Manufacturing Heresy: How the Mildest Muslim Liberalism is Turned into a Capital Punishment Offense

“A merchant in Baghdad…sent his servant to market….The servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace…I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me….Lend me your horse, and…I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.  The merchant lent him his horse…and as fast as the horse could gallop he went.  The merchant went down to the marketplace and saw [Death] standing in the crowd. He asked, Why did you make a threating gesture to my servant…?  [Death replied]…I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra. -- W. Somerset Maugham, “The Appointment in Samarra” (1933)

By Barry Rubin

Nageeb Kashgari is a young man in a lot of trouble. The 23-year-old Saudi has been spirited back to his country from Malaysia in a manner reminiscent of a kidnapping to be put on trial for his life.

His crime? To write three Tweets that Saudi clerics have deemed to be heretical. The lynch mob is baying for his blood.  Nobody in the world is helping him. Kashgari might well be doomed, despite his quick apology and erasure of the Tweets.

For details on his case and situation click here.

Even if Kashgari were an atheist or someone who renounced Islam or did indeed violated its precepts his freedom of speech and religion should be defended. But what is most interesting about his case is that he did not really do any of these things. He merely expressed a liberal, modernist-style interpretation of Islam, the kind of thing that developed in Christianity—and was sometimes punished then--about 250 years ago and became very common 150 years ago.

Nothing tells us more about the profound difficulty of reforming Islam, the totalitarian threat of Islamism, and the danger of Sharia law—to Muslims above all—than does the Kashgari case.

Let me begin, though, with a brief discussion about why freedom of speech is so important.  In the U.S. Constitution, the first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press….”

Why did they understand this to be so essential more than two centuries ago in a way that applies perfectly to today? Because once someone can decided what is legal speech—beyond a minimal limit of “fire in crowded theatres” and national security secrets endangering lives—they can interpret what is acceptable in any way they choose. And people being people, anyone in power is certain to do that in a way that enhances their own power and serves their own interest.

And that is why the very concept of “Politically Correct” is inevitably anti-democratic and will be inevitably abused. This is what we see today. When, as in Europe and Canada, courts start determining criminal expression then that country is in serious trouble.

Of course, in traditional societies such rules usually prevail and they are being reinstalled in Islamist polities, some of which have been established with Western assistance. Indeed, if the organization of Islamic states and Western supporters have their way, heresy against Islam will become an international crime for which even non-Muslims can be prosecuted.

Kashgari came from a Salafist family but developed liberal beliefs that he expressed in Tweets. There are two lessons here, showing how hard it is to develop a democracy in Muslim-majority countries or any liberal interpretation of Islam. In the first case, there is no freedom of speech on critical issues; on the second, the ability of mainstream or hardline clerics to interpret any other view as heretical will be enforced.

Earlier, Kashgari had tweeted: “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”  This is, of course, a witty statement of the status of women in Saudi Arabia.

More recently, Kashgari sent three tweets, addressed to Islam’s founder on his birthday. These form the basis of his “crime.”

To read the entire article click here.

And The New Leader of the Free World Is...Saudi Arabia?

This article is published on PajamasMedia

By Barry Rubin

Since the United States is not leading the anti-Islamist forces in the Middle East or protecting the relatively moderate Arab states, the new leader is...Saudi Arabia.

But, you say, isn't Saudi Arabia also Islamist? Well it's as Islamic as you can get without being revolutionary Islamist. Isn't Saudi Arabia profoundly anti-Jewish? Yes, but it mostly just talks about it. Isn't Saudi Arabia anti-democratic? Yes, we'd prefer the United States but President Barack Obama is busy with other things.

Obama wants Middle East Muslims to love America. There are only two problems:

1. His policy doesn't work. They don't love America.

2. The Muslims he keeps appealing to are those who are radical and pro-terrorist. For those who are Muslims but don't want to overthrow their neighbors, go to war with Israel as soon as possible, throw out U.S. influence, and transform their countries into something like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, Obama is a problem.

So the Saudis are doing what I've been telling the Obama Administration to do for 2.5 years: Form an alliance opposing revolutionary Islamism. Of course, the Saudis won't include Israel (at least publicly) and they won't get Europe, but at the moment they're all we've got.

This was completely predictable. Some weeks ago, Nawaf Obeid, who speaks for the Saudi government, wrote an important op-ed piece saying that the Saudis were fed up with the Obama Administration. So he voices the Saudis' anger and disappointment with a U.S. government that fails to fight against revolutionary Islamism and protect the Saudis from Iran.

I've been writing about this split for two years and now it has happened. The thing is that the Saudis are right and Obama is wrong.  The Obama Administration helped overthrow the Egyptian regime and was ready to help bring down the government in Bahrain. The Saudis have had enough. The Jordanians would do the same if they could, as would Israel.

And there are plenty of countries in South America, Central Europe, and Asia that also feel this U.S. government has let them down.

Wasn't this the U.S. government that was going to win over the Muslims, make the Arabs love America, and make the United States popular again?

Saudi Arabia has plenty of shortcomings. It won't even let women drive! But at least it won't let Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood get in the region's driver's seat.

Saudi Arabia, Gulf States: Iran Is Attacking Us; Obama Administration: Excuses, Excuses!

This article was published in PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

How sadly ironic. A few years ago, the two previous U.S. presidents were trying to get Gulf Arab states to do more to foster an Arab-Israeli peace settlement and to stand up against Iran. They didn't respond very much. Now they are ready for the battle and the current U.S. government is at best neutral and at worst on the other side!

In an unprecedented statement, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) has condemned Iran for trying to overthrow them. Tehran has been at it since 1979 but this is the first time that these countries have been so bold.

