RubinReports

As The State of the Union Speech Shows: The Problem with Obama Isn't Just Political or Ideological, It's Ignorance, Inexperience, Character, and Incompetence, Too,

2012-01-27T15:24:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I’ve been waiting for someone to voice my reaction to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union message. But and since I haven’t seen anyone else do it—I’m not referring to the foreign policy aspects which I analyzed fully here but the whole speech—I’ll do it myself.

It was very scary.

Why? I am reminded of the famous scene in the "Caine Mutiny" in which the captain is testifying at the court-martial of officers who removed him from command during a storm on the basis of mental incompetence. Perhaps you remember the brilliant film performance by Humphrey Bogart. As he testifies about his fine job of command, the captain slowly breaks down into coherence. He pulls out of his pocket some little steel balls which he rolls endlessly in his hand. Click. Click. Click. The court martial officers look at each other and you can see in their faces what they are thinking: This man is bonkers.

-----------------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Here' our new informational and fundraising site.

Please be subscriber 28,736. Put email address in upper right-hand box:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
------------------------

I don’t mean that Obama is crazy. What is so evident, however, is that he is so detached from reality. Even assuming Obama's political goals, how he goes about expressing and implementing them proves that point. The issues and the America Obama described in the speech have nothing to do with current issues and problems. The ridiculous bit with Warren Buffett’s secretary—income tax and capital gains tax are two different things—the talk about “fairness” and “teamwork,” simply don’t address what’s going on, things like costs of production being too high, investor's confidence shaken, and resources misapplied.

Obama’s major speech in Kansas, an echo of one given by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, also indicates what’s wrong with this president. It’s as if he’s half in the past—populism against the big monopolistic corporations running roughshod over a feeble government and defenseless workers—and half in the future, pushing a green utopia.

Having a president—the most powerful single man in the world--who isn’t engaged with reality is very scary.

It’ not just about politics and ideology, there are three other factors....

To read the entire article click here

Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran and Neither is the United States: Get Used To It

2012-01-26T15:05:00.008+02:00

By Barry Rubin

The radio superhero, The Shadow, had the power to “cloud men’s minds.” But nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews or Israel. This year’s variation on that theme is the idea that Israel is about to attack Iran. Such a claim repeatedly appears in the media. Some have criticized Israel for attacking Iran and turning the Middle East into a cauldron of turmoil (not as if the region needs any help in that department) despite the fact that it hasn’t happened.

-----------------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Here' our new informational and fundraising site.

Please be subscriber 28,736. Put email address in upper right-hand box:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence for such a thesis. Israel has talked about attacking Iran and one can make a case for such an operation. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario—based on actual research and real analysis rather than what the uninformed assemble in their own heads or Israeli leaders sending a message to create a situation where an attack isn't necessary—is this: It isn’t going to happen.

Indeed, the main leak from the Israeli government, by an ex-intelligence official who hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been that the Israeli government already decided not to attack Iran. He says that he worries this might change in the future but there’s no hint that this has happened or will happen. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has publicly denied plans for an imminent attack as have other senior government official.

Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it. But Israel, like other countries, should be subject to rational analysis. Articles being written by others are being spun as saying Israel is going to attack when that's not what they are saying. I stand by my analysis and before December 31 we will see who was right. I'm not at all worried about stating very clearly that Israel is not going to go to war with Iran.

So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way –indeed, the only way Israel has--to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons’ drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don't participate--consciously or as an instrument--in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.

Regarding Ronen Bergman's article in the New York Times, I think the answer is simple: Israeli leaders are not announcing that they are about to attack Iran. They are sending a message that the United States and Europe should act more decisively so that Israel does not feel the need to attack Iran in future. That is a debate that can be held but it does not deal with a different issue: Is Israel about to attack Iran. The answer is "no."

Imagine a media report after an Israeli attack: A dozen Israeli warplanes hit Iranian nuclear installations today. Three places were damaged to some extent but Iran has a large number of such facilities. Iran and Israel are now in a full state of war. Oil prices zoomed up. The Obama Administration and EU condemned the attack. Iran said it would redouble its drive for nuclear weapons and use them in its defense. Tehran is expected to put the priority on facilities outside of Israel's range.

Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.

Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.

If Israel attacks Iran now does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out endless bloody war thereafter.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.

Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those case a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran's regime to be so totally irraitional then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.

If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would--according to the Obama Administration--endanger U.S. interests there.

Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.

Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.

Imagine a media report after an Israeli attack: A dozen Israeli warplanes hit Iranian nuclear installations today. Three places were damaged to some extent but Iran has a large number of such facilities. Iran and Israel are now in a full state of war. Oil prices zoomed up. The Obama Administration and EU condemned the attack. Iran said it would redouble its drive for nuclear weapons and use them in its defense. Tehran is expected to put the priority on facilities outside of Israel's range.

So given all of these factors why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.

The counter-argument is this: Iran’s regime is irrational and wants to destroy Israel even if the resulting counterattack would kill millions of Iranians and wreck the country. Yet while that analysis should not be totally ruled out, it is far from a certainty. Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons to make itself invulnerable to the costs of its non-nuclear subversion and support for terrorist and revolutionary forces. And a lot of what the Iranian leadership says is demagoguery to build support for itself at home, and to convince the masses to ignore its incompetence and mismanagement.

Moreover, while you may have met Iranians whose grasp of reality is--let me put this politely--somewhat creative and even though the Iran regime evinces an extremist anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic ideology, the actual history of Iran (or more narrowly of the Iranian regime) does not show it to be an irrational actor. In other words, tries to implement highly radical, nasty, and terrorist-supporting actions in a careful and cautious manner. Islamist Iran did not invade any of its neighbors and it has not taken big foreign policy risks. In saying this, I'm not being naive or ignoring what Iran's leaders say or want but what they actually do.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? So it can go on sponsoring terrorism, spreading radical ideology, killing Americans through covert actions, and building a sphere of influence without anyone doing anything about it. In other words, the real threat is Iran's conventional foreign policy safeguarded by nuclear weapons. Are there precedents for this? Sure. More recently, Pakistan and North Korea, going back further in time, the Stalinist USSR.

Yet given the points made above, even the Iran-as-irrational analysis--and even assuming it to be correct the probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent--does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.

Yet given the points made above, even the Iran as irrational analysis--and even assuming it to be correct the probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent--does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.

And, finally, Israel has other options. The alternative is this: As the Iranian regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include:

U.S. early warning stations and anti-missile missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israel long-range planes whose crews have rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously; covert operations, possibly including computer viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; help to the Iranian opposition (though the idea of "regime change" in the near future is a fantasy); and other measures.

If and when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it unavoidable, not in theory but in actual practice.

Note that attacking a limited number of missiles and launch facilities, that must be located closer to Israel within Iranian territory, is easy. Attacking multiple nuclear facilities buried deep in the ground anywhere in Iran is hard.

Ah, but what if Iran gives small nuclear devices to terrorists? Well ask yourself two simple questions:

1. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that this didn't happen? Answer: Not at all.

2. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that Iran would definitely give nuclear devices to terrorists and try to strike against Israel as quickly and as frequently as possible? Absolutely yes.

Does this Israeli strategy assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in doing so.

Whether you hope for or fear an Israeli attack on Iran, it isn’t going to happen.

At the same time, a new theme in the America mass media--for example here and here--is that the United States is headed toward war with Iran either by electing a Republican president, the inevitable weight of events, or through having sanctions so effective that a cornered Iran will attack. The fact is that neither country wants to have an armed conflict and such a battle is easily avoidable. Ironically, those who claim Iran is going to attack are using the crazy Tehran regime concept that they reject when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the "watch out for the warmongering Republicans slogan" is part of the election campaign.

Warning against tough sanctions is a way of avoiding tough sanctions. The argument boils down to saying that sanctions better not hurt Iran or else the consequences will be disastrous. We will be hearing the same argument soon about Hamas, Hizballah, Egypt, and maybe even Libya or Turkey. The effort to use U.S. leverage will be said as triggering war or an anti-American explosion among Muslims. Thus, for example, whatever the Egyptian regime does toward Israel or its own people, we will be told that reducing U.S. aid is not an option.

Going to war with Iran is a mistake and the hysteria on this issue, including claims the regime is about to fall, that it can easily be brought down, or that an Iranian nuclear attack on others is inevitable, should be reined in. That's precisely why sanctions and other measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

And there isn't going to be any war unless Iran's regime tries to use them or make a big mistake. It could, as Egypt did in 1967 or Saddam Hussein did in the late 1990s, rattle "nuclear sabers" enough to convince Israel that an attack is imminent. Even if it did not intend to attack, Tehran could push too hard and trigger an Israeli attack. By the same token, some Iranian attack on Western forces or on oil traffic in the Gulf--more likely triggered by a local commander without regime permission--could produce a slide into war with the United States.

But here's what's most likely going to happen: Iran will get nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear drive (though it could stop short of actually building bombs or warheads ready to go). Western policies are not so bold or adventurous as to go to war; Israel's interests and capabilities do not make attacking sensible. An attack would not solve but increase problems. And no matter how crazy you think Iran's regime is, the inescapable predicable threat is not high enough to force policymakers to risk getting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people killed, when the chance of avoiding such an outcome is very high.

Barry Rubin is director of the GLORIA Center, at IDC, and editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.

Obama’s State of the Union Speech: My Response Discovers Some Curious Insights and Strange Formulations

2012-01-25T14:52:00.002+02:00

Note: Don't miss my analysis of Obama's single sentence on Israel.

By Barry Rubin

In his State of the Union message, President Barack Obama began by wrapping himself in the flag, patriotism, and love of the armed forces while trying to highlight his foreign policy achievements. Among his points:

--“The United States [is] safer and more respected around the world.”

Presumably, a lot of Americans will believe this. The United States may be said to be safer in terms of facing direct terror attacks but that was basically true in 2002. As for “more repected”—a phrase no doubt chosen to seem more statesmanlike than saying “more popular,” that is a joke. If there’s one thing that should be obvious (and this is often revealed even by international public opinion polls) the United States is not more respected at all.

Moreover, while individual Americans may be relatively safe from terrorist attacks in their homes, neighborhoods and workplaces within the territory of the United States—a perception partly reinforced by redefining terrorist attacks as something else—U.S. interests abroad are far less safe.

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”

True, though the remaining forces may have to fight to defend themselves. This withdrawal, of course, was planned by Obama’s predecessor and Iraq is not doing so well today.

“For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.”

Aside from the lack of grammar here—was Obama trying to avoid saying that these people were killed?—the statement is true. The problem is that Hamas, Hizballah, the Turkish regime, Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood add up to a far bigger threat, a problem magnified by Obama refusing to acknowledge they are a threat.

To read the entire article click here

Where the “Counter-Obama” View of the Middle East is Right and Where It’s Wrong

2012-01-24T17:37:00.003+02:00

By Barry Rubin

Jackson Diehl is by far the best journalist writing in the mass media about the Middle East. In a recent column he tries to find some middle ground between the dominant ideas--that Islamist regimes are no problem at all and that the Muslim Brotherhood is really moderate—and what he defines as a too extreme conservative and Republican analysis.

While I don’t quite agree with him, there is much of merit in his dichotomy. We should all learn from it even though I’m going to suggest that it needs to be adjusted. Even if Obama's critics are on the right side about the Middle East and generally understand what's happening, many of them also make factual and analytical mistakes that undermine their credibility and may sometimes subvert their policies if they win office.

In addition, Diehl reminds us (how rarely that happens nowadays!) how good it feels to debate with people who actually think about the issues and cite evidence even if we disagree with them. He actually believes that there is merit on both sides of the argument, again an attempt at balance that often seems close to extinction in this sad era.

Diehl begins with a highly critical account of a Fox news host and Governor Rick Perry’s hard-hitting but flawed account of contemporary Turkey.

The former said of Turkey—in Diehl’s view, a “mostly accurate but extremely one-sided description”—that since an “Islamist-oriented party took over . . . the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. [Prime Minister Recep Erdogan] has embraced Hamas, and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cyprus.”

Diehl provides what he sees to be the other side, that the Turkish government:

“has just stationed an advanced radar on its territory that could be used to track and shoot down missiles from Iran; that joined the NATO operaiton against Moammar Gaddafi [sic] in Libya; that has become the host of the opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; and that, having repeatedly won free democratic elections, amended Turkey’s constitution to expand rights for women, ethnic minorities and unions.”

Diehl, to his credit (it’s amazing how rare any balanced account is in the mass media nowadays!) continues, “that, too, was a one-sided account of the Erdogan record. But that is precisely the point: Turkey has become a complex, dynamic, difficult, sometimes infuriating, sometimes very helpful and indisputably important ally of the United States.”

Now Diehl presented five items as being to the credit of Erdogan’s regime. But let’s take them one at a time:

To read the entire article click here

The Unvarnished Reality of Contemporary U.S.-Israel Relations

2012-01-23T20:55:00.002+02:00

The following article was published in Maariv newspaper in Hebrew.

By Barry Rubin

Do not speak of it in public. Do not expect anyIsraeli official to admit it. But Israel is facing an issue unlike anything ithas had to deal with during the past 50 years: It cannot depend on the UnitedStates.

True, the relationship in terms of weapons’ supplyremains good. Old programs continue to provide advanced arms to Israel. Nor isthe problem the one most people think of first: on Israel-Palestinian, “peaceprocess” issues.

President Barack Obama’s Administration has seenthat no real progress is possible on that front. It tends to blame Israel in public and Obamaintensely dislikes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but those problems havelittle material effect. If that personal matter were the only issue involved Israel could muddle throughas it has with other presidents.

The difficulty with Obama is that his entirestrategy in the Middle East is contrary to Israeli interests, except forputting some sanction’ pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear weapons’ program. The greatest threat to Israel today is therise of radical Islamist regimes. Here is how Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh putsit:

"The Palestinian cause iswinning. With the Muslim Brotherhood part of the government [in Egypt], they[the Egyptians] will not besiege Gaza. They will not arrest Palestinians. Theywill not give cover to Israel to launch a war....Israel is disturbed by this.It knows the strategic environment is changing. Iran is an enemy. Relations aredeteriorating with Turkey. With Egypt, they are really cold. Israel is in asecurity situation they have never been in before."

Even though Israel has faced worst strategic situations and theIslamists are badly divided, Haniyeh has put his finger on the centralstrategic factor today. Radical Islamists who want to open a new round ofbattle against Israel now rule or are likely to do so very soon in Egypt, Gaza,Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Here is where the problem with the United States comes in. Obama doesnot really view this trend as a threat. He spent the first half of his termengaging with Iran and its ally Syria. Obama and his administration regards theIslamists as people who are either already moderate or are likely to become so bygoverning.

This is, of course, the opposite of the Israeli assessment. In Syria, the U.S. government even helpedorganize and supports an external opposition leadership in which Islamists formthe majority even though it is doubtful that this reflects their level ofsupport within the country.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. government does not even recognize theexistence of the number-one threat to Israel.

And to make matters worse, the government that Obama looks to foradvice, guidance, and interpretation of the region is not Israel but theIslamist regime in Turkey. That government’s sharp turn to a highly emotionalanti-Israel policy has not cost it anything at all in terms of its relationswith the White House, something that would have been unthinkable under anyprevious president.

That is why Israel, as well as the Middle East generally, is going tobe an important issue in this year’s presidential election. To preserve relations with the United States,Israeli leaders will neither do nor say anything about that contest. Yetnothing could be more obvious than that Obama’s reelection would be extremelydamaging for Israel’s security.

Egypt's Parliament 75 percent Islamist; Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement is Dead Even if Treaty Still Exists

2012-01-23T16:52:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

We’re starting to get a good picture of what the lower house of Egypt’s parliament will be like, though it will take another month to be certain. Close to 50 percent of the seats will be held by the Muslim Brotherhood. Another 25 percent will be held by the al-Nour party of Salafists. With 75 percent the two Islamist parties will be able to do as they please.

But, they—or at least the Brotherhood—are determined to be cautious. Note that there is a big difference between actually being moderate and simply being patient, advancing step by step toward radical goals. The Western media will report that the Brotherhood is indeed moderate. Actually, as I review coverage over the last year it is almost impossible to find even a single article in the mass media that reports any such evidence, much less analysis, despite the massive documentation available to the contrary .

The non-Islamist seats will be held by the Wafd, nine percent, and the Free Egyptians Party, another nine percent, with the rest spread among a dozen different parties, mainly liberal with a small number of leftists. The Wafd will be willing to make deals with the Islamists in order to obtain a share of power for itself. Only the Free Egyptians will oppose them with determination.

There is no reason to believe the “moderates” will be able to work together; the Islamist parties also won’t unite. There is, however, an important difference. While the Wafd's cooperation with the Brotherhood will undermine the ability of anti-Islamist forces doing anything at all, the Salafists will pull the Brotherhood toward a more militant stance.

Both Islamist parties will support laws making Egypt more Islamist and when the Brotherhood does less than the Salafists want it will be proclaimed as moderate. Yet the two parties have no substantive difference on foreign policy except about how openly anti-American they will be and how active to push on conflict with Israel. Internationally, the Brotherhood will be portrayed as a wonderful bulwark against the Salafists, even as it moves Egypt step by step down the road toward radical Islamism.

Two key events will dominate Egyptian politics: writing the Constitution and also the election of the president, currently expected in June. In order not to scare people, the Brotherhood continues its strategy of not directly sponsoring a presidential candidate. It is likely, however, that the Islamists will vote for Islamist candidates and in any run-off the likely two candidates will be an Islamist, probably Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, and the radical nationalist Amr Moussa. But here’s a thought: what if the two candidates that receive the largest number of votes in the first round are both Islamists? That could mean an all-Islamist run-off between the Brotherhood’s favorite and a Salafist.

As for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty...

To read the entire article click here

Barry Rubin is director of the GLORIA Center and editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.

Why Contemporary Western Elites Don’t Understand the World and Why Their Foreign Policies Fail

2012-01-22T15:38:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

One of the benefits of spending much of my time talking to people from around the world is getting an original, fresh perspective on the United States, its policies, politics, and political culture.

Recently, I had a discussion with a brilliant academic who had grown up in a Communist country, has spent a lot of time in the United States, and studies this kind of thing. To explain how the U.S. conception of the world is shaped, he used the phrase, “engineering mentality.”

The “engineering mentality” is one of the main factors in America’s brilliant success. I take it to mean that one approaches problems with a can-do (another American phrase) style. One rules out extraneous, distracting cultural and historical factors in order to figure out a practical way to fix things. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Construct buildings, roads, and bridges; invent new products; revolutionize production methods. Don’t be intimidated by the traditional; don’t be afraid of change; just because it has never been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be done now. Forget about ideology or preconceived notions. Just get the job done as quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible.

