The Terror-Reinforcing Primary

Meet the anti-Trump Democrats who are friendly to terrorists.

Front Page Magazine, by Lloyd Billingsley,, October 19, 2018:

Since the 2016 election Democrats have centered their activism around opposition to President Trump. This furious enmity may have overshadowed some Democrats’ friendliness toward Islamic terrorists, and for the Democrat running in California’s 50th district it’s a family affair.

“Palestinian-Mexican” Ammar Campa-Najjar, also billed as “Latino Arab-American,” is the grandson of Yousefal-Najjar, a leader of Black September, the Palestinian terrorist group that abducted, tortured and murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

In 1973, Israeli commandos killed Yousef al-Najjar, and the king of Morocco adopted his son Yasser al-Najjar, who lived in Egypt until 1981 when he reportedly moved to the United States. How al-Najjar fils was able to enter the USA remains something of a mystery, but in the official account he married Abigail, a Mexican-American woman, and lived in San Diego, California.

The Democrat now contending with Republican Duncan Hunter, who faces campaign finance violations, claims his father Yasser al-Najjar returned to Gaza in the 1990s to help Yasser Arafat form a government and promote “peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.” Yasser al-Najjar served as a de-facto ambassador, defending the Palestinians against charges that they misused money from the government of Norway for anti-Jewish propaganda.

Yasser al-Najjar is regarded as a “legend” among Palestinians and in 2014 his father Yousef al-Najjar received the “Grand Star of Honor” medal from PA boss Mahmoud Abbas. The Black September terrorist also has Martyr Abu Yousef Al-Najjar Hospital, named after him in Gaza.

The California Democrat failed to reveal any of this before he launched his campaign. News that Black September terrorist Yousef al-Najjar was his grandfather only emerged in February from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.  The Democrat dismissed it as a “quick take” and said that innocent civilians should never be killed, not quite the same as specifically denouncing the Munich massacre. The terrorist attack also failed to emerge in 2012 when al-Najjarworked in the reelection campaign of POTUS 44.

It was only last June that the “progressive” Democrat legally changed his name from Ammar Yasser Najjar to “Ammar Joseph Campa-Najjar.” This was all of great interest but for establishment media, it was “don’t ask don’t tell.”

Several retired generals, friendly to Hunter, wondered if an elected Campa-Najjar would compromise U.S. operations to protect relatives. Defenders of the progressive Democrat said the charge was all about “bigotry, xenophobia and racism,” and so forth. In early October, some polls showed the Democrat within a point of Hunter.

For her part, Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema was formerly with the Green Party and made a name for herself organizing rallies against the war in Iraq. In 2003 she promoted events at Arizona State University featuring Lynn Stewart, attorney for terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman. Stewart had been charged with passing messages from Rahman to his terrorist followers.

Rep. Sinema is one of the Democrats who used the services of IT man Imran Awan, who accessed sensitive congressional computers without authorization and destroyed evidence. POTUS 44 judge Tanya Chutkan recently let Awan off with no jail time.

Sinema has equated the deaths of U.S. soldiers in combat with illegals trying to enter the United States. Republican opponent Martha McSally has charged that Sinema said “it was OK for Americans to join the Taliban to fight against us” and that this was treasonous. Sinema responded that McSally, a U.S. Air Force combat veteran, is “engaging in ridiculous attacks and smearing my campaign.” The Senate race remains close and Sinema is hardly the only terrorist-friendly politician.

Indiana Democrat Andre Carson has been a speaker at numerous Islamist conferences and Islamists have given him generous donations. CAIR proudly lists Carson on their website, along with John Kerry, Keith Ellison and many other Democrats.

Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib, who aims to the first Muslim woman in Congress, supports Rasmea Odeh, convicted of murdering two American students in a Jerusalem bomb attack. Tlaib has also supported Islamic Relief, a group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

Somalia-born Minnesota state representative Ilhan Omar defended nine men who sought to join ISIS, including Abdirahman Yasin Daud, sentenced to 30 years in prison by a federal judge. Omar, of the Democrat Farmer Labor Party, is now running for Congress in Minnesota’s Fifth District.