Why? Because the assault--especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia--has never been so blatant and threatening.

Among the terms used in the statement about Iran were:

"flagrant interference," destabilizing their countries, "deeply worried about continuing Iranian meddling," "violating the[ir] sovereignty," "irresponsible," and "Iran's interference in Bahrain's internal affairs, in violation of international conventions and rules of good neighbourliness."

Meanwhile, Iran is threatening Saudi Arabia, which the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee said, "should know it's better not to play with fire in the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf."

The Saudi government responded that this was an "irresponsible" statement containing "void allegations and blatant offense against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." And, said the Saudi version of parliament, Iran's position "fuels sectarianism," a codeword for pitting Shias against Sunni Muslims. Iran must "stop these hostile policies and respect the rules of good neighbourliness ... so as to preserve the security and stability in this region which is key for the entire world."

The GCC's secretary-general, Abdullatif al-Zayani, the condemned "Iran's meddling in the internal affairs of GCC countries" that "threatened security and stability in the region."

Where is U.S. policy in all of this? Nowhere at all. It is not siding with the GCC. At best, the United States is neutral between the two sides. Such a position is a terrible mistake. The new development is that the U.S. government has stopped criticizing Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. But it hasn't started helping them.

If Washington doesn't support the GCC against Iran, who will? And the expansion of Iranian influence--on the eve of Tehran getting nuclear weapons--is catastrophic for U.S. interests.

Why Moderate Arabs Are Horrified at Obama Administration Policy

Please be subscriber 21,776 (daily reader 38,776). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. 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 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

I've seen a lot in media expressing the views of the Gulf Arab states and officials' statements--not all of them public, and not to mention similar expressions from Turkish and Iranian oppositionists--expressing horror and shock at Obama Administration Middle East policy. Remember, al-Jazira is NOT typical, as it is run by Islamists and follows the pro-Iran line of its owner, the Qatari government.

In this article in al-Sharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI), a Saudi-controlled but also relatively liberal newspaper, Tariq al-Homayed, the chief editor, expresses the combination of shock and horror at the Obama Administration. The conflict was hot over Egypt and even hotter over Bahrain, where the Saudis want the current regime to survive and U.S. officials have criticized Saudi intervention.

Indeed, he complains, the statements coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
sound "more like what we'd expect to hear from the Iranian foreign minister." The "contradictory statements coming out of Washington have become more than merely perplexing; they are also suspicious."

Why suspicious? Because it isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it, more interested in containing Iran or letting Tehran's influence spread, supporting moderate Arab countries or overthrowing their regimes.

The editor accuses U.S. policy of ignoring Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen and Iranian statements claiming Bahrain. (Reminds me of how Iraq used to claim Kuwait and that was ignored until 1990, when Iraq invaded and annexed that country.)

How, he asks, can U.S. policymakers complain when the Gulf Cooperation Council states intervene in Bahrain--according to previous agreements--and then demanding that these countries support intervention in Libya?


Israel could now say to Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and several other Arab governments (plus the Iranian and Turkish oppositions): Welcome to our world.
 
The fears of relatively moderate Arabs (and Turks and Iranians) that they are getting thrown under bus are not merely imaginery at all. For example, the New York Times had an article March 17 with the following headline:

"Interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."

Now, of course, one understands what this means in linguistic terms. Yet the headline is amazingly revealing. Yes, the Saudis, not the United States, are now carrying on the main battle against the spread of Iranian influence and revolutionary Islamism. Of course, they cannot sustain this burden long without U.S. support.

Which raises the question: What's the United States doing in the "middle" between Iran and Saudi Arabia! It should be backing the Saudis against Iran. Indeed, it should be leading the anti-Islamist coalition!

To be fair, the Obama Administration is putting early-warning stations into Saudi Arabia for the day when Iran has nuclear-tipped missiles. The Reagan Doctrine (is that still in force?) commits the United States to protect Saudi Arabia from an overt Iranian military attack.

Yet the headline is true. The current U.S. government is essentially neutral between the two sides. Sort of like a headline from 1941 reading, "Interests of Nazi Germany and Britain Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."

Saudi Arabia isn't exactly like Britain under Winston Churchill but it is now on the front-line against the greatest threat of our time. U.S. policy already mishandled Iran in the 1970s and, more recently, the Obama Administration has watched Lebanon fall, Turkey's government change sides, and Egypt jump ship.

Already a headline would be accurate that read: "Interests of Palestinians and Israel Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."

Or how about: "Interests of Venezuela and Moderate Latin American States Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."

Or: "Interests of Russia and Central Europe Collide, With the U.S. in the Middle."

Yes, with this administration being in the "middle" is the best-case analysis. At worst, it's on the wrong side altogether.

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 latest books are 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

New York Times Picks Saudi Prince As a Liberal Reformer. There's Just One Problem...

With its usual deftness in choosing op-ed contributors, the New York Times has given its readers, “A Saudi Prince’s Plea for Reform by AlWaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

He is held up, thusly, to all New York Times readers as a noble democratic reformer, the kind of person we would like to overthrow dictatorships and take over countries, right?

The Times does not, of course, remind its readers that this is the very prince who offered to pay New York City a lot of money to help it rebuild after the September 11 attacks. Oh, there was one condition put on the aid by this democratic hero of a prince:  Mayor Rudy Giuliani had to condemn Israel in order to get the cash.

Now there's a guy who understands democracy, right?

PS: I thought about making a joke in which the prince offers to let the Times publish his oped only if it bashed Israel first but then I realized...(you finish the sentence). 

Iranian Warships Send Message: Tehran Now Number-One Muslim Power in Region

By Barry Rubin

It is common today to speak of the U.S. overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as having unintentionally made revolutionary Islamist Iran from more powerful. Will the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Husni Mubarak have a similar effect?

