Clearly emboldened by U.S. validation of his role in handling Hamas during the Pillar of Defense operation, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi wasted no time in issuing a decree granting himself dictatorial powers. On November 22, 2012, Morsi sacked the prosecutor general and replaced him with his own man, thereby brushing aside the last branch of government that stood between him and the status of a “new pharaoh.”
Parallels with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution in Iran are striking enough that it must be wondered whether a tour of Iran’s nuclear facilities was all Morsi was given during his August 30, 2012 visit to mark the turnover of the Non-Aligned Movement presidency. It would seem that perhaps the Iranians also gave Morsi the blueprint for seizure of state power.
What is looking more by the day like the “Islamic Awakening” the Iranians have always called it actually launched its power takeover phase two years ago with al-Qa’eda’s 2010 call to the Muslim Brotherhood to turn the page as it were “from Mecca to Medina.” Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi’ responded with an October 2010 declaration of jihad against the U.S., Israel and Arab/Muslim regimes unfaithful to sharia, the U.S. nodded favorably—and the putsch was on.
Parliamentary elections (in which the Brotherhood at one point supposedly wasn’t even going to contest more than 30-40% of the seats, much less run a presidential candidate) already had awarded the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party and its Salafist Nour party allies a better than two-thirds dominance of Egypt’s legislature by early 2012.
The constituent assembly that is writing Egypt’s new constitution likewise is under Brotherhood control. The move that really solidified Morsi’s power followed barely weeks after his presidential victory: His August 11, 2012 coup d’état that replaced Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi and the rest of the Egyptian Supreme Command of the Armed Forces with his own hand-picked Brotherhood officials.
Even for those somehow still ignorant of the Muslim Brotherhood’s widely availablejihadist agenda and history, this should have sounded an alarm. And yet, with only a few notable exceptions—among them, Daniel Pipes here, Barry Rubin here—few understood at the time how quickly Egypt was moving towards an Islamic dictatorship.
The U.S. State Department and White House seemed swept along by events—or maybe this was their blueprint, too. After all, the opening punch against the regime of Hosni Mubarak was delivered at the al-Azhar University by President Barak Obama in June 2009, where Obama snubbed Mubarak and insisted that Muslim Brotherhood lawmakers be in attendance.
And so, with the judiciary now down as well, and despite some rear-guard action demonstrations by Egypt’s defeated secularists, Morsi’s sweep is nearly complete. His confidence comes not from the ballot-box so much as from the knowledge that the most powerful organization in Egypt—the Muslim Brotherhood—and the most influential sharia jurist in the Islamic world—Yousef al-Qaradawi—stand behind him.
Just as in 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran after years in exile, senior American diplomatic and intelligence officials as well as the mainstream media have shown themselves completely clueless about the inevitable horror that is the invariable objective of all Islamic jihadis.
As Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, recalled in his February, 2011 National Review Onlinecolumn, “Re: Re: Willful Blindness, Etc.,” (itself echoing the always-prescient Andrew McCarthy), William Sullivan, the U.S. Ambassador in Tehran during the country’s 1979 revolution, compared Khomeini to Ghandi.
Andrew Young, who was President Jimmy Carter’s UN Ambassador, called Khomeini “some kind of saint.” The Feb. 12, 1979 issue of Time magazine gushed about the democratic aims of Khomeini’s revolution and assured everyone that the Ayatollah surely would return soon to Qom to “resume a life of teaching and prayer.”
Well, he didn’t. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that neither Morsi nor al-Qaradawi has any intention of retiring anywhere anytime soon either.
Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Ruthie Blum’s essential book “To Hell in a Handbasket- Carter, Obama and the Arab Spring” offers irrefutable evidence that misguided foreign policy with respect to popular uprisings against tyrants often creates worse problems than those it seeks to alleviate.
While most commentators and pundits stress the present crisis with a nuclear Iran, they fail to see the overthrow of Iran’s Shah and the subsequent hostage crisis of 1979 as prologue and lesson for today.
Blum revisits that event and succinctly states in the opening pages: “It is the story of how a short sighted leader of the Free World, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with-rather than defeat- the forces that would see him and it destroyed, enabled the rise and spread of a pernicious form of radicalism that threatens the globe to this day.” That leader was Jimmy Carter but the words could easily apply to the present occupant of the White House, whose obsequiousness to the Moslem world and feeble responses to direct aggression against the United States encourage our enemies and discourage our allies.
**********
“To Hell in a Handbasket-Carter, Obama and the Arab Spring”is an original, fast paced, meticulously researched book that catalogues the series of missteps that continue to be repeated as we confront our abject failures in Middle East policy, and the unraveling of the so-called “Arab Spring.”
Read it before November 6th, 2012. You won’t be able to put it down.
Ruthie Blum has graciously consented to an interview:
RK: You remember that when the so-called “Arab Spring” assumed a new reality with the demonstrations in Egypt, Americans were inclined to celebrate, announcing that democracy was now taking hold in the Middle East. This was, of course, foolish, to put it mildly. But how would you account for it?
RB:Liberal Americans tend to view fondly and with nostalgia the sight of young people storming the streets and screaming against their government. You know, like the “good old days” during the Vietnam War, when the so-called “best and brightest” were proudly stomping on their country’s flag, denouncing their parents’ generation, and evading the draft – all the while getting praised for it. These darlings of the 1960s are now occupying the White House or cheering it on from the sidelines.
The demonstrations in Egypt caused these liberals to empathize, without having a clue about the players in the Middle East. This has not prevented them from adopting the knee-jerk assumption that Israeli settlements are the region’s real problem.
The Conservatives initially lauded the developments for a very different reason. They believed that the revolutions spreading across the Middle East indicated that George W. Bush’s policies and views on democratization were now bearing fruit.