Meanwhile, in 2012 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack as a protest over a video. The former First Lady said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about the motive for the deaths of four Americans, including ambassador Christopher Stevens.

POTUS 44, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, who attended a “predominantly Muslim” school in Indonesia, refused to link Islam with terrorism in any way. When Muslim psychiatrist Nidal Hasan gunned down 13 Americans at Ford Hood in 2009, the president famously called it “workplace violence,” not even “gun violence.”

As November 6 approaches, voters across the nation may already have some indication how candidates friendly to terrorists would behave in Washington.

Why Is Khashoggi Being Made The Defining Issue Of U.S. Foreign Policy?

The alleged killing of Jamal Khashoggi reveals far more about the nature of the American press and political establishment than it does foreign policy.

The Federalist, by Ben Weingarten, October 19, 2018:

Why has the media and much of the political establishment made the presumed murder of an Islamist Saudi dissident on Turkish soil a defining issue in American foreign policy?

Jamal Khashoggi is not a U.S. citizen, despite his past residence in Virginia, nor is he a lover of liberty, despite his criticism of Saudi Arabia’s despotic regime. He previously served that regime as a mouthpiece for, and adviser to, the alleged al-Qaeda-tied Saudi intelligence leader Turki bin Faisal. Khashoggi mourned the death of Osama bin Laden, whom Khashoggi had been granted unusual levels of access for numerous interviews. Khashoggi was also an ardent proponent of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Needless to say, one wonders why Khashoggi was permitted to enter the United States and handed a column at The Washington Post given this background, particularly at a time our media claims acute sensitivity to foreign influence. One also wonders why so many in the media are quick to fawn over such a figure given his regressive views.

This is not to dismiss Khashoggi’s alleged gory assassination at the hands of his supposed Saudi captors by characteristically sketchy unnamed Turkish sources. If Mohammad bin Salman’s regime did execute this grisly murder, risking all the capital it had accrued in the West to send a signal to its political opposition, it should have to deal with the consequences.

But surely our media and political establishment are not blind to the brutality and censorship that characterizes the regimes of the Islamic world, whether in Riyadh, Ankara, or Tehran. Nor are they deaf to the proxy war taking place in any of a number of theaters with Iran, intense jockeying for relations with the Trump administration and much else that divides Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations like Egypt and the United Arab Emirates on the one hand, and Turkey and Qatar on the other.

3 Reasons Khashoggi Is Suddenly a BFD

Given the realities of an Islamic world marked by tyranny and perpetually roiled in internecine warfare, it is striking that this single alleged episode would lead to calls for America to effectively dismantle its entire regional policy. Yet is Saudi Arabia significantly different today than it was yesterday? It is even more curious, again, that the press would rush to such a judgment without evidence from a single trustworthy source, or any piece of compelling evidence.

Occam’s Razor suggests the media and political establishment is interested in Khashoggi for three main reasons.

First, Khashoggi is being used as a cudgel against President Trump’s foreign policy. The Trump administration has cultivated deep ties with Saudi strongman Mohammad bin Salman in a symbiotic relationship. The Saudis serve as the focal point in the Trump administration’s Gulf counter-jihadist alliance, as well as its Sunni Arab anti-Iran coalition. The United States provides bin Salman both military and political support, and credibility that he hopes will enable him to open Saudi Arabia to foreign capital to underwrite his modernization efforts and cement his rule on a more stable foundation.

Much of the establishment is seeking to force the Trump administration to ditch the Saudis — enemies of progressive Wilsonian foreign policy establishment darling Iranand its beloved fallen Iran Deal — thereby scuttling the Trump administration’s overall counter-jihadist, anti-Khomeinist Middle East policy. This policy is the polar opposite of the Obama administration’s, which the establishment of course largely supported.

