Category Archives: Middle East

What Leadership and Defense Looks Like

Posted on by

What Netanyahu needs to say is posted below.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/loved-people-much-hate-speech-netanyahu-give/

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just made the following speech in front of the Knesset that we wish would have actually been given:

To Ismail Haniya, and the leaders and operatives of Hamas: We, the people of Israel, owe you a huge debt of gratitude. You have succeeded where we have failed.

You stole three of our most precious children, and slaughtered them in cold blood. But before we could discover the horrible truth, we had 18 days of pain and anxiety while we search for them, during which our nation united as never before, in prayer, in hopes, in mutual support.

And now, as you continue to launch deadly missiles indiscriminately , intended to maim and murder as many civilians as possible, while you take cowardly refuge behind your own civilians – you continue to inspire us to hold strongly on to our newly discovered unity. Whatever disputes we Jews may have with each other, we now know that we have one common goal: we will defeat you.

But we are offering you now one last chance. Within 24 hours , all rocket fire and I mean all rocket fire – will cease. Completely. Forever. I give you formal notice that our tanks are massed at the Gaza border, with artillery and air support at the ready. We have already dropped leaflets over the northern parts of the Gaza strip warning civilians of our impending arrival, and that they should evacuate southward, forthwith. If you fail to meet our ultimatum, we are coming in, and, with God’s help this time we will not leave. Every centimeter of land that we conquer will be annexed to Israel, so that there will never be another attack launched at our civilians from there.

Even so, we will continue to keep the door open to allow you to surrender gracefully. The moment you announce that you are laying down arms, we will halt our advance, and there we will draw our new borders. If you continue to attack our citizens,we will continue to roll southwards, driving you out of territory that you will never again contaminate with your evil presence.

It pains me deeply that your civilians will be made homeless. But we did not choose this war; you did. And if our choice is between allowing our citizens to be targeted mercilessly by your genocidal savagery, versus turning your civilians into refugees, I regret that we must choose the latter. If only you loved your people as much as you hate ours, this war would never have happened.

To the rest of the world: Israel has tired of your ceaseless chidings that we should “show restraint”. When you have your entire population under constant missile fire from an implacable enemy whose stated goal is the murder every man, woman and children your land, then you may come and talk to us about” restraint”. Until then, we respectfully suggest that you keep your double standards to yourselves. This time, Hamas has gone too far, and we will do whatever we have to in order to protect our population.

Hamas, once again, I thank you for bringing our people together with such clarity of mind and unity of purpose. The people of Israel do not fear the long road ahead.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Given the Prime Ministers presentation, what will the coming days look like? Below is what Israel could face and for sure is prepared to face. This is the exact reason that leaders from other countries are working to broker a cease fire/peace agreement in haste. The cease fire agreement presented by Egypt was accepted by Israel, but within an hour it was completely dismissed by Hamas. So, in coming days matters in Gaza will be more aggressive.

 

Israeli ground operation in Gaza increasingly likely, risking unintended escalation involving Syria and Hizbullah

Key Points

  • Hamas is seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion of Gaza, as the group’s military wing seeks to re-establish itself as the key decision-maker, and to return the movement to its origins as a resistance organisation.
  • The Hamas-Israel conflict is unlikely to end in the coming week or two, and a ground invasion in which Israeli troops will be vulnerable to ambush and anti-tank rockets is increasingly probable.
  • Frequent rocket fire is likely to target key Israeli assets such as ports and airports, which will probably force their shut down. Risks of actual physical damage will be strongly mitigated by the Iron Dome missile defence system, but will increase political pressure for a ground invasion. There will be a high risk of a three-front war if Hizbullah attempts to relieve pressure on Hamas by attacking Israeli positions along the Golan Heights and Shebaa farms, or firing rockets from south Lebanon.

EVENT

Hamas appears to be seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion of Gaza, in which Hamas calculates it can inflict heavy casualties on Israel. However, this risks an unintended escalation that draws Syria and Hizbullah into the fray.

Hamas’s military wing, the Ezz Eddine al-Qassam Brigades, on 8 July sent a seaborne unit to attack an Israeli position in Askhalon, southern Israel; and fired rockets against Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport and against Jerusalem, which were intercepted by Iron Dome anti-missile defence system.

IHS had assessed that Hamas does not desire an escalation at a time when it is besieged by Egypt and has just reconciled with President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Movement. However, it appears that the military wing of Hamas is seeking an escalation with Israel in an attempt to force Israel and Egypt to end the siege of Gaza and restore Hamas’s credibility as a resistance movement, as they perceive that the political processes of peace with Israel and reconciliation with Fatah have failed. An IHS source claims that Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal has lost control over the militant arm, and that he was not aware of the military wing’s intent to launch rockets against central Israel or of the 12 June kidnapping and subsequent killing of three teenage Israeli settlers.

For its part, Israel on 8 July authorised the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to call up to 40,000 reservists, and conducted hundreds of air raids on Gaza. It would take Israel two to three days to recruit the reservists. The exact number of reservists it calls in will be the key indicator of Israel’s intent to launch a ground invasion.