Here's something that might be a sign in that direction. Two Islamic Republic of Iran warships just visited the Saudi port of Jeddah in the Red Sea. No, that wasn't a misprint, I said "Red Sea," and not "Persian Gulf." This is the first time Iranian warships have been in the Red Sea, just down the coast from Israel and just across from Egypt.

Not only is this a strategic alarm bell for the United States and Israel but also for the Saudis themselves. Bereft now of their last significant Arab ally and feeling unable to depend on the United States, the Saudis are facing their worst strategic situation since the 1950s at a time when Iran is spreading its influence and racing toward nuclear weapons.

But that's not the only kind of weapon Iran is getting. It just sank a floating target with a new missile having a 250-300 km. range with high accuracy. Called, rather significantly, "Persian Gulf" (Khalij Fars), it has a sophisticated guidance system, is based on Chinese versions, and operated by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corp (IRGC).


Defense News explains: "The implications for the U.S. Navy are serious....Iran could potentially track U.S. Navy carrier groups at long distances [and] try to target [them] without early warning. It also means that the U.S. Navy cannot consider the [Persian]Gulf as safe....

Nor the Red Sea either.









Gradually but steadily, the Iranian regime is building up its power, even aside from nuclear weapons. Though it might take many years, one day--through Iranian miscalculation or hubris--there might be a U.S.-Iran war in the Persian Gulf.






"

Saudis Rebel Against U.S. Egypt Policy--Out of Self-Preservation

By Barry Rubin

The Saudi offer to subsidize Egypt's President Husni Mubarak if the U.S. government tries to pressure him by cutting aid calls to our attention still another inept flub of the Obama Administration.

Obviously, before demanding the regime go away, the White House did not consult with American allies on their views, and certainly didn't consider the impact on them. Aside from their sense of honor, the Saudis know that people view Egypt as a precedent for their country.

If Mubarak is humiliated today, the Saudi king can be humiliated tomorrow. If a radical regime takes power in Egypt today, it will be one more threat to Saudi Arabia that the Americans did not protect them from. Now the Saudis have rebelled against Obama's policy.

It's remarkable how effective he has been at demolishing the entire structure of U.S. influence, deterrence, and credibility in the Middle East. I certainly don't think any of this was on purpose. But the incompetence is at such a high level that it is understandable why some think otherwise. And that in itself tells you how bad things are.

Iran's New Foreign Minister Tells Us His Number-One Target: Getting the Saudis to Bow Down

Please be subscriber 18,081 (and daily reader 20,081.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

What is the highest priority for Iranian foreign policy--I mean the official and public foreign policy, not spreading revolution and terrorism--today? According to the new foreign minister it's developing strong relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Ali Akbar Salehi, who by the way holds a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), explained this in his first speech as foreign minister. His last job was running Iran's nuclear program. "Saudi Arabia deserves to have special political ties with Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia," says Salehi, "as two effective countries in the Islamic world, can resolve many problems together."

The means of  persuasion are indicated by Salehi's former job. Perhaps he can tell a few anecdotes about the nuclear program [warning: satire]:  "When I was busy getting our nuclear weapons ready--I told you we will have nuclear weapons soon, right?"

He will tell the Saudis that the United States cannot and will not protect them so they better accept the new era of a nuclear Iran and play ball with Tehran. Remember, as we know from Wikileaks, what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told India's leaders when he visited that country: Iran is getting stronger; America, under Obama, is getting weaker.

The Saudis, who aren't stupid, won't really submit to Iran but they will hedge their bets. After all, the United States isn't keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and isn't countering the spread of Iranian influence in the region.

One can imagine the dialogue taking place in Saudi palaces [warning: more satire]:

Prince A: "That President Obama is a really nice guy! He likes us. He sort of bowed to our king. He says nice things about Islam. He just appointed a Muslim to head NASA."

Prince B: "Yes, and that President Ahmadinejad is not a nice guy. He won't hesitate to trample on us if we cross him. He will send terrorists to assassinate us and to blow up oilfields. Soon he will have nuclear arms and nobody will stand up to him. The Americans can't stop him from getting these weapons. They are afraid to attack him, as we asked them to do. They keep apologizing about past uses of force. They are pulling out of Iraq. They didn't help us save Lebanon from Iran and Syria. They let the Shah fall, ran from Somalia, left Vietnam. Shall I go on?"

Prince A: "Yes, I see what you mean. So what should we do?"

Prince B: "Well, we can start by getting Ahmadinejad a really really nice birthday present, say, the Persian Gulf."

Prince A: "Persian Gulf? Don't you mean the Arab Gulf?"

Prince B: "Not any more!"

Note: If you are wondering and want to get in good with Iranian leaders with a nice greeting card, reemember that Ahmadinejad's birthday is October 28. Supreme Guide Ali Khamanei's is July 17.

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 latest books are 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Saudi Arabia: $60 Billion for U.S. Arms; $30 Million for Palestinians; Nothing for U.S. Policy Goals

Please be subscriber 17,409. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The United States is building up the defenses of Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, for the day that Iran has nuclear weapons. This program has two purposes: to make the local states feel more confident about resisting Tehran and relying on the United States. It also brings a lot of revenue into the faltering U.S. economy. The companies involved say this will provide more than 70,000 jobs.

This particular deal sets a record at $60 billion just for starters. Saudi Arabia will be buying 84 F-15 fighter jets; upgrades for 70 F-15s; and more than 150 helicopters including Black Hawks and Apaches sent over a number of years. Ships and anti-missile defenses may be added later.

Israel’s concern about such a massive strengthening of the Saudi air force is mitigated by getting its own new planes, the F-35, and knowing that short of an Islamist revolution in Saudi Arabia, the American-supplied aircraft won’t be a threat to itself.