Second, casting bin Salman as a murderous dictator feeds into one of the establishment’s favorite narratives, that  Trump embraces authoritarians and harbors authoritarian tendencies himself. The counter of course is that foreign policy requires partnering at times with unsavory regimes that reject our values in order to advance our greater interests, and Trump understands this.

Such concerns were evidently subordinated when the Obama administration was consummating the Iran Deal, supporting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and all manner of jihadists in Libya, and engaging in the Russian reset. Certainly the hundreds of thousands dead in Iran-backed Syria, where America’s chief contributions included arming ISIS and ceding control to Russia, are a testament to the establishment’s comfort with setting aside values when pursuing its interests. Most absurd of all among a press frequently blinded by its Trump hatred is the suggestion that Trump actually inspired the Saudis’ alleged actions.

Third, the media believes in protecting its own, and virtue-signaling. Threatening a journalist — if that journalist isn’t a conservative, and the person threatening him isn’t a leftist — is the surest way to draw the media’s ire. The pile-on in this case for not just the media, but also for major U.S. corporations, to cut ties with the Saudis indicates the social pressure is strong among the progressive elite to reject the Saudis on supposed moral grounds, given the alleged murder of a romanticized supposed “reformer” in exile, notwithstanding the West’s commerce with other similarly violent regimes abroad. The media also loves stoking the flames of the narrative that Trump wishes to shut down dissent. If he tolerates the Saudis doing so, in the media’s eyes, all the more reason to attack.

There’s More Going On Here, Of Course

Another element to this story was raised in one of Khashoggi’s last columns for The Washington Post. It has gone ignored, and might explain in part the rush to make Khashoggi a cause célèbre given the lack of facts and evidence, and Khashoggi’s checkered background.

On Aug. 28, 2018, Khashoggi published an article for The Washington Post titled “The U.S. is wrong about the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Arab world is suffering for it.” In it, he blames the United States’ aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood for the “loss of a great opportunity to reform the entire Arab world and allow a historic change that might have freed the region from a thousand years of tyranny.”

Get that? It is the Sharia supremacist Muslim Brotherhood that in Khashoggi’s view would have “liberated” the Arab world. Khashoggi continues:

There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it … the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political representatives …

It is wrong to dwell on political Islam, conservatism and identity issues when the choice is between having a free society tolerant of all viewpoints and having an oppressive regime.

Who knew that Muslim Brotherhood rule would foster liberty and plurality? Put simply, for Khashoggi, Islamic theocracy is freedom. Unsurprisingly, then, essential to his desired “democratic” project is the Muslim Brotherhood:

There are efforts here in Washington, encouraged by some Arab states that do not support freedom and democracy [read: Saudi Arabia], to persuade Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If they succeed, the designation will weaken the fragile steps toward democracy and political reform that have already been curbed in the Arab world. It will also push backward the Arab countries that have made progress in creating a tolerant environment and allowing political participation by various components of society, including the Islamists.

The Obama administration’s entire Middle East policy was disastrous to America’s national interest, but it was in accord with Khashoggi’s wishes, and those of a political establishment for which political Islam was considered not only acceptable but also desirable, and the Muslim Brotherhood was viewed as its most viable vehicle. Obama disrupted any semblance of balance in the historically bloody and chaotic Middle East by seeking to swing all power to one side, unleashing violent, supremacist, theocratic forces on all sides.

Recall that in the Sunni-Shia struggle, the administration sided with the Shia, seeking to make Iran the Middle East strong horse, flush with a more than $100 billion bailout, access to the global financial system, and a U.S. security guarantee for the Islamic Republic’s nuclear infrastructure. As if it was not bad enough to reward the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad with regional dominance, the Obama administration also sought to unshackle and empower the Muslim Brotherhood — the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear, and an Iran-linked one at that.

The Obama administration supported the Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt under the iron first of avowed Jew-haterChristian persecutor, and Sharia supremacist Mohamed Morsi. The administration also unleashed jihadist forces in Libya. Under the guise of democracy, the entire Obama strategy was to sweep out of power the relatively secular authoritarian rulers like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi who had kept a lid on jihadist savagery, and supplant them with Islamic theocrats.