Such energetic and fearless pragmatism conquered a continent, industrialized an agrarian nation, and won wars. A century ago it allowed America to turn disparate ethnic and religious groups into a single nation. In recent decades with remarkably little violence or disruption it broke down long-prevalent racial, gender, and other barriers.

In the face of all of these achievements, the currently prevalent view that America has a shameful history and is a failed society is ridiculous, notwithstanding past shortcomings.

But how does this “engineering” approach deal with the outside world? Not so well. By ignoring historical, cultural, ideological, religious, and other factors, one isn’t going to understand other countries. You can try to understand them or get them to change (“just do it!”) but these interpretations don’t work and the efforts to change fail. The idea that American know-how will go into a country like Iraq and Afghanistan and succeed in “nation-building” is, to say the least, greatly overestimated.

How have American leaders in the past found ways to overcome this “engineering” bias? By acknowledging differences, comprehending that other countries and peoples have their own orientation, worldview, and culture. Far from being something objectionable, the idea of American exceptionalism was a very useful concept; knowing that the United States has been more successful than other countries was an important element in dealing with reality because one then had to ask why this was so.

For example, the burden of tradition in other societies was too powerful to permit easy change. Class distinctions were more rigid. Ideas and institutions that might have worked in the past were now blocking development. Change had to come inside. Backwardness was not the result of external oppression but internal stagnation. All of these points are the opposite of the prevalent radical ideas in the West.

Click here to read the entire article

Are You Left-Wing or Right-Wing? Hopefully, I’m Honest-and-Accurate Wing

2012-01-20T16:23:00.004+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I ran into an older, retired Israeli colleague who is a fine scholar in his field. We hadn’t met for 25 years and agreed to have coffee in a nearby Tel Aviv cafe. In the ensuing conversation I learned some key things about why current intellectual and political discussion is such a wreck.

The retired professor has read nothing I've written. He is on the left-wing politically, in the historic non-Communist sense, but his work has always been first-rate and untouched by any political slant. In addition, he has worked amicably with people of different views. And that’s why I was dismayed by his first question: “Are you left-wing or right-wing?”

I sighed, partly because I hate this starting point of dividing people into two categories. A more appropriate question would have been: What do you think of….? To classify someone is to decide in advance to agree or disagree with whatever they say. To ask someone their view makes it possible to listen and think about the quality of their ideas.

A scholar or analyst, whatever his personal views, should do work that is beyond politics. Many years ago I did a scholarly article on American radical professors of the 1930s and 1940s. I was almost unable to find a single case in which anyone had even been accused of politicizing their academic work or classroom teaching. They viewed such behavior as inappropriate and perhaps some were worried about how being outspoken might hurt their careers. At any rate, even during the McCarthy era people were pursued for their organizational memberships and not their classroom behavior. Today, all those old issues of professional ethics have vanished. Professors may spend most of their time being propagandists, throw away scholarly standards, and energetically persecute dissenters.

Back to my cafe meeting. If one puts people into a box all that follows will either be banal agreement or total argument. If this encounter had been in an American context the next hour or so might have been spent on endless consensus on how great or terrible Obama is. Alternatively, the discussion would have been characterized by a heated argument in which each person would not concede that the other had a single valid point to make. Either way, nobody probably would have learned anything new or had to exercise their brain.

So I gave my standard response: "The international issues I deal with have no `left' or `right' wing aspect to them. The important question is how one analyzes situations, issues, and events. They should be approached as objectively as possible with an honest attempt to be accurate, to produce evidence proving one’s assertions, and to follow where the facts lead.”

Perhaps because he is a pre-Politically Correct person on the left he completely understood my response, and he correctly added an additional point: “And not to conceal things that don’t coincide with your thesis.” A generation ago this is how people thought. You could hold totally different political views but how you wrote history or taught about works of literature was something else entirely. Not everything people said was predictable because they actually thought about things rather than merely applied a preexisting political standpoint. Instead, academics across the political spectrum respected what some call the “scientific method” and I prefer saying are “Enlightenment values.”

I continued, “Figuring out whether or not, say, the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical organization is not a matter of political viewpoint. One’s politics should be expressed by what one wants to achieve, not in one’s analysis of the situation.”

Although I didn’t say so an example I had in mind was this: I would like to see a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. That puts me left of center in Israel. But my good faith assessment of the Palestinian political scene (leadership, ideology, groups, public opinion, options) and of the regional situation is that, given overwhelming evidence, this is impossible to achieve at this time. The evidence (and there is hardly any actual evidence) offered by those who argue otherwise is not persuasive.

Consequently, I draw policy conclusions from that analysis. No two-state solution is possible at this time. I then go on—I won’t go into this right now—to develop my view of the best policy response to the situation.

Instead, I asked him how he saw this methodological problem in which one's politics determined whether the Brotherhood was radical or moderate. Here’s approximately what he said:

“People on the right slant the facts to fit their political views while people on the left don’t.” After I questioned this he altered his statement to “most people” in either case. I then asked for examples. He gave two and I will take them one at a time.

He continued, “Rightists say that [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is so extreme that you cannot talk to him. He is eager for war to wipe out Israel. You can’t talk to him so therefore war with Iran is necessary.”

That’s a fascinating mixture of points from which I think we can learn a lot. Let’s dissect it. The opening point-- Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is so extreme that you cannot talk to him—is clearly correct, not wrong at all. What is needed, though, is to separate analysis from policy proposals and always to look for alternatives.

I think these are the two points that people don’t understand and they are destroying any productive discussion of intellectual or political issues at present. So let me repeat them:

Analysis should be separate from policy. If people conflate the idea that the Iranian regime is extremely radical, intransigent, and dangerous and thus no deal can be made--the perception of reality--with what should be done about it, people will reject the correct analysis because they don’t agree with the proposed response. Example: We must lie about Palestinian politics or we will damage the cause of peace; we must lie about revolutionary Islamism or we will provoke a war. Of course, lying is the most likely to hurt peace or lead to creating a crisis that will end in war.
When moving from analysis to policy, one should think creatively and not just give a knee-jerk response. There are many alternatives to going to war with Iran. But an accurate assessment of the threat’s existence must be the starting point. Examine each issue and the needed policy response on an individual basis rather than impose an ideological template on it.

To read the entire article click here

Arabism Is Dead! Long Live…?

2012-01-20T12:17:00.000+02:00

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and I ask you to read and link to this version.

By Barry Rubin

An editorial in themoderate Lebanese publication, Lebanon Now, reminds us of just how dramaticallythe Middle East has changed. Many of the arguments and assumptions thatgoverned the Arabic-speaking world for six decades have simply vanished. Others,though, have just been modified slightly.

The biggest change hasbeen the collapse of Arab nationalism, the ideology and system that governedmany countries, controlled the regional debate, and intimidated everyone elseinto line for six decades. But is the analogy to Eastern Europe in 1991—rescuedfrom Communism and transformed into democracies—or to the situation there in1945—save from fascism only to be taken over by Communism for almost ahalf-century?

In other words is theArabic-speaking world moving into an era of democracy or merely a new form ofauthoritarianism?

We are reminded vividlyof the death of the old order by an editorial in the moderate Lebanesepublication, Lebanon Now, discussing President Bashar al-Assad’s attempts tosay in control in Syria. The editors write:

“After months ofprocrastination, months of ignoring the insistence of the internationalcommunity that he stop murdering his people; after nearly three weeks into thecatastrophic Arab League mission to assess the level of violence in the countryand after a body count that by conservative estimates has exceeded 5,000, hecan only resort to the hollow and outdated rhetoric of an era the Arab world isaching to leave behind.”

What is this rhetoric? To blame everything on “the creation of Israel and theimperial reshaping of the Middle East” after World War One. Well, 1948 (thecreation of Israel) and 1918 (when the old Ottoman Empire crumbled and Arabstates began to emerge) were a long time ago. Arab nationalism was a response tothese events and also to the belief that fascist and Communist systems inEurope offered role models for ruling the Arabic-speaking world.

Arabism was also a wayto unite disparate peoples into a coherent state while focusing on a commonethnic identity that might suppress ideological and regional differences while transcendingreligious ones. In al-Assad’s recent speech, he stated, “Arabism is a questionof civilization, a question of common interests, common will and commonreligions.”

Lebanon Now calls this a,“cobweb-ridden idea.” Yes, indeed, but it is one that sent the Arabs intoimmense enthusiasm until recently. Still, it no longer does. Today people are focusedmore on the failures of Arab nationalist regimes in the 1950-2010 period ratherthan on the alleged sins of the 1920-1948 era. Yet that might only lead tosupporting a revolutionary Islamism that argues it can do better than itspredecessors.

Same authoritarianism;same demagoguery; same enemies; just a different method of fighting them, thepolitical use of religion rather than of nationalism.

One of the institutionsthe editorial ridicules is the Arab League. Using that group to advise peoplehow to get rid of dictatorship and replace it with democracy, as is being triedin Syria, is like “a smoking doctor who advises the patient to quit smokingwhile putting a cigarette in his mouth.”

And yet that’s whatIslamism is seeking to do, merely changing the cigarette for a cigar. In doingso, a lot of these old Arabist arguments are merely being recycled. For example:

--It isn’t “Arabism”that will unite the people but…Islam.

--One of Arabism’s failuresis that it didn’t unite the Arabs, but Islamist ideology will unite the Muslims,which it insists is easier to do. That may prove true within individualcountries and even across newly forming blocs, counties where the local branchof the Muslim Brotherhood holds sway.

--Arabism failed toexpel Western “imperialist” influence from the region and destroy Israel butIslam will succeed. One Islamist complaint is that nationalist rulers madedeals with the West, as Mubarak did. The Islamists, due to the nature of theirideology, won’t make that “mistake.”

--Arabism didn’t bring economicsuccess but Islam “is the solution.” It is easy to see that this won’t work ineconomic terms yet belt-tightening, a renewed revolutionary enthusiasm, andother means might survive hard times by producing pious times. Religion has often succeeded in doing so inthe past.

Of course, Syria is alsoa special case, a place where—again a great turn of phrase by Lebanon Now’seditors—the ruling “a system more akin to organized crime than that inspired byPericles,” i.e., democracy.

Clearly, Lebanon Now’seditors hope that Syria’s revolution does better than the one they helped leadin Lebanon. Remember, Lebanon was the original “spring” movement and now it is runby Islamists (Hizballah) who took power in an election but ultimately depend onIranian money, Syrian assassins, and terrorist intimidation to stay in power.

One cannot also help butnote that Arab nationalism did work to hold together a country includingAlawites, Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims, along with non-Arab Kurds.Replacing that “glue” won’t be so easy. Iraq and to some extent Lebanon suggestthe alternative solution of each community largely governing itself in practice,albeit with a lot of bloodshed. That won’t be so easy to achieve in Syria.

The editorial concludes:

“Those Syrian people whohave decided to forgo sectarianism and self interest in the name of freedom,care not one jot for the illusion that is Arabism; for Syria’s equally mythicallead in taking the fight to the Zionist enemy.”

One hopes that thosepeople win in Syria, where they do have a better chance, but they such astandpoint has clearly not won in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya,Tunisia, and even—despite appearances—Turkey.

Whether justified by “Arabnationalist” or “Islamist” rhetoric the old scape-goating combined withdictatorship might be too useful a method to abandon.

Who’s Winning in the Middle East? Everyone Outside the West Knows It’s The Islamists

2012-01-19T17:07:00.000+02:00

A different version of this article is appearing in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and prefer if you read and link to this version.

By Barry Rubin

Nawalal-Saadawi, now 80 years old, is a unique figure in Egypt. She is apioneer feminist and a radical Arab nationalist. Al-Saadawi has lived in theUnited States but hates America and, of course, Israel. You can imagine thatshe also loathes the Islamists. So how does someone like al-Saadawi react tothe Egyptian elections won by the Islamists?

Shebrands it an American conspiracy. "Democracy is not elections and Americauses religion to divide Egypt," she said in a recenttelevision interview. You are going to be hearing--or not hearing, if youdepend on the Western mass media--a lot more of this kind of thing.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian moderates know they are unpopular but can only blame the local media and the military. Only in private do they acknowledge with despair the overwhelming strength of the Islamists. No doubt many of them will also soon be blaming American policy for their defeats.

Howoften have I heard Iranian exiles complaining that the United Statesdeliberately didn't help the shah in order to bring Ayatollah Khomeini topower? The Turkish opposition has been talking this way for years. In Iran,Lebanon, Syria, and probably soon in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, people will besaying: Why do we live under Islamist oppressive dictatorships? Answer: TheAmericans brought them to power.

It'san irony of history. Why do the Iranians hate us? The left tends to say thatthis is because the United States backed a coup in 1953 against the democraticregime of Muhammad Mossadegh (a regime that was already collapsing, in whichthe Communists were getting stronger, and the Islamic clerics supported thecoup) and then backed the Shah thereafter. Now we are being told that America has been badto back the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, though the United Statesopposed the far bloodier dictatorships in Iraq and Syria.

Yetnow the Obama Administration is backing new regimes that are also going to berather nasty (though there's hope for Tunisia) and is failing to helpdemocratic oppositions. It is pursuing a pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy. One day some future American president may be apologizing for that.

Incontrast, the real Middle East isn't full of revolutionary Islamists who onlywant an American apology or a boost into power in order to be friends of theUnited States. It is full of a lot of people, maybe a majority in a number ofcountries, that would like not to live under radical and repressivedictatorships. It also has a number of governments that want Western helpagainst what they see as their real enemies--Iran and revolutionary Islamists.

Thereare a hundred anecdotes I could tell but here are some from the last few hours,through personal sources. A Gulf Arab was asked about his country's strategicpriorities. He replied that the Iranian regime, "hates everyone. We needmore guns" to defend ourselves from Tehran. A close observer inanother Arab country writes me that in contrast to the West, "Everyoneinside the region seems to "get it," regarding the threat fromIran's government.

Funnyhow clear actual Middle Easterners are about what's going on--at least whenthey are talking to each other--compared to those across the seas whoseinterpretations are merely wrong-headed, bizarre, and soon proven to be wrong.

On the other side of the battle, the Islamists are very happy. Inan interview with a British newspaper, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh spokefrankly about his analysis of the situation. What he has to say tells more thanall the analysis from all the Western talking heads, journalists, andpoliticians.

"The Palestiniancause is winning. With the Muslim Brotherhood part of the government [inEgypt], they [the Egyptians] will not besiege Gaza. They will not arrestPalestinians. They will not give cover to Israel to launch a war....Israel isdisturbed by this. It knows the strategic environment is changing. Iran is anenemy. Relations are deteriorating with Turkey. With Egypt, they are reallycold. Israel is in a security situation they have never been in before."

Idon't agree with him that Palestinians are "winning" now and arethose who gained most from the "Arab Spring." But there is much truthin what he says. Egypt will now let Hamas do pretty much as it pleases,including smuggling terrorists, money, and weapons across the border into theGaza Strip or setting up bases in Sinai. The Brotherhood in Egypt willuse the country's resources to help Hamas.

Whywould anyone even think of making peace with Israel when they believe God is going to bring them total victory and Israel's extinction? Everyone in the Middle East understands these attitudes aretriumphing, no matter which side they are on. Few in positions of power inEurope or America do.

Itis not true, though, that Israel has never faced such a situation before.That's precisely the way things were in the first three decades of Israel'sexistence and many elements of the contemporary situation are better than theywere for Israel in the last three decades,
following peace with Egypt. Still,this is quite different from the rosy picture of moderation breaking out allover that prevails in Western governing circles.

Haniyehand the kind of people ruling Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libyaare not rolling over in the flower field of democracy and peace but ratherexulting about how they are on the road to bloody victory over Israel and theWest. If you actually listen to what they say most of the time it couldn't bemore obvious.

Barry Rubin is director of the GLORIA Center at the IDC Herzliya,and is editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction,has just been published by Yale University Press.

Are Many Americans Changing Their Political Views? Yes. Enough? We'll See in November

2012-01-19T14:56:00.000+02:00

Are Many Americans Changing Their Political Views? Yes. Enough? We'll See in November

By Barry Rubin

A long-time reader and correspondent asked me some questions about my recent article on liberalism and the Democratic party. I think you might be interested in my responses.

I'm not an expert on polls or political behavior so what I'm writing here is a combination of conversations, experiences, reading, and some study of polls. Many callers to talk radio shows describe their personal evolution in detail.

I believe that a considerable portion of traditional liberal Democrats, and especially Jews, have done a lot of serious rethinking in the last three years. Though the defections might be smaller than one might want or expect--polls show that Jewish Democrats have stopped supporting Obama in higher proportions than other Democrats--I believe they are quite significant. Whether or not they will sway the presidential election is another matter but then, of course, Independents have changed their views to an even higher extent.

My conclusion is that Obama has lost about 25 percent of his Jewish base and around 20 percent of his overall Democratic support. We can see his general decline in the polls. Obviously they are affected by various issues but first and foremost, of course, are the economy and foreign policy.

To read the entire article click here

Can Real Liberalism and the Democratic Party Be Saved from the Radical Takeover?

2012-01-18T10:23:00.000+02:00

President Dale: "I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad." --"Mars Attacks"

By Barry Rubin

The far left has at least temporarily won the battle of ideas in the United States and taken over institutions by pretending to be “liberal.” Meanwhile, actual traditional liberalism, which ruled those institutions for many decades, has vanished. Suddenly, we are supposed to believe that “class warfare,” anti-capitalism, hatred of America, Stalinist-style treatment of opponents, the glorification of the extremist Occupy movement, a mass media all too devoted to propaganda, and a betrayal of Enlightenment values are normative liberal ideas!

During the 1930s, the Communist Party tried to take over liberalism but failed miserably. Today, however, the post-Communist left has succeeded in that effort to a remarkable extent, effectively wiping out the memory of what liberalism was actually like. For their part, many conservatives are quite willing to reinforce the left’s rewriting of history, suggesting that Barack Obama and the destruction of once-great institutions is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of people like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.

Yet there is a sizeable bloc of traditional liberals who have been repelled by the radical takeovers of institutions and the destruction of their own ideas. They have not yet found a voice but, if given proper treatment and leadership, they are about to far exceed the “Reagan Democrat” phenomenon.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 21 percent of those who considered themselves Democrats when Obama became president no longer do so. And if you add in those still calling themselves Democrats and who will vote loyally while being very disturbed with what's happening, that number might total about half. These are people who never felt comfortable with the new radicalism, who have woken up in the last three years, or will do so very soon. That’s the constituency I want to speak to. And briefly here’s the message:

Click here to read the entire article

Israel's Options as Muslim Brotherhod Gains Power

2012-01-17T13:56:00.001+02:00

This article appeared in Israel Hayom under the headline, "The era of the Muslim Brotherhood." However, for our purposes here I think it would be better entitled, "Israel's Options as Muslim Brotherhood Gains Power"

By Barry Rubin

The political history of the modern Middle East can easily be divided into three eras. In 1952, a military coup in Egypt signaled the start of the period in which radical Arab nationalism dominated. The 1979 Iranian revolution began the challenge of revolutionary Islamism. And then, in 2011, in the wake of more revolutions, Arab nationalism collapsed completely.