RK: How do you think, as you suggest in your book, that Jimmy Carter’s response to the taking of American hostages in 1979 contributed this, related to this, if at all?
RB:Carter had been supportive of the ouster of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Though the Shah had been a true American ally, he was an autocrat with expensive tastes. Carter believed that Khomeini was a good soul – a harmless, modest religious leader who would serve as a spiritual guide to a new, more egalitarian government. When the student radicals (among them Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) took the US Embassy staff hostage on November 4, 1979, Carter thought that the best way to handle it would be to let the “host government” take charge. After all, the same embassy had been stormed six months earlier, and the “host government” did intervene – after a Marine was murdered, that is.
But, as days turned into weeks and then into months, Carter figured his best policy would be to negotiate with the powers-that-be in Iran. Of course, he didn’t really know who they were, but that’s a different discussion.
Finally, when he did give a green light to a rescue operation several months into the crisis, it was too little, too late. Then, when the mission failed, Khomeini and the hostage-takers saw it as a sign from Allah that the “Great Satan” was being defeated.
Carter’s attitude that America was largely responsible for the hatred of others towards it – as was Israel – did nothing but embolden enemies across the globe. Obama has the very same attitude today.
RK:Jimmy Carter was a failed, one-term president who left office more than 30 years ago. Why bother rehashing what he did back then?
RB: Carter may have lost the election to Ronald Reagan, but his legacy has lived on in the Democratic Party. In fact, it seems to have gotten stronger as the years go by. It is necessary to observe what he did, because there is an almost exact parallel going on today – both at home and abroad. It is crucial for Americans to see the connection between a weakened America and emboldened enemies. These are enemies who oppose freedom of any kind, and who make no bones about their intentions to spread their rule beyond all borders.
RK:The Arab Spring revolution, like the Islamic Revolution in 1978-9, erupted as a result of autocratic regimes that the people wanted to oust. Is the United States supposed to back rulers like the shah and Mubarak? What should Carter have done then – and what should Obama have done in response to the current uprisings?
RB: Carter should – first and foremost - have looked into the Ayatollah Khomeini and his teachings. He should not have decimated the CIA. He could have continued to pressure the Shah into instituting reforms. This is exactly what Obama should have done in relation to other autocrats and their opposition in the rest of the Muslim world. As Carter did with Khomeini, Obama was prepared to view the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” organization, rather than educate himself on the forces that were actually taking over all the demonstrations across the Middle East. The only protests that Obama did not back were the anti-Islamist ones that took place in Iran in June 2009 surrounding the elections.
In other words, it is the job of the United States to support movements that most strive for Western values, while remaining steadfast against those that want to destroy the West. One could say that, in fairness to Carter, there had been no precedent for the rise of radical/political Islam when he became president; whereas Obama has had the benefit of decades of hindsight to know about this phenomenon. It is this fact that leads many to conclude that Obama actually sides with those radical forces.
RK:Events are still unfolding in the Middle East, and many experts assert that these kinds of revolutions take time – especially in cultures and countries that have no tradition of democracy. Why do you assume that they are not moving in this direction?
RB:All evidence points to the opposite. The demonstrations and “free election” results are pro-Islamist. Country-by-country, one can see the spread of Shariah law and the decrease in the rights of women and minorities, with a severe increase in the abuse of Christians. Some optimists have compared this to the French Revolution, asserting that there will be a lot of bloodshed for 100 years, and then there will be democracy. I don’t consider this “moving in the right direction” while Iran is about to obtain nuclear weapons – something that, if allowed to happen, will cause the rest of the region to follow suit.
RK: Thank you Ruthie Blum for your book, your insight and your answers.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, gave this speech at Yeshiva University.
“Thank you so much. It’s an honor to be with you this evening. Oliver, thank you for your introduction. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight, and for letting me share in the 20th anniversary of the Syms School . Thank you to Sy Syms and his family. To the supporters, the professors, the administrators, the alumni, and all the students: congratulations on this great event.
“As you heard, I spent most of my life in the private sector, first by consulting the major corporations, and then by starting and acquiring companies. It takes chutzpah I believe to buy a company from somebody else, someone who knows the business inside out, someone who has decided that now is the best time to sell, someone who has hired an investment banker to hawk it to everybody in the world, and then to think that you, having paid more than anyone else in the entire world, you somehow think you are going to make a profit on your investment.
“It’s truly an improbable way to make a living. But it worked, and far better than I ever imagined. During the fifteen years that I was the proud partner at Bain Capital, our compound rate of return on our investments exceeded 100% a year. Not bad.
“Now, what was the secret? There really wasn’t a secret. What we did is done every day by you in the private sector. We started off with good people-highly intelligent, intellectually curious, driven people. We gathered extensive data and carried out rigorous analysis before we made our decisions. And then we used all that information to develop a highly focused strategy to make the enterprise more successful.
“I found that the same approach works in the public sector as well. Good people, data, analysis, focused strategy. It’s not the way government usually does things, but it’s the way government should do things.
“Today, America faces a number of critical challenges. In my view, at the top of the list is the threat of radical, violent Jihad and the associated threat of nuclear proliferation.
“I think many of us, including some of our leaders, fail to comprehend the extent of this threat. Take former President Jimmy Carter. President Carter thinks that Israel ‘s security fence is the thing that keeps peace from coming to the Holy Land .
“Having just been to Israel, I came to the opposite conclusion: the security fence keeps peace in Israel- it’s helping – that fence is helping prevent bloodshed and terror and violence
“What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand. Whether it’s Hamas or Hezbollah; Al Qaeda or Shia and Sunni extremists, there is an overarching goal among the violent Jihadists - and it transcends borders and boundaries. That goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a religious caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the entire world.
“Jihadism - violent, radical, fundamental Jihadism – is this century’s nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century’s nightmares: fascism and Soviet communism.