The Roles of Manufactured Echo Chambers

“Democracy” in the Middle East meant tyranny of the Sharia supremacist majority, not liberalism. In 2014, in the wake of the Obama administration’s turn toward the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia designated the group as a terrorist organization, believing it posed a threat to the House of Saud. As Khashoggi noted, the Trump administration sought to reverse Obama administration policy, and considered designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

The administration met an onslaught of opposition from the media and political establishment. An echo chamber sprung into action, replete with countless articles in publications including The New York TimesWashington Post, and Foreign Policy — some even drafted by Brotherhood officials themselves — leaked documents from the CIA and State Department and attacks on Muslim Brotherhood terror designation proponents in the Trump administration, a PR coup against the effort to designate the group. This effort has, to datesucceeded. and the Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber remains.

As I noted in a Federalist article in April 2018, it was again deployed to attack Secretary of State designate Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor designate John Bolton as Islamophobic bigots in a bid to sink their nominations. Both Pompeo and Bolton were perceived as tough on Islamic supremacism in general, and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. This time the echo chamber failed.

It stands to reason too that the Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber is playing a role in the Khashoggi hysteria we are witnessing today. The sheer mass and speed with which journalists, pundits, and establishment politicians have spun out articles and soundbites in mainstream publications and outlets, almost uniformly portraying Khashoggi as a freedom-loving journalist, and attacking the anti-Muslim Brotherhood Saudi regime for alleged savagery that is sadly standard fare in the Middle East — all without context or corroboration — should give readers pause.

The accounts on which all this speculation is based, it bears noting again, are sourced from unreliable officials in Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Turkey, where the alleged murder took place, and amplified in Brotherhood-friendly publications. Why are they being taken at face value? Could it be because Khashoggi has been a powerful propagandist for a cause shared by the media and the political establishment — that of the Muslim Brotherhood — making a sober evaluation of the facts, and reasoned consideration as to what to do with them, of secondary concern?

Foreign Policy Shouldn’t Be Dictated by Fake Crises

In the final analysis, none of the actors with which we must deal in the Middle East save for Israel believe in anything resembling Western values. But America must operate in the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be.

Some are using the Khashoggi saga as a cynical ploy to pressure the Trump administration to relinquish its partnership with regimes that, although brutal and repressive, share a common adversary in Iran, and may be useful in suppressing jihadist forces. They do America’s national interest no good.

The globe is filled with murderers and thieves. In this dangerous world, our government’s paramount role is to protect us. The pursuit of our national security and national interest requires at times partnering with immoral regimes, requiring keen judgment, and the prioritizing of principles versus objectives. Doing everything we can to protect ourselves does not make us immoral.

For historical evidence, look no further than the sickening but necessary American alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II. Would it have been better to lose the war and thus all freedom by holding the so-called moral high ground of refusing to fight alongside an evil regime? On the contrary, refusing to partner with those who might help us further our security interests, thereby imperiling our citizens, would be the height of immorality.

The Iran Deal and Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber chorus, led by none other than Ben Rhodes is wholly hypocritical in its criticism given the evil regimes with which the Obama administration colluded, self-evidently to the detriment of our national interest. The Khashoggi affair has revealed significantly more about the nature of our media and political establishment than about the Islamic world and American foreign policy.

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.
Also see:
***

 

Why the Saudis despised Jamal Khashoggi

Jamal Khashoggi AFP/Getty Images

New York Post, by Tony Badran and Michael Doran, October 18, 2018:

With the likelihood growing that the Saudi government was behind the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, pressure has built for severe, swift action. As President Trump awaits more answers and contemplates a response, it’s worth considering who Khashoggi actually was, what he stood for and why the regime might have wanted him dead.

This is not to suggest that the killing of Khashoggi is justified. It is, however, meant to observe that characterizations of him in the media are not fully accurate. He’s depicted as a “reformer,” a “democracy advocate” and a “journalist.” Yet these are half-truths that obscure the political role Khashoggi played.