The U.S. sale seems reasonable both in military and strategic terms. One should add, however, that the Saudis are never going to be able to defend themselves against Iran, just as they weren’t able to do so against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.

Everything depends on how scared Riyadh is by Iran and how confident it is in the willingness of President Barack Obama to act decisively in its defense. Here is one weak spot in the U.S. strategy. The other is the failure to understand—or at least to respond effectively—to Iran’s campaign of ideological, terrorist, and financial subversion toward other countries in the region.

If one is looking for an omen about these problems, it can be found in the U.S. inability to get the Gulf Arabs to support U.S. policies. Supposedly, Arab devotion to the Palestinian cause is a major factor in the Middle East. But U.S. officials had to beg the United Arab Emirates to donate a paltry $42 million—an amount, one might suggest jokingly, equivalent to the royal families’ expense account for lunches—to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

So don’t get carried away by this latest “generosity.” In 2009, the UAE gave the PA a mere $173.9 million. So far this year, the UAE has provided…$42 million.

Arab state contributions to the PA, never high, are plummeting. During an average year, the total donation of all Arab states and institutions combined to the PA has tended to be about one-eighth that of the United States alone. The Saudis have been particularly unwilling to give. Between January and August 2009, they sent $241.1 million—not serious money by Saudi standards.

So far in 2010? A grand total of $30.6 million.

To put this in perspective, following the Gaza flotilla episode alone, Obama pledged an additional $400 million in U.S. aid for the PA. American taxpayers have to make up for the money not paid by oil-rich Arab governments.

This situation can be taken as a measure of Obama’s ability to get Arab states--after all of his flattery for Arabs in general and Saudis in particular, expressed sympathy for Islam and the Palestinians; and distancing from Israel—to get their support. The U.S. government can give and sell, but can it get? Apparently, no.

Of course, the Saudis are going to spend a lot more on defense than in foreign aid. The United States does that also. But what does this story reveal:

--Lack of Saudi and Gulf Arab interest in actually helping the Palestinians, rather than using them to bash Israel and the West, demand concessions from the West, mobilize people to support the regime, and distract their subjects' attention from conditions at home.

--Belief that they can get the West to subsidize the Palestinians and Israel to make all the concessions.

--Inability of the U.S. government to use its leverage to get Arab regimes to do anything, even when those regimes depend on it for survival. The U.S. government has no credible determination or toughness to get Arab rulers to listen to its concerns.

--At the same time, it points to how badly the Arab regimes (with some exceptions, Syria, Libya) need U.S. backing to survive.

Incidentally, even aside from everything else the Gulf Arabs should be doing more to help the PA because it is in their own interest to ensure that the PA wins out over Hamas. Otherwise, Iranian-Syrian-revolutionary Islamist influence will spread even further and endanger the Gulf Arabs' survival.

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 latest books are 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

What Really Happened on the Mavi Marmara and Some Revealing Events in the Middle East Today

Please be subscriber 16,899. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

I. Saudi and Arab Leaders Want Obama to Rescue Them, Not Flatter Them

A UPI dispatch reports:

"A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, `All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won't work.'"

Now there are few former Arab leaders--they usually stay leader until health or a bullet makes them no longer available for interviews--but this sounds precisely like Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, former Saudi ambassador to the United States.

This is an accurate reading of what's going on in most Arabic-speaking states (obviously not Syria and another de facto country called the Gaza Strip). It runs quite contrary to the dominant Western view that the Arabs-will-love-us-if-we-bash-Israel-and-show-we-think-Muslims-invented-mathematics-and-don't-want-to-be-aggressive-or-use-force-against-anyone school.

Well, the Prince who used to be known as ambassador was basically expressing this sentiment (note 1):

"If there's something strange
in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?"
(note 2)

The "Zionist entity"?

One can almost imagine the Saudi king's memo book:

Monday: Bash Israel
Tuesday: Israel destroys Iran nuclear facilities. Whew!
Wednesday: Bash Israel 

2. U.S. Government Cannot Find Evidence That Flotilla Organizer is Terrorist, Germany Can

Not only are the Saudis ahead of the U.S. government, so is Germany. In an earlier article I provided proof--including U.S. court records--that the Turkish IHH, organizer of the flotilla and a Hamas ally--was linked to terrorism. Now Germany has banned the group from raising money for that very reason.  So might one expect that observers reevaluate the flotilla? And I'm not talking about the good intentions of the European participants but the fact that they were being used for a pro-terrorist public relations' operation.

The German statement says:

"The IHH [is] supporting organizations specifically under the control of Hamas or support Hamas. Hamas is, as noted also by the Federal Administrative Court in its Al-Aqsa 2004 decision, a unified structure in which social activities can not be separated from the terrorist and political action organization....

"Organizations that operate directly or indirectly, from German soil against the existence of the State of Israel, have forfeited their right to exist as a recognited organization."

While the government statement said that the IHH in Germany is not part of the IHH in Turkey,  sources tell me that despite the formal independence of the group in Germany it is for all practical purposes a branch of the IHH-Turkey. This point was also made on the German Television One program whose transcript I published last month.

Here's another tip: Israel has now dropped all limits on imports except the restrictions on weapons and dual-use military items. Nevertheless, more ships are being organized and sent off. So again this is not a humanitarian operation but one to support a revolutionary Islamist, client of Iran, genocide-intended, terrorist state on the Mediterranean that oppresses women, seeks to subvert moderate Arab governments, and expels Christians.

There is also a deliberate design to persuade the world that there is some terrible suffering in Gaza and a humanitarian crisis which is belied by photos from there on a regular basis. It is part of the war to destroy Israel and bring revolutionary Islamists to power. And the good will or naivete of many participants in this effort has nothing to do with that reality and no effect on it.