In most of the Arab world we are now in the era of the Muslim Brotherhood. Finally, there is a new “Middle East,” but instead of being directed by moderation, peace, and a hunger for material prosperity, it is dominated by Islamists determined to transform their own societies and to conquer the region for their cause.

The Muslim Brotherhood is overwhelmingly the most powerful organization in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, and very probably Libya, where its branches will control the governments. In Jordan, the Brotherhood leads the opposition; in Syria, it plays an important role in the revolutionary upheaval.

There is much talk in the West, but little in the Middle East where people know it best, about how the Brotherhood is becoming more moderate. Yet there is remarkably little evidence for this claim. Only self-serving statements by Brotherhood leaders to Western journalists and governments make claims that the Brotherhood has rejected its radical past and extremist ideology.

Look at any other data: internal statements to members and even the speeches of its leaders in Arabic; the behavior of its members in parliament, the Brotherhood’s media; its support for violence; its open anti-Semitism, and its ideological discussions -- and there isn’t the tiniest reason to believe that the Brotherhood is mellowing.

The alternative wishful-thinking theory is that being in power will moderate the Brotherhood. Participating in elections, proposing laws in parliament, and running government departments are supposed to convert Brotherhood leaders to compromise and pragmatism.

For Israelis, however, all of these claims sound precisely like the argument made during the 1990s’ peace process and regarding Yasser Arafat. This argument also didn’t work in Iran, Lebanon, or the Gaza Strip.

True, the radical regimes are more cautious in their pronouncements and don’t instantly launch wars. But that is because they are consolidating power at home and are just getting started. Even in Turkey, the Islamists in power have worked tirelessly to transform their societies, assure that they never lose power, and radicalize their foreign policies. Turkey’s break with Israel and alignment with Hamas and Hezbollah provides a vivid case study.

Take the Egypt-Israel peace treaty as an example. The Brotherhood has assured the U.S. that it will keep Egypt’s commitments but repeatedly stated that it will submit the treaty to a referendum or demand changes. It also insists that it will never recognize Israel. What is likely to happen is that a Brotherhood-led government would formally say that it is following the treaty while emptying it of content and breaking it altogether whenever that seems possible and profitable.

The window opened in the 1990s for potential Israel-Arab and Israel-Palestinian peace has now closed completely. In an atmosphere of growing radicalization, nobody is going to take the risk of daring to make peace with Israel. Indeed, given the regional situation they are likely to believe they have no need to do so. Once again, as in decades past, the radicals (wrongly) believe they can destroy Israel; the moderates know any moves on their part would make them targets, too.

The most dangerous scenario facing Israel is an attempt by Hamas to take advantage of the new situation and even to drag Egypt into war with Israel, the kind of strategy that appealed to the PLO in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. As in late 2008, Hamas can escalate rocket, mortar and cross-border attacks on Israel. When Israel launches a large-scale retaliation, Hamas can appeal to the Brotherhood for money, weapons and volunteers.

The Egypt-Gaza border is likely to be open to all three things. Attacks across the Egypt-Israel border will also be used. Even the current Egyptian army could not or would not want to stop most of these things. Worst of all would be if Egypt was pulled into the war directly. One can cite reasons why this wouldn’t happen -- the Egyptian army knows it would lose; it wouldn’t want to throw away U.S. aid -- but miscalculations of that type have often happened in the region. And by then the army might be too weak or infiltrated by radical officers to resist.

What can Israel do to respond to the Brotherhood’s new power and threat? A lot. And Israel’s government is doing them all:

• Build up Israel’s defenses along the border with Egypt.

• Work whenever possible with Egypt’s army to reduce tensions and conflicts.

• Help ensure the Palestinian Authority’s survival, despite its objectionable behavior, so that it is not overthrown by Hamas in the West Bank.

• Do everything possible to support Jordan’s stability, which seems to be reasonably strong despite terrible problems, since a revolution there would bring a very anti-Israel regime and a real danger of war.

• Maximize pressure on the Gaza Strip to ensure that Hamas there is as weak as possible, but carefully calculate military operations, despite the frustrations involved, to avoid escalation.

• Try to persuade Western countries that they are missing the truth about the Brotherhood. Sooner or later, the Brotherhood’s behavior will force them to wake up, as has happened many times previously.

• Build cooperation with countries threatened by revolutionary Islamism, from China, India and Singapore to Africa, and even with opposition movements in Islamist-ruled countries.

But none of these things are solutions. Only the U.S. can lead an effective response to a regional order now overwhelmingly controlled by radical Islamists. What is needed is a broad, U.S.-led alliance of all the anti-Islamist forces which cannot work together directly but can cooperate through Washington.

Those forces include European countries, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Jordan and Israel. This would also mean a comprehensive program of overt and covert support for oppositions in Iran, Lebanon, Turkey and the moderates in Syria.

The Obama administration is going in exactly the wrong direction, engaging the Brotherhood and naively believing its promises.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.

The Middle East in 2012: The Year of Living Dangerously

2012-01-16T21:47:00.000+02:00

A different version of this article has been published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and prefer you to read and link to this version.

http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/2012/01/middle-east-in-2012-year-of-living.html

The Middle East in 2012: The Year of Living Dangerously

By Barry Rubin

The region-wide upheaval known as “the Arab Spring” would make it seem that terrorism, especially Islamist terrorism, is pretty much as dead as are its thousands of victims. After all, if the protest demonstration and balloting have proven able to resolve grievances then who needs to blow people up?

And the same applies to intimidation and instability since presumably people vote, a government is elected, and democracy immediately enues.

But the Middle East is far from through with violence. Where should we look in 2012 for the greatest threats of terrorism and what will be the targets? If we think this through in advance we can better plan to avoid or minimize these problems.

Let’s start with Egypt. If the military refused to move forward with elections or turn power over to the winners (that is, the Islamists) there would be a violent response. And that’s one of the reasons why this is unlikely to happen. The moderates are not going to engage in violence, which is one reason the military feels free to repress them. The problem of crime and general anarchy has already become very serious.

Yet political violence in Egypt is very likely and it will come mainly from the Salafists. Remember that there are numerous groups and leaders, even within the al-Nur party which has done so well in the elections. Some radical Salafists will not be satisfied with the pace of progress (regress?) toward Islamism. They will target Christians, liberals, secularists, women demanding rights, tourists, and Israel. Continuing attacks on Christians are inevitable, with the goal of forcing them to submit or encouraging them to flee.

The Brotherhood has no interest in promoting violence—except against Israel—but it has a great interest in condoning violence since to oppose attacks on Christians, moderates, or others will reduce its popularity. But the Brotherhood doesn’t have to worry since the military will be blamed for violence (the bad guys) and be pressed to turn over power to the civilians, that is, the Muslim Brotherhood! Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

A roughly similar pattern will happen in Libya and Tunisia. The West will praise “progress” toward democracy while the radical Islamists chase or intimidate anyone who pushes for moderation on key issues, much less supports secularism. The governments will from time to time condemn the murder, beating, and threats against the moderates but not necessarily do anything about it. And there aren’t too many moderates in Libya to begin with.

This might be characterized as: We won. The Americans won't save you. Shut up.

For Hamas in the Gaza Strip violence is also, thanks to the West, cost-free. Why? First, while some fighters and civilians will be killed by Israeli retaliation, Hamas doesn’t care about that. Those deaths or destruction create martyrs (urging the rest to fight harder and hate more) and the West will blame Israel. Again, killing and fighting is a win-win situation. Or letting others kill and fight since Hamas can allow smaller groups to do the attacks (Islamic Jihad; the local al-Qaida affiliate) and blame them while Hamas poses as peaceful and moderate.

And then it can always try to hope that terrorist and rocket attacks on Israel provoke enough violence to bring Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian government, and even Egyptian arm support.
In Syria, there’s no real cost for the regime to continue murdering its own people, certainly compared to the cost of giving up. And it is clear that the Arab League has no stomach for actually doing something serious.

Iraq? The violence there will continue, especially against Christians until they are all pretty much forced out of the country. The Sunni and Shia will keep fighting, to the detriment of civilians on both sides, even if the main factor determining power will be politics.

Lebanon? Hizballah will use violence against its rivals and nobody in the West will do anything effective about it. Once again, radicals murder moderates; moderates complain. The same point applies in Iran against which there are sanctions but repressing the opposition won’t make them worse.

As for al-Qaida, despite the fact that bin Ladin’s dead yet it will continue to claim victims in such far-flung places as Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and very possibly Morocco, Gaza, and even perhaps Jordan.
Am I cynical? What I’m trying to do is to rouse people against cynicism, to realize that their countries’ policies are encouraging violence and repression because it most cases they won’t say anything about it and in a few others they won’t do anything about it. Precisely because there is now an open political struggle, the most radical Islamists will use violence against anyone who speaks up or acts up.

And the more “moderate” Islamists who the U.S. government is courting will not stop their militant brethren while benefitting from the incitement, threats, and violence they dispense. If 2011 was the year of the “Arab Spring,” 2012 will be the year for the Islamists to consolidate their gains and eliminate their domestic critics.

The Three Rules of Western Discourse and Why The Media Must Always Blame Israel

2012-01-16T15:59:00.000+02:00

Starting with two specific stories--one distorted, one ignored--that show how media bias against Israel works, I deduce three rules that govern contemporary media coverage on all issues.

By Barry Rubin

It is truly astonishing how, it often seems, how Western media coverage must blame Israel for everything that "goes wrong" in the Middle East, including murderous hostility to Israel.

Sentences often seem carefully formulated to push this claim and exclude any possibility of balance, much less accuracy. And no matter what the subject, it seems, this message must be snuck in.

Consider these two paragraphs in a Washington Post story about the Egyptian government's cancellation of a Jewish pilgrimage to a site in Egypt:

"The government’s move underscores the changing relationship between Israel and post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt. The former president maintained relations with Israel, as laid out in the 1979 Camp David peace treaty, in part by curbing civil liberties with his expansive police force. Since his ouster last winter, anti-Israeli sentiment driven by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has risen to the surface, and Israeli-Egyptian tensions have grown.

"Relations soured further in the fall after a mid-August cross-border attack from Egypt led to the killing of at least five Egyptian border guards as Israeli troops pursued alleged militants. Many activists called for revisions of the peace treaty and protests outside the Israeli Embassy turned violent when some demonstrators stormed the building."

Let's list the subtle points made in these few sentences:

Click here to read the entire article

If Tourists Can Wear Bikinis But Local Women Must Wear Chadors Does That Prove the Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate?

2012-01-13T17:14:00.003+02:00

If Tourists Can Wear Bikinis But Local Women Must Wear Chadors Does That Prove the Muslim Brotherhood is Moderate?

By Barry Rubin

The answer to that headline is, "No. But seeming to answer 'yes' proves the West is hypocritical about supporting human rights."

Oh, wait, what if a democratically elected government decides to enforce such a system in a law legally passed by a democratically elected government? I guess that's just democracy in action.

The Western media is obsessed with whether the new, Islamist-dominated Egyptian government will let tourists wear bikinis. When some Islamist leader says that there will be no dress code for tourists--due to the desire to keep getting tourist dollars--journalists pronounce the Muslim Brotherhood to be pragmatic, as in this Los Angeles Times article.

While Brotherhood leaders seem to disagree on this issue, I can see the outlines of a "deal" that will prove to Westerners that the Brotherhood is going to be "moderate" in power, nothing to worry about, and therefore an organization that should be spoken of sympathetically. Ready to hear the "deal?" Here it is:

A few hundred visiting Western women will be able to wear bikinis on isolated beaches in expensive resorts where almost no Egyptian will see them.

Tens of millions of Egyptian women will be forced to wear all-enveloping black robes and veils.

Sound fair enough?

Then the Islamist-ruled countries will have a motto to parallel Karl Marx's Communist slogan of 1848. The new one goes:

Burkas of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your lack of chains!

So cheering the return of Egyptian women into near-slavery is just fine as long as the rulers show how modern and pragmatic they are by letting visiting Western women dress as they please. That's a really good example of how contemporary Western "liberals" practice their claims of sympathy for Third World peoples.

Where is the Western feminist movement at the moment that tens of millions of sisters desperately need its support, and for many things other than just being able to choose their own wardrobe?

Of course, many Egyptian women already do dress that way either voluntarily or due to family and social pressure. Those who don't will either be made to do so by regulations or, more likely, through the fear of being beaten up by Islamists, either Brotherhood, Salafist, or both. An Islamist regime--through propaganda, education, etc.--will also harden family's demands that women dress that way even without a law being passed. If a woman persists, and few will, she might just be killed and the state courts will either not persecute or not punish the perpetrators.

Note: The title of this article is a play on Jonathan Swift's sarcastic 1729 essay on how the British could "humanely" solve the problem of hunger in Ireland, by having the Irish eat their own children.

By the way, MEMRI has done something that any Western media outlet (highly financed, highly staffed) or think tank could have done during the last year but didn't. It just went to the official Muslim Brotherhood website and translated some of the many antisemitic, anti-American, and extremely radical articles there. Note that this is an official site and nothing goes on it unless it meets the group's ideological and policy requirements. To coin a phrase, a translation is worth 10,000 words of blather about "moderate Islamists."

To read this article on PJ Media and see my other original articles in full there click here

Friedman Cheers as Egyptians are Enslaved

2012-01-11T23:17:00.001+02:00

Professor: [As the Martian ambassador starts disintegrating Congressmen with his ray gun]: "Mr. Ambassador, please! What are you doing? This doesn't make sense! It's not logical! It's not !" --"Mars Attacks"

By Barry Rubin

It is distasteful when Western intellectuals, politicians, and journalists who pride themselves on their enlightened humanitarian views watch people abroad fall subject to ruthless forces of dictatorship and dogma. When these same people actually cheer the new tyrannies, put their arms around the shoulders of those who despise them, and tell everyone else that there's nothing to worry about, that's actively disgusting.
Many in the West have so acted toward Egypt during the last year. They have also and previously done so for the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. Thomas Friedman has been one of them but perhaps no one else has been louder and more enthusiastic. In doing so, of course, he has echoed U.S. government policy.

Now, Friedman goes all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't radical, isn't a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become eve more moderate once it is in power.

In a column entitled, “Watching Elephants Fly,” obviously a reference to seeing something impossible happen, Friedman writes:

“Here is what was so striking: virtually all the women we interviewed after the voting — all of whom were veiled, some with only slits for their eyes — said that they had voted for either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. But almost none said they had voted that way for religious reasons.

“Many said they voted for Islamists because they were neighbors, people they knew, while secular liberal candidates had never once visited. Some illiterate elderly women confided that they could not read the ballot and just voted where their kids told them to. But practically all of them said they had voted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist candidates because they expected them to deliver better, more honest government — not more mosques or liquor bans.”

My reaction is, “So what?” They voted for an authoritarian, Sharia regime (and let’s remember a hardline interpretation of Sharia, not the interpretation of Sharia offered by New York Times reporters). That's what's important. People also had diverse reasons for supporting Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. Indeed, they always voted for such regimes because “they expected them to deliver better, more honest government.” Hasn’t Friedman ever heard that Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler built the autobahns, and the Communists promised to give land to the peasants?

But there’s even more irony here. These women are already living lives governed by Sharia and, as traditionalists, are happy (and told to be happy) with that situation. Thus, they have ample reason for supporting Islamists. There is nothing surprising in their political behavior, except to people like Friedman who predicted last year they would back liberal Westernized Facebook kids.

Once again, Friedman shows a striking inability to think logically. If women were voting on the basis of family orders (I'd bet on the husbands and fathers rather than the children so instructing them) how can he then say that they voted out of specific personal motives or--after reporting they were told what to do!--claim that their vote is a sign of freedom?

To read the entire article (including the great closing joke about the title of Friedman's column) click here.

How I Learned About Courage From an Arab Marxist and About Cowardice From Western Phony “Liberals”

2012-01-10T08:12:00.003+02:00

ALVY: Boy, those guys in the French Resistance were really brave….
ANNIE: I don't know, sometimes I ask myself how I'd stand up under torture.
ALVY: You? You kiddin'? If the Gestapo would take away your Bloomingdale's charge card, you'd tell 'em everything.”
--Woody Allen, “Annie Hall”

By Barry Rubin

A little man stood on the stage in a British university hall, meticulously dressed, looking just like the scholar that he was. To look at him you would think he was the embodied stereotype of timidity. It was 1980. Iraq had just invaded Iran and I was in Exeter, England, at an academic conference.

Though I hadn’t realized it before arriving, the meeting was sponsored by the Saddam Hussein government.

The speaker was Dr. Hanna Batatu, a Palestinian scholar who had spent much of his adulthood in the United States but at the time was living in Beirut. He was a Marxist who had written extensively about Iraq and Syria. His presentation was on Shia opposition groups in Iraq and he spoke about how and why they were opposing the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Batatu didn't exaggerate or politicize the subject. He just spoke factually.

This lecture did not meet with great approval in the audience which was, I came to realize, sprinkled with Iraqi security personnel. A few chairs away from me a very tall man, very powerful looking man wearing bright yellow shoes and a suit the shade of blue that didn't belong on one. He looked like a man who usually wore clothes designed so that the blood came off in the wash. He towered over Batatu. And in broken English this thug said:

“You cannot say these things!”

And Batatu responded without hesitation:

“I am a free man and I can say whatever I want.”

To read the entire article click here

Such a "Great" Idea It Can Now Be Proclaimed But Not Criticized: Obama Supports the Muslim Brotherhood

2012-01-08T11:05:00.001+02:00

By Barry Rubin

This is a long article but it deals with an amazing historical development

1. The U.S. government is openly supporting an anti-American, radical, authoritarian, antisemitic, anti-Christian, and anti-women rights' movements and regimes.

2. We are told that this policy is so superb that nobody can criticize it on its merits. Any criticism is in fact a partisan effort to defeat Obama at the polls.

Not only is the Obama Administration, as I’ve written for the last year, favoring radical Islamist forces--despite the fact that these are anti-Western, pro-terrorism, building dictatorships, and openly antisemitic and anti-Christian--but now even the establishment media is admitting it.

A friend of mine said, "Oh, they are probably saying that the Brotherhood is sounding radical publicly but privately reassuring U.S. officials that they are moderate."

"No," I replied. "That's the old way of doing things when it was important to be, or at least to pretend to be, somewhat balanced. Now they say that the Brotherhood sounds moderate both publicly--ignoring all evidence to the contrary--and privately. Those who disagree are merely Republicans trying to defeat Obama in the election, and so should be ignored. The mass media today in such matters is worse than our worst nightmares of a decade ago."

