Counter Terrorism – The Right Approach and Solutions

20130805_FLAGATGROUNDZERO_911_LARGEby ALAN KORNMAN:

On a chilly Thursday night while most of Orlando residents were at home keeping warm Wallace Bruschweiler was connecting the dots on terrorist cell operations from the 1970′s to today.

Mr. Bruschweiler was in the field disrupting the terrorist activities of the Baader-Meinhof Group, Red Brigades, Action Directe, IRA, and ETA.  These groups were responsible for over 296 bomb attacks, arson, counterfeiting, murder, kidnapping, kneecapping,  assassinations, to further their left-wing anti-colonialist / Communist politics.

The lessons learned from fighting the terrorist groups of the 1970′s is relevant today as we fight Jihadi’s moving their agenda of Islamic Expansionism into the West.

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence to achieve a political objective.  Mr. Brushweiler says understanding the definition is something the majority of the American people get.  It is the business model the terrorists use that is the important element in understanding the issues behind the headlines.   The mainstream press and academia have done a great disservice to the American people by focusing on the gruesome effects of terrorist operations rather than the solutions needed to combat the philosophical, political, and ideological roots of modern terrorism.

What the American people yearn for is someone to explain the structure of how terrorist groups operate freely inside the United States using our free and open society to their greatest tactical advantage.

The first clue in unraveling this mystery of terrorism is information Mr. Bruschweiler gathered while conducting counter terrorist operations against many terrorists group only a few short decades ago.  To confuse law enforcement, the Red Brigades used the names of approximately 500 terrorist groups to appear bigger and more numerous than in reality they were.  The effect of this successful tactic resulted in law enforcement spending time and resources going after empty terrorist shells rather than cutting off the head of the terrorist snake.  Islamic terrorists today are using this same methodology to confuse the American people.

What Does It Take To Get Our Country Back 

“On 9/11 Bin Laden outsmarted us and got what he really wanted.  It wasn’t only to terrorize the West, but to get the USA out of the Middle East.  Today, Egypt is no longer a friendly country towards us for very specific reasons.  Saudi Arabia was the first to realize this when President Obama threw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus.”

“Vladimir Putin is accepting 40,000 Christians from the Middle East.  Obama just took in 4,000 Muslims from Syria.  Two days ago an Egyptian journalist declared we must attack Hamas in Gaza until they kiss the Egyptian shoes.  We should teach them a lesson like Israel did.”  This is today’s situation in the Middle East and how the Middle East looks at us.

“In Iraq we lost 4,000 soldiers, pumped billions into the country to liberate it.  Today,  the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Iran are running the country of Iraq.”

“The wolf is guarding the hen house in Washington DC.  Six men of strange Muslim Brotherhood backgrounds are directly responsible to the White House.”  Those men are Arif Alikhan, Mohammed Elibiary, Rashad Hussain, Salam al-Marayati, Imam Mohamed Magid, and Eboo Patel.”

“My message is very clear, we have to stop Islamic expansionism and stop importing trouble.  This can be accomplished by a complete Congressional overhaul of the Refugee Resettlement Act and slowing down Muslim immigration from terrorist supporting countries until we can properly vet the lives of these refugees.”

President Obama’s current policies regarding a Nuclear Iran are eerily reminiscent of Chamberlain negotiating ‘Peace In our Time’ with the Adolf Hitler.  I believe our current policy of appeasement is dangerous and misguided.

On the domestic political front, “We need more candidates like Colonel Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, and so on.”

“I want to give you a little sideline about the Jewish vote in the United States.  I was surprised by the fact Jews vote 75-80% Democrat.  In my modest opinion, there is a reason for that.  Remember, Israel was born in 1948 as a Socialist State.  The movement of Kibbutzim was a Socialist movement.  Today, the Kibbutzim exist only by name.  The Kibbutzim who survive today are very successful capitalist enterprises. The older Jewish populations in Miami, Orlando, New York, Los Angeles, etc have brought the Kibbutzim mentality to their communities and are reluctant to evolve.  They must finally see that the policies of the Democratic party do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

The most prolific killers of Muslims in the Middle East are not American’s or Israelis, it is Muslim on Muslim violence.  This is an untold story:  Did you know that Jordan’s King Hussein killed in 48 hours more  Arabs than Israel in all her wars since 1948. King Hussein got fed up with what was going on in his kingdom and gave carte blanche to his army and they killed 15,000 Palestinian Arabs with allegiance to Arafat.