3. What Really Happened on the Mavi Marmara ship

A new Israeli army report is fascinating in its details on the flotilla operation, including the fact that three soldiers were taken hostage and taken to a lower deck, two escaped by jumping into the sea, and the third was too injured to do so. Thus, the need for a rescue raid using force. Lots of other new material.

There was also a real mistake. The navy disregarded intelligence and reports from others that the militants would use violence if the soldiers went on board.

Giora Eiland, former national security advisor, summarized his report as follows:

"We found some professional mistakes that were made, however there were also positive aspects. Specifically, the manner in which the Israeli commandos behaved, the decisions that they made and the way in which they took control of the ship. There were at least 4 incidents where Mavi Marmara passengers shot at IDF soldiers. There is good reason to believe that the first incident of live fire shooting on the ship was by passengers of the Mavi Marmara. The classified suggestions that I made were accepted in an open and willing manner by the officers who received them."

Preparing to attack the soldiers, the terrorists took over the ship and ignored the orders of the captain to stop what they were doing.

The first three Israeli soldiers to arrive on deck were taken hostage forced to the lowest deck at the ship's bow. During the rescue attempt, two jumped into the water and were picked up by Israeli navy boats. The third was too badly hurt to escape but was saved by the rescue forces.


The kidnapping of the soldiers led to the fighting in which nine militants were killed. People killed after attacking and kidnapping soldiers aren't innocent bystanders.

On at least four occasions and perhaps six, passengers shot at Israeli soldiers. Shell casings were found and one soldier was wounded in the knee by weapons that the soldiers did not possess.

The only mistake made was not to use different boarding tactics based on the assumption that the militants would attack. There was no guarantee that this would have resulted in fewer casualties. Eiland concluded that without boarding the ship there was no alterntive way of stopping it.

Incidentally, Eiland specifically said that while he found mistakes he did not conclude that the operation had failed.



So what are the headlines? Israel Says At Least Four Flottila Members Fired at Soldiers?

Of course not!:

Israel military faulted over flotilla raid (AFP)

Israel report blames flawed planning for Gaza raid (AP)

Israel failed in ship interception planning: reports (Reuters)

But here's a critical point everyone has missed. Suppose the navy had planned for a violent resistance. The soldiers would have been more aggressive, perhaps crowd control gas would have been laid down first and they would have been ready to fight. Given the terrorists' determination, more people might have been killed and Israel would have looked more aggressive.

In other words, if the operation had been a "total success" Israel would have looked worse, kidnapping attempts--even if temporary--would have failed, and no Israeli soldiers (instead of nine) would have been wounded.

This is an important reminder. The goal of a military operation is to minimize your own casualties and eliminate--by incapacitating or killing--those who are fighting you. A military success would have been even worse in international terms. Think of that the next time you see Israel judged in such matters, given the complaints from abroad that not enough Israelis are killed when the army fights Hizballah and Hamas.

4. PA Leader Says No Direct Talks, Throws Pie in Obama's Face

Mahmoud Abbas said it would be pointless to engage in direct negotiations with Israel. President Barck Obama says he wants direct negotiations. Oh, no! PA leader, recipient of massive U.S. aid, thwarts will of president. U.S. media rage at extremism, intransigence, ingratitude, proof that Palestinian leaders don't want peace? Palestinian-Americans undergo crisis of conscience; write letters to editor beginning, "As a Palestinian I cannot approve the actions of...: form anti-Palestinian lobby called A Street? President criticizes publicly, puts on major pressure, supports the other side?

No, we're talking about the PA, not Israel.

5. Um, Hasn't that happened?

Lead of Los Angeles Times article:

"Pressure intensified for a resumption of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on Sunday, but Palestinian leaders continued to insist that Israel first freeze settlement construction in the West Bank."

Memo to PA: When coming up with excuses for refusing to negotiate peace with Israel you should stick to things that might actually hold up if journalists really thought through what they write on the subject.

Example 2, Financial Times:

"The question facing Mr. Netanyahu now is whether his success in Washington also offers a fresh start back home."

Right, Netanyahu needs Obama's approval to be popular at home? Um, he's far more popular in Israel than Obama is in the United States. (In a few months, the way the president's public approval at home is going Netanyahu might be more popular in the United States than Obama.)


Example 3: New York Times editorial

"Nearly six weeks later, Turkey and Israel are still stoking anger over the disastrous Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship. ... The Obama administration has been trying to help."

Right, Israel is just criticizing Turkey every day and, who knows, may threaten to break relations! (It's the other way around, dude.


6. Military Force at Work

"The U.N. Security Council strongly deplored on Friday recent confrontations between south Lebanese villagers and U.N. peacekeepers in the area and called for the troops to be allowed to do their work.

"Last week villagers seized weapons from French troops in the UNIFIL force and wounded their patrol leader."

So do we need another UN military force to protect the UNIFIL soldiers from the villagers? Obviously, they aren't going to confront Hizballah or stop it from a build-up in south Lebanon or an attack on Israel.

Of course, the villagers are acting on Hizballh orders. Let's see, Hizballah agents attack UN soldiers. Hizballah condemned, sanctions, support for other side? Oh, right, still not Israel. They're only terrorists so no reason to be angry at them. In fact, the (ex) CNN Arab affairs editor and the British ambassador to Lebanon finds them thoroughly admirable and all sorts of people want to engage them diplomatically.

You don't need to have a good sense of humor to be a Middle East analyst. It's easy to develop one along the way.


Note 1: Reference is to Prince, the nom-de-rock of the singer/songwriter. He said he wanted to be known as the artist formerly known as prince.