And so for the first time in U.S. history an American government, to the applause of the vast majority of the mass media, is backing an anti-American authoritarian movement. Here's how the New York Times explains it:

“The Obama administration has begun to reverse decades of mistrust and hostility as it seeks to forge closer ties with an organization [the Muslim Brotherhood] once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests.”

Any serious foreign policy analyst should see three red flags in this paragraph:

First, of course the U.S. government must deal with Egypt's government but that doesn’t mean it should publicly proclaim that the Brotherhood is a nice group and give what amounts to an unconditional endorsement of it.

Indeed, the Obama Administration and media are using a cheap trick. They confuse the proper, responsible policy of dealing with those in power wihile doing something quite beyond that: a self-destructive policy of rushing to insist that sworn enemies of freedom and the United States are really nice guys and there's no problem with having them in power.

Click here to read the entire article

Why Is an Anti-American Islamist Obama's Favorite Middle East Leader?

2012-01-06T18:26:00.000+02:00

This article was published in a very different form in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and ask you to read and link to this version.

By Barry Rubin

For the first time in forty years,Israel is not the American president’s favorite Middle Eastern ally. Instead,that role is played by Turkey’s government.

This would not be such a bad thing if wewere talking about the “old” Turkey, the secular republic. Unfortunately, PresidentBarack Obama’s favorite advisor among the regional leaders is Turkish PrimeMinister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Pretend all you want but Obama really dislikes—hates?—IsraeliPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and truth be told Netanyahu has done nothingto deserve that treatment.

The fundamental problem with Erdogan isdespite being embraced by the United States, he is an enemy of the UnitedStates, the West more generally, and Israel. He is on the side of radical,anti-American Islamists who want to wipe Israel off the map. So angry andpassionate is Erdogan’s loathing of Israel that the leader of the oppositionmockingly but pointedly asked if the prime minister wanted to go to war withthe Jewish state.

How obvious should this massive change be? Let me sum it up in one sentence: A few years ago Turkey was an ally of Israel. Now it is an ally of Hamas.

In contrast, the list of Erdogan’sdearest friends includes Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, the repressive Sudanesedictatorship, and Syria (formerly the regime there; now the Islamist portionsof the opposition). Erdogan would like to be good buddies with the MuslimBrotherhood forces in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, but are suspicious ofhim, both because he is a Turk and not an Arab; due to memories of Ottoman rule in the past (an empire Erdogan often cites as a role model); and out of sheer competition for power and glory.

Erdogan’s record at home andabroad shows what he and his regime are all about. Indeed, what is truly bizarre about Obama’sjudgment is that Erdogan has done little beneficial to the United Statesand a number of things detrimental to it:

--Iraq war: Whatever you think of the Iraqwar, the refusal of the Turkish government to deliver on their promise to letU.S. troops cross into northern Iraq in 2003 was unfriendly and many Americanofficials and members of Congress were outraged at the time.

--Israel policy: Erdogan has gone to anextreme in attacking Israel and sabotaging any possibility of conciliation. Hisgovernment sponsored the Gaza flotilla knowing that a lot of the Turkishparticipants were violent Islamists who wanted to stage a confrontation.

--Iran: Erdogan’s regime tried tosabotage sanctions against Iran in 2010. He has repeatedly defended Iran’sPresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and denied that Tehran is seeking nuclearweapons. While there have been some bilateral disagreements—the Turkishdecision to allow in NATO installations to watch Iran and backing differentsides in Syria, the two countries remain quite close and Erdogan is currentlyvisiting Iran.

--Lebanon and Palestinians: In oppositionto U.S. policy, Erdogan backs radical, openly antisemitic Islamist terroristgroups, Hamas and Hizballah. The leader of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Striphas just been received as a hero by Erdogan.

--Syria: While Turkey opposes thecontinuation of the Asad regime in Syria, this is not out of a love ofdemocracy but rather due to support for a Sunni Islamist takeover there. When Obamagave Erdogan the task of organizing a Syrian opposition leadership, the Turkishregime packed that leadership with Islamists.

--Worldview: Erdogan’s foreign ministerwrote a book in Turkish explaining the regime’s strategy of aligning with theIslamic world against the West. This is clearly what Erdogan has been doing.The bonus, however, is that he has been able to pretend otherwise and thus actwithout any real cost or pressure from the West. On the contrary, he can tellTurkish voters that Obama loves him.

Then there’s Erdogan’s domestic policy which grows worse with each day: increasing repression; massive arrests without trial; trumped-up phony charges ofterrorism and treason; intimidation of the media; constitutional changes thatgive him control over all institutions including the courts. The very real fear and despair within Turkeyis generally not reported in the West.

Now the former army chief of staff, retired General Ilker Basbug, has been humiliated and will be put on trial for allegedly trying to overthrow the regime. One thing that's never explained is that if the hundreds of officers arrested were working to stage a coup how come they never staged even the tiniest deed toward doing so? Meanwhile, journalists are on trial for alleged terrorism and other crimes.

Wait a minute! Maybe that's what the "Turkish model," which the Obama Administration wants to spread to the Arabic-speaking world, is: an elected government that makes itself into a dictatorship.

Talk to almost any Turk, at least tothose who aren’t regime supporters, and they’ll tell you that the onlyexplanation they can figure out is a conspiracy in which the United Stateswants an Islamist regime in Turkey to prove its sympathy for Islam and possiblyaffect such groups elsewhere.

One thing that the regime has done verywell—or, at least, benefitted from conditions—is regarding the economy. Despiterecent claims that Turkey’s economy is in trouble, the country seems to beflourishing.

Soner Cagaptay, a frequent critic of theregime, describes Turkey as in an unprecedented “sense of global confidence”not seen for centuries; a “Eurasian China;” a country whose economy grew arecord 8.2 percent in the third quarter of 2011. Since 2002, he continues theeconomy has nearly tripled in size. Its trade is shifting from Europe toIslamic countries.

As one journalist putit: "After suffering through eight coalition governments and four economiccrises, the Turkish people have welcomed ten years of a stable…government evenif it has meant entrenched single-party rule"

Cagaptay argues that tocontinue this economic success the Turkish government must avoid “a belligerentforeign policy.” But that’s a bit misleading. Turkey can have a radical,pro-Islamist foreign policy that is objectively anti-Western at little cost. Itjust has to avoid getting involved directly in wars, which it can easily do.

Now with the Turkisharmy broken, Erdogan needs merely complete his control of the courts in oder to be ableto do whatever he pleases within the country.

And with Obamafollowing Erdogan’s advice and trying to help spread the “Turkish model”—electingradical Islamist regimes that will be repressive at home and backing radicalsabroad—things look bright for Erdogan as he steadily consolidates control.

Barry Rubin is directorof the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor ofthe Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book,Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January.Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War forFreedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and TheTruth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is athttp://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Hamas Chief: “Islamic Spring”; Brotherhood Chief: Caliphate Soon; Western Media: Islamists Moderate, Israel Bad

2012-01-06T17:06:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

A 27-year-old American-Israeli law school student decides he's going to go to Egypt and talk to Egyptians. He gets arrested by the authorities there as a spy, then is released in the prisoner exchange. He then brags that the mere charm of his magical persuasion convinced hardened Muslim Brotherhood cadre not to be anti-Israel any more. So there's nothing to worry about!

That’s worth a Washington Post op-ed.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s leader calling for an Islamic state and a caliphate that isn’t?

But at least the New York Times reported the statement of Ismail Haniya (who it calls “the Hamas prime minister of Gaza”) on his official state visit to Turkey: “The Arab Spring is turning into an Islamic spring.”

Haniya knows it. We know it. Why don’t Western governments, mass media, and “experts” understand what this means? It doesn’t mean a springtime for “Islam” as a “religion of peace” but a springtime for political Islamism as being in power, imposing a very anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American and radically intolerant interpretation of Islam on their countries.

In his official weekly message published on the official Brotherhood website the official leader, Muhammad al-Badi, of the group that is officially by far the biggest political party and parliamentary vote-getter in Egypt said, in an Egyptian newspaper’s summary, that the Brotherhood will now begin the “long-term plan for the reform of all aspects of people’s lives.” (Note: Why didn’t Barack and Michelle think of that phrase first?)

And soon, the Brotherhood's supreme guide also explains, the caliphate will be restored (I don't believe him but the fact that he thinks so is significant. Oh yes, now why is the caliphate important? Well, one reason is that the caliph can supposedly declare an international jihad in which every Muslim must fight. (I don't believe that either and it didn't work out well when the German-backed Ottoman caliph tried it in World War One. But it does tell something about the Brotherhood's plans for the future.

To my knowledge that statement by the supreme guide--an actual leaders of hundreds of thousand of people backed by almost half of Egyptians--has not been reported in any Western mass media outlet.

Click here to read the entire article

Goodbye Democracy: My Political Analysis is Banned by a European Government Computer Program As "Hate Speech"

2012-01-05T00:00:00.003+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I have just been informed that my PJ article, "Egypt: As Grim Islamists March Toward Power, The Naïve Dance in Tahrir Square" has been barred on sites used by officials of a European government--hint, they speak English there and it is the birthplace of modern democracy and free speech--on the grounds that this article is "hate speech."

What this means is that if you work for any institution that is part of this government--including the Foreign or Defense ministries--you cannot read this PJ Media column on your computer that's part of such a server.

The message reads: Access denied -- reason given : hate speech.

My reader asks sarcastically if complaining about this action would constitute a "thought crime" on his part.

Update: A reliable reader reports the same thing happened on a business computer in the United States where the sheriff is apparently something called DansGuardian.

This is the first time ever that one of my articles has been so flagged. But it brings out an important point: A computer program that picks out "key words" can accuse you of a crime and block your free speech. If I had to guess at the phrase it would be my reference (that's a guess) to "Muslim [space inserted to avoid censorship] riots" in France several years ago. But they were riots by Muslims and that is not only factually correct but necessary for making an important point.

Apparently, this system has done the same thing to articles by other people before though I don't know the details.

So there are three problems here:

--Free speech is now conditional on someone's judgment of your viewpoint. This also has a chilling effect since the reader might say, "I'm not the kind of person who wants to see hate speech!" or frightened, "What if my employer sees that I'm viewing such material? I might be fired or not promoted!"

--That judge isn't even a human being but a computer program that makes arbitrary selections out of context. Would the phrases "Christian riot," "Hindu riot," "Jewish riot," "Caucasian riot," etc., trigger an accusation of hate speech? Who decides? Where is this information available to the public?

--As far as I can see, all of the intimidation and censorship are in one direction. It's like in Lebanon where all these moderate politicians, judges, and journalists were attacked and assassinated while not a single supporter of Hizballah or Syrian-Iranian client was hit.

I've spoken at universities where people were practically trembling and the meeting was made pretty secret. My invitation to give a purely academic lecture at a state university in the United States that regularly features radical Islamists was barred by the department on flimsy grounds. I've had one noted university publisher change its mind on a book project because a board member objected to having an Israeli write about Arab politics and by another university publisher at the last minute--in violation of its own rules--for purely political reasons.

And that's nothing compared to what other people have suffered including less of employment, attacks by demonstrators, banning from social media, being on the continual receiving end of "hate mail," and so on.

Yet virtually nothing like this ever happens to those "on the other side." On the contrary, they are given every possible advantage and benefit despite the low quality of their work (ridiculously politicized and unproven theses; blatant classroom bias) and at times their inability to meet the rules (academic promotion without an impressive publications' record, for example).

Isn't this disparity significant? Are we dealing now with the sincere desire to make everyone love each other or a political tactic to benefit one side, movement, ideology, and to ensure the defeat of another one?

Are the messages of Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, groups that explicitly and deliberately call for genocide, ever blocked as "hate speech?" I've never heard of that happening.

I cannot even figure out who I am supposedly telling people to "hate" in this article. Is it "hate speech" to argue anything other than that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate pro-democratic group?

Well, Western democracies have finally accepted censorship based on the clever lie that they are only protecting people from racism and those who want to incite violence and murder. The door that this is opened has now made possible what liberals and democrats have warned against for more than a century--even though people claiming such positions are responsible for this--giving authorities to block and ban political views that they don't like.

It's proper to defend the rights of those who are being provocative in some way. But we have gone far beyond that: the censorship of straight political analysis that conflicts with the "official line" and that's a line determined by a software program.

A lawyer points out that employers have a right to stop their workers from using official computers to play games or engage in personal activities. But blocking non-relevant sites is quite different from accusing people of crimes, censoring speech, having an official governmental standard of impermissible phrases, and blocking people from reading material that is relevant for their work.

Note: You can see that I have left in phrases like "Jewish riot" and "Christian riot" while altering the phrase "Muslim [Hi! Isn't the weather beautiful today?] riot." So let's see if this article gets censored. Do let me know.

SUNNI VERSUS SHIA: THE MIDDLE EAST’S NEW STRATEGIC CONFLICT

2012-01-03T14:24:00.000+02:00

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Centerby PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.”“For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16thSt., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,589. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

A different version of this article appeared in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights. Please read and link only to this version.

By Barry Rubin

Of course, conflicts between Sunni and Shia Muslims are notat all new, but the fact that this is becoming a central feature on the regional strategic level is a dramatic shift. After all, as long as there were secular-style regimes preaching anall-inclusive Arab nationalist identity, differences between religiouscommunities were subordinated. Once there are Islamist regimes, theology becomescentral again, as it was centuries ago.

However, no one should misunderstand the situation. This isfundamentally a struggle for political power and wealth. When Sunni and Shiastates or movements battle they are acting as political entities not pursuing old theological disputes.

The growing power and influence of Iran’s Islamist regimeposed a tremendous problem for Arab Sunni Islamists. They generally did notlike Iran because it was Persian and Shia, yet it was the only Islamist game intown. Thus, Arab Sunni Islamist Hamas became an Iranian client. The Iran-Iraqwar reflected these antagonisms, as best seen in Iraqi propaganda. Yet Iraq’sregime was also able to keep the Shia majority there under control.

Saddam Hussein’s removal by a U.S.-led internationalintervention opened up the question of confessional relations in Iraq. The ArabShia were inevitably going to win any election, given their three-to-one advantage over the Sunni and the Kurds optingout for what is, in effect though not name, their own state in the north. Despite the terrorist, anti-American, andal-Qaida elements of the Sunni insurgency, it was essentially a last-ditchattempt by the Sunnis to reclaim power. It failed and while violence continues,the main Sunni emphasis will be on negotiating the best possible division ofpower.

In Lebanon, the Shia triumphed too, led by Hizballah and aided by Syria and Iran. But allof this was prelude to the year 2011. The “Arab Spring” was an overwhelminglySunni affair, their own equivalent in some ways of Iran’s 1979 revolution. Only in Bahrain, where they were repressed,did the Shia take the offensive.

Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya all had Sunni insurgencies againstSunni Arab governments. The situation inSyria is far more complex with an Alawite non-Muslim regime that pretends to beShia Muslim and is allied with Iran, opposed by a variety of rebels.Nevertheless, in this context, the upheaval is a Sunni-led (though far fromjust Islamist) revolt against a “Shia” regime.

Here’s the bottom line: Sunni Arab Islamists no longer needIran or even Turkey because they now have their own power. What is likely toemerge is at least a loose Sunni Arab and largely Islamist-flavored bloc consistingof Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Libya, and Tunisia along with the Muslim Brotherhood elementsin Jordan and Syria.

The key element hereis the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that doesn’t like Shia Muslims ingeneral and Iran in particular. Little events, like Brotherhood guru Yusufal-Qaradawi’s support for the Sunni regime in Bahrain against the Shiaopposition, show the direction of their thinking. The even more radical Salafists—a term nowused for the small revolutionary Islamist groups, are even more anti-Shia. Onefactor here is the continued unwillingness of the majority of Arab states towelcome Shia-ruled Iraq into their ranks. Iraq is not going to become a satelliteof Iran. It certainly feels more comfortable in a Shia bloc but will probablycontinue to be relatively uninvolved in regional affairs.

Note, too, that to a large extent this situation leaves thePalestinian Authority as an orphan. While it can depend on very general Arab,Iranian, and Turkish support, the Islamists prefer to back Hamas, especially the ever-stronger Sunni Islamists. This, of course, encourages the PalestinianAuthority’s (Fatah’s) alliance with Hamas while also weakening its leveragetoward that Islamist partner. (And that means a continued disinterest innegotiating with Israel, much less reaching a negotiated solution with it.)

Thus, despite appearances, 2011 was a defeat for Iran andTurkey because Sunni Arab Islamists are far less receptive to Tehran’sinfluence and view it as a rival, while Arab Islamists don’t want leadershipfrom Turks either.

Can these blocs unite effectively against the United States,the West or Israel? In a word: No. Theirpower struggles for regional power and for control of individual states(Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, and to a far lesser extent Iraq) will keep them inconflict. Even on the anti-Israel consensus each side will seek to exploit itfor their own, often conflicting, interests.

By the same token, however, the hope for moderation isminimal. In a region when regimes and movements are competing to prove their militancyand loyalty to a radical interpretation of Islam, nobody is going to want tomake peace with Israel. And regimes will only work with the United States I theyfeel that America can and will protect them, a rather forlorn hope with anObama Administration eager to make friends with Islamists.

There is also another aspect to this Sunni-Shia rivalry, theformation of blocs, the competition in militancy, and the battle for control ofindividual states. The region will continue to waste lives, time, and resourcesin political strife as the lure of ideology and power rather than pragmatismand economic productivity.

Hamas Openly Joins Brotherhood; Brotherhood Openly Joins Hamas’s War on Israel

2012-01-03T12:34:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group which rules the Gaza Strip and has been moving toward a partnership with the Palestinian Authority’s ruling Fatah party, has openly proclaimed itself the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This development took place during the visit to Cairo of Hamas’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. It should be remembered that Hamas not only calls for Israel’s destruction but for genocide against Jews generally. It was Haniyeh’s first trip abroad since Hamas seized the Gaza Strip in 2007.

In meeting Haniyeh at the Brotherhood’s new headquarters’ building, the Brotherhood’s leader Muhammad al-Badi, said that Hamas had been a role model for the Brotherhood. While this might be mere flattery it might be noted that Hamas first won an election, then went into a coalition with a “more moderate” partner (Fatah), and then staged a coup to seize complete power. That’s an interesting precedent for Badi to cite.

Haniyeh described Hamas as the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. Referring to their alliance Haniyeh said, “Our presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity." It certainly does since Hamas will enjoy the Brotherhood’s full support in its anti-Israel activities including the use of violence and, probably, in the event of any future war with Israel.