The rest fled, many of the high ranking Palestinian officers crossed into Israel asking for protection, the rest went to Lebanon via the Chouf area.  The Druze said they wanted $100 for each Palestinian crossing into Lebanon and earned a lot of money.  That is how Arafat escaped and established himself in Beirut.

Today in Iraq and Syria, Sunni and Shia Muslims are murdering each other on a daily basis as they wrestle for power and avenge tribal disagreements going back hundreds of years.  There are no ‘good guys’ in this never ending civil war.  The only time the Sunni and Shia combine forces is to wage war or commit terrorist activities against a common enemy.  This same formula holds true for Benghazi in Libya.

All I will say about Benghazi, is that all the lies spit out about what happened there was smoke and mirrors cleverly used to help President Obama’s 2012 reelection.  Let’s not forget  the Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy is only 90 minutes from Benghazi and I will leave it there for you to make your own conclusions.

This is the one thing I insist that people have to understand.  Do not disregard messages issued by terrorists, what they write or say in videos, they will definitely try to execute.  What the terrorist say is vitally important to our national security.  The NSA is tasked with tracking communications of terrorists and their supporters, both domestic and foreign.  If you look behind the anti-NSA headlines you will often see the people screaming the loudest are Muslim Brotherhood groups operating on US soil.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

Qatar’s Duplicitous Game

by Paul Alster:

In the first of a two-part assessment of its growing role on the world stage and dubious influence on Middle East and Arab politics, Paul Alster looks at Qatar’s carefully crafted image that masks the real direction of this autocratic nation. In part two he concentrates on Qatar’s on-the-ground financing of Islamist militias and revolutions in the Arab world.

Haifa, Israel - Sometimes the most stunning deceptions occur in broad daylight. It’s the classic ruse of the pathological manipulator; the hugely successful benefactors of a myriad of good causes such as disgraced financial moguls Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford.

The State of Qatar falls into a similar category. The Arabian Gulf island nation has insinuated its way to the top table of world affairs through financial muscle established on rich natural gas and oil reserves. Qatar has befriended and works closely with some of the most powerful nations (including the United States), and has established a series of high-profile charitable foundations and outstanding world-leading brands, while at the same time, it has brazenly sponsored terrorist entities across the Arab world and beyond.

For a tiny country, it has ambitious aims to advance the global Muslim Brotherhood and promote Sunni Islam in its fight against Shia. But that agenda attracts little attention. Qatar has promoted and financed the cause of the Islamist opposition forces that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has promoted the now-ruling Ettafdid Movement in Tunisia, the FSA in Syria, and most recently, has supported the rebel forces in Mali.

“I think the U.S. is less aware of this [than it should be]. I mean it’s hard to miss! It really has been ignored or shunted aside,” Professor Ze’ev Magen, Middle East Studies chairman at Bar Ilan University, told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“There is a constant attempt to attribute the breakdown [of the previous Arab status quo] to other factors,” Magen said. “But in the end, what you see is the Iraqis, Syrians and the Lebanese Shiites, all lining up together with Iran, and then you’ve got the Sunni world that is most prominently represented by the Wahabbi Islam of the Gulf States [including Qatar] and the Muslim Brotherhood working together on the Sunni side.”

Qatar’s generosity in helping Egypt during its current critical financial difficulties will not be without payback, Abdel Rahman Youssef, an Egyptian journalist specializing in political and religious affairs, wrote last month for the Lebanon-based Al Akhbar website, adding that Qatar may have its sights set on acquiring the Suez Canal and the Suez industrial zone currently owned by the Dubai Ports.

Read more at IPT

Also see:

As Qatar Buys Up American Gas Wells, Energy Independence Seems Even Less Likely  (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)

Who’s Who in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

egyptMuslimBrotherhoodMontage-198x133

By Eric Trager, Katie Kiraly, Cooper Klose, and Eliot Calhoun

Given its growing control over key government institutions and its unmatched mobilizing capabilities, the Muslim Brotherhood will likely remain Egypt’s most consequential political actor for many years to come. But who are the men who make up this uniquely cohesive and secretive “society,” and what impact will they have on the country’s domestic and foreign policy?