Note 2: Song, "Ghostbusters" from film of the same name.

The Saudi Foreign Minister Explains the New Middle East

Seeking subscriber 9,468. Join up now

By Barry Rubin

Here's today's evidence that we are now living in Middle East 2.0 instead of the old version.

First, a definition:

Middle East 1.0: Characterized by Arab nationalist domination, competition among the strongerArab states to lead the region and by the weaker ones trying to survive those campaigns. Arab-Israeli conflict is a real enterprise. Roughly 1952-2000 or so. International aspect: Cold War competition between the United States and USSR and, near the end, US as sole superpower.

Middle East 2.0: Characterized by a battle between Arab nationalist regimes and revolutionary Islamists. An Iran-led bloc (Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents) seeking regional hegemony. Israel and most Arab states have parallel interests; Arab states (except for Syria) put low priority on conflict. International aspect: Will the West support the moderates or appease the radicals.

The latest occasion is an interview of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Of course, there are the usual rhetorical flourishes about Israel but the passion and focus is clearly on Iran and various Islamist terrorists. (“There is nothing wrong with keeping the terrorists on the run,” says the prince.)

This is the same man who told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that sanctions would be too slow in stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the United States better do something quick. Here he says he prefers a resolution through the UN but it isn't clear what that means.

It's funny that in the West the region is being discussed, written about, and taught as if we were back in the 1970s. There is a particular obsession with the idea that everything is about the Arab-Israeli conflict. But if the Saudis talk like this publicly (you can imagine what they say privately) it's a sign of how changed everything is in Middle East 2.0's world.

Read this carefully. The prince says:

“There are no troops arrayed on the border of Israel waiting for the moment to say, ‘Attack Israel. Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace. But they didn’t accept that. So it makes one wonder, what does Israel want?”


Now you can take this as propaganda, and of course Israel does have a lot to worry about: Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Arab countries being overthrown by Islamist warmongers, nuclear weapons, terrorism, and agreeing to a Palestinian state that then begins phase two of an effort to destroy Israel. It also needs agreement that any peace treaty permanently end the conflict, that Palestinian refugees be resettled in Palestine, that a Palestinian state is really going to block cross-border raids, and that foreign armies (notably those of Iran and Syria) aren't going to enter the West Bank.

Even Dowd, not known as being sympathetic to Israel, understands some of this  and makes the remarkable statement: "If anyone deserves to be paranoid, of course, it’s Israel. But Israel can’t be paranoid because paranoia is the mistaken perception that people are out to get you."

But Faisal isn't just trying to score points. He is trying to get across the point that Saudi Arabia's government doesn't want a war with Israel and prefers the conflict to go away. It can't and won't make a formal peace but the Saudis certainly don't think the way they did decades ago.

And when Faisal talks about “no troops arrayed on the border....Nobody is going to fight them and threaten their peace," how does that look if one substitutes Saudi Arabia for Israel? The Saudis and other Gulf Arab states (along with Lebanon and Iraq) are now on the front line and under threat more than Israel is right now. Faisal knows it and so should we all.

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 latest books are 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). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.








   

The Saudi Regime is Flooded with Problems, Some of which It Can’t buy off

[Please subscribe. Save time, get a single daily digest of Rubin Reports' articles]

By Barry Rubin

Four years ago, in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, I wrote about an American-educated Saudi building contractor named Hussein Shobokshi. He had written an article warning that the infrastructure of Saudi cities was so poorly designed that there was tremendous danger of a massive flood which would cause great destruction.

Why? Because corrupt government officials had done a bad job but they went unpunished and their bad work unrepaired because of their royal family connections. 

In another August 2003 article in a Saudi newspaper, Shobokshi related a bedtime story he told his seven-year-old daughter about his dream that Saudi Arabia would one day be a country where she would be able to drive and be a lawyer; where there are elections and human rights’ conferences, female cabinet ministers, and mosques hold educational classes that discuss religion freely. In response, he received some praise but more death threats.

The government did respond to his complaints and criticisms. Despite the fact that he was a major stockholder of the newspaper, his column was permanently cancelled.

And now, guess what? Under similar conditions there was a flood in the city of Jiddah. The incomplete death toll now stands at 113.

The Saudi government has responded by forming a committee, which formed sub-committees, which planned their agenda, which will some day supposedly lead to the issuing of recommendations.

One of the sycophantic Saudi newspapers put it this way:

“The King’s historic order to determine the real cause of the disaster and who or what was responsible for it has been widely welcomed by the public, Prince Khaled said. “It was a great gesture from the King that has resulted in widespread public appreciation and positive feelings,” he said.

With years of praise for allegedly making reforms by various Western researchers, British refusal to investigate Saudi bribes to UK defense contractors and the near-appointment of an American who was virtually on the Saudi payroll to manage U.S. Middle East intelligence, the Saudi regime continue to remain rather under-criticized. The previous president of the United States was also quite friendly toward Saudi regime interests. study undertaken in part by a Georgetown University research center which received funding from Saudi royals has recently declared the Saudi king to be the world's most important Muslim.



The reason, of course, is that Saudi money  buys a lot of friends and a great deal of silence.

The regime could have listened to Shobokshi and other Saudi liberals years ago and prevented the need to hold these investigations into why a flood did so much damage. It certainly has the money to fix anything wrong within the kingdom.

Ironically, though, the Saudis have now run up against a force that cannot be bought off so easily: Iran. They are very nervous about the likelihood that the United States won’t protect them against Tehran, as well as its Syrian ally. They are going to have to cut their own deal in that direction.

This is, then, the worst of both worlds: the Saudis get away with all too much domestic corruption and repression, coupled with spreading corruption and Islamism abroad. Yet when they really do deserve real Western support against a genuine threat from something worse, they can’t get it.