To read the full article click here

The Graduate: Why Should Everyone Else Pay for Other People's Dumb (and Hedonistic) Career Choices

2012-01-02T10:11:00.001+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I’ve recently made the acquaintance of a young man who has a problem. He is 28 years old; smart, of good moral character, and willing to work hard at part-time jobs. He does not expect anyone else, including the government, to support him. Yet he is puzzled an increasingly bitter that he cannot make a good living.

What’s his difficulty? It’s not the economy (in this specific case) but the fact that he has a degree in linguistics and is now studying Oriental philosophy at a fine university. His case is not altogether typical but is immensely revealing.

Here’s the secret: he cannot make a living because the market for people with degrees in linguistics and in Oriental philosophy is limited. He should have known that. Someone should have told him that. The calculation of practicality should have been made. It wasn’t.

As I said, this individual does not want hand-outs and he has not taken student loans. Many others have. A large proportion of the Occupy Wall Street-and-other-places movement seems to consist of those who have made similar “career” (or non-career) decisions but want others to pay for their pastimes and mistakes.

There are at least three important lessons here of the greatest importance.

First, young people should be taught that, as the old saying goes, the world doesn’t owe them a living. Nothing could seem more obvious yet this has largely been forgotten. This is especially true in the United States, a country whose prosperity was built on understanding this point. Of course, telling them that the world does owe them a living can be rather popular and lead to one's election to public office....

Click here to read the entire article

Middle East Craziness: Some Personal Anecdotes

2012-01-01T17:44:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I think if you haven’t had much contact with the Middle East it is hard to comprehend how loony a region this is and the magnitude of the lies told about it. I had to deal today with something relating to the presence of Egypt’s embassy in Israel and it made me think about some past experiences.

A few years ago I was giving a lecture at the Australian National University. It was a pretty routine and uncontroversial session when suddenly the question and answer period erupted into something close to a melee. One of the people in the audience was the wife of the Egyptian ambassador to Australia and she started yelling about how horrible a country Israel was, full of evil racists.

What was her grievance? She claimed that when she walked around the streets of Tel Aviv, people threatened and spat at her. This was thoroughly bizarre even beyond all the obvious reasons. She obviously dressed in Western clothes and was not identifiable as an Egyptian or Arab. I had never seen a picture of the ambassador or his wife in the Israeli media so nobody would know what she looked like anyway.

The Egyptian embassy is located near Basle, an upscale yuppie area of expensive cafes and not particularly politicized. I don’t think there had ever even been a demonstration there. So aside from the fact that Israelis have never harassed foreign diplomats as far as I know and that there had never been an article or protest about such alleged harassment, there was every reason to believe that the whole story was a fantasy.

Yet she spoke with such passion and certainty that I wouldn’t have been surprised if some, many, most of the audience completely believed her and felt sorry for the poor woman.....

To read the entire article click here

Silly Obama Rabbit, Tricks Are for Islamists

2011-12-31T18:17:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

It's the end of 2011 and also the end of the old order in the Middle East. It would be an exaggeration to say that it's the end of U.S. interests in the region but it sure looks like the beginning of the end for a lot of them. The problem isn't just Obama policy and the advance of revolutionary Islamism but the decline of the most basic logic and common sense in evaluating the world.

Here's an example of how the mass media, Western foreign policy establishment, and Obama Administration miss the most obvious possible points as the Muslim Brotherhood (and lots of other enemies) run rings around them.

Egyptian police and prosecutors raided the offices of 17 groups which are either “pro-democracy” movements or their Western funders. Two of the groups were the taxpayer-funded Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute. (Talk about ways to antagonize the United States!) The U.S. government was outraged and protested.

A number of people were quoted but not gave any clue to the real political significance of the event. They talked about how civil society groups played a central role in the revolution; how this is an attempt to stem protests.

The New York Times informs us: “The raids were a stark escalation in what has appeared to be a campaign by the country’s military rulers to rally support by playing to nationalist and anti-American sentiment here.” Talk about Western chauvinism! The newspaper only gave the names of the two U.S. groups and not a single one of the Egyptian organizations targeted! The Washington Post at least included another U.S. group, Freedom House, the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and two Egyptian nongovernmental organizations: the Arab Center for Independence of Justice and Legal Professions and the Budgetary and Human Rights Observatory.

But what does it all mean? Well, there are two ways to answer that question:

Click here to read the entire article.

New Theme: Israel is Collapsing; Losing Its Democracy. Evidence? None

2011-12-28T15:17:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

It is truly amazing how anti-Israel forces generate so many false stories every day. At a time when revolutionary Islamists are taking over most Middle Eastern countries and the democracy dream in the region is collapsing, one would think that the main threat and evil force in the region is Israel. After all, we live in a time when Thomas Friedman, court jester for Middle East issues, can openly write antisemitic canards in the New York Times (the Israel lobby bought a standing ovation for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Congress!).

What is even more remarkable is how new anti-Israel themes are generated without any evidence whatsoever.

The new one is the idea that Israel, and its democracy, are in danger (moderate version) due to internal extremism or are (radical version) falling apart altogether. At least two new commercially published books make this claim, as do scores of articles and even a speech by the secretary of state. The New York Times publishes an op-ed saying that gays are persecuted in Israel while, of course, they aren't but are murdered in every other county in the region.

Yet what actual evidence can be accumulated for all of this campaign?

Click here to read the entire article

Tunisia: There’s Still Hope for Democracy Because The Majority Doesn't Want Islamism

2011-12-27T11:48:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

Is Tunisia, the Arab world’s historically most moderate country in social and intellectual terms, headed for Islamism or some kind of difficult but democratic future? I want to rethink my conclusions on this point. Or is it just the timeline that needs to be extended?

It should be stressed that Tunisia has more prospects for achieving democracy and avoiding radical Islamism than do Egypt or Libya. In Egypt, 60 percent of the vote was obtained by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists in the first round, with claims of up to 75 percent in the second round. Excluding Christian voters, that means somewhere between two-thirds and 80 percent of Egyptian Muslims support radical Islamist parties. Only the army, which is eager to suppress moderates but would rather make deals than fight the Islamists, stands in the way of radicalization. In Libya, the political situation is far less clear but radicals have the guns while tribal and regional conflicts are likely to promote conflict and extremism.

In Tunisia, though, there is a strong base for moderation. Incidentally, Tunisia is the only country where there is a European-style left, in keeping with Tunisia’s Mediterranean orientation and relative openness to Western influences. Tunisia's new interim president Moncef Marzouki, promising a moderate republic. But the real defense against an Islamist dictatorship, even an elected one, is that the majority doesn't want it and those people are unlikely to change their minds.

It is easy to identify what went wrong in the Tunisian electoral process: the ridiculous divisions among the anti-Islamist forces. Of 217 seats, the Islamist party, al-Nahda, won 89. What about the other 128? The answer is that basically all but a half-dozen seats—that went to pan-Arab nationalist or far leftist parties—went to moderate anti-Islamist forces, social democratic or liberal parties.

In short, there is a strong potential base in Tunisia--unlike almost every other Arabic-speaking country--for a real alternative to an Islamist transformation of the society. Still, the Islamists are ruling and will be able to do a lot to create the kind of society they want. The question is: How much?

To read the entire article click here

Egypt: As Grim Islamists March Toward Power, The Naïve Dance in Tahrir Square...and Washington

2011-12-26T12:56:00.004+02:00

“Germany was having trouble,

What a sad, sad story.

Needed a new leader

To restore its former glory.

Where, oh, where was he,

Who could that man be?

We looked around,

And then we found,

The man for you and me,

And now its....”

--”The Producers”

By Barry Rubin

Almost 80 percent of Egyptian Muslims in nine provinces voted for radical Islamist parties in the second round of Egypt’s election. Roughly 5 percent voted for a moderate Islamic party and about 15 percent voted for liberal parties.

That says it all. In the overall vote—that is, including the Christian voters--70 percent supported radical Islamists, 47 percent (4 million) the Muslim Brotherhood (86 of 180 available seats so far; they might win more) and 32 percent for the Salafists (3.2 million, the Washington Post seriously underestimated their votes).

The liberal (but not overtly anti-Islamist) Wafd won 1 million; the liberal Egyptian Bloc won almost 800,000, and the moderate Islamic, Wasat Party, 370,000.

Incidentally, the vice-chairman of the Wafd said in an interview last July that the U.S. government carried out the September 11 attacks and Ann Frank’s diary was a fake. At least he doesn’t like Iran, though he thinks it is right about the Holocaust being phony. And he’s the liberal.

In preparation for the new order, the military junta is closing down shops selling alcohol. It’s only the beginning. The much-touted Turkish model shows how Islamic law can be introduced gradually and more subtly: simply keep raising taxes on such beverages until no one can afford them. Raymond Stock describes thedestruction of Egypt's greatest library.

Egyptians and foreign observers now have two choices: face reality or retreat into comfortable fantasies about moderate Islamists. The Christian population cannot afford to engage in fantasies so it is increasingly fleeing, as documented by Lucette Lagnado in a moving, detailed article on Coptic refugees in the United States.

To read the entire article click here

When Obama Preaches; Anti-American Dictators First Sneer At Him, Then Spit at Us

2011-12-25T17:01:00.000+02:00

This column was published in the Jerusalem Post in a different version. I own the rights. I strongly recommend you read and link to this version.

By Barry Rubin

I don’t think one could come up with a more teachable momentregarding international affairs—and including Middle East politics--than alittle incident that just happened between President Barack Obama andVenezuela. First, the facts.

Obama gave an interview with a Venezuelan newspaper in whichhe articulated some of his administration’s most basic themes. Obama said:

“Venezuela isa proud, sovereign nation....The United States has no intention of interveningin Venezuela's foreign relations, However, I think the government's ties withIran and Cuba have not benefited the interests of Venezuela and its people.

"Sooneror later, Venezuela's people will have to decide what possible advantage thereis in having relations with a country that violates fundamental human rightsand is isolated from most of the world. The Iranian government has consistentlysupported international terrorism."

Now, this is precisely thesame approach that Obama has taken toward Iran. He said, and this has been acommon talking point for administration officials, that Iran would not benefit fromhaving nuclear weapons. He continued:

“Iran understandsthat they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsiblyand foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allowthem to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that’s a memberof the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashionthat isolates them from the entire world.”

Obama has rejectedAmerica’s leadership role. He feels that the United States has been too much ofa bully historically, so he doesn’t stress what U.S. interests require butpolitely asks other—hostile—countries to behave differently. He tells them thatto do so is in their interest because their current behavior doesn’t benefitthem.

Foreign leaders canonly react with astonishment and—if they are hostile—laughter. If they arepro-American they react with horror.

First, you are signalingweakness and fear, practically putting a “kick me” sign on your back.
Second, telling someelse what their “true” interests are is just as patronizing as telling them whatyour own interests are and demanding that they be respected. When you ask anaggressive dictator “pretty please” you are asking for some spit in the face.

And that’s just whatObama has received from Venezuela, Iran, and others. Here’s how the Venezuelandictator, Hugo Chavez, responded:

"Obama,mind you own business, man. Focus on governing your country, which has become adisaster. Now you're going looking for votes by attacking Venezuela….

“Obama, you're a phony....Goand ask the black community in your country what you are to them: the biggestfrustration in I don't know how many years. Go and ask the many people inAfrica who may have believed in you because of the color of your skin, becauseyour father was from Africa. You're a descendent of Africa, but you are theshame of all those people."

In other words, your enemyreacts with disdain. You may not criticize him but he’ll criticize you. You maynot do things he doesn’t like but he’ll do things you don’t like.

And each time Obama ignoresthese insults--and incidentally isn't this the kind of statement that if made by a non-leftist, Westerner would be quickly labelled as "racist" and the media would launch a hate campaign against the person?--ignores the violations of U.S. interests, ignores the threatsand attacks on U.S. allies.

Incidentally, that’s also whyObama can disrespect U.S. allies, because they can only rarely if ever answerback as Chavez or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do. Obama may sizzleover Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s slap-down in a brilliant oration to ajoint session of Congress, but his websites bulge with statements of praise wrungfrom Israeli leaders heard through their gnashing of teeth.

But there’s something elsegoing on here that shows your ignorance and signals your ineffectiveness. Yourenemies know perfectly well where their interests lie. Of course, the Venezuelanregime benefits by building alliances with fellow radicals and anti-Americans.
Similarly, Iran’s regimebenefits in many ways by seeking nuclear weapons. Turkey’s regime benefits byforming alliances with Iran, Hizballah, Hamas, and other fellow revolutionaryIslamists. The Palestinian Authority rulers benefit by not negotiating orcompromising with Israel. The MuslimBrotherhood benefits by seeking to seize state power and transform their statesinto Islamist ones. And so on.

Obama thinks that he can persuaderadicals to be moderate. Back in the administration of President Jimmy Carter,that U.S. government thought it could persuade the new Islamist regime in Iranto be moderate. President Bill Clinton thought that a spell in power would turnYasir Arafat into a moderate. It was just a matter of these revolutionariesseeing where their true interest was. In Marxist terms, America’s enemies weresuffering from “false consciousness.”

In another recent example ofthis syndrome, Vice-President Joe Biden says that U.S. policy toward the radical,anti-American Afghan group, the Taliban, is to:

“Try to get theTaliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, throughreconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any otherorganization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies....”

Recently, a Third Worlddiplomat whose democratic country has faced threats from radical regimes askedme: “Why don’t these people understand that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radicalgroup?” My answer was: “Because they don’t understand the role of ideology.”

Part of this handicap iscultural; part due to the ideological blindness of Obama. Yet the ObamaAdministration is also ensuring it won’t learn by covering its eyes and ears,pretending that a revolutionary Islamist ideology doesn’t even exist.

Here’s what’s equallyincredible. I have seen numerous attempts by the Obama Administration, and itsapologists—including Jews--to pretend that its policy is really good forIsrael. Over and over again such people and their writings always ignore theregional strategic aspect of the damage that it is doing.

So what if the U.S.government gives Israel military aid, which mostly consists of maintaining oldprograms? The Obama Administration is building up the threat Israel faces tounprecedented levels. “I love Israel” statements don’t solve this hugestrategic problem.

In The Liberal-Conservative Debate Where's the Common Sense?

2011-12-24T19:45:00.002+02:00

By Barry Rubin

It never ceases to amaze me—especially since I seem to be one of the very few people pointing this out—that both liberals and conservatives in the American debate are missing the most important point, the essential but simple argument that spells the difference between victory and defeat, right and wrong.

What people on both sides don't understand is that it is the historical situation and not an eternal ideology that makes for the right policy. What was appropriate for a time when the United States didn't have enough regulation and government was too weak is not appropriate for a time when the United States is overregulated, government is too strong, and the country is ridiculously deep in debt.

For example, Theodore Roosevelt was a great president and what he did was right and necessary. But that was a century ago. It is most telling that President Barack Obama in making a speech for what amounts to statism tries to pretend he is a man who is dealing with a situation in which the federal and state governments were helpless against massive corporate monopolies and when neither any serious government regulation nor effective trade unions existed!

In other words, Obama is running the country and running for office as if it were 1912, not about to be 2012. He is trying to convince people that massive greedy rich corporations that hate big government (like General Electric, General Motors, and all those green job con-men?) control the country. These millionaires wear big top-hats and smoke cigars as in some left-wing cartoon from 1912.

A lot of conservatives seem to think that to explain where the country is going wrong and fix it they have to prove that Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt were completely wrong.

There is such a thing as balance. America’s rapid industrialization after the Civil War put the system out of balance and threatened to wreck the country’s constitutionally-mandated system. Robber barons, monopolies, exploitation of labor, the buying and selling of legislatures, were all commonplace. Only with the two Roosevelts and Truman was the balance corrected.

A proof of that fact is that few conservatives sought to rollback all the pre-1952 innovations. And the same applies to such later initiatives as civil rights along racial and gender lines or the main and much needed environmental legislation following the discovery of just how much America’s water and air had deteriorated.

Yet the governmental machine just kept going beyond the point of reasonable balance. More and more; further and further. The books of regulations grew and grew, strangling the society, trying to perfect ever-smaller faults at an ever-higher price.

Click here to read the entire article

MERIA Journal, December 2011: just published

2011-12-22T21:51:00.001+02:00

Volume 15, No. 4 - December 2011, Total Circulation: 35,000

PAKISTAN AND ITS DISCONTENTS By Harsh Pant

Pakistan is facing a serious crisis today and despite the proclivity of the nation’s elites to blame external forces, the wounds are largely self-inflicted. India is not the biggest danger Pakistan faces today. It is the extremist groups that the security establishment has nurtured over the years that have turned against the Pakistani state. The [...]

THE “INDEPENDENT SHI’A” OF LEBANON: WHAT WIKILEAKS TELLS US ABOUT AMERICAN EFFORTS TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE TO HIZBALLAH By Phillip Smyth

U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks have given a new insight into American policy in Lebanon, especially efforts to counter Hizballah. Hizballah’s willingness to use a combination of hard power through violence and coercion, combined with a softer touch via extensive patronage networks has given them unmatched control over the Shi’a community since the 2005 [...]

ASSESSING THE SURGE IN IRAQ By Aymenn Jawad

This article discusses the 2006/2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq. It examines to what extent the shift in strategy was responsible for the dramatic drop in violence as well as the implications for U.S. strategy in future conflicts. [...]

TURKEY’S SEPTEMBER 12, 2010, REFERENDUM By Sinan Ciddi

This article considers the reasons for and the overall impact of holding a national referendum in Turkey on September 12, 2010, for a series of constitutional amendments passed by the governing AKP (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi or Justice and Development Party). Although the measures were publically accepted with nearly 58 percent approval, the prospects for [...]

NAVIGATING THE NEW MIDDLE EAST? THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS LOST AT SEA AND ON THE ROCKS By Barry Rubin

This article surveys all aspects of U.S. Middle East policy under the Obama administration, critiques this strategy and premises, and suggests what U.S. policy should be. A previous version of this article was published in The Journal of International Security Affairs (Fall/Winter 2011). The Obama administration has comprehensively lost its way on Middle East policy [...]

A GEOPOLITICS OF CYPRUS By James Leigh and Predrag Vukovic

Due to its strategic location, Cyprus has been coveted by various external powers throughout its history. Today shipping routes for oil and competition for control of potential chokepoints make European powers, Turkey, and others very involved with that island country. [...]

INDO-ISRAELI DEFENSE COOPERATION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY By Efraim Inbar and Alvite Singh Ningthoujam

This paper focuses on the current Indo-Israeli defense cooperation and its constraints. The article begins with a brief historical account of this relationship, followed by a discussion of its progression into the defense arena in the late 1990s under the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. Subsequently, it examines the magnitude of the more recent [...]

