“Zimmerica…”

!cid_part2_02060003_08020209@earthlinkFacebook post by Walid Phares:

Egypt… Ikhwan invasion
Libya… Ansar in Benghazi
Tunisia..Nahda regime
Mali .. France battles Ansar el Dine
Gaza … Hamas gets weapons
Lebanon..Hezbollah prepares for Israel
Syria… 100,000 killed
Turkey AKP occupy Taqseem
Iran … Nuclear Bomb on its way
Nigeria..Churches burning
Britain .. Soldiers killed in neighborhood

United States…Zimmerman…

 

Walid Phares: We Are At War With Jihadist Ideology

images (16)

Walid Phares:

A film that triggered the “Jihad against Walid Phares”

According to analysts looking at the roots of the CAIR-led and Iranian supported bashing campaign against me in March and in October of 2011, this appearance in the movie “America at Risk” along with other major statements exposing the Muslim Brotherhood and their fronts in the US, was one of the triggers to the attacks. Another trigger was the movie “Iranium.” More to come.

 

At the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Professor Walid Phares comments in the movie “America at Risk: The War with no name”, produced by Newt and Callista Gingrich, were posted in one compilation. As we thank the producers of this powerful film, the excerpts are offered to educate the public at this important benchmark of American history. Professor Phares reminds us that the 9/11 Commission asked why America wasn’t prepared by its academia for the nature of the threat. He explains that the precursors to the Jihadists rose in the 1920’s under the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabis and later on under the Khomeinists. Phares argues that the Jihadists use all means at their disposal: diplomacy, military, and petrodollars when they decide to do so. The US is dealing with strategies developed by the Jihadists worldwide and in the homeland. He explains that the most important counter strategy for the US to develop is to identify the ideology of the Jihadists, without which the conflict cannot be won.

http://www.americaatrisk.com

http://www.walidphares.com

U.S. Aid to Syria’s Revolution not to the Jihadists

20130301_john_kerry_large_2013by DR. WALID PHARES:

The new Secretary of State John Kerry has proposed $60 million in aid to the Syrian Opposition Council in order to provide basic services in areas they control as well as medical and food supplies for their military. This announcement was met with skepticism by some backers of the Syrian opposition affiliated with the secular forces and also by a number of military and Middle East experts. Farid Ghadri, leader of the Syria Reform Party and a secular supporter of the Syrian opposition, has been arguing that “since the bulk of the opposition, the one recognized by the United States, is dominated by the Islamists the funds will be used by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to ensure a political influence in the zones controlled by the rebels.” Over the past few months, other opposition leaders, including former MP Ma’moun Homsi who attended the opposition conferences in Turkey and Egypt and worked with the Muslim Brotherhood, told us “if Washington earmarks financial help strictly to the Brotherhood, they will get a Brotherhood dominated Syria after Assad.” Homsi, himself a conservative Sunni blasted the Brotherhood on December 12, 2012 for being “authoritarians.” Sherkoh Abbas, chairman of the Kurdish National Assembly of Syria said “it seems that the US Administration did not learn from past experiences with the Taliban in Afghanistan.” He argued that by granting millions of dollars to mostly Islamist leaders of the opposition Washington will be responsible for the rise of Taliban like groups in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are fighting the Assad dictatorship to replace it with a Jihadi totalitarian regime.” He added: secular and moderate Syrians, Kurds and Assyrian Christians won’t see much from that aid, it will fall into the hands of Salafists who are the foot soldiers of al Qaeda.”

In my book The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East that predicted the upheavals in 2010, I argued that whenever a dictatorship might fall, particularly in Syria, there will be a race between Islamists and secular reformists over the future of the country. It would be toxic for the free world to willingly arm and fund the Islamists, including the Salafists, for they will work on using this support to impose an Islamist regime instead of a liberal democracy. The decision by the Obama Administration to fund the Brotherhood-dominated opposition in Syria with $60 million dollars will further the cause of the Islamists and empower them while doing nothing to promote freedom in that region of the world with the secular democratic forces in civil societies.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

Dr Walid Phares is an advisor to the US Congress on Counter Terrorism, and the author of ten books including Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East. Dr Phares appears on national, international and Arab media. He teaches at several universities and briefs US Government agencies on Terrorism and the Middle East.