Before anything else, he was a regime insider. He was a close associate of senior members of the royal family who were eclipsed by the new crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

Khashoggi was not merely a pen for hire. He represented a particular political perspective. An Islamist, his views on major issues consistently tracked with those of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last September, for example, he lamented the crown prince’s new policy.

“Saudi Arabia,” Khashoggi said, “is the mother and father of political Islam.” But the Saudi government was forsaking this tradition. “Today,” the kingdom has turned against its very nature and is “fighting political Islam.” As a consequence, its “compass is lost.”

A Turkophile, Khashoggi hoped instead that the new crown prince would follow in the footsteps of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who supports the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab world. Khashoggi envisioned a grand alliance between Riyadh and Ankara.

“Saudi Arabia must return to fully supporting the Syrian revolution and to ally with the Turks,” he said. Like Erdogan, Khashoggi was hostile to the Sisi regime in Egypt and opposed Mohammed bin Salman’s rapprochement with Israel.

This perspective also translated into a sympathetic attitude toward Qatar, which aligns regionally with Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood. To MBS, however, Qatar has a sinister profile. When he broke off relations with the Qataris last year, he accused them of sponsoring members of the Saudi Islamist opposition, weaponizing media outlets against the kingdom and even plotting assassinations.

In the eyes of the young crown prince, Khashoggi symbolized the three-prong threat to his rule: the Muslim Brothers, the Turkish-Qatari axis and disaffected princes. When Khashoggi moved to America, Salman added a fourth prong: the element of the American elite that sought to downgrade Saudi Arabia’s friendship in US foreign policy.

Khashoggi found an influential perch at The Washington Post, from which he launched attacks on the crown prince. One of his recent columns, for example, calls for the end of the war in Yemen, which he portrays as an abject failure. He presents the Saudi government as an indiscriminate killer of fellow Muslims and blames the failure of peace talks on its obstinacy and incompetence.

These arguments hit the crown prince where it hurts most: They implicitly attack his Islamic legitimacy, essentially placing him in the same category as slaughterers of Muslims, such as the Syrian and Russian leaders, Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.

In presenting himself to his American friends, Khashoggi fashioned himself less the Islamist and more the democratic reformer. He made a tactical alliance with former Obama officials who seek to depict Trump’s pro-Saudi and anti-Iranian policy as a disaster.

Trump, in this view, is the enabler of a young, impetuous crown prince. Conflicts such as Yemen result from Saudi recklessness rather than Iranian expansionism.

Far from erasing this picture from the US media, Khashoggi’s disappearance has strengthened it. Given the opposition of former Obama officials to Trump’s strategy, they have an interest in stoking outrage at Khashoggi’s death. Their goal is to harness it in order to resurrect Obama’s outreach to Tehran.

Ironically, containing Iran is a goal that would make perfect sense to Khashoggi. In advocating a rapprochement between Riyadh and the Turkish-Qatari axis, he stressed the need for the Sunni powers to band together to thwart Tehran.

This is an aspect of his thought that he downplayed when making common cause with his American allies. It is the aspect, however, which President Trump would do well to remember most.

Tony Badran is research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael Doran is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Also see:

***

Behind The Khashoggi Disappearance–Let’s Not Throw Out The Baby With The Bath Water

President Donald Trump speaks with Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, during their meeting Tuesday, March 14, 2017, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 17, 2018:

Originally published on The Daily Caller:

While we await clarification of what exactly happened to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi after he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Oct. 2, there are still some important insights that may be gleaned from what is already known.

It is of key importance to note that Khashoggi was not just a Saudi citizen but also a legal permanent resident of the United States. And that makes his disappearance very much an issue for the United States and President Trump to take a direct interest in.

Should it be determined, as expected, that Khashoggi’s disappearance and possible murder was ordered by the top levels of the Saudi government, then the U.S. must impose a severe penalty and do it publicly. If the president fails in doing so, respect for him personally and for the U.S. government as a whole will be diminished with detrimental consequences not just for the U.S.-Saudi relationship, but more broadly in the Arab-Muslim world and beyond.