Fourth Best President?: The Unbearable Heaviness of Obama’s Ego

2011-12-22T18:21:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

In his interview with “60 minutes,” President Barack Obama said he was the “fourth-best president.” This was cut from the program. Since it is such a compelling statement, I can only presume it was cut—like so many other great stories that have been self-censored by the media—to keep Obama from looking bad.

But those making fun of Obama for this statement have just skimmed the surface. Actually, there is a lot to be discovered from really examining what he said. And, before proceeding, I should note that my main professional training was in U.S. history—just to make clear that I’m treating this seriously and from a basis of study.

First, Obama showed how he takes the total support of the mass media for granted something inconceivable for any previous president. He begins:

"The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign-policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president….”

In other words, Obama is attributing the fact that he’s a great president to the interviewer, Steve Kroft. According to Obama, Kroft has already proclaimed him to be wonderful. Obama is just going along with what the media said.

It has often been remarked that Obama is a narcissist but what we see here is actually dangerous, a man who is so closed and arrogant that he really cannot take criticism into account. Any leader, except a dictator (and as a result they make lots of mistakes) needs to listen to criticism and adjust policies, not necessarily change them entirely but alter them to deal with facts and opinions.

Note in Obama’s case how his new “jobs bill” is merely a repeat of the failed stimulus. And similar things can be said about his foreign policy. He simply does not take in developments and criticism. This is parallel to a ship’s captain being warned that there’s a big iceberg ahead and continuing with his speech about how he has set the perfect course.

This theme is reinforced by his saying, “The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments.” In other words, no one can even dispute that he has had great accomplishments. The science is settled; debate is closed. This also tells us that if Obama gets a second term he won’t do any better at all.

Click here to read the entire article

Biden Makes It Seem As If You Can Only Be an Enemy of U.S. Interests If You Attack the World Trade Center

2011-12-20T12:26:00.004+02:00

By Barry Rubin

Vice President Joe Biden has given a very revealing interview with Newsweek. In it, he confirms my consistent analysis that the administration defines the U.S. problem with revolutionary Islamism as only involving al-Qaida. It cannot be stressed enough why this policy is so extraordinarily dangerous.

Why? The irony is that while the Obama Administration refuses to use the expression “War on Terrorism” this is precisely how they have defined the entire U.S. strategy, although one might also call it the War on the Perpetrators of September 11.” What is missing here is any dealing with major strategic issues.

It is true that September 11 and other massive terrorist attacks are of huge significance. But there’s a whole world out there. Revolutionary Islamists are taking over the Middle East, moving toward the rule of tens of millions of people, getting nuclear weapons, carrying out subversion and terrorism against U.S. allies, and inciting hatred of the United States and a passionate desire to hurt it.

Among the countries where anti-American Islamists—however they conceal their views and goals—are in power are the following: Egypt, Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, and Turkey. Syria is their ally and so, to a certain extent, is Qatar. Pakistan often covertly supports such forces as well. The list of those supporting this stance is far longer than those on the other side.

The Obama Administration has consistently underestimated the growth and spread of Islamism. No, let me go further: It basically claims that the phenomenon doesn’t exist at all. Worse still, like someone faced with fire who pours gasoline on everything in its path, the Obama Administration is doing things that worsen the situation by backing radical Islamists and systematically failing to support their intended victims.

To be fair to Biden, however, it is understandable that he must downplay the Taliban threat in this case because he is justifying the coming U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet what he says is far more revealing in a damaging way than the superficial criticism—Biden says Taliban is not our enemy—misses.

Regarding al-Qaeda, Obama said that the American goal in Afghanistan is “to fundamentally alter their capacity to do damage to American allies and vital U.S. interests….” Yet what about the other, far larger, more powerful and more dangerous groups that are doing that?

The interviewer, the very capable Leslie Gelb, (a liberal Democrat foreign policy establishment guy who nonetheless sounds very unconvinced by Biden) asks.

Click here to read the entire article

Syria: The Forgotten--Including by the Obama Administration--Revolution

2011-12-19T17:46:00.003+02:00

By Barry Rubin

I feel guilty every day that I don’t write about Syria’s revolution. There are massive numbers of demonstrators taking high risks and often paying with their lives; there is a higher proportion of really democratic-minded people than in other Arab countries; and there is general international indifference to their battle in contrast to the “glamor” surrounding the far-shorter, much less bloody Egyptian uprising. The estimated death toll is over 4000 though, of course, nobody knows for sure.

In contrast to Egypt, and partly due to the inability of journalists to cover the story, the Syrian insurgents aren’t made into celebrities. And, curiously, the regime that is repressing them isn’t stigmatized anywhere near what happened to the far less repressive governments in Egypt and Tunisia or even, for that matter, democratic Israel.

Much of the news is the bare stuff about lists of demonstrations and acts of repression. At the end of this article I have appended the story of one province on one day alone to give some sense of the magnitude of the battle.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, so eager to overthrow friendly regimes in Bahrain, Egypt, and Tunisia, has a peculiar disinterest about doing more against the hostile regime in Syria. Of course, for almost three years the U.S. government considered that anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring, repressive regime to be friendly or at least potentially so. For the U.S. government to do more, I'm not talking about military intervention but far more basic efforts.

As Tony Badran writes in Lebanon Now: “It became obvious that four months after President Barack Obama called for Bashar al-Assad’s departure, his administration has yet to develop a policy to achieve that objective.” U.S. officials sound as if they are advocating conciliation between the regime and opposition, something they never sought in Egypt or Tunisia.

In addition, rather than have a real independent policy, the Obama Administration seems just to be following the Arab League’s lead. Yet, as Badran explains, by continually minimizing what it is willing to do the Obama Administration even undercuts the Arab League’s leverage.

To read the entire article click here

A Coming War Threat: Terrorists Are Developing A Safe Haven in Egypt to Attack Israel

2011-12-18T18:43:00.002+02:00

What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,

That he should weep for her? What would he do,

Had he the motive and the cue for passion

That I have? He would drown the stage with tears

And cleave the general ear with horrid speech....

--William Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

By Barry Rubin

Or, in other words, do these writers, policymakers, and "experts" care what happens in the Middle East? War? Bloodshed? Repression? Christians fleeing; women being turned into chattel? Just a possible boost to their careers and a test for their theories. A good luncheon topic. But this is real, all too real.

First, a word on contingencies. Governments and political analysts are supposed to examine likely problems in order they can be evaded or minimized. The time to be alarmed is not when problems become visible but when governments refuse to recognize their existence. Western regimes and analysts are generally taking a best-possible-case view on Egypt and other developing issues in the region. I'm tempted to say they are taking a fantasy view. They dismiss not just worst-case but highly likely case scenarios. Now that's what's alarming.

In the Sinai Peninsula, Hamas is building support bases and arms-manufacturing facilities including those for building rockets. Over time, these rockets will no doubt be upgraded. In other words, Egypt is becoming a safe haven for anti-Israel terrorism. We know that these attacks will come from the Gaza Strip. The only question is whether at some point they will come directly across the Egypt-Israel border.

Israel had a long experience with three comparable situations....

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

click here to read the entire article

The “Arab Spring” and Its Impact on Israel

2011-12-18T13:11:00.003+02:00

This article was written for the European site, Crethi Plethi, and is reproduced here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

The “Arab Spring” is the namegiven to the tumultuous political events of 2011. In three countries—Egypt,Libya, and Tunisia—the regimes that had been in power for between 40 and 60 yearswere overthrown. In Syria and Yemen the governments were seriously challengedand internal conflicts continue with the outcome not yet clear. And in Bahrain,a major challenge to the monarchy was put down by force.

What is the meaning of theseevents for the future of these countries and also to their relationship toIsrael and that country’s security? This article addresses the shorter- andlonger-term strategic and geopolitical implications of the “Arab Spring.”

In the three countries where powerhas changed hands—Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia—Islamists have emerged as powerfulpolitical forces. In Egypt, where elections are not yet completed, the MuslimBrotherhood received just under 40 percent of the vote and even more radical Salafistsobtained about 20 percent. This means that Islamists will be the leadingpolitical parties in forming the parliament and in writing the country’s constitution.

What other forces exist? Only two:the army and the future president. The armed forces do not want political powerbut they do want to ensure their economic enterprises and wealth. The militaryjunta, which still governs the country, is also concerned about preventinganarchy and maintaining U.S. aid. While asserting itself periodically to try toavoid extremism, the generals have backed down when challenged by the Brotherhood. Presumably, the junta will disband whena new president is elected, perhaps in the summer of 2013.

Who is a likely president? Onlytwo potential candidates will have a chance. One of them is Amr Moussa, an Arabnationalist who has both a realistic and a demagogic side. The other is an Islamistbacked by the Brotherhood, but that organization has not yet decided to push onthat front and might make a deal with Moussa in order to have a strong allyagainst the military and also to avoid pushing itself too obviously forward.

Finally, a critical element is thefailing Egyptian economy. The situation is so bad that the current primeminister cried at a press conference in discussing it. If a huge—and unsolvable--crisisemerges, the only way for a government to deal with it politically is to divertattention into an anti-Israel, anti-Western scapegoating.

This brings us to the effect ofthese events on Israel. At present, Egypt is by far the most important countryin this regard. An Islamist Libya can provide money and weapons; anIslamist-led Tunisia can provide some moral support; Syria still hangs in thebalance, but Egypt is the state that affects regional issues.

How does Egypt affect Israel? On anumber of levels, all negative:

--The Israel-Egypt peace treaty might well not be abrogatedbut it will be largely emptied of content. Can Egypt-Israel peace be assumed infuture? No. It might be hoped that the military will restrain conflict becauseit doesn’t want to get involved in a losing war and fears losing U.S. militaryaid. But that is a hope that might well be undermined, far more fragile thanthe last thirty years of the peace treaty being rock-solid even if thebilateral peace remained cool.

The other specific elements in the treaty are the presenceof an Israeli embassy in Cairo, which is endangered by potential mob attacks asEgyptian security personnel stand by and don’t interfere, and Israeli tourismin Egypt, which is now too dangerous given the overall collapse in security andthe freedom of operation for terrorist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood says it wants to renegotiate thetreaty. Israel has allowed Egypt to send more military units into Sinai in hopethey will combat terrorists there. But if Egypt becomes more radical will theauthorities there pull back these forces if Israel asks it to do so?

--The security of the Egypt-Israel border. There has alreadybeen one cross-border attack. In response, Israeli government agencies havelost 2 percent of their budgets (and employees their salaries) so a border fencecan be quickly constructed. There is a new military unit to guard the borderand a new intelligence unit to watch for threats there. In order to try tomaintain good relations with the Egyptian military, the Israeli governmenthushed up the cold-blooded murder of an Israeli soldier by the Egyptian army.More attacks are possible by international terror groups or by Palestiniansfrom the Gaza Strip operating through Sinai.

--The Egypt-Gaza Strip border is now open to weapons, money,supplies, and international terrorists going to help strengthen Hamas and theeven more extremist groups there. Whatever controls Egypt’s army has there areweak indeed and further undermined by bribery and the officers’ politicalsympathy with Hamas. Thus, Hamas can get just about any kind of weapon it wantsand is freed from economic pressure.

--The Sinai as a secure area for terrorists. Hamas isreportedly establishing arms-making and logistical bases in Sinai, where Israelcannot attack them. The equipment can then easily be sent into the Gaza Strip.

--The natural gas pipeline. This is one of Israel’s mostimportant sources of energy. It is now unreliable due to constant attacks.Egyptian politicians say they want to renegotiate prices. Israel is hurrying toreplace this natural gas with supplies that can be obtained from off-shorewells but constructing the necessary facilities will take a couple of years.

--Hamas in the Gaza Strip now enjoys full support from apowerful Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups. As the Islamists become partof a future government, this support will become official.

--What would happen in time of war provoked by Hamas? At aminimum, weapons, money, supplies, and volunteers will flow from Egypt into theGaza Strip. As Egyptians are killed and fighting goes on, the level of hysteriaand support for Hamas will rise in Egypt. At a maximum, there could be attacks—whetheror not Egypt’s military wants them—across the Egypt-Israel border and even possiblydirect supplies of weapons from Egypt to Hamas or even Egyptian militaryintervention.

Compared to these huge implications, Israel is far lessaffected on other fronts. The “Arab Spring” has actually limited Iranianinfluence almost totally to Shia areas. It has also limited Turkish influenceto a small area.

Since the situation in Syria remains unsettled it is hard topredict the outcome and thus the effect on Israel. What is clear is that theSyrian regime can no longer use attacks on Israel to make problems at home goaway. In Lebanon, Hizballah is too busy digging in, dealing with the loss ofSyria as a secure patron, and consolidating control over the country to attackIsrael in the present, though the situation might change in future.

Overall, the rising confidence of revolutionary Islamistsand especially Sunni Islamists creates a more dangerous regional situation forIsrael. U.S. credibility is at an all-time low. Indeed, arguably the ObamaAdministration looks to the Turkish regime, itself Islamist, rather than Israelas its favorite Middle East ally.

While Israel can cope with the situation, then, the situationis terrible and dangerous, not only for Israel but for Western interestsgenerally.

How Can Israel Please the American Government, Media, and “Experts”? It Can’t

2011-12-18T09:19:00.000+02:00

This article was published in a different form in the Jerusalem Post. I own the copyright and ask you to read this version and link only to it.

By Barry Rubin

There is a constant effort—especially by the anti-Israel left--to portray those who express mainstream Israeli public opinion and the views of professional analysts as “right-wing” or “Likudnik.” This leadsme to wonder what one would have to say to please these people. What would be the equivalent of a “liberal” position for Israel according to them? What kinds of positions would they see as legitimate?

------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Centerby PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.”“For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16thSt., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,589. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

-------------

What follows is not meant to exaggerate in any way but is, I believe, a genuine list of what they demand. To please them, I presume one would have to say the following:

--President Barack Obama is the best president for Israelever (even he says so!). There are no problems in the relationship and if thereare these are all due to Israel’s government being so selfish, short-sightedand unreasonable.

--Israel would have to agree to the following: a long-term freeze of all construction on existing settlements; to drop the demand for the PA's recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, drop the demand for demilitarization of a Palestinian state and that Palestinian refugees be resettled in the new state of Palestine (or remain where they are living now), and accept the partition of Jerusalem. Israel could keep its demand for security guarantees but would have to ask for the minimum on this point, too, since Israeli demands block peace.

--Peace with the Palestinians could be achieved within a fewmonths if Israel only gave more concessions, including those listed above, and stopped being so belligerent andstubborn.

--The Palestinian Authority—PA--would not have to change any of itspolicies since its demands, by definition, don't block peace. (At some point, though, the PA might have to drop its demand that all refugees or any of their descendants could choose to go live in Israel and that the border lines be exactly along the post-1948 ceasefire lines. This would not be clear, however, until Israel agreed to all of the points presented here.)

--The PA’s incitement to violence; daily denials of Israel’sexistence or right to exist; and refusal to negotiate or compromise are notimportant and Israelis should never talk about these things.

--The PA sincerely wants peace and if given the West Bank plusa corridor to the Gaza Strip and all (or almost all?) of east Jerusalem it would be a reliable partnerand keep all of its commitments. Inexchange for a peace agreement, Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders withminor modifications and dismantle all settlements.

--If the above were to happen, the Middle East would becomequiet and peaceful. Islamists would either become moderate or lose support.Terrorism against the West would cease or at least decline steeply and America would be very popular

--The PA’s partnership with Hamas in the Gaza Strip isn’treally a problem. Once there is a peace agreement, Hamas will give up its goalof wiping Israel off the map because it would have to respect the democratic rules of Palestine and would get caught up in the daily business of politics and administration. There would be no more rocket, mortar, orcross-border attacks and if there were the government of Palestine would deal with them by arresting and punishing those responsible.

--Meanwhile, if Hamas does attack Israel from the Gaza Strip thenIsrael should not retaliate since to do so would inevitably involvedisproportionate force and hurt Palestinian civilians.

--The failure of Western countries to keep their commitmentsto Israel in 2006 to bar Hizballah from rebuilding its military installations in southern Lebanon and stop its arms’smuggling is unimportant and Israel should not mention it. This—or for thatmatter the experience of the 1990s’ peace process and 2000 Camp David meeting—areunimportant and should not influence Israel’s thinking.

--If the state of Palestine were to violate the peace agreement, all Western countries would strongly support Israel and the UN would recognize that Palestine was at fault, side with Israel, and take necessary steps to end this behavior.

--Israel has nothing to fear from Egypt, Tunisia, and Libyabeing governed by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is reallymoderate. Israel should stop talking about the existence of any threat fromthese quarters. It is up to Israel topatch up relations with Egypt and not to be concerned about such things as across-border terrorist attack, continued assaults on the natural gaspipeline, and the government-permitted mob takeover of the Israeli embassy inCairo. (Optional?) Israel should agree to renegotiate the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the natural gas sales' agreement.

--Israel should apologize to Turkey for letting its ownsoldiers defend themselves after being attacked by jihadi terrorists on theMavi Marmara. It should pay compensation to the families of those who attackedit and end the embargo completely against the Gaza Strip. There should be no restrictions on what items can transit the Israel-Gaza border. The collapse of theIsrael-Turkey relationship was completely Israel’s fault.

--Israel should give up any option of attacking Iran’snuclear weapons’ facilities at any time, not only now to prevent Tehran fromgetting such weapons but presumably in the future as well if there is a perceivedthreat from Iran. Instead, Israel should depend on U.S. protection. If Iranhits Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States will then (probably?)retaliate.

--If Hamas attacks Israel from the Gaza Strip with rockets, mortars, or cross-border attacks, Israel should not retaliate since some Palestinian civilians might be killed. Any Israeli attacks cannot use planes, artillery, helicopters, or other advanced technology since that would be a disproportionate response.

I’m not in the least bit joking and honestly don’t think I’veexaggerated the above points covering what the American and European left(including its Jewish components) thinks should be the proper Israeli policy.

Nevertheless, I don’t see the Kadima or Labor partiesadopting such a program. I think it would be most amusing to go down to thecorner of, for example, King George and Dizengoff streets to quiz randomIsraeli pedestrians about what they think of this plan.

As always, since the mainstream Western media generally doesnot allow a real response to the ridiculousness of the program it advocates for Israel you won’t be reading any of the points made above in such places. Peoplewill just be left to believe that the current government is just unreasonablyreactionary; that most Israelis support Obama (or if they don’t they deservewhat they get); and if Israel just let the American far left choose itsgovernment then everything would be just fine. In fact, every public opinion poll in Israel backs up my points.

Indeed, if anyone left-wing blogs or the mass media does remark on this article it will only be to brand it “right-wing.” Not at all. It's just right.

Oh, wait, there is an alternative. Such organs might quote or reprint this article saying that it is very accurate and they are pleased to see people in Israel agreeing with their position.

