerned, that it keeps him up at night about those dying and suffering, when he touts his special energies to human rights, his real indifference is on both sleeves for all to see that are watching.

The White House, his national security council, this connections to the United Nations and his jet-setter, John Kerry have no mission statement, no objective, no strategy and no final goal except to pass the burning of the globe on to the next administration. The death toll rises, he is cool with that, and that will frame his 8 year White House legacy.

The Guardian view on the UN talks on Syria: a waiting game while the country burns

In part:

What is going on is the classic diplomatic exercise of keeping channels of communication open in a confused situation in the hope that, as and when it changes, there will be some expertise and engagement available if new opportunities arise. De Mistura’s tactics also represent a recognition that, if there were ever a time when the Syrian war could be tackled on its own, that time has passed. It was always part of the larger regional contest between Iran and the Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, a contest which in turn was deeply influenced by the difficult relationship between the United States and Iran, by the rise of jihadism, and by the standoff between the west and Russia.

Now all these dimensions are changing. Secretary of state John Kerry’s consultations with Vladimir Putin last week suggest a softening of US and Russian differences over Syria. Meanwhile, at Camp David, President Obama tried to allay the fears of Gulf states that Iran will exploit a nuclear agreement to become the region’s strongest power. It is indeed an open question whether Iran will become a satisfied power, interested in extricating itself from Syria and resting content with its enhanced influence in Iraq, or not. The US will both cooperate with Iran and oppose it, Obama has implied – cooperate in Iraq and parts of Syria, but oppose in other parts and in Yemen. It is a formula that must be very perplexing even to its authors. The new Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, meanwhile, has thrown down a gauntlet in Yemen, and is propping up the Sisi regime in Egypt financially while Egypt is choosing sides in Libya. The verdict on this new Saudi forward policy has yet to be reached.

And a word or two from al Jazeera:

Another forgettable summit

The just-concluded Camp David summit promises little more than running in place.

In part:

In contrast, the just-concluded summit promises little more than running in place. For its part, Washington explained its intention to move forward with Iran on a nuclear deal while insisting that it did not portend a US pivot away from its traditional Arab friends. Arabs were and remain sceptical, and justifiably so.

Obama himself explained: “I want to be very clear. The purpose of security cooperation [with the GCC] is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran or even to marginalise Iran.”

US initiatives

Saudi misgivings about the choices made by US presidents have a long pedigree. The kingdom has been on the losing end of US initiatives in the region for decades. Washington has proven more than willing to take advantage of Arab weakness – US Palestine policy holds pride of place in this regard.

Of equal if not greater strategic import, however, is the toxic legacy of the US’ destruction of Baghdad’s Sunni military and political leadership, offering Iran a strategic entree into Iraq it has not enjoyed for centuries.

”I do not believe it is in the United States’ interests, or the interest of the region, or the world’s interest, to [attack Iraq],” Crown Prince Abdullah told ABC News shortly before Vice President Dick Cheney’s arrival in March 2002. ”And I don’t believe it will achieve the desired result.”

Cheney dismissed Saudi concerns that war would destabilise the region. That is indeed what Bush wanted – a revolutionary break with the past out of which a new Middle East would be forged.