Hamas emulating Hizbullah

During the 1996 Israel-Hizbullah conflict, Hizbullah succeeded in imposing new rules on Israel, forcing the latter to accept that the militant group would retaliate against attacks on Lebanese civilians by attacking Israeli civilians. Hizbullah’s objective was to sideline civilians and change the nature of the conflict with Israel into a war of attrition waged by its guerrilla arm against the IDF in southern Lebanon. For Hizbullah, the 1996 conflict succeeded in forcing Israel to limit its retaliation options against Hizbullah, and, despite a ceasefire being agreed, fighting continued and many Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded until Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

Despite the loss of life, each conflict with Israel ended with Hizbullah expanding its arsenal, improving the sophistication of its forces, and expanding the set of targets that it could attack in Israel, as well as the number, range and firing rate of its rockets.

Hamas is seeking to draw Israel into a ground invasion into Gaza, as it calculates that it can impose a high number of military casualties on Israel using ambushes against dismounted infantry and Kornet missiles against armour. Moreover, Hamas probably assesses that a ground invasion would be an opportunity to capture Israeli soldiers, which can then be used to negotiate prisoner exchanges and the easing of the blockade by Israel and Egypt.

Hamas calculates that by expanding the range of its rockets, it can impose significant economic damage on Israel by forcing its civilians into shelters, ports to shut down for fear of ships being hit by wayward rockets, and airports to close, while at the same time disrupting the mid-year tourism season. This, in Hamas’s view, compensates for Israel’s disproportionate ability to inflict damage on infrastructure and private properties and its ability to impose a very high number of casualties, both military and civilians. Hamas is extremely unlikely to have taken the escalatory steps of launching a raid on Ashkalon and firing rockets at central Israel without Iranian assurances that Iran would rearm the group and help it rebuild its capabilities after this ongoing round of conflict ends, as it did following the 2008 and 2012 conflicts.

Israel’s perspective

The Israeli military sees the need to regularly reduce the capability of Israel’s Arab rivals through frequent, limited military confrontations at a time of its choosing in which the IDF overwhelms its foes with its firepower. However, Hizbullah and Hamas have succeeded in building up their capability after each conflict with Israel. This led Israel to attempt to destroy Hizbullah entirely in the 2006 conflict, an objective it failed to achieve partly due to its heavy reliance on airpower.

Israel fears that a success in the P5+1-Iran nuclear negotiations, at least by the end of 2014 if not in the coming weeks, would allow Iran to significantly boost the funding of Hamas and Hizbullah, and to recreate a similar movement in Syria. As such, there is a high probability that Israel would calculate that it needs to weaken Hizbullah and Syria ahead of the conclusion of the negotiations. An Israeli war with Syria and Hizbullah would inflict heavy damage against Israel due to Syria and Hizbullah’s ability to fire a high number of rockets. However, Israel would probably calculate that by severely damaging the Syrian and Lebanese armies, it would force Hizbullah into a longer war against the Sunnis, which Israel would use to its advantage. Moreover, Israeli officials have regularly said that a war with Hizbullah is a question of when, not if.

Outliers

In the increasingly likely event of a ground invasion by the IDF against Gaza, there will be a high risk of Hizbullah choosing to relieve pressure on Hamas by conducting attacks on Israel’s northern border, either in the Golan Heights or in Lebanon itself. IHS assesses that Hizbullah was probably responsible for an improvised explosive device (IED) attack south of the Golan’s Majdal Shams in March 2014, to which Israel responded by shelling Syrian army positions. Although Hizbullah most likely does not wish to fight on two fronts as it is engaged in a war on the side of the Syrian army, and increasingly so in Iraq, it will probably calculate that Israel does not wish to fight a two-front war either. This risks drawing both sides into an escalation that neither side wants but that is based on the two sides misreading one another’s strategic intentions, and raises the risk of a four-way conflict involving the Syrian military’s missile forces, Hizbullah, Hamas, and Israel.

FORECAST

Hamas’s escalation makes it unlikely that Israel would be able to avoid a ground invasion of Gaza, despite its evident reluctance, although it will attempt to limit this to attacks on Gaza’s fringes, and will seek to avoid being drawn in deeply into Gazan territory. However, Hamas is likely to fire its longer-range rockets, such as the Buraq-70 and the Fajr-5, from deep within Gaza in order to force Israel’s hand. This would bring Israeli targets such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem, including ports and airports there, into range.

Hamas is likely to be able to fire up to around 10 missiles per day towards central Israel, and the port cities of Askhelon and Haifa. The risk of damage is strongly mitigated by the Iron Dome. However, Iron Dome in southern Israel risks being overwhelmed by the intensity of the rocket fire: on 8 July, Hamas and other groups fired up to 80 missiles in a matter of minutes. However, this risk will be very low around Haifa and Tel Aviv, against which Hamas is almost certainly unable to sustain this kind of firing rate.