 

Introduction

Since Hosni Mubarak’s February 2011 ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as Egypt’s most potent political force. It won a decisive plurality in the winter 2011–2012 People’s Assembly elections and a majority in the January 2012 Shura Council elections, thus gaining control over both houses of parliament and the committee that is writing the next constitution. And in June, the group successfully campaigned to elect Brotherhood leader Muhammad Morsi as Egypt’s first civilian president.

Since taking office, Morsi has moved quickly to consolidate the organization’s power, appointing fellow Muslim Brothers to head key ministries and cracking down on media criticism of the group. His boldest moves came on August 12, when he sacked the generals who posed the greatest threat to his authority, promoted new generals who now answer to him, and issued a constitutional declaration that gave him full executive, legislative, and constitution-writing powers. Although Morsi and the Brotherhood may yet face challenges from non-Islamists, Salafists, former regime elements, and, perhaps, the judiciary, the group’s unmatched mobilizing capabilities and control over key government institutions will likely make it Egypt’s most consequential political actor for many years to come.

For this reason, it is worth taking a closer look at the individuals who make up the Brotherhood’s organizational and political leadership. After all, the group views itself not as a political party directed by a single chairman, but as a cohesive “society” that operates on the basis of internal consultation, or shura. Accordingly, its strategic and policy decisions will be guided not only by Morsi and Supreme Guide Muhammad Badie, but also by a team of longtime Brotherhood officials who will coordinate efforts across the various political bodies the group now dominates.
Who are these individuals? While the profiles in this compendium demonstrate that Brotherhood leaders come from many different educational and professional backgrounds, their stories illustrate three important points about the organization.

First, the Brotherhood’s leadership is composed almost exclusively of longtime members. Most were recruited during high school or college and, in many cases, served in top administrative positions within the Brotherhood’s nationwide structure before being promoted to the Guidance Office (the organization’s top executive authority) or nominated for political office. To some extent, this is typical of any political organization: veteran members tend to lead. But for the Brotherhood, having longtime members in top posts ensures that its leaders have all been vetted over the course of decades for their willingness to comply with the internal shura committee’s decisions. This does not mean that internal divisions are impossible, but the tight, time-tested circle in which decisions are made makes this highly unlikely. As a result, the Brotherhood maintains a unity of purpose that other Egyptian political groups have yet to achieve.

Second, in addition to their positions within the group, most Brotherhood leaders were active in important societal organizations under the Mubarak regime, serving on the boards of professional syndicates, heading labor unions, running religious charities, and/or participating in key social clubs. These positions enabled them to build their stature at a time when avenues for more direct political participation were often blocked. Such activity also helped the group expand its outreach networks, through which it gained popular support by providing social services and increasing its recruitment efforts.

Third, almost all of the Brotherhood’s top leaders were directly persecuted under the Mubarak regime, and many served time as political prisoners. To some extent, this enhances their unity, particularly among those who were imprisoned together. More important, it makes them unlikely to tolerate competing centers of power, since the Brotherhood’s ouster could invite a new era of repression against the organization.

Individual profiles suggest other important points about the Brotherhood as well. In particular, the group’s recruitment networks clearly have international reach, since three of its top leaders (including Morsi) came aboard while living in the United States. The Brotherhood’s internal promotion structure is also somewhat nepotistic, given that its top leaders frequently are related to each other through marriage or are professional colleagues. Finally, despite the fact that Brotherhood officials have never run a government ministry or wielded meaningful political power until recently, the group is confident that it has the expertise to lead Egypt because its members come from many different professional backgrounds.

This first installment of Brotherhood profiles examines top figures from the Guidance Office, the Freedom and Justice Party (the group’s political arm), the parliamentary leadership, and members of Morsi’s presidential office. These profiles will be updated as new information surfaces, and new ones will be added over time.

(Note: To see quotation sources and photographs for each individual profiled, download the PDF version of the compendium.)