“The September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a ‘religious obligation.’ Jihadist clerics have issued fatwas authorizing the use of nuclear weapons to… ‘defeat the infidels.’
“We are faced with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out.
“Radical, nuclear Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity. It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.
“In my view, there are several steps that America has to take.
“First, we have to sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops in our military. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment and armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense. That’s going to require that we spend at least 4 percent of our GDP on defense.
“Let me show you, by the way, a little history here. Let’s see if I can make this work. This shows the history as a percentage of GDP of the U.S. military. And you’ll see that over time, we’ve made some pretty significant investments in protecting our country. In the Korean War, 11.7% of the nation’s economic activity was associated with the protection of this land. During the Reagan years, it reached approximately 6% of our GDP. Today, it’s down to 3.8% and I believe that we have to increase at least by 40-50 billion dollars a year our spending on military strength.
“Second, America has to become energy independent. Our economic and military strength require it. We use 25% of the world’s oil. On this chart, you see where the oil comes from. The United States has approximately 1.7% of the world’s crude oil reserves. We obviously have to become energy independent for strategic purposes and I’m not just talking about symbolic measures, I mean that we finally have to take the necessary steps to actually produce as much energy as we use.
“Third, we have to transform our international civilian resources, to enhance our influence for peace, and for security, and for freedom. Just as the military in our country has divided the world into common regions with a single commander for each region, our civilian agencies need to do the same thing.
“Fourth, we need to strengthen our old partnerships and old alliances, and inaugurate a new one. I agree with former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam.
“And further, if I were fortunate enough to be elected your President, I’d call for a National Summit of Nations to create a new partnership – a Partnership for Hope and Prosperity.
“This Partnership would assemble the resources of all the nations of the world to work to assure that Islamic states that are threatened with violent jihad have public schools that are not Wahhabi madrases; that they have micro credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic practices.
“And fifth, we have to keep Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Their ambition to develop nuclear weaponry is clear: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused Russia’s offer to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.
“Ahmadinejad has gone beyond the boundary of outrage, beginning with his calculated desecration of history. His purpose is not only to deny the Holocaust; it is to deny Israel. He is doing what another evil man did before him: conditioning minds to acquiesce to the elimination of a people.
“In January I was at the Herzliya conference and I discussed the threat of Iran. Since then, Iran continues to operate its nuclear program in defiance of the UN Security Council. It’s expanded its centrifuge operations in Natanz. It’s issued a new banknote that features a red nuclear symbol superimposed on the map of Iran.
“Earlier this month, Iran boasted the production of nuclear fuel on an ‘industrial level’ with a goal of installing 50,000 centrifuges. On April 9th, Iran marked a new national holiday – ‘Nuclear Day.’ Just look at the extent of their activity. These show the nuclear sites in Iran. This is not a little narrow project. Does the world understand what’s going on here? Do they recognize the threat which is posed by this nuclear-developing nation?
“Some people, of course, think that it’s possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran , once it’s granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor.
“Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking.
“Others believe that frankly back in the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War – that that will protect us. But for all of the Soviet Union’s deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. And that assumption simply can’t be made about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom like Iran.
“It’s time to take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We are going to continue to work, we’ll work with the UN, we’ll encourage China and Russia to work with us at the UN Security Council.
“But the U.S.and Europe can’t afford to wait.
“I have proposed a strategy to combat Iran’s nuclear ambition. Let me describe just a few of the elements.
“First, we should severely tighten economic sanctions. I think the Bush Administration deserves a lot of recognition for restricting access to our banking and credit services, because financial, and credit and monetary penalties are some of the most effective sanctions there are. And we must get other nations to act now to follow our lead.
“In my meetings in Israel in January it became clear to me that pension funds, such as the one here in New York City, have invested in companies like the French oil giant, Total. After New York State named its Comptroller, I wrote him, and I also wrote to Governor Spitzer, and Senators Schumer and Clinton and urged them to disinvest from companies that have significant operations in collaboration with Iranian regimes.
“Second, I think it’s important for us to isolate Iran diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel exactly like those of Apartheid South Africa, or worse. That’s why I ordered the state police of Massachusetts to refuse security details for former Iranian President Khatami when he came to Harvard.
“Of course, we can communicate and talk with Iran and I support the upcoming efforts to discuss security in Iraq with Iraq’s leaders and their neighbors in the region. But until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, I don’t believe that we should be engaging Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Iran’s nuclear intransigence is repulsive to the entire world and we shouldn’t let Iran try to position it as an Iran vs. a US thing.
“Now there is one place of course where I’d welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms: and that’s in a court where he would stand trial for incitement to genocide, under the terms of the Genocide Convention.
“There’s a third effort. Arab states need to join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do a lot more than just wring their hands and urge America to do all the work. They should support Iraq’s nascent government; they can help America’s focus on Iran quickly by turning down the temperature on the Arab-Israeli conflict; they can stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and they must tell their Palestinian friends to drop their campaign of terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
“This one’s a little sensitive. Listen carefully. Fourth, we have to make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be the source of pride, they can also be a source of peril. If nuclear material from Iran falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the entire civilized world to the very nation that supplied it.
“There is yet another source of Jihadist nuclear danger, beyond Iran. It’s the pursuit by Jihadists of acquiring what are commonly known as ‘loose nukes.’ The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start, but we need to accelerate and expand it.
“First, I’d appoint a senior American official to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to Prevent Nuclear Terror. He or she would have the authority and resources to work across agencies and departments in the United States to ensure that our strategies are coordinated here, and abroad.