Moreover, in the event of a ground invasion against Gaza leads to a high number of Israeli military casualties, there will be a severe risk of lightly armed Israeli settlers attacking nearby Palestinian communities in the West Bank, and of attacks by lightly armed Israeli citizens against Israeli Arabs in Haifa, Nazareth, and East Jerusalem. This will raise civil unrest risks throughout Israel, as well as the risk of Palestinian protesters in the West Bank attempting to breach the Barrier Wall that separates the West Bank from Israel proper.

Last, although Israel and Hizbullah will both seek to avoid a two-front war, there is a risk that Hizbullah action against Israel aimed at relieving pressure on Hamas would lead to a broader conflagration, as a result of Hizbullah miscalculating and of Israel seeking to weaken Hizbullah ahead of a final Iran-P5+1 agreement.

Related articles:

Cease Fire Agreement, Not so Much

Posted on by

Since the start of Operation Protective Edge, over 1,081 rockets have been fired towards Israel. Of them 845 hit Israel and 191 have been intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system. The IDF has targeted over 1,576 terror targets, with both naval and aerial capabilities.

Barack Obama praises this agreement, yet it has no teeth and is one-sided. Remember there was a cease fire agreement on November of 2012.

Egypt proposes cease-fire between Israel, Hamas

JERUSALEM — Egypt presented a cease-fire plan Monday to end a week of heavy fighting between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip that has left at least 185 people dead, and both sides said they were seriously considering the proposal.

The late-night offer by Egypt marked the first sign of a breakthrough in international efforts to end the conflict.

Hamas’ top leader in Gaza confirmed there was “diplomatic movement,” while Israel’s policy-making Security Cabinet was set to discuss the proposal early Tuesday. Arab foreign ministers discussed the plan Monday night at an emergency meeting in Cairo, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was expected in the region Tuesday.

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry announced the three-step plan starting at 9 a.m. (0600 GMT, 2 a.m. EDT) with a cease-fire to go into effect within 12 hours of “unconditional acceptance” by the two sides. That would be followed by the opening of Gaza’s border crossings and talks in Cairo between the sides within two days, according to the statement.

Gaza’s crossings should be opened for people and goods “once the security situation becomes stable,” according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Associated Press.

Israel launched the offensive July 8, saying it was a response to weeks of heavy rocket fire out of Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Health Ministry in Gaza said 185 people, including dozens of civilians, have been killed, and more than 1,000 people wounded.

There have been no Israelis killed, although several have been wounded by rocket shrapnel, including two sisters, ages 11 and 13, who were seriously hurt Monday. Ahead of the Egyptian announcement, there appeared to be no slowdown in the fighting, with Hamas for the first time launching an unmanned drone into Israeli airspace that was shot down.

The violence followed the kidnappings and killings of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank last month, as well as the subsequent kidnapping and killing of a Palestinian teenager in an apparent revenge attack, along with Israeli raids against Hamas militants and infrastructure in the West Bank.

Israeli officials have said the goal of the military campaign is to restore quiet to Israel’s south, which has absorbed hundreds of rocket strikes, and that any cease-fire would have to include guarantees of an extended period of calm.

Hamas officials say they will not accept “calm for calm.” The group is demanding an easing of an Israeli-Egyptian blockade that has ground Gaza’s economy to a standstill and that Israel release dozens of prisoners who were arrested in a recent West Bank crackdown following the abductions of the Israeli youths.

With the death toll mounting, both sides have come under increasing international pressure to halt the fighting.

Egypt Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri said there is “no alternative but return to the truce” of November 2012, and added that Egypt contacted all the parties, including the Palestinian leadership, different Palestinian factions, and Israeli authorities in addition to Arab and international parties. Such contacts led to shaping up the proposal which called for cease-fire.

“Egypt stresses the international responsibility toward what is happening in Palestine,” he said.

In a speech broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader in Gaza, confirmed there was “diplomatic movement.”

“The problem is not going back to the agreement on calm because we want this aggression to stop,” he said. “The siege must stop and Gaza people need to live in dignity.”

An Israeli official said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would convene his Security Cabinet on Tuesday morning to discuss the proposal. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Naftali Bennett, a member of the Security Cabinet, said he would oppose the proposal, calling it “good for Hamas and bad for Israel.”

“A cease-fire at the present time shows the government’s weakness,” he said in a statement. “A cease-fire now will create a bigger campaign against the south of the country and more rocket attacks in another year.”

Egypt, the first Arab state to reach peace with Israel, often serves as a mediator between Israel and Hamas.

In the 2012 fighting, Egypt’s then-President Mohammed Morsi brokered a cease-fire, leveraging the influence his Muslim Brotherhood held with Hamas, its ally.

That deal included pledges to ease the blockade — promises that Hamas says were never kept. The blockade has greatly restricted movement through Gaza’s Rafah crossing with Egypt — the territory’s main gateway to the outside world — while Israel has restricted the flow of many goods, particularly much-needed construction materials, into Gaza. Israel says Hamas can use things like metal and concrete for military purposes.

Hamas has seen its position further weakened by last year’s military coup in Egypt that ousted Morsi. Egypt’s new leaders have cracked down on Hamas by nearly shuttering a network of smuggling tunnels along the border that were Hamas’ key economic lifeline — and supply route for its weapons.

Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 from the rival forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. With the economy stagnant and Hamas unable to pay the salaries of its thousands of civil servants, the group recently agreed to back a unity government under Abbas’ leadership. But Hamas remains in firm control of Gaza.

Israel and Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by the West, have battled many times. In the latest round, Israel carried out more than 1,300 airstrikes, along with attacks by naval gunships and artillery forces. Hamas fired hundreds of rockets into Israel.

Israeli military officials say the airstrikes knocked out roughly a third of Hamas’ rocket supply and delivered a blow to the group. It says that roughly 90 of the dead were wanted militants, and it has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields.

A Hamas drone launched Monday into Israel marked the Islamic militant group’s latest effort to catch the Israeli military off-guard. But like the others, it had little impact on the battlefield.

Israel shot down the drone — named Ababil for a protective flock of birds mentioned in the Quran. Still, the drone represented a new level of sophistication for Hamas, and Israel said it was taking the threat seriously.

It was the first time Hamas has launched a drone into Israel, though military officials say they knew the group has had the technology for some time. Israeli airstrikes in the past have targeted what were believed to be drone facilities in Gaza.

“Hamas is trying everything it can to produce some kind of achievement, and it is crucial that we maintain our high state of readiness,” Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said. “The shooting down of a drone this morning by our air defense system is an example of their efforts to strike at us in any way possible.”

The hundreds of rockets fired by Hamas disrupted life across Israel. But a new Israeli rocket-defense system has intercepted dozens of projectiles headed toward major cities.

Looking to gain an edge, Hamas has employed tactics not seen before. It has fired rockets deeper than ever into Israel, including weapons it has developed and manufactured in Gaza. Last week, Hamas sent a team of scuba divers on an infiltration mission, but Israel quickly detected the frogmen and killed them outside an army base.

Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired Israeli air force general and a former head of the Israeli space agency, said the Hamas drone was similar to aircraft sent by Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon during a 2006 war.

He said the drone’s capabilities were limited. But “looking to the future, these technologies are becoming more and more available,” he told Channel 10 TV.

Associated Press writers Karin Laub in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, Yousur Alhlour and Ian Deitch in Jerusalem, and Ibrahim Barzak in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

Text:  Courtesy of Jerusalem Post

Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip

1: (no title given for this section)

A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals.

B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

C. Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

D. Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.

2: Implementation mechanisms:

A. Setting up the zero hour for the ceasefire understanding to enter into effect.

B. Egypt shall receive assurances from each party that the party commits to what was agreed upon.

C. Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding. In case of any observations Egypt as the sponsor of this understanding shall be informed to follow up.

 

Blow the Whistle on Qatar

Posted on by

C’mon people it is Qatar, a terrorist financing state and our U.S. Treasury and State Department has confirmed this status.

Several months ago, many members in the Gulf States have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, but Qatar is a devout host and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, the acme of global Islamic factions.

Then there is Hamas which holds the same stellar standing in Qatar as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban.

Israel is the only Middle East ally and it is time for the West to come together and challenge the Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas such that this collective opposition would stop the constant conflict between Gaza and Israel.

The United States is complicit in funding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and some of the facts are presented below.

Only this week did Politco publish a piece that Barack Obama enjoys almost complete favoritism from the Muslim world, while his ratings among Americans is in the 30% range.

Hamas has been at war with Israel for countless years, lobbing rockets from their arsenal of 10,000 into Israel without provocation. The recent kidnapping and deaths of three teens has nothing to do with the latest barrage of aggression, it was only a catalyst laying the false blame on the death of the Palestinian teenager at the hands of Israeli police. One has nothing to do with the other, it is Hamas as directed by Iran and the al Thani dynasty of Qatar.