Index:

  • Saber Abouel Fotouh
  • Salah Abdel Maqsoud
  • Saber Abdul Sadeq
  • Sabri Amer
  • Sheikh Sayyed Askar
  • Khaled al-Azhari
  • Muhammad Badie
  • Muhammad al-Beltagy
  • Amr Darrag
  • Essam al-Erian
  • Mahmoud Ezzat
  • Ahmed Fahmi
  • Ali Fath al-Bab
  • Mahmoud Ghozlan
  • Essam al-Haddad
  • Mahmoud Hussein
  • Saad al-Husseini
  • Hussein Ibrahim
  • Farid Ismail
  • Saad al-Katatni
  • Mahmoud el-Khodary
  • Hassan Malek
  • Muhammad Morsi
  • Mustafa Mosaad
  • Gen. Abbas Mukhaymer
  • Al-Sayyed Negidah
  • Subhi Saleh
  • Akram al-Shaer
  • Khairat al-Shater
  • Ahmed Suleiman
  • Muhammad Tousoun
  • Tareq Wafiq
  • Osama Yassin

Top Leaders

Muhammad Morsi

محمد مرسي

  • Born: August 1951
  • Position: President of Egypt; formerly member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Office, parliamentarian (2000–2005), and chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party
  • Education: Doctorate in engineering from University of Southern California (1982), master’s degree in engineering from Cairo University (1978), bachelor’s degree in engineering from Cairo University (1975)
  • Occupation: Engineer

Morsi was first recruited to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States while studying for his PhD in engineering at the University of Southern California. His children were born in California and are U.S. citizens. After receiving his doctorate in 1982, he taught as an assistant professor at California State University–Northridge until 1985.

He then returned to Egypt to teach at Zagazig University, where his colleagues included current Brotherhood deputy supreme guides Mahmoud Ezzat and Mahmoud Ghozlan. Some sources report that Morsi’s rise in the MB began in 2000, when he was elected as a member of the People’s Assembly and served as the Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc leader from 2000 to 2005. After losing his parliamentary race in 2005 due to Mubarak regime forgery, he became leader of the Brotherhood’s political division. From 2007 onward, he was also the key point of contact between the MB and the regime’s repressive State Security apparatus (and, according to MB political leader Saad al-Husseini, between the Brotherhood and Hamas).

Morsi has been arrested at least twice: he was detained for seven months in 2006 after protesting alongside several judges who had been targeted by the regime, and again during the January 2011 uprising, along with several other Brotherhood leaders. Following the uprising, the MB leadership appointed him chairman of the newly formed Freedom and Justice Party. In April 2012, he was chosen as the group’s backup presidential candidate in the event that its initial candidate, Khairat al-Shater, was barred from running. When Shater was indeed excluded due to a previous conviction, Morsi became the MB’s presidential nominee. In the first round of Egypt’s presidential election, Morsi won 24.78 percent of the vote, securing his position in a runoff against Ahmed Shafiq in mid-June. On June 24, Morsi was declared president, having won 51.73 percent of the vote.

Read the rest at The Washington Institute

Picking sides in the Muslim world proves deadly

By: Kerry Patton:

The Blaze” television network aired a two part series last night and Wednesday night called The Project. It showed how the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated the United States, is seeking to take over the entire world with Sharia (Islamic) Law, and literally turn the globe into an Islamic world.

Many facts and true investigative reporting was displayed by Glenn Beck and his team who created The Project. Experts were brought in discussing some alarming findings. For those who have been following Islamic movements, very little should have been seen as new. But for those who don’t really “get it,” it is something worth watching.

The Project came during a critical time. The Middle East has imploded with violence, Al Qaeda exemplified through the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens that it has not been defeated, and Iran continues its nuclear endeavors barking the extermination of Israel.

After watching the two part series, some questions need to be asked. The most important question is whether anyone in either political party realizes that neither the Sunni sect nor their Islamic rival, the Shi’ites, are worthy any American support.

Not long ago, many astute researchers of Islam said that entering Afghanistan may have been the wrong nation to attack after 9-11. We have been fed insight declaring the Taliban as Al Qaeda’s protectors and that Afghanistan was Al Qaeda’s “base.” All of this information may be true under the physical sense of things. But much more to the story exists.

How many Afghans were on those aircraft on that beautiful September day which sparked the Global War on Terror? How many Afghans actually contributed monetary expenses to see the terror attack come to fruition?  To both questions, the answer is zero.