“Further, I’d promote an international initiative to develop a new body of international law that would make nuclear trafficking a crime against humanity, on a par with genocide and war crimes. And by allowing for universal jurisdiction, charges can be brought up at any court, to help prevent traffickers from hiding in complicit or weak countries. Already, people have been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market. Their acts shouldn’t be dismissed with the kind of nonchalance that sometimes accompanies routine violation of the laws.
“Countries that want to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes should convene to reaffirm their commitment to non-proliferation. For years now, we have depended on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as the centerpiece. But recent technological and political developments suggest that the bargain at the center of this effort needs to be updated. We need to set a ‘gold standard’ for security, given the amount of highly enriched uranium that still exists in the world. Let me show you where it is. The countries in red are countries that have over ten thousand kilograms of highly enriched uranium and various research facilities around their lands. As you look at that, you recognize why it is that we don’t want to break off discussions with Russia. There’s a lot of cooperation that we need to keep in place with Russia, because they’ve got to be engaged in frank and open discussions about the serious and disturbing turn of events in their own country. But we also have to remain a partner with them on the issue of securing the vast amount of highly enriched nuclear material in their country.
“Finally, the United States in my view should take the lead in organizing an international fuel bank, which would guarantee low-cost supplies of nuclear reactor fuel to countries willing to abide by very high standards for safety and security.
“The threat from Jihad is real and it is exacerbated by the demographic crisis. Today, over half the region is under 22 years old. The combined GDP of all Arab nations, including their oil revenue, is less than Spain’s. Think of that. And with the growing population and lack of jobs, the ground for radical Islam will be increasingly fertile.
“Let me show you some slides I think are pretty interesting. This shows the map of the world drawn to the scale of where the proportion of the world’s wealth was in 1960. Look at the United States – extraordinary wealth, larger than any other land in the world by far. Europe is shown in the pinkish colors there – that’s western Europe. The blue is eastern Europe and then you’ll see Africa of course very small in terms of portion of the economy of the world. The Middle East is in the light green. You can see India there in the yellow, right next to India , to the west of India is of course Pakistan. China is the bright green and Japan is the purple. Look how that changes as projected for 2015. Look what happens to China. Look what happens to Europe. But the Middle East continues to be extraordinarily small in terms of its economic clout. And Northern Africa, where Jihad is also rampant, is a tiny portion of the world’s economic vitality in the year 2015. This is as projected by the UN. Where are the babies being born?
“Let’s look at the same map, but instead of drawing it based upon where the economic strength is, let’s show where babies are being born. That’s where population will be as of 2050. The very places that have the least income have the extraordinary growth in population. And this is the very fertile and very frightening field that we’re going to have to encounter.
“And so because of this and many other reasons in the final analysis, only Muslims are going to be able to defeat radical Jihad.
“But we can and we must support moderate Muslims in rejecting the extreme and accepting modernity.
“We should remember that in the two other global confrontations with totalitarianism in the past century, it wasn’t always obvious that we’d win. Indeed, in those conflicts, the balance of power was not always in our favor.
“Those were wars we could have lost, but we didn’t.
“In the current conflict, defeat is not nearly as dangerously close as it was during the darkest moments of the Second World War and the Cold War. There’s no comparison between the economic and diplomatic, and military resources of the civilized world and those of the terrorist networks that threaten us today.
“In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed.
“In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilized world decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, or our values, and our way of life.
“I will not be silent, you will not be silent.
“Today, we can lead the world. We can and we must lead the world to do what it has sought for so many centuries-to accept different people and different cultures, to respect the inalienable rights of every child of God, and to welcome a time of peace and prosperity for all the children of our Creator.
So it is only proper that the proper federal authorities – Members of Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, and inspectors general of various agencies – remain vigilant of foreign entities that attempt to manipulate public opinion or to target national decisionmakers.
Somehow, investigating Muslim Brotherhood influence operations here is off limits.
Some of our national leaders express a willful blindness about the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (pictured at left) testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “largely secular organization,” and that it had no “overarching agenda.” (See the ABC News video here.)
If one of my students made such a fictitious conclusion on a final exam, he would fail my course.
Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), corrected Clapper in a public statement: “I am concerned that the DNI’s assessment does not agree with recent public statements by senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood nor does it agree with the organization’s publicly stated goals,” Kirk said, calling the organization “radical.”
Indeed, through a spokesman, Clapper retreated from his comments. “He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” his spokesman said.
FBI Director Robert Mueller, who has courted several Muslim Brotherhood front groups, said that some elements are violent and others are not, but refused to provide details.
Others, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is “anti-American” and even dangerous, but get hysterical at the idea that authorities investigate well-documented concerns about possible influence on US decisionmaking.
Even though the right-hand person to the current secretary of state reportedly is from a Muslim Brotherhood family – her late father, mother and brother were or are members of, or associated closely with, the organization and its front groups.
Did those family connections have any effect on the US policy to back the overthrow of the pro-American government of the Arab world’s largest populous country – leading to its replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood? Policymakers and the public are entitled to know. Five Members of Congress requested a probe to determine the Brotherhood’s influence in the State Department.
The hysteria against those lawmakers, amounting to ad hominem attacks from members of the legislators’ own Republican Party, was creepily vicious. McCain led the charge, in an odd breach of Senate decorum denounced a federal lawmaker by name from the Senate floor. He was echoed by the tearful House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and others, the attacks led to a curious circling of the wagons in parts of the media, including opinion outlets associated with the Republican Party.
Even William H. Webster, Jimmy Carter’s FBI director who became CIA director late in President Reagan’s second term, chimed in with a gratuitous personal attack on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), pictured, who was the lead signer of the letter asking for the investigation into possible Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against the government. Webster, generally considered an elder statesman in law enforcement and intelligence matters, made a downright weird comment to Newsmax (of all places), slamming Bachmann and calling her comments “morally wrong” and even “illegal.”