  • Qatar is a rogue regime without dispute. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/10/is-qatar-becoming-a-rogue-regime/#.U8BP3wK3gYo.twitter
  • Israel was forced to release prisoners at the demands of the United States, Israel complied in order to get a seat at the table for the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. Since the release, Israel has re-arrested at least 600 in part due to their return to Jihad, but it cannot be overlooked that many of those released sought and found a safe-haven in Doha. http://www.qatarchronicle.com/world/35860/israel-releases-26-palestinian-prisoners-before-talks/
  • The terror financing in Qatar is well known as CENTCOM Part 2 is located in Qatar.  http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/press-releases/centcom-exercises-new-forward-headquarters-in-qatar
  • Qatar has been the host of the Taliban leadership for years as well as Hamas. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/world/meast/qatar-afghanistan/index.html
  • The release of the Taliban 5 from Gitmo are living large in a Qatari resort. http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2014/06/05/will-qatar-lose-track-of-the-taliban-5.html
  • A sample of the al Thani global interests and corruption, the United States and Britain http://www.getnetworth.com/tag/hamad-bin-jassim-bin-jabor-al-thani-corruption/
  • Most disturbing of all is the Qatari investment into Western real estate, universities and into top government officials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/qatar-is-suddenly-investing-heavily-in-the-us-bankrolling-dcs-city-center-other-projects/2013/12/17/1ffaceca-5c6a-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html
  • Just a few months ago, Barack Obama gave his foreign policy speech at West Point, where curiously a few days later the Taliban 5 were released. While at West Point, a son of the Al Thani regime, happened to graduate West Point that very same weekend, the first Qatari ever to be at West Point. http://www.gulf-times.com/Qatar/178/details/394099/First-Qatari-graduates-from-West-Point
  • Then there is al Jazeera fully financed by al Thani who supports Hamas. A Democrat Congressman from California even says every Hamas rocket into Israel is a war-crime. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/07/10/california-dem-blasts-al-jazeera-on-al-jazeera-the-owners-of-this-network-fund-hamas/?utm_content=buffer9454a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
  • Now enter the Clinton clan and their Clinton Foundation, receiving millions upon millions from Qatar while at the same time Qatar funds Hamas. http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-hamas-share-major-donor/
  • Barack Obama has hosted al Thani at the White House to establish all kinds of interesting agreements. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/23/president-obama-welcomes-amir-hamad-bin-khalifa-al-thani-qatar-white-house
  • Qatar has been funding the wrong, repeat wrong anti-Assad Syrian factions and Barack Obama has relied on the agenda and funds to handle Syria so Barack Obama does not have to adhere to his ‘red-line threat’. http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/details.html?rsnpid=221893
  • Qatar funding terror factions in video form. http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/qatar-the-funding-of-international-terrorism-video/
  • Qatar funds mosques globally that enforces Sharia Law. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/07/08/qatar-is-the-main-financier-of-mosques-around-the-world-built-to-facilitate-the-spread-sharia-law/
  • An insight into the fake Qatari Constitution relating to religious freedom. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171743.pdf

Finally and in summary…

Treasury official says Qatar sponsors terrorism

March 14, 2014

In the bluntest comments yet by U.S. officials about Qatar’s role in financing international terrorism, Treasury undersecretary David Cohen cited Qatar while speaking about state sponsors of terrorism during remarks to the Center for a New American Security on March 4.

Cohen referred to Qatar immediately after stating that “Iran is not the only state that provides financial support for terrorist organizations.”  Cohen pointed to Qatar’s funding of Hamas and terrorists in Syria as problematic areas.

Previously, Treasury officials have stopped just short of suggesting official state sponsorship by the Qatari monarchy, focusing rather on private fundraisers and donor networks based in Qatar.

Excerpts from Cohen’s speech follow.  Kuwait doesn’t come off too in his remarks either:

…But, distressingly, Iran is not the only state that provides financial support for terrorist organizations.

Most notably, Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability.  Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria.  To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner.

With new leadership in Doha, we remain hopeful that Qatar – a country that in other respects has been a constructive partner in countering terrorism – will continue to work closely with us to oppose and combat those who adhere to the warped and murderous ideology of Hamas and al-Qa’ida…

[A] number of fundraisers operating in more permissive jurisdictions – particularly in Kuwait and Qatar – are soliciting donations to fund extremist insurgents, not to meet legitimate humanitarian needs.  The recipients of these funds are often terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida’s Syrian affiliate, al-Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the group formerly known as al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI)…

Constraining this flow of funds is particularly challenging in an era when social media allows anyone with an Internet connection to set himself up as an international terrorist financier.  We see this activity most prominently in Kuwait and Qatar, where fundraisers aggressively solicit donations online from supporters in other countries, notably Saudi Arabia, which have banned unauthorized fundraising campaigns for Syria.

Private fundraising networks in Qatar, for instance, increasingly rely upon social media to solicit donations for terrorists and to communicate with both donors and recipient radicals on the battlefield.  This method has become so lucrative, and Qatar has become such a permissive terrorist financing environment, that several major Qatar-based fundraisers act as local representatives for larger terrorist fundraising networks that are based in Kuwait…

Spooling, the Post America World

Posted on by

It is happening, the world leaders are posturing for a post American influenced globe. Allies and adversaries alike are quite busy expanding ties, agreements and business deals with each other that leave the United States virtually out of the mix and with purpose, world leaders no longer trust or can rely on America. Sad but true.

There is the matter of the Muslim Brotherhood getting huge support from a turn-coat previous president, Jimmy Carter.

China is partnering with Sudan offering weapons. Vladimir Putin is back in Cuba expanding his global reach again. Angela Merkel is angry with the United States over the NSA spying on her cell phone and on German citizens. But additionally in the past two weeks, German intelligence nabbed two Germans working for the CIA and Merkel terminated our CIA station in Berlin. But why were we spying on Germany? Seems, Germany too has deep ties with Iran and Russia.

France is selling warships to Russia against the position of the United States. Because the White House, previously Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry have failed in halting the nuclear weapons program of Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia have teamed up with a strategy.

Italy has recently signed deals with Russia.  Russia has an arms deal with Greece and a gas pipeline deal with Russia.

After the United States exit from Iraq, Maliki turned to Russia and Iran for protection from ISIS. After all the blood and treasure spent by the American forces in Iraq, Maliki no longer wants the United States due to Barack Obama shunning all requests by Maliki.

Russia is working again the Latin America component where the United States has ignored Brazil and hidden deals in Nicaragua among others.