Jennifer Hanon interviews Walid Phares on Egypt’s role in the “Arab Spring”

egypt_army_protesters_apHow Does Egypt Regain Its Once-Coveted Status? An Interview with Walid Phares – Part I

by Jennifer Hanin

It’s become clear there is confusion among Americans of what Egyptians really want. Many believe their cries for democracy were simply a mustache for their hatred of Israel and their love for Islamists and Sharia law. So to answer this dichotomy of perspectives succinctly I turned to my new DC-based Facebook friend and counter-terrorism expert/author, Walid Phares, to get his take on what Egyptians really want and most importantly, how they can best achieve their end-game:

Q: Egyptians must feel duped by swapping a secular leader for a religious despot in reformer’s clothes? What is your take on the distrust and frustration on the ground among Egyptians right now?

Phares: For decades, there was always a smaller core of Egyptians who knew all about the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafi allies. This core includes liberals, feminist movements, intellectuals and students activists on the one hand, and Christian Copts on the other. These civil society forces have experienced the tactics of the Brotherhood for years, particularly attacks by Islamists against Egyptian secular reformers and Coptic Churches and citizens.

The Brotherhood has longstanding experience in playing political double games since their inception in the 1920s. They had simultaneously approached the rulers of Egypt for cooperation while working against the state on the ground. They were suppressed by several Egyptian Governments for their role in coup d’état attempts, yet they found a way to survive through jihadi tactics of Taqiyya. This doctrine of deception at first glance allowed the Brotherhood to adopt only one part of their real long term agenda, in public, just enough to deceive their partners or foes.

When the Tahrir demonstrations began in January 2011, the Brotherhood waited to see if the youth could break through the regime suppression before they joined with full force. Then the Islamists worked with the Army to sideline youth, then with youth to outmaneuver the army, until they secured a majority in Parliament. Mohammed Morsi ran for president claiming he is confronting the candidate of former Mubarak supporters. He claimed a democratic agenda in order to sway a majority of voters who felt the Brotherhood had changed.

But since he was elected, the mask fell and a rapid Islamist agenda was imposed. It was only then that a much larger segment of Egyptians realized Morsi had fooled them. He promised a democratic state, but delivered an oppressive Islamist regime. The realization by most Egyptians that they were duped is a little delayed only because of the amount of power Morsi obtained in addition to the support he obtained from the Obama administration. The only other unexpected development would entail the rise of an exceptionally determined opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Q: Facebook and Twitter were instrumental in the onset and duration of the Arab Spring-turned-Islamic Winter in showing young Arab men and women how well many people around the world live. Eyes were wide open to opportunities readily available in the West. Will Arab nations choose to live in the past or the future? What is Egypt’s role in this?

Phares: As I projected in my book The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East (Threshold Editions, 2010), before the Arab Spring there was a convergence between many factors which resulted in uprisings. On one hand, a series of massive changes, some provoked from the outside as in Afghanistan and Iraq, other changes came from the inside as in Lebanon and in Iran.

The fall of the Taliban and of Saddam opened the path for elections in previously totalitarian regimes. That sent strong messages to the region’s civil societies. The Cedars Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 and the Green Revolution in Iran sent even stronger messages. The two uprisings showed the Arab world that millions of unarmed civilians on the streets, if well organized, could challenge oppressive regimes and weaken their legitimacy.

On the other hand, these events happened at a time when online communications were outpacing all others globally and becoming popular. In Lebanon, SMS messaging mobilized the masses. In Iran, it was the “Twitter revolution.” In Tunisia and particularly in Egypt, Facebook led the way. In Syria, YouTube played a crucial role in opposing Assad.

In sum, there is a younger generation of bloggers, mobile users, and Facebookers across the Arab world, which is surging from Tehran to Beirut, from Damascus to Cairo. It is growing by the day and will push for a change in the political reality of the region. Westerners were late to understand the youth surge within Arab civil society and Iran and now are expecting miracles to happen.

Many analysts and experts in the West and in the US are too simplistic in their hopes for the Middle East. Either they see an Arab Spring with promising tomorrows, ignoring the Islamist menace, or they see an Arab Winter, ignoring the gradual rise of the secular and liberal youth. In my book, I projected the fall of totalitarian regimes followed by a raging confrontation between the Islamists and the seculars, which indeed has happened and continues to happen in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Egypt.

So it would be accurate to state that today—two years after the start of the uprisings—there is no such thing as “an Arab world” acting as one bloc, making decisions and implementing them. There are political and ideological forces in the Arab countries pushing in different directions. The Islamists have the upper hand today in North Africa and are thrusting in Syria and Jordan. The secular democrats are resisting Islamists in these countries.

In Syria, it is a three-way struggle. The Baathist dictatorial regime is attempting to crush the opposition in coordination with Iran and Hezbollah. But the Syrian opposition, which has both seculars and Islamists, is pushing hard against Assad while each of its components is preparing for after Assad.