Wait a minute – Webster has a distinguished bipartisan career as a judge, FBI director for nine years, CIA director, and head of various government commissions relating to national security. Why in the world would he call a lawmaker’s expression of opinion, and call for a federal investigation, “illegal”?
What’s going on?
I know Michele Bachmann, and I once briefed her for three hours about Muslim Brotherhood influence operations to shape US foreign policy and national security policy. I know many others who briefed her, and the scholars, law enforcement and national security professionals and others who prepared the briefing materials. I know that they are completely justified in their concerns.
Now, when my colleague Diana West, the nationally syndicated columnist, wrote about the controversy, the Washington Examiner spiked her piece. The Examiner, which thrives on politics, didn’t even run news stories on the controversy, West writes.
Watch this issue, everyone. Lots of clues that there’s something deeper. For the past decade, the FBI has been relying heavily on the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations as secret sources against presently violent Islamist individuals and groups. I know this firsthand, from many inside sources, from two Muslim Brotherhood operatives who work through front groups, and as an eyewitness. Could the Bureau be using Webster and former FBI agents like Congressman Rogers to attack critics of the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to remain in favor with its Brotherhood collaborators? Rogers has even hinted that Rep. Bachmann should be kicked off the intelligence committee simply for asking for an investigation.
These actions tell me that Bachmann struck such a nerve that the Muslim Brotherhood told the FBI it would no longer cooperate unless she was shut down. Nothing else explains it.
While the White House and its still media allies are still mumbling about an offensive video, it is quite clear that the Mohammed movie was never anything but a distraction used by the Islamists to set the stage and by the Obama administration to avoid admitting that the attacks were not spontaneous protests, but planned assaults.
The reason that Obama and his associates have done everything possible to avoid describing the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a planned terrorist operation is because the difference between a spontaneous attack and a planned attack is that the failure to prevent a planned attack represents a serious intelligence failure.
Was the planned attack on the Benghazi consulate truly unknown ahead of time or was it a known element that was not taken seriously enough and allowed to go forward for political reasons?
**********
If things had not gone wrong in Benghazi, then the attacks would have humiliated the United States but caused no physical harm. Obama would have benefited from the crisis and did benefit from it through the “Rally ‘Round the Flag” effect that bumps up the poll numbers of White House occupants when a foreign military crisis takes place. From our perspective the attacks showed Obama’s weakness, but his poll ratings actually rose due in part to the attacks.
During the Iran Hostage Crisis, Jimmy Carter’s approval ratings rose from 32 to 58 percent. Obama’s campaign-oriented administration was likely hoping for at least a modest bump from the riots. What they did not expect was that the attacks would go beyond limited assaults on embassies and lead to an actual slaughter in Benghazi.
That is the dirty little secret that is likely to be hiding behind the wall of misstatements and lies thrown up by the White House and the State Department. It is a wholly unsurprising secret that blends the old policies of appeasement with the new policies of cynical campaigning while putting country last. And the harder the loose thread of the administration’s knowledge of events is pulled, the likelier it is that the secret will come spilling out into the light.
The Obama Administration has lied and continues to lie to the American people concerning the situation in Libya and the Middle East. The “public” story is that this was a spontaneous action related to a video. Further evidence has proven that Ansar al Sharia, a radical Islamic terrorist group aligned with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, is responsible for the attack on our Consulate. Even more disturbing is that Abu Sufian, the leader of Ansar al Sharia, was released from GITMO in 2007 after heavy political pressure.
The policy of appeasement communicated by President Obama’s speeches and visits to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt evidenced an American foreign policy weakness destined to fail. It is telling that even at this time, President Obama has yet to visit our closest ally in the region, Israel.
The legacy of the Arab Spring that President Obama celebrates is sadly not any different from the legacy of President Jimmy Carter in Iran when the results of his action created a leadership void, eventually filled by radical Islamists.
Americans have been led to believe that killing Osama bin Laden is an example of sound foreign policy. That absurdity would be like President Franklin D. Roosevelt claiming credit for Operation Vengeance in 1943. Operation Vengeance is the assault that led to the successful elimination of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto by an Army Air Corps fighter pilot with the support of Naval intelligence. The killing of Admiral Yamamoto did not end World War II, nor was it called foreign policy. Operation Vengeance was a target of opportunity developed through intelligence, where the United States was able to break Japanese code and eventually ascertain Admiral Yamamoto’s flight schedule.
The Obama administration fails to understand the three levels of war — strategic, operational, and tactical — and instead rests its laurels on the tactical success of killing Osama bin Laden.
Vice President Joe Biden stated that when it comes to our foreign and economic policy, the bumper sticker should read, “GM is alive. Osama is dead.” True, but so is our Ambassador to Libya.
Since the 11th anniversary of 9/11, countless United States Embassies and Consulates have been attacked and ransacked, a United States Ambassador killed and possibly tortured, along with three other American citizens killed. A United States Marine fighter squadron Commander has lost his life, six Harrier jets destroyed and two damaged, and a continuous string of “green on blue” attacks plague the peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration’s response has been:
- $70,000 “apology” advertising campaign in Pakistan funded by United States taxpayers.
- Statement from the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reiterating Islamic sensitivity training.
- A spot on David Letterman and parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
We wonder why we are being attacked. I’ve said it countless times before and I’ll say it again. This President continues to show weakness with his lack of response. It’s no surprise President Jimmy Carter has been advocating for President Obama to follow his lead during the 444-day Iranian hostage crisis and “do nothing”, claiming it sometimes takes “more courage” to take that stance. From someone who spent 22 years in the Army and many years in the Middle East, I can tell you this line of thinking is insidious!
This is President Obama’s America as of September 2012: failed economic policy, failed energy policy (unless you count Solyndra as a success), a failed foreign policy and failed national security. And he wants Americans to trust him???