In the days since Khashoggi’s disappearance, information about him and his connections to the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as his outspoken, public criticism of the Saudi regime, have emerged.

While we of liberal Western civilization cherish and champion the right of individuals to speak freely, for those who govern by the laws of Islam (shariah) — as do the Saudis — publicly insulting fellow Muslims, much less the Saudi royal family, as Khashoggi did amounts to committing the capital crime of “slander” as defined by shariah (“anything that a Muslim would dislike“).

He criticized Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) by name, accused him of corruption (another capital crime under shariah — Q 5:32-33) and compared him to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He also condemned the Saudis as “repressive” and “extremist”, a word that carries specific meaning within Islam: to be “extremist” is to “exceed the limits” that Allah himself has set on lawful behavior by Muslims. For the Qur’an itself clearly says, “And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits” (Q 2:191).

For all of these reasons, under a legal code that Western Civilization rightly finds savage, Khashoggi very likely was given a death sentence by a regime whose continued right to existence is defined by its custodial role as Keepers of the Two Holy Places.

Were the Saudis to have failed to defend Islam and shariah, they themselves would be seen as unworthy of the honor and the duty of that role and thereby become vulnerable in ways that directly involve regional stability.

The Turkish regime’s decision to free Pastor Andrew Brunson at just this juncture is not separate from the fact that Khashoggi disappeared inside the Saudi consulate on Turkish territory. That situation greatly exacerbates what was already a contentious relationship between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Saudis.

In short, Erdogan feels vulnerable right now and likely made the gesture to free Brunson as a kind of proffer to the United States. In short, he is looking for help from President Trump to stave off a Saudi offensive against Ankara. This does not mean that there was any kind of “deal” involved in Brunson’s release but rather that Turkey may well be willing to make other concessions going forward.

As the first and foremost of those, President Trump should demand a halt to Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) collaboration with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

As for the Saudis, if and when facts indicate they were responsible for whatever happened to Khashoggi, Crown Prince MBS and the Saudi regime itself must be held to account and publicly. President Trump must follow through on his threat of “severe punishment”; the Saudis will squawk publicly over this, but privately will understand  —and so will the rest of the Arab/Muslim world, which will be watching closely.

As noted above, because Khashoggi was a U.S. resident, his murder (if that is what it was) must be avenged. All this said, however, it is also of paramount importance that we not “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

The U.S.-Saudi relationship is critical to U.S. national security objectives in the region, most especially vis-à-vis Iran. Those who would disrupt or even destroy that relationship must not be allowed to succeed, even over the murder of a U.S. person by Saudis, whether officially or through a rogue operation.

President Trump must exact a meaningful and public price for the Khashoggi affair but tread a fine line that maintains a commitment to the bilateral relationship.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

***

The Center’s VP for Government Relations J. Michael Waller appeared on OANN on Oct. 12 and discussed issues pertaining to Jamal Khashoggi.

***

Center President Frank Gaffney discusses issues pertaining to Jamal Khashoggi.

***

Sebastian Gorka and Dan Hoffman:

 

Sharia Crime Stoppers Webinar, Week 7: DAWA THE 5 PHASE PLAN OF CIVILIZATION JIHAD

Today’s Webinar will present:

– An examination of the common characteristics of MB front Groups

– A close look at CAIR

– CAIR’s close association with the FBI

– How CAIR influences local law enforcement

– MB penetration into government institutions

– And the infiltration of Sharia into our legal system

The Strategic Role of Saudi Arabia

Security Studies Group, by Brad Patty, October 16, 2018:

The editorial boards of newspapers rarely employ strategists, so it should be no surprise when we see both the New York Times and the Washington Post openly wondering what America needs with Saudi Arabia. They have a handle on some of the facts – America is increasingly energy independent, and soon to be an exporter rather than an importer of energy; the Kingdom relies on the United States’ security guarantees for its stability and possibly for its survival. The question they ask is why, then, the United States needs Saudi Arabia (KSA) at all. It is important that the answer to that question be understood.