Even the rather neutral country of Switzerland has suspended sanctions against Iran.

Qatar, Kuwait and many others have taken a late, very late position in Syria, where the United States dropped any mission four years ago in dealing with Assad.

VP, Joe Biden showed up in Ukraine to show support against Russian aggression but that has fallen short with any real evidence of solutions.  All reliance has fallen to NATO to solve the matter of Russia occupying Crimea and Ukraine and the threat moves towards several Baltic States, so again, America is absent except for token gestures of training small military units.

Under Barack Obama, the influence and diplomacy agenda worldwide has been shrinking. Take Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is Europe.

Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital  by Luke Coffey

Executive Summary

As part of a policy that is shrinking America’s military presence in the world, the Obama Administration’s recent defense cuts heavily impact the U.S. military footprint in Europe. These cuts are sending the wrong signal on America’s commitment to transatlantic security and will embolden U.S. adversaries in the Euro–Atlantic region. Most importantly, the cuts will reduce the ability and flexibility of the U.S. to react to the unexpected in Eurasia and the Middle East.

A Shrinking Force Posture. On January 26, 2012 the Pentagon announced reductions of U.S. military forces in Europe as part of the latest round of defense cuts:

  • Inactivation of one A-10 squadron at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, in 2013.
  • Inactivation of the 603rd Air Control Squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy, in 2013.
  • Reduction of V Corps headquarters structure after deployment to Afghanistan later this year. It will not return to Europe.
  • Inactivation of the 170th Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in 2013 and the 172nd BCT in 2014—a reduction of more than 8,000 soldiers.
  • An additional reduction of approximately 2,500 soldiers in enabling units of the U.S. Army in Europe over the next five years.

U.S. Forces in Europe. Today, the U.S. has approximately 80,000 military personnel in 28 main operating bases in Europe, primarily in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain. These forces include four BCTs, which form the backbone of U.S. ground capability in Europe.

Some believe that basing U.S. troops in Europe is a Cold War anachronism, but forward basing U.S. troops in Europe is just as important today as it was during the Cold War, albeit for different reasons. The U.S. military presence in Europe helps to achieve American policy aims in the broader Eurasia and Middle East regions. From the Arctic to the Levant, from the Maghreb to the Caucasus, Europe is at one of the most important crossroads of the world. U.S. military bases in Europe provide American leaders with increased flexibility, resilience, and options in a dangerous world. The garrisons of American service personnel in Europe are no longer the fortresses of the Cold War, but the forward operating bases of the 21st century.

America’s Interests. A safe and secure Europe is in America’s financial interest. Regional security means economic viability. The economies of the 27 member states of the European Union, along with the U.S. economy, account for approximately half of the global economy.

A relevant and strong NATO is also in America’s interest. U.S. forces play a major role in the capacity building of key European allies. This has huge benefits for the United States. In 2010, the U.S. carried out 33 major multinational training exercises involving 50,000 troops from 40 countries in Europe. U.S. forces also help European allies to prepare for missions such as the one in Afghanistan. For example, a Georgian infantry battalion is fighting alongside U.S. Marines in Helmand Province, one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. The more America trains its allies to carry out challenging missions, the more they can share the burden.

Cost-Driven Reductions. Perceived financial savings, not an empirical or strategic review of U.S. force requirements, appear to have driven the decision to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. On April 8, 2011, the Obama Administration announced that it was modifying a 2004 decision to remove two of the four BCTs from Europe and would bring only one BCT back to the United States. In January 2012, the Administration reversed itself, stating that two BCTs would return from Europe. However, the Administration did not explain what had changed in the geostrategic picture of Europe or in the advice from U.S. allies since last April to prompt this reversal. This indicates that defense cuts, not strategy, are driving the decision.

The Red Herring of Perceived Financial Savings. Proponents cite savings as the main reason to reduce U.S. bases in Europe. This is clearly the rationale behind the Obama Administration’s recent decision. This is dangerous, shortsighted, and based on the false assumption that the U.S. can project the same degree of power with rotational forces as it currently does with troops permanently based in Europe. Under current plans, more than 10,000 soldiers will leave Europe and be replaced by a maximum of one battalion rotating through Europe for training. Furthermore, most savings estimates exclude the cost of building new infrastructure in the U.S. for any returning units, the up-front cost of closing down facilities in Europe, the cost of rotating units between the U.S. and Europe, and the strain this would exert on the smaller army that the Obama Administration is proposing.

Time for U.S. Leadership. Instead, the White House should:

  • Put America’s national security interests ahead of defense cuts. Important decisions, such as the number of bases and the troop strength, should follow from a strategic review of U.S. interests in Europe, not the desire to slash the defense budget to find savings.
  • Show U.S. commitment to NATO and Euro–Atlantic security. The U.S. troop presence in Europe is the most visible sign of U.S. support to NATO. As NATO transforms for the 21st century, it needs American leadership and commitment.
  • Be honest and open with European allies. The Obama Administration needs to consult with key European allies and with the broader NATO alliance before making decisions on U.S. troop reductions in Europe.
  • Reward key U.S. allies with closer defense cooperation. Instead of reducing the numbers of U.S. military bases in Europe, the U.S. should consider establishing new bases in Europe, especially on the periphery and with allies who have demonstrated a strong commitment to Euro–Atlantic security, such as Georgia.