Meanwhile there are at least two new commercially published books in the United States--and numerous articles--that Israel is collapsing. What is the evidence for this? Not much. A country with consistently high scores on personal satisfaction, the highest growth rate in the OECD, close to the best medical system, the fifth highest life expectancy, etc., etc. Meanwhile, the same people tell us how great everything is in Egypt, Turkey, and so on. Welcome to the age of insanity.

Barry Rubin is director of the GlobalResearch in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle EastReview of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: AnIntroduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Other books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War forFreedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and TheTruth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is athttp://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

U.S. Policy and Iran: Why Obama’s Bargain has Failed

2011-12-16T14:18:00.003+02:00

By Barry Rubin

The Biblical verse Deuteronomy 30 quotes God as saying: I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life that thou may live….”

Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.”“For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16thSt., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,589. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

This notion of choice is the basis for Obama Administration policy toward Iran. And as in the Bible the “correct” choice seems rather obvious. Who would not choose “life”? Answer: The Islamist regime of Iran.

Since late 2010, when he finally decided that he couldn’t make a deal with Iran, Obama turned to his own choice scenario. Here’s how he presented it in his December 8 press conference:

“Iran understands that they have a choice: They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that’s a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world.”

Now, when presented like that, how could Tehran not decide it should be ‘acting responsibly and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons”? And yet Iran doesn’t make the choice Obama expects. Why is that?

I suspect that you, dear readers, already know much of the answer but you can ask yourself why you haven’t heard this answer more often.

First, when even God makes humanity an “offer it can’t refuse,” humanity has still largely refused it! There is evil in the world, there are people who do not follow any religion or moral system, and there are those who do not follow their own religion faithfully. There are, for example, clergymen who lie, cheat, and steal, too.

So such bargains often don’t work. Why is that? Because people don’t believe that there are only two choices. They look for loopholes or additional options and find them, at least in their own minds.

The same applies to Iran. In international relations a key loophole is called “credibility.” If the power of the United States isn’t visible and compelling, its enemies don’t feel they need to follow its dictates or accept its definition of the situation.

Second, in addition to attacking the terms of the proposed bargain, Tehran challenges its premises. Of course, Iran is in many ways isolated and its pursuit of nuclear weapons has costs. Yet what if the costs of isolation are lower than Obama claims?

Iran has good relations with China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey (despite some minor problems in that last case). It projects extensive influence into Lebanon and Iraq. Obama’s “great achievement”—and in part it is real—has been to reduce Iran’s economic relationship to most of Europe. But, after all, the Europeans wanted this, too, and in some cases—the same goes for the U.S. Congress--they were ready to move faster and further than Obama.

Iran’s relations with countries like Britain, France, and Germany have not exactly been great during the last quarter-century even when Iran wasn’t pursuing nuclear weapons. But they are not at zero either, as numerous reports about continuing trade show.

So while Iran has definitely lost more in the last year due to Obama’s efforts how much more and is this loss intolerable? No.

Third, the Iranian regime, rightly or wrongly, judges that the benefits of having nuclear weapons are also higher than Obama thinks. Notice above in his statement, Obama does not mention a single possible benefit for Iran in having nuclear weapons! Can he list them and show they are bogus? Of course the Iranian regime knows the truth even if the American people don't

Let me list some of the advantages for Ira in having nuclear weapons:

Click here to read the full article

Who's the Leading Authority in Defining Islam? Ayatollah Western Media

2011-12-15T18:39:00.000+02:00

By Barry Rubin

The Washington Post has an article by Michael Gerson attacking Newt Gingrich’s warning that the imposition of Sharia law is a tremendous danger to U.S. interests. I’m only interested here in how the article reveals an element of Gerson’s worldview. (Don't miss the really cool observation at the end of this article.)

Gerson writes:

“Gingrich joins Iranian clerics, Taliban leaders and Salafists of various stripes in believing that the most authentic expression of sharia law is fundamentalism and despotism.”

So who is going to determine the “authentic expression” of Sharia law? Gerson? The Washington Post? The clerics most liked by Washington Post writers regardless of the size of their following? You can't create some ideal Sharia law and then say that there's nothing to worry about.

For all practical purposes, though, Islam and Sharia are going to be defined not by theories, debates by non-Muslims over theology, comparative readings of original texts, or your preferences. You, especially a non-Muslim, cannot "figure out" what Islam "really" is. All of that is irrelevant. Islam (and Sharia) will be defined by who has power as the actual political and religious leaders of Muslims. If moderates were running things--and it makes no difference whether you think Islam is a "religion of peace" or an inevitably aggressive ideology--then Islam would be moderate. And if revolutionary Islamists are running the countries, providing the most influential imams, and controlling the mosques, Islam will be radical.

The ideas that being critical of Islam as actually practiced is "Islamophobia" or that the West should understand that Islam is just great are equally fallacious. The idea that Islam "must" be radical is irrelevant.

What counts is the reality. Here's the reality: about 250 million people are going to be living in what basically are Islamist states in the Middle East, even if there are a few small compromises. Millions of people watch and listen to people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s radical guru. How many followers do Gerson’s moderate guys who want to reform Islam have?

What's important is that any Islam defined and controlled by Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, or the Taliban is going to be radical and anyone who is really moderate will have to shut up, flee, change sides, be murdered, marginalized, or get thrown into prison.

Click here to read the entire article

Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists: Same Goals; Different Strategies

2011-12-15T09:12:00.001+02:00

This article was published by the Daily Caller

Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.”“For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16thSt., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,585. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

By Barry Rubin

The two parties with the largest number of votes in Egypthave been the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party along with theSalafist al-Nour Party. Both are Islamist parties. Yet Western observers—includingthe Obama Administration—claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “moderateIslamist” group while the Salifists are radical.

There are indeed important differences between the MuslimBrotherhood and the Salafists but they are really issues of timing and tacticsrather than of goals or principles. One way to think of them is as Coketraditional formula and Coke Light.

The Brotherhood seeks to transform Egypt into a radicalstate governed by the Sharia. It is, however, more cautious—one might say,smarter—in going slowly.

This caution is rooted in the organization’s history. It began in 1928 as a revolutionary group to restore the caliphate and in the 1930s and during World War Two collaborated with the Nazis. After the war it launched a terrorist campaign against the government. When the military seized power in 1952, theBrotherhood was its main rival. Theofficers suppressed the Brotherhood, sending some leaders to concentrationcamps and others to the gallows. It would be 20 years before the regime allowedthe Brotherhood to operate, and even then only illegally.

Knowing it could again be shut down at any moment, theBrotherhood was careful. There were frequent of arrests. The Brotherhood leadershipdeclared a strategy of “da’wa,” that is long-term propaganda and organizationto build a base of support. Only in October 2010 did the new Brotherhoodleader, Muhammad al-Badi, say that the time for revolution had arrived. Withinweeks, it helped launch the revolution that brought down President HusniMubarak.

In contrast, Salafi groups only began to emerge in the1970s. The assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat by Salafi terrorists in1981 triggered repression against them. But this was far less than in the 1950sand focused on those responsible for the killing. Many groups continued to operate.

These groups were all small, based on community and campusorganizing, and each with their own leader. A lot of the members had left the Brotherhood,which they found too moderate in behavior. They did not want to wait forrevolution but wanted it right now. During the 1990s, many took up armedstruggle and killed hundreds of people in terror attacks, focusing especiallyon killing Christians, government officials, and tourists.

But they were crushed by the government in the end. Many oftheir leaders, while in prison, concluded that they had made a strategic errorand renounced violence. They were largely inactive in the dozen years leadingup to the 2011 revolution.

While the Brotherhood furnished organized cadre and played acentral role in the events of January and February, the Salafists were still recoveringthough many participated, especially in the most violent activities like theattacks on Christians and on the Israeli embassy.

Again, it should be emphasized that both the Brotherhood andthe Salafists wanted the same goal. But the Brotherhood is far more patient. Ithas learned the lesson of the Turkish Islamists: go slowly, conceal your aims,and victory is far more likely.

Brotherhood leaders understand the disadvantages of goingfor power quickly. It will be more likely to lead to a clash with the army; theeconomy would suffer due to a loss of investment and loans. Indeed, Egypt isheaded for a serious economic crash and the Brotherhood does not want to be incharge at the moment when that happens.

Far better, Brotherhood leaders think, to work with the armyas much as possible, perhaps even to support a non-Islamist president.Meanwhile, the Brotherhood can play the key role in writing a Constitution thatwould move Egypt toward Islamism. It would take such ministries as education,social welfare, and religion that would help it increase and strengthen thesize of its support base due to both ideological indoctrination and patronage.

On foreign policy, the Brotherhood is having great successin lulling the United States and the West to sleep, even supporting it as “moderate,”thus getting money and help from the West while denying it to the army ormoderate forces. The Brotherhood would use its power to empty the Egypt-Israelpeace treaty of content without officially abrogating the agreement. It could givea lot of support to Hamas and to the Jordanian and Syrian Brotherhood brancheswithout getting directly involved in any conflicts.

This is a sensible policy. In contrast, the Salafists wantrevolution right now and trust in God to overcome all problems and barriers forthemselves. Take an issue like tourism. The Brotherhood might permit the saleof alcohol to tourists and let women wear scanty bathing suits on beaches wherefew Egyptians would ever see them in order to keep revenue coming in. To theSalifists this is mere treason against proper piety.

This kind of tactical difference is by no means uncommon inrevolutionary movements. Lenin wrote a pamphlet, “Left-Wing Communism, Aninfantile Malady,” about it. In thisattack on the Salifist equivalents in the Marxist movement, Lenin quotedFriedrich Engels, the co-founder of Marxism; "Whatchildish innocence it is to present one’s own impatience as a theoreticallyconvincing argument!"

Lenin’s words fit perfectly thestruggle among Egyptian Islamists. A revolution, he explained, is:

“A war which is a hundred timesmore difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary warsbetween states, and to renounce in advance any change of [tactics], or anyutilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies,or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they aretemporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculousin the extreme?”

Of course, Lenin was consciously seeking to mislead Western democracies into thinking they could work with the "moderate Communists" so that, divided and weakened, they could be more easily destroyed.

And that’s why the Brotherhood approachgenerally succeeds and that of the Salafists fails. Of course, by theirextremism the Salafists will push the Brotherhood into a tougher stance, and bytheir readiness to use violence, they will help crush moderates, women who wantmore rights, and Christians. The two groups will compete but they will alsowork together, at least tacitly, in fundamentally transforming Egypt.

My Critique of Two "Neo-Conservative" Presidents: Obama and Bush

2011-12-14T08:31:00.002+02:00

Chorus onstage sings, “Springtime for Hitler…."

Woman in audience: "This is shocking!"

Man in audience: "Outrageous!"

Bialystock at back of theatre smiling: "Ahhhhh, it's going better than I expected!"

--"The Producers"

By Barry Rubin

A reader has accused me, in pretty nasty terms, of having been a big advocate for the Iraq war and thus presumably some satanic force in misleading the United States (Footnote). That is not true. In fact I was not a supporter of starting the war at all, as friends know from hearing me argue against it. [There are two possibilities here: either the person is deliberately lying or is confusing me with Michael Rubin, no relation. If the latter is so, the reader is welcome to apologize and withdraw his remarks.]

Meanwhile, a hitherto unknown Huffington Post writer with no known expertise on the Middle East, has accused me of being not only an alarmist about revolutionary Islamism but also as a "neo-con," which has become shorthand for "Jew." These people are so intellectually bankrupt that they don't even realize that they are arguing the precise opposite of their own claims. After all, if I were a "neo-con" I would have been very enthusiastic about the revolution, right?

As I have repeatedly pointed out--and shown in more than 20 books--my approach is to international affairs is that of a foreign policy Realist who focuses on national (or regime) interests as motivating Middle East governments and as the force that should be shaping U.S. policy. In 1979, I pointed out how President Jimmy Carter's democracy agenda helped bring down the shah's regime in Iran and also misread the incoming regime as "moderate," being among the first to warn where Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was going and what the consequences would be.

That didn't turn out to be alarmist, but it certainly made me cynical--though sorrowfully so--about those who think they are going to bring quick democracy to the Middle East.

Since then I have accurately predicted: Hizballah's takeover of Lebanon, Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections, the Turkish regime's increasingly radical course of the , the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to be the leading force in Tunisia and Egypt (and, indeed, the 2011 Egyptian revolution itself three months before it happened), thePalestinian Authority's rejectionism and total failure of the "peace process" to make any progress since 2000, and some other stuff.

So in this era of the greatest "neo-conservative" of all, President Barack Obama--who doesn't care what replaces existing governments as long as there's a vote on it-- I thought it might be interesting to review my writings on the subject.

Click here to read the entire article

A Personal Request From Me: Please Buy Israel: An Introduction

2011-12-14T04:14:00.001+02:00

On January 15 my book, Israel: An Introduction will be published by Yale University Press and pre-orders can be made now. It is a paperback original. It's also the first book I know of that tried to present a comprehensive picture of Israel--people, geography, economy, culture, history, and politics--in a single book.

I'm asking you to buy the book for yourself and/or to give it as a present for others who might benefit from it including,of course, young people. I am also asking for your help in promoting the book. If appropriate you can also put nice reviews on various Internet sites including Amazon. You can order now

For more information click here

Amazon purchases

Canada Amazon purchasesa

Middle East: We're Going to Have a Revolution and We Can Do it the Hard Way or the Easy Way

2011-12-13T10:33:00.001+02:00

"Along the Paris streets the death-carts rumble, hollow and harsh. Six tumbrils carry the day's wine to La Guillotine. All the devouring and insatiate Monsters imagined since imagination could record itself, are fused in the...Guillotine." --Charles Dickens, "A Tale of Two Cities."

By Barry Rubin

Do I have to draw you a picture of how Islamism is just pretending to be moderate and plans to fundamentally transform the society in countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Turkey? Well, I’ll let the most respected Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, do it for me.

Let me underline the fact that when Qaradawi answers a query millions of people listen. Egyptian military officers and their families watch his show raptly and so do many others. And Qaradawi isn't just talking for the sake of talking. He is teaching the revolutionary strategy of seizing all power for all time and imposing all of the Sharia on all of the people. Qaradawi is Lenin in a turban, as was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who did a little number on Iranian politics after the same people who are telling us now that the Brotherhood is moderate were telling us then that the Iranian Islamists were moderate.

If only government officials, journalists, and “experts” would read and comprehend things like this they might understand what’s happening in the Middle East and how their policy is headed for disaster.

“Gradualism,” Qaradawi explains, “is one of the laws of nature that Allah Almighty has created. It is also needed in applying the rulings of the Sharia to make a change in people’s life.”

When used by Communists decades ago this approach was called the “salami tactic,” you go step by step to consolidate your power. This is precisely what the “Turkish model” means. And, of course, the point of the exercise is to fool the dummy observers into thinking you are just great guys and very moderate. Incidentally, in this case the salami will be halal.

You invite them to dinner, butter them up, and then have them for dinner. Or, if I were a cartoonist, I'd draw a picture of a man standing in front of a crowd some of whom had their hands up. The caption would be: "Ok, that's 23 votes for killing all the Jews first and 17 for destroying America first."

Qaradawi gives scriptural reasons for the gradualist approach:

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

How Is Obama's Middle East Policy Endangering Israel? Let Me Count the Ways

2011-12-12T13:03:00.001+02:00

How Is Obama's Middle East Policy Endangering Israel? Let Me Count the Ways

Note: This article lists 27 things President Barack Obama has done to damage Israel's security. You are welcome to write me with anything you think I've missed.

By Barry Rubin

Think about this: In the year 2012 the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East will be governed by radical Islamist regimes that believe in waging jihad on Israel and America, wiping Israel off the map, suppressing Christians, reducing the status of women even more than it is now, and their right as true interpreters of God's will to govern as dictators. (Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey) President Obama does not see this as a problem.

Recently a reader sent me a note from an Obama supporter responding to some of my articles. He says--like the administration--that Obama has not done a single thing to damage Israel's security. I have written this response. The other person's statements are in bold.

.--Obama did cause the Palestinians to drop their U.N. maneuver of obtaining statehood without a negotiated peace.

The PA announced they it was going to do this gambit around October 2010. Obama did nothing until almost a year later. He made no threat nor put any pressure on the PA. He had to take this stand or else veto in which case that would have been costly to him in the Arab world for sure. It is good that he did this but it was the absolute minimum, not some great concession to Israel. In other words, the Palestinian Authority broke all of its commitments to negotiate peace with Israel, the Obama Administration did nothing, blamed Israel, and after a year stopped the PA from formally wrecking everything so that we all went back to the previous situation. And this is proof of great support for Israel?

--If Obama was so anti-Israel why did he do that?

Answer above. For goodness sakes one doesn't have to be pro-Israel to stop the PA from blowing up the peace process chances forever and messing up U.S. interests. And of course this is about the only thing that Obama has done "for Israel" on a diplomatic level in three years which is why people keep citing it. Indeed, by mentioning this action by Obama his supporters in an indirect way announce how little he has done, that only the most minimal steps can be expected.

It doesn't matter whether Obama likes Israel or not but only what is his policy and the effects it has. President Richard Nixon did not like Israel but his policy very much supported Israel's security. Nor is this a matter of whether Obama doesn't like the Likud or Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nor of whether or not he visits Israel. I don't think Obama is a Muslim or an antisemite. He simply has policy beliefs that endanger Israel but also all of the moderate people in the Middle East and U.S. interests there.

Basically, the Obama Administration has taken a European-type stand. There are more Muslims than Jews so it is more important to keep the larger group happy. If the U.S. distances itself from Israel they will like America better. There will be no more September11 type incidents. Fewer people will join radical and terrorist groups and will focus more on making their countries better. They are Muslim countries so why should Islamists rule? For women to wear a veil isn't an imposition on freedom but merely a local custom. Even Hillary does it when she's there. And so on. The problem with this policy isn't that it is objectively anti-Israel for example but that it misunderstands the situation, won't work, and will make things worse.

It will not make radicals into moderates or reduce radical recruitment (quite the opposite as we see in Egypt and Tunisia). In fact, it makes radicals more powerful and popular, thus putting Israel into danger, and lots of others, too. It's as if Russian revolutionaries a century ago were occasionally waging terror attacks on America and the U.S. response was: Let them take over Russia and they'll stop bothering us. And it will be good for Poland, too!

--I do believe that the Muslim issue is not just Israel v. the rest of the world as you see it. The United States fears that Muslims around the world will look at the United States as the enemy of Islam thereby causing more terrorist attacks. By showing that the United States believes that Islam is simply another great religion of the world, Obama hopes that Islam terrorist will not strike as often. Making the American Muslims feel at home in America is a great way to forward this policy.