I will say that “ending” the War in Iraq was not a foreign policy success. Iran is currently flying its Revolutionary Guards forces into Syria over Iraqi airspace. There are only two ways to end a war: you win or you lose. You cannot simply pack up and go home and declare success.
Political rhetoric is no substitute for sound foreign policy and strategic national security decision-making.
Americans are living through a really bad nightmare, and it’s time to wake up.
9/14 West talks with Fox News Sean Hannity on Libya and Obama foreign policy failures:
The United States is positioning military forces so that it can respond to unrest in as many as 17 or 18 places in the Islamic world, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced late Friday. “We have to be prepared in the event that these demonstrations get out of control,” he said. Those words dashed hopes in Washington that the anti-US Islamist rampage by now sweeping 21 countries over a video deriding Islam had passed their peak. In fact, by their sixth day Saturday, Sept. 15,the street protests against American embassies and other US symbols of influence were growing more violent and more organized, threatening not only American lives but tearing up President Barack Obama’s entire outreach policy toward Arabs and Muslims. I
In at least four Arab countries, anti-US protesters were no longer just throwing stones but using firearms. The most serious occurred in Egyptian Sinai, where scores of armed Salafist Bedouin linked to al Qaeda firing missiles, grenades, mortars and automatic weapons were able to break down two guard posts at the US-led Multinational Force near El Arish base in search of American victims. A battalion of Colombian troops fought the invaders off in fierce battle for hours, preventing them from reaching the hundreds of US officers, soldiers and air crews pinned down in fortified quarters. In Cairo, Islamist demonstrators began firing rubber bullets at Egyptian security forces which have still not succeeded in breaking up the disturbances. In Tripoli, Lebanon, protesters and the Lebanese army exchanged heavy gun fire. In Khartoum, Islamists shot their way into the US embassy and the American school before setting them ablaze.
In Tunis, the American ambassador almost suffered the same fate as his colleague, Chris Stevens and three consulate staffers who were murdered in Benghazi, Libya, last Tuesday, Sept. 11. The ambassador and several US diplomats were rescued from the burning embassy building by a special Tunisian counter-terror unit and taken to safety. Friday, saw the first five fatalities as well the first violent Muslim demonstration in the Australian town of Sydney.
debkafile’s counter-terror and intelligence sources draw seven conclusions from nearly a week of surging anti-American violence across the Middle East, South Asia and beyond:
1.The anti-Islamic video film was not the cause of the upheaval only a pretext. 2. The outbreaks were orchestrated by a number of radical Islamic organizations ranging from the ultraconservative Salafis to Al Qaeda terrorists. They took advantage of swelling anti-US sentiment in many Arab and Muslim countries to weaken local governments which maintain ties with the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
3. It is not yet known how the mechanism coordinating operations among those Islamist extremist groups works, but it has already shown to be faster and more efficient than the American intelligence and counter-terror bodies keeping track of them. Day by day, Washington is caught unawares by fresh outbursts.
4. After firing up Arab and some Muslim streets, this radical coalition believes its component organizations are gathering enough leverage to start pushing out the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood branches brought to power by the US-backed Arab Spring in order to take their place. The anti-US ferment will therefore not abate, as Washington hopes, until they achieve their goal.
5. The US has sent two platoons of 50 men each of specially trained Marines to protect its embassies in Libya and Yemen and may send a third to Sudan. Otherwise, the Obama administration dare not send in American troops to prop up the new Arab regimes; any visible US military intervention in those countries would only enhance the radicals’ popularity and weaken the regimes they are fighting to remove.
6. The new Muslim Brotherhood rulers of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya face a tough strategic dilemma; Lean more heavily on American support to save their regimes, or bow to the Islamist extremists, turn their backs on America and give them a place in government.
7. Power-sharing with radicals has already begun in some Arab countries, spelling the reversal of Obama’s policies and the goals of the “Arab Spring”
Those policies aimed naively at the removal in the name of democracy of autocratic, secular Arab rulers to make way for “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood regimes elected by the people and ready to work with the United States. This ideal was violently reduced to ashes in the second week of September 2012. It is hard not to recall another debacle of 33 years ago, when President Jimmy Carter helped overthrow the Shah of Persia only to bring implacable ayatollah rule to Tehran.
Egypt’s Islamist President-elect Mohamed Mursi delivers a speech while surrounded by his body guards in Cairo’s Tahrir Square
By Michael Widlanski
President Barack Obama, who invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech in 2009, has now invited Brotherhood leader and Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi for talks in the United States.
But as the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, we should all be worried, because the Brotherhood was the group that fathered Al-Qaeda and the Jihad groups that attacked New York in 1993 and again on 9-11.
But President Obama is not worried. He thinks the Brotherhood coming to power is an opportunity—perhaps to achieve even more of a “dialogue,” for “engagement,” with the Arab-Islamic world.
So far this dialogue of engagement has failed everywhere Obama has tried it—in Egypt, in Iran and in Turkey, but the president with the Islamic middle name thinks he can charm radical leaders to a path of moderation.
Back on the ground in the Middle East, there has been a 104-percent increase in terror attacks across the border into Israel from Gaza and Sinai in the last month. Cross-border infiltration and rocket attacks are a daily affair, usually without fatalities, but that will change when the terrorists “get lucky.”
When that happens, and it will, Israeli leaders will have to abandon the pin-point reprisal policy and escalate to a more thorough house cleaning of the border area. The Islamic terrorists in Sinai and Gaza, supported by 11 Bedouin tribes that make money from smuggling, are heavily armed.
There are more than half a dozen different terror groups—some associated with Al-Qaeda—and they will all want to flex their muscles.
Israeli military planners think it is only a matter of time before the Brotherhood, its sister organization, Hamas, that rules Gaza, and the other terror groups destabilize Israel’s southern border, undermining the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and even causing a military conflict.