So who did truly support 9-11? Two main nations were behind the 9-11 incident and interestingly enough, they are not friendly to the other—Saudi Arabia and Iran—one Sunni and one Shi’ite state. And yes, Iran was identified as a culprit behind the terror attacks based off a recent federal magistrate’s finding. But the United States did nothing to Saudi Arabia and frankly we did nothing to Iran per the 9-11 attacks.

Read more at the Examiner

Kerry Patton, a combat disabled veteran, is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children’s book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook or at kerry-patton.com/.

Decline In Hizbullah’s Status In Lebanon

By E. B. PICALI

There has been a tangible decline lately in Hizbullah’s political and public standing in Lebanon. This is evident, for example, in attacks and provocations of unprecedented boldness made by Ahmad Al-Asir, a Salafi sheikh from Sidon, against the organization and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah; in the decision of Michel ‘Aoun, a prominent partner in the March 8 Forces and Hizbullah’s political ally for the past six years, to revoke political understandings with Hizbullah; in the May 22, 2012 abduction of 11 Lebanese Shi’ites in Syria, who, according to some reports, were senior Hizbullah members (and in the fact that Hizbullah has not publicly reacted to this incident); and in criticism by Hizbullah’s own supporters over its handing of social and economic affairs in the government and parliament.

The issue of Hizbullah’s declining status was addressed by editors of two Lebanese dailies associated with the March 8 Forces. Ibrahim Al-Amin, editor of the Hizbullah-affiliated daily Al-Akhbar, wrote that only “divine help”[1] would save Hizbullah in its current state.[2] Some 10 days later, he even called on Hizbullah to leave the political arena and focus on resistance, in order to improve its situation.[3] Sati’ Nour Al-Din, editor of the pro-Syrian daily Al-Safir, assessed that the Shi’ites’ silence over the actions and statements of Sunni extremists throughout Lebanon – especially those of Al-Asir – stemmed from weakness and fear. This fear, he said, was triggered by the possible collapse of the Syrian regime, which has heretofore supplied the Shi’ites with weapons that gave them an advantage over the other sects in the country.[4]

Indeed, it can be assessed that the weakening in Hizbullah’s standing has been caused by the decline in Syria’s status in Lebanon; by the growing power of Sunni-Islamist forces throughout the Arab world, and especially in Syria and Lebanon; and by Hizbullah’s unwavering support for Assad, whom many Lebanese regard as a tyrant oppressing and butchering his people.

Sheikh Al-Asir Slams Hizbullah

In a June 23, 2012 appearance on the Lebanese TV channel Al-Jadid, affiliated with the March 8 Forces, Sidon-based Salafi sheikh Ahmad Al-Asir personally threatened Nasrallah and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the leading representatives of the Shi’ite community in Lebanon, saying: “I challenge you directly, Berri and Nasrallah… I swear by Allah that I will not let you sleep at night, along with your wives and children, until balance is restored to Lebanon.”

Al-Asir accused Hizbullah of using its weapons not to promote the Palestinian cause but rather to control Lebanon and subjugate it to Iran.[5] In a July 6, 2012 sermon, he called Nasrallah and Berri “war criminals,” and blamed them for all the assassinations and assassination attempts in Lebanon since the murder of Rafiq Al-Hariri in 2005.[6]

Al-Asir did not confine himself to verbal attacks. On June 27, 2012, he and hundreds of his followers – men, women and children – launched an indefinite sit-down strike at the northern entrance to the city demanding to disarm Hizbullah, and even blocked traffic on the main highway to Beirut.[7] Al-Asir said that Hizbullah’s weapons “have lost their honor in the eyes of most Lebanese,” because, since Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in 2000, they have served the organization as a tool for taking over Lebanon. He rejected Hizbullah’s claim that the demand to disarm it is a Zionist and American demand, adding that the Sunnis were slaves to no one, and that he does not fear his actions could spark a civil war. On the contrary, he said, what might lead to civil war is the public acquiescence to Hizbullah’s takeover of Lebanon by means of its weapons.