The dynamics of the Arab Springs are complex, and they need to be understood in the West to avoid surprises in the future. We already had a bad surprise in Benghazi where Islamist militias waged terror attacks against the US consulate, after it was believed in Washington that these Salafists were just “rebels against Gaddafi.”

In short, those who in the Arab world are struggling for real secular democracy are opposing those who are erecting the Islamist state. There is no “one Arab world” ruled by one type of elite anymore. The confrontation in Egypt today is at the heart of this struggle for the soul of the region. The secular Egyptians are fighting for freedom as a first line of defense for human rights worldwide.

Q: Clearly, Egypt has always been a pacesetter in the Middle East. It’s 1978 peace treaty with Israel and ongoing security cooperation to curtail border infiltration and arms smuggling is unparalleled, as is its prosperity due to embracing peace. How can Egypt resuscitate its downward economy, its more than six-foot under tourism industry, and become the Mecca of modernism and affluence again?

Again, we look at Egypt as a nation state with one consciousness and we wonder why is Egypt going in one or the polar direction. We need to change the parameters of our understanding in the Middle East. We need to look at the forces at work inside these countries, at their agendas, their strategies and their plans.

Egypt, as the late President Sadat used to say, is almost half of the Arab world. Egyptian politics have enormous influence on the Sunni Arab majority in the region. The Peace process between Israel and the Arab countries, and even with the Palestinians, it wasn’t possible before an Egyptian President would actually break taboo and visit Israel to seek peace. So it took a national leader to stir Egypt in one direction in its foreign policy.

The Islamists opposed and some of their Jihadists assassinated Sadat. This shows that there are trends inside Egypt. The uprising showed that civil society as a whole in Egypt grew intolerant vis-a-vis authoritarian powers, and Mubarak fell. But not all demonstrators had the same views. You had seculars and the Islamists with different views. Now they are fighting for which direction Egypt is going heading. And, as a result of instability, the Egyptian economy goes down. It can’t be resuscitated before a new Government is up and running but a Government that would address social economic crisis and of the market simultaneously.

The Brotherhood’s first priority is not Egypt’s healthy economy, it is Jihad and Sharia. Islamist totalitarians have never produced a successful economy along with freedoms. Look at Iran and Sudan.

As for Saudi Arabia, had it not been for oil and the lack of basic freedoms, their economy couldn’t have been stable. If the Brotherhood takes over Egypt, the country will suffer unprecedented crises in its economy and political stability. Besides, Islamists will eventually crumble the Camp David agreement with Israel, support Hamas and draw the region dangerously closer to a new cycle of confrontations and violence.

Q: President Obama was quick to throw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak curbside, yet we haven’t heard anything similar in regards to President Mohamed Morsi? You said the other day via a Facebook post that “everyone in Washington knows Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood.” Can you be more specific?

Phares: It is time to understand the policies of the Obama administration, the ones that are public and those that are obvious. If you compare the various Obama administration policies regarding the Middle East uprisings, you’d clearly see that the positioning of Washington regarding these demonstrations and protests is proportional to the outcome of these revolts.

When the rising masses are targeting Islamist regimes, the Obama position abandons the uprising. When the revolt will end up with an Islamist takeover, the US position swiftly sides with the revolt. These are not theories, these are measurable realities. In June 2009, when millions of Iranians, mostly young (and female) were demonstrating against the Ayatollahs, President Obama stated the US “wouldn’t meddle.”

But when the demonstrations in Egypt exploded, the Obama position evolved in two stages. As long as it was the youth and seculars on the streets, Washington stayed in the middle. But when the Muslim Brotherhood entered Tahrir Square en force, President Obama meddled “strongly by asking Mubarak to step down.”

Same scenarios occurred in Tunisia and in Libya and seem to be repeating itself in Syria. Observers and commentators in the region, particularly in Egypt, aren’t shy about this description. They clearly state and provide evidence for an alignment of the Obama administration with the Muslim Brotherhood. US lawmakers for the past few years have been warning that the administration is favoring the Brotherhood fronts in Washington and seeking their influence in national security and foreign policy.

Well, since the Arab Spring and particularly this year 2012 in Egypt, this alignment has never been clearer. Ironically, the Obama administration denies siding with the Brotherhood because the American public wouldn’t digest such an un-American positioning. It would be the equivalent of an American partnership in the 1930s with the national socialists or the Italian fascists.

Today, in the Arab media there are hundreds of articles, statements and panels openly exposing and criticizing the Obama administration support to the Islamists in general and the Brotherhood in particular.