But in the rarefied air of the White House and Foggy Bottom, the Obama Administration is oblivious.
President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and anti-terror chief John Brennan do not seem too concerned. They helped bring the Brotherhood to the Egyptian presidency by undermining Egyptian leader Husni Mubarak, much the way Jimmy Carter undermined Iran’s Shah 34 years ago.
Obama and Co. invited participation by the Brotherhood in Egypt’s governance, bringing them to Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009. They should have known: He who invites extremists to the appetizer should not be surprised when they stay for dinner and dessert.
The “Brothers” are not interested in sharing power any more than the Iranian ayatollahs were. Yes, there are differences between Sunni Islamic radicals (Egypt) and Shiite Islamic radicals (Iran), but they also have much in common:
They hate Muslims who are not sufficiently religious and are too “Western” in their daily lives;
They hate America and Israel;
And they hate sharing power with anyone.
There will be no real democracy in a Brotherhood-led Egypt. You can bet on it.
The secular Egyptian army will hold out for a bit, but will finally succumb. That is what happened in Turkey, where Obama’s other favorite extremist Islamic leader, Recept Erdogan, swept the army aside. Turkey, once a reliable NATO ally, is now an unreliable force, and Egypt, once a reliable friend of the US, will also drift away.
Throughout this chain of events, it is hard not to see the resemblance between President Obama’s actions in Egypt and those of President Jimmy Carter in Iran.
Carter and his aides hoped/prayed for moderation in Iran. But we got 30 years of death, terror, and a nuclear bomb program. Obama and Co. will get much the same from the Brotherhood, whose Arabic name—Ikhwan—comes from the blood-curdling Wahhabi movement in Arabia that spawned the Brotherhood in Egypt.
Obama and his aides like to drone on about how Obama personally liquidated Osama Bin-Laden, but in the long term, Obama’s loss of Egypt will be much more important, and it could overshadow even Carter’s loss of Iran.
Dr. Michael Widlanski, an expert on Arab politics and communications, is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat just published March by Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He taught at the Hebrew University for nearly two decades and served as Strategic Affairs Advisor for Israel’s Ministry of Public Security.
A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama Administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed they would not run a presidential candidate. Clearly the Arab Spring is nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare. Now we need to unequivocally reiterate our support to the Coptic Christians and Israel. What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration. I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States made the first strategic mistake by contributing to the creation of the most dangerous Islamic fundamentalist revival to take place in the twentieth century, or “The Islamic Awakening,” as termed by prominent Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The American perception of Islamic fundamentalism was shallow and lacking an in-depth look at history, while also being short-sighted with a focus on short-term objectives.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter who emigrated from Eastern Europe, was preoccupied with the Communist threat, unaware that a revival of Islamic fundamentalism would also end up reviving historical horrors that are best forgotten. The CIA, in cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, conducted the biggest operation in its history, with a cost estimated at billions of dollars, to counter the Soviet threat through a revival of Islamic jihad. Pakistani president at the time, Zia ul-Haq, had stipulated that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) should be in charge of the distribution of money and weapons to fighters in the Afghani factions, while forbidding the CIA to enter Afghanistan via Pakistan. These restrictions basically meant that the Pakistani Intelligence was pulling all the strings. The ISI chose its allies from among fundamentalist Afghans such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, as well as Afghan students at Wahhabi[1] schools, who were later called the “Taliban” due to their affiliation with Wahhabi schools in Pakistan. Through the ISI the so-called “Afghan Arabs” first emerged, and in later years they became the nucleus of al-Qaeda.
On March 15, 2005 the U.S. State Department website published a report denying any connection between the CIA and the Afghan Arabs or al-Qaeda, and placing the blame squarely on Pakistani intelligence. The report stated that the U.S. did not “create bin Laden or al-Qaeda, but rather helped the Afghans in their struggle to free their country― as did other countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt and the United Kingdom. The United States did not, however, support the ‘Afghan Arabs,’ i.e. the Arabs and other Muslims who came to fight in Afghanistan for ulterior motives. The ISI made the decisions as to which Afghan groups it wished to arm and train, and it tended to favor the pro-Pakistan radical Islamic factions. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which led to the accusation that they have been created by the CIA.”
Yet, this statement is not entirely accurate. In fact, the U.S. has played an indirect part in the creation of Taliban and al-Qaeda. Back then, a US-Saudi deal specified that in return for every dollar provided by Saudi Arabia in cash, the U.S. offered a dollar in the form of weapons, and both funds and weapons were submitted to the ISI. In his book “The Main Enemy: The Inside story of the CIA’s Final showdown with the KGB,” Milt Bearden, CIA station chief in Pakistan between 1986 and 1989 who was in charge of covert operations in Afghanistan, referred to this deal: “In 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski – National Security adviser to President Jimmy Carter – secured an agreement with the Saudi King, under which Saudi Arabia pledged to match the financial contribution provided by the United States to support Afghani efforts. Reagan-era CIA Director Bill Casey kept this agreement in effect for several years” (“The Main Enemy,” p. 219).
The same account was given by Major General Mohammad Yusuf, who was in charge of the ISI Afghan office where he managed the Pakistani classified aid program for the Afghan mujahideen. In his book “The Bear Trap: Afghanistan, the untold story” Major Yusuf mentions the US-Saudi financial pact: “For every dollar provided by the United States, another dollar was added by the Saudi government. The joint funds, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the ISI supervision” (“Bear Trap,” p. 81).