If this were the issue then there would be no problem. But there are different Muslims--Islamists and anti-Islamists. Obama doesn't just make gestures to Muslims--which would be fine--but to Islamists which is not only against Israel but against most Muslims.

Let me put it this way

Man 1: I want to kill you!

Man 2: Suppose I put down my gun, tell you how much I like you, and I'm no longer friends with Man 3 who is your enemy?

Man 1: I still don't like you and want to kill you but now it's easier. I know you are a coward and believe I'm certain to win. I can pick up your gun and use it against you. I am sure of success. Oh, and it will also be easier for me to kill Man 3 since I see you don't like him and thus won't defend him so well.

Let's remember what Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badi said in October 2010 in a speech that signalled the start of the real "Arab Spring." Remember, Obama was president at that time:

The United States is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise....Allah said: ‘The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee [Koran 54:45].’ This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies, and [that the enemies] shall withdraw. The Companions of the Prophet received this Koranic promise in Mecca, when they were weak… and a little more than nine years [later], Allah fulfilled his promise in the Battle of Badr…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [It isn't even trying to do so--BR] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance–and [this is proven by] the wars of Lebanon and Gaza."

Does this sound like a man who will be won over with kindness and concessions? Like a man who will be mellowed by power? No, he and his colleagues will be convinced by power and mass support at the voting booth that victory is near. Thus, as Brotherhood number-one ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi said to a million people in Tahrir Square: On to Jerusalem!

--Because Rubin assume[s] that every overture to Muslims is an anti-Semitic blow, you have no idea what I am talking about.

That's ridiculous and insulting and anyone who reads my work knows so. Of course, being nice to Muslims is not a zero-sum game for Israel. The problem is being nice to radical Muslims. Incidentally the Saudi and Jordanian and Gulf Arab governments plus the real democratic oppositions in Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and other countries--almost all Muslims themselves--are horrified about what the Obama administration is doing and I have had dozens of conversations to that effect with a wide variety of people.

I will add that Americans still don't understand the implications of Obama's Cairo speech. The problem was not that it was "pro-Islam" but that it was pro-Islamist and anti-Arab nationalist. He told Muslims that Islam should be their primary identity. You must understand how this came off in the Arab world. Why would, for example, the Egyptian government be horrified by a "pro-Muslim" speech? They were horrified because they understood--especially when Obama invited Muslim Brotherhood leaders--that Obama was (whether he knew it or not) challenging the whole basis of the Arab regional order.

--Your entire view that Israel is in trouble because of Obama has never been explained by Rubin. What specific policy of the current presidency is endangering Israel?

I have written about this dozens of times. The problem is that there are people who just don't want to hear. The only way they can maintain their beliefs is to pretend there is no evidence against them. But here's a list:

1. His support for the overthrow of the entire Egyptian system, thus inevitably bringing about a situation in which the Egyptians had a government dedicated to Israel's destruction and to supporting anti-Israel terrorism. He rejected State Department advice to try to limit the damage by changing the leadership and not the entire regime. The idea that the U.S. government didn't control events is correct; the idea that it couldn't and didn't influence them is nonsense....

Click here to read the entire article

Make Way for the Muslim Brotherhood International!

2011-12-11T18:18:00.000+02:00

Please be subscriber 28,570. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

This article is published in the Jerusalem Post but I own copyright and please quote, link, and read my version here. http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/12/fact-checking-newt-gingrich-and-fact.html

By Barry Rubin

“Arise, you prisoners of starvation!
Arise, you wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation:
A better world's in birth!”

So begins the Internationale, the theme song of Communism. So far it is perfectly acceptable for Islamists though some later verses make clear the Marxist movement’s secularism: “No savior from on high delivers.”

The First Internationale of radical workers’ movements was founded in 1864; the Second, of Socialist parties, in 1889; the Third International, of Communist parties, in 1919; and the Fourth Internationale, of Trotskyist parties, in 1938.

And now, though nobody will use this terminology, it’s time for the Fifth Internationale, that of the Muslim Brotherhoods. The precise relationships among different Brotherhood groups have always been shadowy. Clearly, this is not a centralized organization but there is a lot of help, including financial aid, among these groups. And the Egyptian branch is always the senior one. If there is any leader of the international movement it is the Egyptian Brotherhood's Supreme Guide Muhammad al-Badi and he's a real hardliner, even on the Brotherhood's spectrum.

Today, as always, the Egyptian branch is the largest and most powerful. Founded in 1928, having collaborated with Nazi Germany, then carried out terrorism in the 1940s and early 1950s, the Brotherhood was suppressed by Egypt’s radical nationalist regime. It was allowed to revive in the 1970s but was constantly under harassment, though at times it ran in elections. Now it has emerged as the strongest political force in Egypt, seemingly headed toward state power for the first time.

But it is not alone. The Jordanian branch has run with some success in elections but the monarchy has always ensured that it wouldn’t win. The Syrian branch was repressed bloodily in 1982 but continued underground and has now emerged as a significant power in the opposition. Indeed, the U.S. government and its Turkish allies constructed and now recognized an exiled opposition leadership that is dominated by the Brotherhood.

The Palestinian branch, called Hamas, now rules the Gaza Strip. The Tunisian branch is forming a government and the Brotherhood is emerging in Libya, where it might be able to take power some day. Smaller groupings exist in other Arabic-speaking countries.

Of special significance, the Brotherhood has spread to Europe and North America where it often--partly thanks to naïve governments and not-too-bright media coverage—dominates Muslim communities.

Is it moderate? Think of the Brotherhood as to Islamism what the Communist Party was to Marxism. And that makes Egypt potentially the green equivalent of the Soviet Union. Oh, and it makes 2011 into the equivalent of 1917.

Here's the man who I think is just about the best political analyst in the Arab world, Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid on this topic:

"The Islamist party leaders hastened to embellish their image for the Western countries....Of course, these speeches are public relations acts, and could only be believed by someone ignorant about the region or by the logic of the religious parties. [At most, these claims of moderation] expresses the opinion of few leaders only, because the majority of leaders and cadres of these groups consider cleansing the society as their first duty, and it would not be long before they topple the tolerant leaders."

Now the movement is emerging in the form of a transnational alliance between governments and powerful opposition movements in different countries. We are seeing the formation of this Muslim Brotherhood international, the alliance of these groups in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip (Hamas), Jordan, and Syria, with financial backing from Qatar. We are going to be hearing more about this in the coming months and years.

Here’s an example. The most important Islamist commander of the new Libyan military forces has been sent to Turkey to work with the Syrian opposition army.

Is there any alliance on the other side? Any transnational organization of Arab centrist or even leftist parties? No.

Is there any covert operations by Western countries to help the moderates with money and other aid to match what the Brotherhood is doing (and for that matter, Qatar, Iran, Turkey, or Syria)? Also, no.

Why even the Obama Administration likes those loveable moderates who obey the rules of democracy.

So if this battle is so one-sided who do you think is going to win?

I feel like Sir Edward Grey, the British foreign secretary in 1914, who remarked at the onset of World War One: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our time."

Well, either I’m right or the Muslim Brotherhood will take to democracy like women to chadors and soon they’ll be patching potholes with the best of them and making painful compromises:

“Ok, we’re agreed! Sharia law only applies on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays!”

Think about this: In the year 2012 the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East--about a quarter-billion people--will be governed by radical Islamist regimes that believe in waging jihad on Israel and America, wiping Israel off the map, suppressing Christians, reducing the status of women even more than it is now, and their right as true interpreters of God's will to govern as dictators. (Egypt, Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey) That doesn't mean they are doing all of these things right now but they are intending to do so when they consolidate power fully.

Fact-Checking Newt Gingrich and The Fact-Checkers on the Middle East

2011-12-11T07:00:00.001+02:00

By Barry Rubin

ABC News “fact-checked” Gingrich’s Middle East statements and some readers asked me to fact-check ABC so here is my view:

Gingrich said Palestinians are an invented people. ABC says: Not true.

I think Gingrich was basically correct but that point isn't so significant. There is a strong tendency of contemporary experts to argue that pretty much every nationality is invented including the French, British, Italian, Polish, and German.

ABC says that the Palestinian Arabs began to have a consciousness in the 1890s. I cannot imagine what evidence would be brought to make that argument. the bare beginnings were around 1920 when actual groups began to form, though even then the "southern Syria" identity was strong. One is safer at putting the date in the late 1920s.

Yet again I don't see this point as very significant. What's important is whether a large portion of the people in question believes that they are a people. Moreover, the same "invented" charge has been made against the Jewish people by Stalin and of course by Arab and Islamist propaganda.

The fact that today a Palestinian people does exist doesn't give the Palestinians a right to invent history, of course. ABC News didn't point out that they regularly claim a history of two thousand years or more. And Golda Meir was pointing to the fact that the dominant politics of the Palestinian movement certainly as late as 1945 was a pan-Arab nationalist one. If the "invention" of a Palestinian (Arab, Muslim) people is relatively recent, though, that does imply that they don't have a claim to everything between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. And that's what's important.

Click here to read the entire article

Obama Gives a Preview of How He'll Campaign on Foreign Policy

2011-12-09T17:19:00.001+02:00

"I shot the sheriff

But I didn't shoot no deputy." --Bob Marley

By Barry Rubin

At his rare December 8 press conference, President Barack Obama took two questions on the Middle East. His answers give a sense of how he’s going to campaign on the issue. Both answers are deeply flawed but one wonders how many people will understand that.

To paraphrase the song, Obama will say: I shot ben-Ladin, and I also wounded Iran.

The way his election rivals should put it is:

You--or more accurately courageous U.S. soldiers--may have shot the sheriff but you have been helping turn over several countries with tens of millions of people to the far more dangerous deputy. He and his men are terrorizing the townspeople who you keep criticizing them for trying to defend themselves.

Or, let me put it boldly:

Think about this: In the year 2012 the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East will be governed by radical Islamist regimes that believe in waging jihad on Israel and America, wiping Israel off the map, suppressing Christians, reducing the status of women even more than it is now, and their right as true interpreters of God's will to govern as dictators. (Egypt, Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey)

Now compare that to a few thousand al-Qaida guys running around and staging occasional terror attacks.

Back to the press conference. A reporter asked Obama:

“Republican candidates have taken aim at your approach to foreign policy, particularly the Middle East and Israel, and accused you of appeasement. I wanted to get your reaction to that.”

I think that the concept of “appeasement” is not so useful here and is easy for Obama and his supporters to dismiss. Appeasement is to try to make a strong force that you fear leave you alone and not hurt you by making concessions to them.

What the Obama Administration has done goes far beyond that.

Click this link to read the entire article

Obama Foreign Policy in A Brief: The President as Turkey

2011-12-08T23:14:00.001+02:00

On October 5, 1938, Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons, regarding the Munich agreement in which Britain and France forced Czechoslovakia to cede the strategic Sudetenland to Germany, leading a few months later to that country's extinction and a year later to World War Two:

"I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat...."

Viscountess Astor shouted, "Nonsense!"

By Barry Rubin

People ask me: How can U.S. government officials believe such silly and wrong things about the Middle East? Let’s go behind the scenes for a case study of how this works.

Here’s a November 28 transcript about Vice-President Joe Biden’s trip to Turkey and Greece. The main briefers are Biden’s national security advisor, Antony Blinken, and Special Envoy to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation Rashad Hussain.

The briefing shows the U.S. government’s bizarre love affair for Turkey’s Islamist regime, cluelessness about the “Arab Spring,” and disinterest in supporting Israel, contradicting the president's frequent statements that he has done more for Israel than any predecessor.

For years the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) has been waging war seeking to create a Kurdish state in southeastern Turkey. Apparently, the United States is getting increasingly involved in that war defined as, “Our assistance in the fight against PKK terrorism.” The U.S. government gave Turkey three SuperCobra attack helicopters and four Predator UAVs. Since that regime works closely with terrorist groups and Iran one wonders how secure this technology will be and how far U.S. involvement is going to go.

Has there been a serious discussion in the United States about becoming a partner in the Turkey-PKK war and what might Turkey be doing in exchange for U.S. help? This concept of getting something for giving something is pretty absent in the Obama Administration.

True, the Turkish regime has agreed to host a NATO radar system but only after grumbling a lot and imposing stringent conditions, especially that no intelligence be shared with Israel. And that’s no favor to the United States since, as the briefers note, Turkey is supposed to be a zealous member of NATO.

What else do you have, Blinken? Well, that Turkish government is visibly helping out a lot: in Afghanistan, Iraq, against the Syrian regime, in Libya, and Egypt. “So in many, many areas we’re working very, very closely with Turkey.”

Yes, but the problem is that the Turkish regime is working hard in those places to make itself leader of the region and to promote radical Islamism in all of those countries. In Egypt, Libya, and Syria for sure that means helping the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention its work on behalf of Hamas and Hizballah.

Imagine if an American president in the 1970s had been besotted with Fidel Castro and explained how the Cubans were doing all that great work in Latin America.

Click here to read the entire article

The Majdalani Effect, The Zawahiri Strategy and the Curse on the Middle East

2011-12-08T13:04:00.000+02:00

Please! We need your contribution at a time of terrible Middle East and U.S. policy developments when--to be frank--we often seem to be the only ones explaining what's really going on! Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.”“For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16thSt., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Be subscriber 28,546. Put email address inupper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post in a different version. I own the copyright and ask that you read and link to my text here.

By Barry Rubin

In a rare glimpse behind the curtain, a Palestinian scandal sheds a lot of light on the Palestinian Authority, Arab politics, and Western illusions. Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Labor Ahmed Majdalani was being interviewed by a radio station when, not realizing that his microphone was on, he referred to Palestinian workers as “brothers of whores.” Hundreds of callers complained. Majdalani’s answer? He claimed he was talking about Israelis, not Palestinians!

What does this tell us? First, that Arab and Muslim-majority society ie still, in 2011, extremely traditional. Despite all the rhetoric of popular struggle, leftism, anti-imperialism, and so on, the leaders of both the establishment and, less surprisingly, the Islamists, and even of the “liberals” are extremely reactionary. They have total contempt for their own people and little or no interest in bettering their lot. Aid money goes into their pockets; power goes to their heads.

Where naïve Western leftists, liberals, and often “experts” see some kind of mirror-image of themselves, there is something quite different on display. That’s one reason why the “Arab Spring” has failed and led to something worse, even while the West celebrates it from wishful thinking and many locals do so out of desperate hope.

And then there’s a particularly vivid example of the “old switcheroo,” the con-man’s substitution of a scapegoat to hide his own culpability. No, it isn’t your own leaders who betray you and exploit you, it’s the Jews or the Americans, the Zionists and the Crusaders.

Western observers simply can’t believe that this political con-game works because they see through the scam. Of course, it’s always easier for people to understand another society’s foibles. But, yes, even today it works. We’ve seen the return of the old hatreds to Turkey, where many thought they were banished forever.

Electoral politics brings out the best and worst in people. They can be the domain of reasoned debate but are also the playground of demagogues.

Deep down, most Westerners can’t really believe that people would elect the Muslim Brotherhood in a fair balloting. Such a result, they reason, can only be the result of a deep trauma or of a shallow propaganda trick that can be exposed and reversed. I’m amused to see that even now, in December 2011, with so much evidence available, the main critique of my work is that I exaggerate the power of the Islamists.

Friends and colleagues tell me that people simply don’t want to face the dangers of the situation. For regular people, it is just too unpleasant; for policymakers, though, it requires awareness and action. Egyptians, Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Turks, among others, know what’s going on. Israelis are in a special position to comprehend it also. The same applies to a lot of other people around the world, notably in Central Europe.

There is also, however a profound belief that people and governments are going to be “rational actors.” What is defined as “rational” is a materialistic desire for more goods and for more freedom, as that is defined in the West. It’s not so simple. As Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explained three decades ago, the revolution is not about lowering the price of watermelons.

That’s also why the Nazi analogy is so used and over-used, in a desperate attempt to find some historical example that can get through to Westerners the idea that non-materialistic factors and an appeal to irrational beliefs can sway a populace.

But aren’t there people like Majdalani in the Western world? Of course, there are. More and more of them. I call this the “Middle Easternization” of the West.

What has happened is that regimes have lost their monopoly on the Majdalani Effect. For decades, for example, the Syrian regime used Israel and the West as a scapegoat for the lack of freedom and well-being in that society. It worked. No longer does it work for the Syrian regime because that government is discredited with its own people—which doesn’t mean, by the way, that it is going to fail when employed by others.

But the technique will still work for the Islamists. Majdalani’s quick thinking might not save his own job, nor did it save the Mubarak regime—because the army wanted the dictator gone--but it will still save and create many a new dictatorship. It is true that new governments are coming into power because of their predecessors’ corruption, repression, and inability to deliver material benefits. But their successors are campaigning on claiming they are able to fight the West and Israel even more effectively.

The best presentation of these points was made in Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian and a top leader of al-Qaida. True, while al-Qaida planted the seeds, the Muslim Brotherhood reaped the harvest. But that doesn’t make his points any the less relevant.

In a remarkable passage in his book, Zawahiri explained:

“The Muslim nation will not participate [in an Islamist revolution] unless the slogans of the mujahidin are understood by the masses of the Muslim nation….

“The one slogan that has been well understood by the nation and to which it has been responding for the past 50 years is the call for jihad against Israel [and] against the U.S. presence…The jihad movement has moved to the center of the leadership of the nation when it adopted the slogan of liberating the nation from its external enemies and when it portrayed it as a battle of Islam against infidelity and infidels.”

It is misleadingly easy to think that the “Arab Spring” has cancelled out the Majdalani Effect and the Zawahiri strategy. We were told repeatedly that there were no anti-American or anti-Israel signs in Tahrir Square. They didn’t need signs. The slogans are already in people’s heads.

New Two-Volume Set, A Guide to the Midde East

2011-12-08T12:17:00.001+02:00

Save more than 15% with this limited-time special offer!

The Middle East

A Guide to Politics, Economics,

Society, and Culture

Two-Volume Set

Barry Rubin, Editor

The Middle East remains an area of surpassing interest and importance in global affairs today, resulting in a constant flow of media attention and in-depth academic scrutiny. Unfortunately, this has lead to many misperceptions about the area, its people, and their ways of life.

This unique two-volume set helps clarify the region's complex history and ongoing problems----and corrects some of the misperceptions----by exploring these seven significant issues: culture, religion, women, economics, governance, and media, as well as the role that the region's modern history has played in shaping the ways of life, values, and worldviews of its peoples.

December 2011 · ISBN 978-0-7656-8094-5 · Hardcover, Two Volumes · 704 pages · Bibliography, Index.

List Price: $299.00 Pre-Publication Price: $249.00 (discount expires 01/15/12)

Order now and save!

For Description and Contents, click here

View the contents here: Title=The+Middle+East%3A+A+Guide+to+Politics%2C+Economics%2C+Society%2C+and+Culture