Conclusion. The U.S. military presence in Europe deters American adversaries, strengthens allies, and protects U.S. interests. Whether preparing U.S. and allied troops for Afghanistan or responding to a humanitarian crisis in the region, the U.S. can project power and react to the unexpected because of its forward-based military capabilities in Europe. Reducing these capabilities will only weaken America on the world stage.

Abbasid Khalif, What you Should Know

Posted on by

Abbasid Caliphate-850

The history and map tells a story and is a useful tool for a prediction of the future of Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and even Europe.  It should be noted that many other factions are joining in solidarity with ISIS that includes some in the Taliban, causing a potential vacuum in Afghanistan once the United States completes the troop withdraw. North Africa is especially vulnerable but what is worse is Europe with the particular being Spain.

Abbasid Empire history has been forgotten yet is appears it is part in parcel to al Baghdadi’s quest.

The history of the Abbasid Empire must be recognized along with all the other historical events that includes Sykes-Picot.

The Abbasid caliphate or, more simply, the Abbasids (Arabic: العبّاسيّون‎ / ISO 233: al-‘abbāsīyūn), was the third of the Islamic caliphates. It was ruled by the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs, who built their capital in Baghdad after overthrowing the Umayyad caliphs from all but the Al Andalus region.

The Abbasid caliphate was founded by the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad‘s youngest uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, in Harran in 750 CE and shifted its capital in 762 to Baghdad. It flourished for two centuries, but slowly went into decline with the rise to power of the Turkish army it had created, the Mamluks. Within 150 years of gaining control of Persia, the caliphs were forced to cede power to local dynastic emirs who only nominally acknowledged their authority. The caliphate also lost the Western provinces of Al Andalus, Maghreb and Ifriqiya to an Umayyad prince, the Aghlabids and the Fatimids, respectively.

George Bush was quite right, this is going to be a very long slog of war one, that could in fact lead to a global conflict and must be addressed now such that there is time for some control and while it is manageable. The terrifying component in this is the feeble position of NATO and especially the leadership of the United States to get out in front of this looming doom.

The End of Al Qaeda — and the Emergence of a More Dangerous Jihad?

By: Dr. Dave Sloggett

The announcement of the creation of a new Caliphate is a tipping point for the fortunes of Al Qaeda. But it’s been clear for some time that Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the de facto leader of Al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden’s death at the hands of US Special Forces, has cut a lonely and distant figure.

The much-maligned but highly effective program of drone strikes by the United States against the jihdist group in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan has had a material impact on Zawahiri’s ability to affect control over his increasingly geographically diverse organization. His failure to lead a major attack on the west replicating the impact of 9/11 has also undermined his position.

Now, recent events such as the rapid emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have crucially weakened his position.

The question is if Zawahiri is isolated does that mean Al Qaeda has reached a tipping point from which it cannot recover? Does it place even greater pressure on Al Qaeda to stage a spectacular attack to regain its lost power base? The current increase in alert levels at airports may be an indicator that intelligence agencies have serious indicators of some attempt by Al Qaeda to regain some semblance of authority over the international Salafist movement.

Whereas Osama Bin Laden — as a former graduate of business studies — would have hoped for a smooth transition of the leadership of Al Qaeda and its network of franchises around the world, the exact opposite has taken place. As a student of business studies, Bin Laden would have been well aware of the contemporary line of thinking encapsulated in the concept of “power to the edge” – a view that organizations should move away from being centralized to empowering their operational edges.

It was the concept Bin Laden followed in creating the network of international franchises that span the globe. Business schools may teach the benefits of such an approach in a globalized world, but what impact does such thinking have on an international terrorist organization?

As Zawahiri has gradually lost control of Al Qaeda’s various franchises, their independently minded leaders have sought to develop their own overall strategic direction. As a result, Zawahiri’s loss of control for decision making has devolved. Almost unintentionally Al Qaeda had already ceded power from the center to the “edges” of the organization.

When this happens in an international terrorist organization, it is possible for the outcome to not follow conventional business thinking. And that is what happened to create the conditions that’s given the rise to the Islamic State (IS), or ISIL as it was recently known.

Declaration of a Caliphate 

The declaration of the creation of a new Caliphate on the first day of Ramadan by ISIL leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and the news he’d been appointed its new Caliph was totally unexpected. It was a bold move that ultimately may see ISIL take control of the international Salafist movement. The timing reflects a man who has given some deep thought on the theological impact of the decision.

The pronouncement to call the new Caliphate the Islamic State is very significant, however. It implies a single body rather than a network of loosely tied affiliates that so far have had little material impact on the global stage. The declaration of the new Caliphate makes it easier for other groups across the Muslim world to say they will join the new social movement. It will also make it much easier for future attacks to be linked to Al Baghdadi’s organization.

The impact on the worldwide Salafist movement that Al Qaeda had purported to lead has been dramatic. Already, one group in Egypt announced on July 3 that it is changing its name from Ansar Bayt Al Maqdis (Supporters of Jerusalem) to the Islamic State.