No, the United States did not finance al-Qaida or the Afghan Arabs directly, but it created the phenomenon responsible for the emergence of bin Laden and al- Qaeda. CIA and Pentagon experts took a gamble on the circumstantial success of a lethal weapon: armed jihadistIslam. What’s more, they bestowed the title of “freedom fighters” on the Mujahideen. Swiss journalist Richard Labévière called this dangerous game the “Dollars for Terror” in a 1998 book published in French under the same title. Labévière Stated that the U.S. was responsible for creating bin Laden with the approval of Saudi and Pakistani intelligence, not to mention the part it played in the emergence of fundamentalist Presidents such as Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan, Sadat in Egypt, and Jaafar Nimeiri in Sudan, who were friends of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, and who contributed to the phenomenon of Afghani jihad and to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism.
Of course, al-Qaeda did not content itself with funds and weapons obtained from Pakistani Intelligence but had its own resources, receiving funds from wealthy Arabs and particularly from Saudi Intelligence, under the supervision of Prince Turki al-Faisal. As a result, the organization had substantial funds at its command. Ayman al-Zawahiri confirmed this fact in his book “Knights under the Banner of the Prophet” issued in December 2001, where he mentioned that al-Qaeda had funded Afghan jihad with two hundred million dollars in the form of weapons only in the span of ten years. It is also a well-known fact that al-Qaeda had funded the Taliban takeover of Kabul in December 1996, and killed off Taliban strong opponent Ahmed Shah Massoud.
As expected, magic turned against the magician, and the attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1994 should have been a warning to the U.S. of the seriousness of the phenomenon which was partly of its own making. But the American response was lax, even as more terrorist operations followed, with the most serious being the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998, which left in its wake hundreds of mostly poor Africans dead and wounded. Yet, the Clinton administration dealt with the matter rather leniently, firing several missiles at al-Qaeda camps with little impact that failed to stop the escalating savagery of the militant organization. A few years later, the events of September 11, 2001 took place shaking the United States and the whole world, and revealing the extent of the danger posed by Islamic jihadist organizations.
With the onset of war in Afghanistan and then Iraq, American Think Tanks started to look for non-military alternatives to deal with the Islamic phenomenon and with the countries that export Islamic terrorism. Thus, the notion of an agenda of democracy was put forward in the era of Bush Jr. A connection between tyranny and the rise of religious extremism was suggested, along with the argument that internal repression of the Islamist phenomenon had resulted in the phenomenon being exported to the West. With an agenda of democracy, came an inevitable question: what if democracy actually allowed Islamists to gain power? The answer was provided by Condoleezza Rice, who expressed the U.S. conviction of the importance of dialogue with Islamists in the Arab region, and confirmed that the US did not fear the prospect of an Islamist arrival to power. Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department, confirmed that the U.S. did not fear the arrival of Islamists to power as a substitute to the repressive Arab regimes which have muzzled their people, thus triggering the outbreak of terrorist acts, provided that Islamists gain power through democratic means and adopt democracy as a means of government.
In February 2004, the Rand Corporation issued a report titled “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, resources and strategies,” which was among a number of significant reports that recommended the Islamists’ participation in government. The report recommended the initiation of a dialogue with moderate Islamists, and classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate group.
However, the prospect of Islamists’ participation in government with U.S. cooperation was unlikely to happen in the era of Bush who, after launching two wars on two Islamic states, was a hated figure in Islamic countries. This agenda was much more likely to be achieved in the era of Barack Obama, who does not believe that an Islamist ideology poses a danger to the U.S. and does not view the prospect of an Islamist takeover as a threat.
As the Obama administration, the CIA and the Pentagon were in favor of the participation of moderate Islamists in government, a need arose for a non-Saudi, Arab agent, since Saudi Arabia was an agent of jihadist, Salafi[2], Wahhabi and Talibani Islam. The choice fell on Qatar, the small and wealthy state seeking to play a role in the region, and which also embraces the Muslim Brotherhood Baron Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Over the years, by means of huge funds, and through the Al-Jazeera channel, Qatar had played a part in increasing the discontent towards the old regimes, meanwhile promoting and paving the way for an Islamists takeover of the region. Qatar has funded several institutions and Think Tanks that address the subject of Islam and democracy or advocate for the participation of Islamists in government. For several years, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Radwan Masmoudi and other friends of the Muslim Brothers and Qatar have been active in the U.S. and Europe promoting the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in government through ballot boxes. In a single year, ten major conferences were held in the U.S. and Europe, sponsored by universities and renowned Western Think tanks, to discuss the participation of Islamists in government—which raises the question: where did the considerable funding required for these conferences come from?
After the collapse of the old regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Qatar turned its attention towards supplying its Islamist allies with massive funds to enable them to gain power through sham, dishonest elections. Saudi Arabia joined the foray by funding Wahhabi Salafi movements to preserve its influence in the new era.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. was willing to deal with Islamic governments in the region, and U.S. officials made subsequent visits to the region. The warm welcome given to Senator John Kerry in the Muslim Brotherhood Cairo office signified the new deal, and Salafi SheikhHazem Salah Abu Ismail, a candidate for the presidency, described Kerry’s visit as a herald of victory and good tidings. It was not surprising, then, that Qatar was the first country that Rashid Ghannouchi, leader of the Tunisian Party Al-Nahda, visited after winning the elections, and that the second was the United States.
In the past, the U.S. had supported Afghan jihad and reaped a bitter harvest in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; but its support of a Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist takeover through ballot boxes in the Middle East would produce a harvest that is far more bitter for the U.S. and the entire world. These movements believe in the value of empowerment — that is, to make a show of embracing democracy when they are in a vulnerable state, and when empowered, to pursue their ultimate plan which is the establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate. This may very well spark a third World War launched from the Middle East against Israel, the U.S. and the West in general, possibly taking a religious form, i.e. Islam versus Christianity and Judaism. That scenario effectively means that the United States is contributing, unknowingly, to the revival of the Islamic Caliphate, and the ensuing religious wars.