Irony roosts in the Middle East

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 latest books are 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Iran and Syria Are Up; Egypt and Saudi Arabia Are Down. And this is Israel’s Fault?

[Please subscribe. My reward is your finding my articles useful and worth reading]

By Barry Rubin

The Aztecs of Mexico believed that if they didn't sacrifice human victims each day the sun wouldn't come up the next morning. This seems to be the principle governing how Western elites blame Israel for everything that goes on in the Middle East and propose as a remedy even more U.S. concessions.

A remarkable example is how the New York Times tries to explain what is in fact a very important development in the region in an article entitled, “Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades.” Wow! I could have told you that back in 2000.

But why has it faded? Could it be because of such long-term problems as these regimes' corruption, incompetence, rejection of reform, and inability to break from radical stances? Could it be that the fact that these regimes keep feeding anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, militant interpretations of Islam, and extremism generally rebound against them?

 And might it be that radical forces—like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah—have shown, with help from the United States and Europe, that hardline positions and violence pay?

Could it possibly be, in the shorter term, that the apologies, concessions, and refusal to confront the extremist Islamists have emboldened them and demoralized the relative moderates?

No. Guess who is blamed?

“With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.”

These experts have obviously not been following the news. Seems to me that Israel did agree to freeze building on settlements (the word “settlement-building” implies Israel is building more settlements and expanding existing ones which isn’t true). Remember that speech Secretary of State Hilary Clinton just made in Jerusalem praising this concession?

Oh, that’s supposedly part of the problem also.

The great promise of President Obama’s June speech in Cairo, officials and political commentators said, was severely damaged when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her recent trip to the Middle East, praised as “unprecedented” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to slow the building of settlements. That left the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt — the two regional American allies most committed to negotiating with Israel — exposed, embarrassed and weakened, [Egyptian] political analysts and government officials said.

So let me get this straight. Really! If Israel doesn’t freeze construction on settlements, that’s bad. But if Israel does freeze construction on settlements and the U.S. government praises this concession, well that’s bad, too.

I guess the only thing Israel could do right in these people’s eyes is to disappear off the map entirely. Oh? Yes, I guess so.

But seriously, the problem isn’t that the Obama Administration is too soft on Israel but that it is too soft on, well, let’s let the Times explain it:

“[Egypt and Saudi Arabia] have been challenged by Iran, opposed by much smaller Arab neighbors, mocked by Syria and defied by influential non-state groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Yes, these are the enemy. They are the enemy of almost all the Arab states, they are the enemy of Israel, they are the enemy of America, and they’re even the enemy of Europe. If the United States doesn’t work against the Iran-led bloc, they are going to challenge, oppose, mock and defy everyone else in the region plus the West.

And those whom they challenge, oppose, mock, and defy are going to lose influence and lose heart.

So, let’s see now, might the following have something to do with the decline of Egyptian-Saudi influence:

--Hamas takes over the Gaza Strip, attacks Israel, world stands by and eventually boos Israel.

--Iran develops nuclear weapons. West offers engagement and seems afraid even to increase sanctions.

--Iran and Syria kill American soldiers in Iraq. The United States looks the other way.

--Palestinian Authority rebuffs U.S. calls to come to negotiating table and not to push the Goldstone report at the UN. (Notice only Israel does the “rebuffing” and the Times can never bring itself to allow criticism of the Palestinian leadership.)

--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan rebuff U.S. calls to make some concession to Israel in exchange of freeze.

--U.S. and European governments don’t back moderate March 14 coalition in Lebanon so it has to give in to Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.

And these are just the highlights! Is this really all so hard to understand? And why is the establishment’s answer to bad mistakes in U.S. Middle East policy usually the demand that it make even worse ones?

Heed the words of William Shakespeare in "Henry V":

"In Peace, there's nothing so becomes a man,

As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of War blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the Tiger."

The problem is that the United States has been teaching friend and foe alike, lately, that it is a paper tiger. No wonder, then, that its foes prosper and its friends tremble.

Update: Now the Associated Press has published its article also claiming the only reason the radicals are gaining ground is because the peace process isn't advancing!

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 latest books are 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Key Saudi Prince Injured in Terror Attack: Shaking Up the Kingdom

By Barry Rubin

Of Saudi Arabia it has been said that a bird doesn’t move without the royal family’s permission. That a suicide bomber was able to get close enough to wound the Saudi Assistant Interior Minister Prince Muhammad bin Nayef is a very worrisome development that will shake up the kingdom.

This is not just anybody nor even just any Saudi prince but the man whose father leads the regime’s intelligence and counterterrorist operations, and who himself plays an important role in this campaign. The government knew he was a high-priority target and provided the best security possible. The—presumably al-Qaida linked—terrorists knew it also and thus calculated that making such a hit would show their strength and effectiveness.

As a traditional tribal leadership, Saudi royals frequently hold open meetings, secure in their forces’ tight security control. The terrorist was thus able to approach closely, though the prince was not seriously wounded and no one was killed.

But this is a message: the insurgency against the Saudi regime is not dead, despite many arrests and executions. It is also a reminder that Saudi security can be pretty lax, as has been seen in past attacks where seemingly secure areas were penetrated by terrorists.

The likely response is an escalated campaign against terrorists combined with an increased measure of caution regarding the kind of initiatives which might anger domestic opinion and spur more people to join the insurgents. Like what? Like cooperating with the United States or taking any steps toward peace with Israel.

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 latest books are 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Saudis Make Fun of Obama Middle East Policy; Administration, Media, Pretend Not to Notice

By Barry Rubin

Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal is visiting Washington. He praised the Obama administration and then hammered nails into the coffin of its Middle East policy. There was nothing subtle about the Saudi response.