Other groups have also been quick to respond to the news of the formation of a new Caliphate. In Morocco, a number of individual Internet users were also quick to welcome the declaration from Baghdadi. In Indonesia, Internet users quickly followed suite and exchanged congratulations. One described it as an historic event. One of Al Qaeda’s highest profile franchises, Al Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb, quickly issued a video recording offering its “support” to the leadership of IS. It also called upon Zawahiri to explain his stance on the creation of the new Caliphate.

Let’s wait and see 

Al Qaeda franchises operating in West Africa, including El Mourabitoune in Mali and Ansar Al Shari’ah in Tunisia and Libya have given a more sanguine response to the news. They are reported to be planning a meeting to discuss the latest developments somewhere in south-eastern or western Libya.

Other groups have provided more definitive responses. In Syria, some of the rebel groups involved in fighting President Bashar Al Assad’s regime have rejected the announcement. Nine groups, backed by a number of high profile religious scholars, dismissed the statement issued by IS. In a statement, they challenged whether the conditions for creating a Caliphate had been met as defined in religious texts. “The terms of the Caliphate have not been realized at present, especially in terms of state organizations,” the statement read. It ended with a call for all Muslims to avoid siding with IS.

In the Caucasus, the reaction of Jihadist groups was similarly muted. Their remarks focused on the need to await the outcome of considerations by Islamic Scholars over the news. Only then would the situation become clear. Given the inability of many Islamic scholars to agree on many contemporary issues, such as the theological validity of suicide bombing, the period of time some Jihadist groups have to wait for a clear sense of direction from scholars may be a long one.

The rise of ISIL and the formation of the Caliphate sent shock waves through social media sites frequented by Muslims across the world. If groups are quickly turning to IS, what then is the future of Al Qaeda? Is this a tipping point at which it becomes increasingly irrelevant?

Analysis 

The degree to which Zawahiri has become detached from the day-to-day operations of the Al Qaeda network of franchises became clear when he tried to intervene in the move of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) into Syria. This was primarily signaled by a re-branding of the AQI name to the interim name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Even this relatively short-lived name signaled the ambitions of the leadership of ISIL — specifically Baghdadi.

Because AQI argued its support to the Al Nusra Front in their struggle against the Assad regime, the members assumed that they could subsume them into the wider ISIL. To Baghdadi, a reclusive and shadowy figure, it was obvious he should be in command of the entire Salafist effort to bring down the Assad regime. After all, it was the exploits of ISIL which had proven emblematic to impressionable young western Europeans travelling to Syria to join the fight.

It was clear at this point that Baghdadi was enacting an audacious plan to take over all Al Qaeda activities in Iraq and Syria. The move did not please Zawahiri, and he attempted to use his failing authority to order ISIL to re-focus their efforts on Iraq and leave Syria to the Al Nusra front. When that initial approach was rejected out of hand by the leadership of ISIL, Zawahiri’s attempts to admonish and berate the ISIL leadership and give his support to what he declared to be the legitimate franchise in Syria backfired spectacularly.

Having fallen out with what is often called the Al Qaeda “core,” Baghdadi saw an opportunity. He embarked upon a far reaching attempt to widen the sphere of influence crossing the border from Syria into Iraq. Using established social networks along the Euphrates River Valley, ISIL was able to move quickly to join up the towns and cities from Fallujah to the Syrian Border.

For many Iraqis, it seemed that it was only a matter of time before ISIL moved on Baghdad. Given its religious and historical significance, any foothold in the Iraqi capital would allow Baghdadi to claim that he — no doubt with the support of Allah — had re-created the conditions for the creation of a new Caliphate, replacing the Abbasid Dynasty that had survived from 750-1258 when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols. This was a bold move by Baghdadi that signaled his intent to underpin the creation of IS and create greater opportunities for traction with those that formerly supported Al Qaeda.

For the moment, Baghdadi must be pleased with the reaction his announcement has had across social media domains. He made a move to take control of the international Salafist movement at a point when its previous leadership had been at its weakest position for many years.

In reacting to the moves made by Baghdadi, Zawahiri is reported on Al Qaeda’s own Twitter account to have laughed. Clearly, Zawahiri is not enamored by the idea. If, however, IS continues to gain ground, Zawahiri may end up laughing on the other side of his face as the global movement he has led since Bin Laden’s killing disintegrates.

For the West, this is a stark turn of events. Any estimates of the number of Europeans travelling to Syria and Iraq to join the fight are way off. In the Netherlands, a senior political leader admitted it only takes 48 hours for a person to get into Syria from the Netherlands. Other political leaders are saying much the same — that the numbers of Westerners estimated to have traveled to fight in the new Caliphate is much too low.

Dr. Dave Sloggett has more than 40 years’ experience analyzing international security issues. His most recent books are, Focus on the Taliban, and, Drone Warfare. Watch for his article, “Kenyan Fault Lines: An Unstable Divide Ideal for Terrorist Exploitation,” in the upcoming issue of Homeland Security Today.