Read more at Breitbart

Walid Phares has served as a Terrorism expert at NBC from 2003 to 2006 and is a contributor at Fox News since 2007. Please follow Walid Phares on Twitter.

Jennifer Hanin is an Act For Israel founder, journalist, blogger and author of Becoming Jewish. Follow Jennifer on Twitter.

See also:

What Is the End-Game for Egypt? An Interview with Walid Phares – Part II

 

 

 

Egyptian Americans protest, urge White House to stand against Mohammed Morsi

imagesCAI9WNYLBy:

Hundreds of Egyptian Americans protested in front of the White House and marched through the streets of Washington, D.C. Saturday, urging President Obama to stand against newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. The protest came as Morsi sought to ease tensions in Egypt by removing part of the decree that awarded him near-absolute control.

After a contentious election process, many in Egypt were suspicious that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood sought to be the dominant political power. Morsi soon took steps to solidify that political dominance. In November, he caused a mass uprising by annulling several constitutional amendments that restricted his power – including an amendment that provided judicial oversight of his actions.

Although Morsi has replaced his initial decree with a modified version, his initial power grab has left many Egyptians uneasy.

“Morsi’s declaration on 22 November, as well as the draft constitution planned to be voted on in a referendum are an absolute shame to anything that we can even call a democracy,” said Miriam Aziz, an international student from Egypt attending American University. Aziz was one of hundreds who protested outside the White House.

“It is by all means a populist tyranny and a dictatorship,” Aziz said of Morsi’s administration. “We are here to raise our voices and echo the voices of our brothers and sisters and family and friends in Egypt protesting this.”

Aside from a Dec. 6 call to Morsi, President Obama has largely been silent on the uprising in Egypt. During the call, Obama urged all political leaders in Egypt to denounce violence. He also urged an open dialogue between Morsi and his opposition, but stressed that the dialogue should occur without preconditions.

Protesters in front of the White House urged President Obama to do more.

Read more at the Examiner

Walid Phares posted on his facebook page:

Historic slogans in Washington DC. Egyptian Americans shouting:

“MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ARE FASCISTS”…

Revolutionary signs displayed during the courageous Egyptian American demonstration that took place Saturday from in front of the White …

House to the Egyptian embassy. The chanting and the slogans as well as the signs were historic. Among them “Muslim Brotherhood are fascists.” And “why do you side with the Islamists, President Obama.” Note that the majority of the participants were moderate Muslim Egyptians and some Copts as well. There were no CAIR operatives to be seen on the scene, and the charge of Islamophobia was destroyed into pieces in front of the Administration’s advisors, Middle East studies academia and Islamist lobbies in the US. This demonstration showed that the Islamist lobbies are a minority of militants funded by Petrodollars and are now being exposed for their lies. Most Egyptians in the US and in Egypt are against the Muslim Brotherhood, even though the latter can steal elections and would steal the next referendum.
See also:

 

 

 

The Foreign Policy Case Against Barack Obama

Credit: Flickr/Wikimedia Commons.

By Walid Phares:

As Governor Romney and President Obama continue to debate foreign policy and national security, voters would be wise to evaluate the “Obama doctrine” against the current combustible state of affairs that it has led to in the Greater Middle East. In less than four years, the Obama administration’s policies have transformed the region into a powder keg with a hairpin detonator that could be set off by the slightest diplomatic misstep, engulfing the region and the world in war. And, as if an economy on the brink wasn’t daunting enough, the current administration’s feckless diplomacy in the Arab world have begotten a near-impossible foreign policy conundrum that Mitt Romney will be forced to attend to from the moment he is sworn in as the forty-fifth president of the United States.

In order to help voters see clearly where unfolding events in the region are headed, I have summarized the salient facts and provided a brief analysis below.

President Obama’s denial of various forms of Islamist radicalism have amplified the jihadist threat and altered American foreign policy in the Middle East. In his Cairo speech in 2009, Mr. Obama affirmed the misperception that America had been on the wrong side in wars “against the Muslim world” by announcing his new expiative approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world. Since then his and the State Department’s actions in the region have been characterized by retreat, abandonment of civil democratic reform movements, and partnership with Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration’s freedom-antagonistic policies coupled with a desire to find common ground with the Iranian regime, have effectively quashed hopes for true democratic reform while Obama remains in the White House. The Obama doctrine has dangerously impacted U.S. national security.