For the first time, a non-radical Arab regime—that is, one nominally allied with the United States—has openly ridiculed the U.S. government’s new policy. Naturally, the prince was full of praise for the Obama administration, in general. In specific, he did the opposite.

Consider this statement by the foreign minister-prince:

"Today, Israel is trying to distract by shifting attention from the core issue -- an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state-- to incidental issues such as academic concerns and civil aviation methods. This is not the way to peace."

But wait a minute! These weren’t Israeli ideas, this was the American plan. So the Saudis point 1 was: Forget about it, Obama.

Point 2 was, of course, the very trap the administration set for itself. The Arabs want Israel to agree to withdraw from the entire West Bank, Golan Heights, and east Jerusalem. Then they want it to accept a Palestinian state. Then they want it to agree to take in millions of Palestinian refugees.

At that point, they’ll talk about what they’ll do in exchange. This is, after all, the Saudi peace plan that everyone tries to make sound more moderate by leaving out all of the details.

Point 3 is that the parties should go to an immediate comprehensive agreement based on those prior Israeli concessions.

This last point has its amusing side. In 2000, Arab states and the Palestinian Authority pushed for a total, comprehensive agreement as fast as possible. So the U.S. president held a meeting in Switzerland with his Syrian counterpart, and a negotiating conference with the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David. In both cases, the Arab side refused to give any ground whatsoever.

[Oh, and prediction: Even if Israel withdrew from all the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and Golan Heights; agreed to a Palestinian state; and accepted back any Palestinian who wanted to live there, the Saudis still wouldn't permit Israeli airliners to overfly their kingdom and foster academic exchanges.]

The Bush administration, advised by President Bill Clinton who was a victim of that 1990s' peace process, learned something: the Arabs are not so eager to make peace. The Obama administration thought this was just more Bush evil mischief. Now it is starting to learn otherwise.

But what about Saudi help on pressing Iran? Predictable, privately they will demand the United States save them, practically and publicly they will do nothing constructive.

What about Saudi help in stabilizing Iraq? The regime will continue to look the other way as wealthy, well-connected Saudis send money and dispatch Sunni men to fight against the Shia-Kurdish regime there.
All of this was obvious on January 20, 2009. More than six months have been wasted. Claiming to have hit the ground running, the Obama administration hit the ground fumbling.

New publications

Two new books have been published:

1. Barry Rubin, editor, Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East is in my Middle East Military Studies series from Routledge.  There are a lot of good studies in the book of recent wars in the region (of which there are all too many) by an international cast of authors. See table of contents at the end. To order

2. Barry Rubin, editor, Lebanon Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis is published by Palgrave-Macmillan and is very timely examining the modern history, politics, culture, and international relations of Lebanon See table of contents at end.  To order

Inquiries about review copies and publicity materials welcomed.

Also you can read my article Barry Rubin, "U.S. Middle East Policy: Too Many Challenges and Yet a Single Theme," in the 2009/II issue of Orient, pp. 4-12.

Details.

1. CONFLICT AND INSURGENCY IN THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST

Barry Rubin, editor

Chapter 1: Barry Rubin, “What Do Middle Eastern Armies Do?”
Chapter 2 Norvell B. DeAtkine, “Why Arab Armies Lose Wars but Defeat Insurgencies”
Chapter 3 Joana Dodds and Benjamin Wilson, “The Iran-Iraq War: Will Without Means”
Chapter 4: Hassan Mneimneh, “The Lessons of the Jihadist Insurgency in Saudi Arabia”
Chapter 5: Barry Rubin, “Egypt’s Civil War”
Chapter 6: Boaz Ganor, “Terrorism as a Military Factor: the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Era, 1993-2000”
Chapter 7: Jonathan Spyer, “Lebanon 2006: Unfinished War”
Chapter 8 Antoine Badran “Lebanon’s Militia Wars”
Chapter 9: Lester Grau, “The Soviet-Afghan War: A Superpower Mired in the Mountains”
Chapter 10: Jacob Mundy, “The Morocco-Polisario War for Western Sahara, 1975-1991”
Chapter 11: Yahia Zoubir, “Islamism and Insurgency in Post-Independence Algeria”
Chapter 12: William McCallister, “Iraq and U.S. Military Doctrine”
Chapter 13: James Russell, “Innovation and War: The U.S. Military and the Iraq Insurgency”


2. Barry Rubin, editor, Lebanon Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis

Chapter 1: William Harris, “Reflections on Lebanon”
Chapter 2 : Eli Fawuz, “What Makes Lebanon a Distinctive Country?”
Chapter 3 : Tony Badran, “Lebanon’s Militia WarsMilitary Conflicts in Lebanese Politics
Chapter 4: William Harris, “Lebanon’s Roller Coaster Ride”
Chapter 5: Mark Farha, “Demographic Dilemmasy and Democracy in Lebanon”
Chapter 6 : Charles Freund, “Lebanon’s Culture: Popular Music as a Case Study
Chapter 7: Nimrod Raphaeli, “Lebanon’s Economy between Violence and Political Stalemate
Chapter 8: Gary Gambill, “Islamists Groups in Lebanon: A Survey
Chapter 9: Eyal Zisser, “Hizballah’s Strategy: Islamist Revolutionary or Arab Nationalist Patriot Hizballah in Lebanon: Between Tehran and Beirut, between the Struggle with Israel, and the Struggle for Lebanon”
Chapter 10: Omri Nir, Lebanese Shi’a as a Political Community
Chapter 11: Jonathan Spyer, “Israel and Lebanon: Problematic Proximity”
Chapter 12: David Schenker, “America and the Lebanon Issue