KSA plays four critical roles in the American-led world order.

Resisting Iranian Domination of Oil Routes.  While it is true that the United States is increasingly independent, the market for oil is worldwide. Major trading partners in Asia depend on oil that comes from the gulf that is variously called “Persian” or “Arabian.” The contest of the name is symbolic of a very real contest for control. The outcome of that contest could leave Iran, and their allies Russia and China, in a position to use oil as a weapon against American allies in Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea. Just as Russia already uses energy as a weapon to dominate much of Eastern Europe, and to influence even the heart of Europe, American allies in Asia are at risk if Iran succeeds in gaining control of oil routes.

How likely is it that this will occur? Let’s look at the map.

Notice the two straits that have red ovals around them, and the arrows that indicate flows of oil towards Asia. Iran directly borders one of these, the Strait of Hormuz. Notice how the pipelines of many nations all can be cut off from Asia if that strait is closed to shipping. This can be done with missiles, not only with ships. Contesting Iran’s control of that strait is thus a geostrategic interest of the United States.

The second, southern oval is bordered by Yemen. That is where the war between Iranian proxies and the Saudis is being fought. If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, at least some oil could be re-routed via pipelines to ship through that strait instead. Indeed, a certain amount of oil ships from there already. Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen have already succeeded in using missiles to close this strait to Saudi shipping. Re-opening and maintaining control of this shipping lane is, again, a crucial American interest in defense of our allies in Asia. It is how we keep the Russian/Chinese/Iranian axis from using oil as a weapon against the free nations in Asia.

KSA plays several important roles in this contest. It is the leader of the Gulf States’ naval contributions to keeping the straits open, and is leading the effort in Yemen as well.  The conflict in Yemen has been ugly, but neither America nor the free nations of the world can afford to walk away from it. KSA is also central to American efforts to build a kind of NATO in the region, one that unifies allied states such as Jordan and Egypt with the Gulf states. The aim is to establish forces that are trained and equipped alike, and that have compatible systems of command and control. Such a force would be stabilizing to the region, and an effective counter to Iran.

Even if America’s cutting off of KSA merely caused Saudi Arabia withdraw within itself, there would cease to be an effective counter to Iran’s efforts to dominate the region. If KSA were to collapse, Iran’s domination of the region would be the first step in the authoritarian domination of the Middle East and Asia by Russian and Chinese interests.

Those are the stakes of that ugly little war in Yemen, and the mostly invisible contest in the Straits of Hormuz.

Influence Over a Key Faction of Islam. For more than a century, the Saudi kingdom has nurtured the Wahabi faction of Islam as a means of self-defense and power projection. Schools of this faction exist widespread throughout the world. This is the school that gave rise to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, conducted as they were from caves in Afghanistan. It is a crucial interest of the United States and indeed of the whole world that KSA exert its leadership here in ways that lead this school of thought towards reform and co-existence rather than to a sense that war with non-Muslims is desirable.

The Security Studies Group (SSG) believes that reform is possible, and to be encouraged. We aspire to friendship rather than enmity. Even for those who believe otherwise, however, it matters whether a stabilizing authority is working to discourage violence. It matters that the Saudi security apparatus has the ties necessary to keep an eye on this network. In the absence of that leadership, we have already seen what groups like Al Qaeda do. It would be reckless of the United States to disregard the opportunity to use our influence toward the reform of the Wahabi faction by cutting off the KSA leadership.

Restraint of Refugee Flows into Europe. The civil war in Syria has produced massive refugee flows into Europe, as has the ongoing war in Afghanistan. These refugee flows have been large enough to be destabilizing even to core European powers; they may yet bring down the German government. American allies are very much feeling political and social pressure from the instability already existing in the Middle East.

Syria’s population is on the order of half of that of Saudi Arabia. Should KSA collapse into civil war due to an absence of security guarantees from the United States, Europe will see more massive waves of refugees swarming its borders.