Barack Obama’s ill-advised pre-election commitment to bilateral negotiations with the ayatollahs was put to the test in June 2009 when millions of mostly young Iranians took to the streets of Tehran in what almost became an “Iranian Spring.” With the Iranian regime teetering on the brink of collapse, the administration turned a deaf ear to demonstrators’ cries for America’s help as evidenced by the president’s silence on their plight and stubborn insistence on seeking understanding with the Khomeinist regime. But instead of obtaining concessions on Iran’s nukes, the ayatollahs multiplied uranium enrichment efforts and produced large numbers of long-range missiles to deliver apocalypse to Israel and the “Great Satan.” Hoping to keep his grandiose illusion of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks alive, Obama imposed belated, near-symbolic economic sanctions on Iran with predictable negligible effect. In return, the Iranian regime expanded their destabilizing efforts in the Middle East, inciting Shia in eastern Arabia, Bahrain and North Yemen to penetrate legitimate social movements and overthrow their U.S.-friendly governments.

Mitt Romney’s position on Iran is radically different and infinitely more sensible than Barack Obama’s. Sanctions should be tightened and all-encompassing to force the regime abandon its nuclear ambitions, not induce negotiations toward a partial solution. Furthermore, Governor Romney’s policy on Iran would include partnering with the forces of civil democratic reform in their efforts to replace the current extremist regime once and for all.

Obama’s miscalculation on Iran led to other regional catastrophes. As soon as the administration withdrew American forces from Iraq abruptly in December of 2011, Iranian influence penetrated Iraq. By not supporting Iran’s popular movement, Obama left Iran unrestrained. By failing to reach an agreement with Iraq before U.S. withdrawal, Obama allowed Iran to infiltrate its neighbor, further threatening Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and reaching Syria’s borders. Romney would have contained the Iranian regime first, and then consolidated a pro-Western government in Iraq.

Similar strategic mistakes were made by the administration on the Arab Spring as a consequence of its misguided apology doctrine. Instead of working with the initial forces of change in Egypt — youth, women, middle class, workers and minorities — the administration chose to partner exclusively with the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s team and the Islamists worked to put the Brotherhood and their Salafi allies in power, first by sidelining the secular reformers with the help of the army, then the army with the help of secular youth, before they rose to power and marginalized all other players. Under Morsi, Egypt is quickly morphing into an Islamist state, threatening the Camp David Accords, as well as seculars, women, and Copts. A similar scenario unfolded in Tunisia where Washington partnered with the Islamist Nahda at the expense of seculars, women, and reformers. Romney would pursue partnership with civil societies, particularly with women and seculars, and tie U.S. financial aid to performance by governments.

In Libya, the Obama administration again sought partnership with the Islamists and neglected working with government and secular groups to disarm the militias and after Gaddafi’s downfall, sowed the seeds of al Qaeda’s growth, and opened a path for attacks against U.S. targets, the most recent being a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and embassy staffers. A Romney administration would first seek the disarming of the militias and, above all, provide better security for American lives in installations in countries where jihadists operate.

Barack Obama’s worst and most dramatic failure has obviously been in Syria. One year late to respond, Obama’s team was unable to create a coalition to bring down Assad. Out of Iraq by 2012, the U.S. was unable to encircle Assad and prevent Iranian support from getting to the brutal regime. Thirty thousand civilians were massacred while the U.S. administration was incapable of obtaining a UN resolution for action against Assad, despite its so-called “reset button” with Moscow. Iran is now connected to Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and has reached the sea by land. Furthermore, al Qaeda is now operating in Syria and Iraq.

After Osama bin Laden was killed, the Obama administration began claiming that al Qaeda was in decline, a claim proven false as al Qaeda jihadists continue to conquer villages and towns in Yemen, fight in Somalia, are back in the Levant from Lebanon to Iraq, operating in the Sahel and Libya, with allies in Nigeria, and having established a solid base in northern Mali. Osama is dead, but al Qaeda is alive and flourishing.

With the growth of jihadism and radical Islamism, the secular forces of the Arab Spring are being pushed back. More dramatically Christian and other ethnic minorities across the region, in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, and in Sudan, are under attack. Everywhere in the region reformers, women and minorities are suppressed and pushed back, while the Islamists and jihadists up and running and expanding their reach. Iran is arming and genocide is looming from Syria to Sudan.

The Obama policies in the Middle East led to the rise of radicals and weakening of civil societies. A Romney alternative for the region is a must, not only on the basis of human rights and democracy, but also regarding U.S. national security and the security of its allies.

Published at George Mason University’s History News Network

Walid Phares is senior advisor on foreign policy and national security to presidential candidate Mitt Romney and a co-chair of the Romney Working Group on the Middle East and North Africa MENA. He is the author of the “Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East” the only book that predicted the Arab Spring before it begins

Related :