He threatened to escalate his struggle and said he was even willing to martyr himself, if necessary, while stressing that all his activity would be non-violent.[8] In a July 13, 2012 sermon, Al-Asir threatened Nasrallah that if the latter failed to heed his demands, he would “harm him as [even] the regional and global forces have not harmed him,” adding: “The power balance has shifted, and now we [Sunnis are the ones who will] determine how you [Nasrallah] and Nabih Berri will enter South [Lebanon].”[9] He demanded that Nasrallah undertake serious talks with President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati on the issue of Hizbullah’s arms.[10]

It should be mentioned that, on June 11, 2012, a new round of national dialogue talks began between various political forces in Lebanon. One of the issues to be discussed was the illegal weapons held by various organizations and bodies in the country, the most prominent of them being Hizbullah. The Lebanese Forces party, headed by Samir Geagea, boycotted the talks on the grounds that Hizbullah has no serious intention of giving up its weapons. Al-Asir endorsed this position, saying that the national dialogue was a joke.

Michel ‘Aoun Revokes Political Understandings With Hizbullah

Another blow to Hizbullah came from within the organization’s own camp, namely from Michel ‘Aoun, chairman of the Change and Reform bloc, an important force in the March 8 Forces. A powerful figure in Lebanese politics, ‘Aoun has been considered a mouthpiece of Hizbullah in recent years. However, a crisis broke out between the sides on July 3, 2012, when Hizbullah’s representatives in parliament supported a draft bill granting full-time employee status to day workers in the Lebanese electric company, many of whom are Shi’ite supporters of Nabih Berri. In supporting this bill, Hizbullah sided with its Shi’ite partner, Nabih Berri, against its Christian partner, Michel ‘Aoun, who opposed the bill (thus siding with some of his fellow Christian MPs in the March 14 Forces).

Read more at Right Side News

 

The Rise of the Saudi Superstate

by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage:

The 32nd summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council may be remembered as the dawn of the Caliphate with the Saudi proposal to accelerate the union of the six GCC States likely to dramatically change the region. The union is being described as “EU Style,” but in practice it would be a larger version of the United Arab Emirates, a federation of tribal monarchies.

The combined entity would have a 1 trillion dollar GDP and some 35 percent of the world’s oil reserves, giving it immeasurable influence on the global stage. And that nucleus of power and wealth would be used to consolidate its influence over rest of the region and the world. If the GCC integrates Yemen, it will be able to turn the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Gulf, and if it integrates Libya, Sudan and Iraq, then it will have a combined population of 100 million and be able to approach the 50 percent world oil reserves marker.

Whether or not the GCC can transition to a Muslim EU, in the words of its charter, “founded on the creed of Islam,” is still an open question. In the last five years the GCC has struggled toward adopting a common market and a common currency, its unity undercut by suspicion of the House of Saud and internal rivalries. While Article Four of the GCC Charter had always made unity into a goal of the GCC and previous Riyadh Declarations had called for consolidating their Arab and Islamic identities into a regional union, there was never enough external pressure and internal promise to make that feasible.

Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab Spring have changed all that. Saudi Arabia’s suppression of Shiite protesters in Bahrain was the first significant use of the GCC’s previously inept Peninsula Shield Force. The victory in Bahrain has kept its Sunni monarchy in power and made it dependent on Saudi backing which has also made its officials into the most enthusiastic proponents of the union.

Holding back the Arab Spring in Bahrain was not only a proxy victory against Iran, it also demonstrated that Saudi influence could hold off Western action against GCC members under its umbrella and gave added weight to Saud Al-Faisal’s call for a combined military and foreign policy. Saudi Arabia can offer GCC members the protection of its enormous influence in the West, as well as one of the largest armies in the region, armed and trained by the United States, and an eventual nuclear umbrella.

The Obama Administration has left the nations of the region with very few options. They can either wait for America and Europe to hand them over to the Muslim Brotherhood on a democratic platter. They can become puppets of Iran. They can long for the return of a Turkish Ottoman Empire under the AKP. Or they can look to the Saudis for leadership and aid.

The Arab Spring has set two Caliphate movements on track. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Caliphate which is to consist of the Arab Socialist countries whose governments were overthrown in the Arab Spring, Egypt and Tunisia, and possibly Syria and Libya. And the GCC, a more traditional Caliphate of tribal monarchs with oil wealth.

Read more