Alternatively, should the Trump administration succeed in establishing a kind of Middle Eastern NATO built around KSA, Egypt, and Jordan, the effect will be stabilizing to the region. Many pressures on American allies in Europe will be lessened if the refugee flows decrease, or if the region is stabilized sufficiently that people can consider returning home.

Defense of Israel. There is some debate about whether or not defending Israel is a US interest, but it has been taken to be by successive administrations. Israel is, at least, a regional power that offers significant intelligence assets in support of American goals.

KSA is making moves towards the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world, which is likely a precondition for success in any hope for peace talks to which Israel is a party. Insofar as the attainment of peace is thought to have a role in reducing the incidence of global terrorism, supporting this dynamic is in America’s interests.

KSA’s status as a bulwark against Iranian domination of the region is also very much in the interest of not only America but certainly also Israel, as Iran continues to proclaim – loudly, and to anyone who will listen – that it is devoted to the outright destruction of Israel. Iranian missiles with messages promising destruction written in Hebrew are worth taking seriously as legitimate threats. If America is devoted to the defense of its allies in Israel, then KSA plays a significant role in securing that outcome.

Conclusion

These four strategic interests show that it is necessary for America to continue its relationship with the Saudi leadership. That does not mean that we should not continue to press for social reforms, respect for human rights, and similar improvements within KSA. We certainly should do that, as a modernizing KSA is a better and more natural ally for the United States than one mired in beheadings and the suppression of religious minorities.

It is a commonplace criticism of American foreign policy that it has been insensitive to supporting awful strongmen in the face of even worse things. Perhaps that is true, but the answer is not to give in to the worse things. A clear-eyed assessment of our strategic interests must rule our actions. Using our influence to press allies for social and political reform is proper and wise. Abandoning our allies, and allowing authoritarian powers to dominate the world’s flows of energy, is neither proper nor wise. We must act in wisdom.

***

Also see:

MEF Uncovers Obama-era Scandal; Congress Investigates

THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL’S ROLE IN THE AWARD OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO AN ORGANIZATION INVOLVED IN SUPPORTING TERRORISM RAISES QUESTIONS.

Middle East Forum, by Sam Westrop, October 16, 2018:

PHILADELPHIA – October 16, 2018 – An investigative report by the Middle East Forum has prompted the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate an investigation into a 2014 decision by the Obama administration.

The U.S. Treasury Department listed the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA, aka the Islamic Africa Relief Agency), a Sudanese organization in 2004 a “Specially Designated Terrorist Organization.” It did so because ISRA provided “direct financial support” to Osama bin Laden; “was responsible for moving funds to the Palestinian territories for use in terrorist activities”; and “serve[s] as a conduit to Hamas.”

The Forum’s Sam Westrop exposed in National Review that in 2014, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) approved a $200,000 grant to the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) in Sudan through World Vision, Inc.

The project was temporarily suspended in November 2014 after USAID and the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) were alerted to ISRA’s terror links.

However, after confirming ISRA’s status as a sanctioned entity, the Forum uncovered that OFAC nonetheless authorized a $125,000 transfer to ISRA in May 2015 after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State.” This done, Charles Wanjue, a USAID official exulted: “Good news and a great relief, really!”

The Forum’s findings – reported by Fox Newsi24 NewsBreitbart, the Daily Mail (UK), and many others – resulted from a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against USAID, countless hours poring through documents, and working with an investigator in Khartoum.

“The Office of Foreign Assets Control’s role in the award of taxpayer funds to an organization involved in supporting terrorism raises questions,” said Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK), chairman of Oversight’s Subcommittee on National Security. Rep. Russell has requested details from U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and USAID Administrator Mark Green on USAID’s vetting procedures for grant recipients, a list of all USAID grants to groups suspected of involvement with terrorism, and copies of all documents and communications relating to ISRA.

“It is disturbing that the federal government would knowingly authorize payment to a designated Osama Bin-Laden funding charity,” said Cliff Smith, director of the Washington Project. “We welcome this investigation, which is necessary to hold government officials accountable and ensure such an outrage is not repeated.”