Tony Newbill Emails 9/3 to 9/5/13

Here are a couple of Tony Newbill emails that brings another angle President Barack Hussein Obama’s reasoning in desiring to attack Syrian Chemical Weapons. Theme spoiler: Syrian WMDs are from Iraq and Saudi Arabian Intelligence is manipulating the USA into a Middle Eastern war with the object of gaining regional hegemony rather than Iran.

JRH 9/29/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*******************************

Is the Syrian Limited Strike to Cover up the Iraqi WMDs???

Sent: 9/3/2013 2:46 PM

Is the Syrian Limited Strike [option] to Cover up the Iraqi WMDs??? They Need to be Asking Clapper because Even James Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence [DNI] and formerly the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency [NGA, Here and Here] , said [corroboration Link] in 2003 that he believed materials had been moved out [Here, Here, Here, Here, Here and yes Yellowcake for Nukes too]  of Iraq in the months  before the war and cited satellite imagery.

Oh they want to make sure this doesn't happen!!!!!

If the Bashar al-Assad regime falls, and should the securing of the chemical and biological stockpiles of Syria be necessary, what would be the effect if some of those materials and munitions bear Iraqi markings?

http://blog.usni.org/2012/07/20/iraq-chemical-weapons-moved-to-syria-before-2003-invasion/

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence in the Obama Administration, thought so.

From the Daily Beast:

Whether or not sensitive weapons technology was moved to Syria is a hotly disputed question in the intelligence community. James Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence and formerly the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, said in 2003 that he believed materials had been moved out of Iraq in the months before the war and cited satellite imagery.

If the Bashar al-Assad regime falls, and should the securing of the chemical and biological stockpiles of Syria be necessary, what would be the effect if some of those materials and munitions bear Iraqi markings?

Former Iraqi General Sada asserted that Saddam’s chemical stockpile was lifted, in … (READ THE REST - Iraq Chemical Weapons Moved to Syria Before 2003 Invasion? Posted by UltimaRatioReg; U.S. Naval Institute; 7/20/13)

IS IT that they want to hit the areas in Syria where they Think the WMDs from Iraq are [located] to cover-up what was said [about WMDs] NOT There after the Invasion of Iraq???? And if the International Community knows this and we strike what will that do to our Relationships???

You can see this is leverage for Assad and Russia, and why they just want what they are calling a Limited strike.

Why does Assad Trust Kerry then?? Did they have an agreement that [Iraq WMDs are] Now is about to be Exposed??? And How tight [lipped] Obama and Other Democrats were before now??  Are Russia and China using this Knowledge of Iraqi WMDs in Syria  against the Democrats and Obama???

Assad in 2010: I Trust John Kerry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hhWUf4fSok

Saddam's WMDs and Russia

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5400

Introduction

In the 1970s and 1980s there were several indications about Saddam Hussein’s development of the WMD programs (biological, chemical and nuclear). The Israeli attack on the Iraqi French-made Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 slowed down the progress of the Iraq’s nuclear weapons program but the biological and chemical WMDs were highly developed, due to the Soviet assistance, Iraqi scientists and a sophisticated system of procurement, organized by the Iraqi Intelligence in Western Europe and in other parts of the World. The nuclear weapons program was never abandoned by the regime, and before the first Gulf War (1991) Iraq was very close to producing its own nuclear weapons. (There is some evidence that Saddam could have purchased nuclear technology from Pakistan, through Dr. Khan’s network, and that he has tried to buy nuclear weapons or components from China). The war destroyed the technical base for the production. But the highly skilled scientific and technical personnel (over 200) remained in place, dispersed. The regime managed to save their nuclear fuel, many technical means of production and the blueprints of the nuclear weaponization. The after-war international (UN) control proved ineffective. Iraq also saved an essential part of its biological and chemical warfare technology, materials and personnel. Some of the WMDs, materials, specialists from Iraq have been transferred abroad to continue research and to organize the production abroad: mainly to Sudan, Libya and Algeria but also to the neighboring Syria (with a purpose to strengthen Syrian regime’s offensive capabilities against Israel).

Saddam regime's WMD policy after the 1^st Gulf War

The efforts of the Saddam’s regime to preserve and develop its biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons capabilities have been well documented in a report, submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives by Yossef Bodansky on February 10, 1998 (See: Task Force on Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare, "The Iraqi WMD Challenge — Myths and Reality"). From the very beginning, Saddam Hussein embarked on a policy of concealment and cheating of the UN inspection. Thus the elimination of the Iraqi strategic military programs and the destruction of their technical means have never been completed and fully effective. "Despite Baghdad’s protestations, Iraq does have a small but very lethal operational arsenal of WMD and platforms capable of delivering them throughout the Middle East and beyond." — summarized Yossef Bodansky in 1998 [page 2 of the report]. This capability was possible due to the following actions: (1) dispersing and hiding of WMD materials, technical means, blueprints for the production and personnel in Iraq proper; (2) transfer of a large part of the Iraqi WMD arsenal, technical means, materials for the production and scientific-technological personnel to other countries, mainly to Sudan, Libya and Algeria, and partly to Yemen and Syria; (3) reviving of the sophisticated system of illegal procurement of WMD technology, sub-systems and strategic materials in Western Europe (mainly Germany, Austria and Switzerland), via other countries (Bulgaria, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland) and in Asia (Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, China).

Iraq was also capable to develop new types of offensive weapons, capable of … READ THE REST (Saddam's WMDs and Russia; By David Dastych; FrontPageMag.com – Originally Canada Free Press; 2/28/06)

After reading the Front Page Mag article you can see the CONNECTION TO THE MBH!!!!   Saddam was rallying together the factions that had MBH members all through them with Russia, and this was a Threat to the Dollar continuing to be the Petrol Settlement Currency for OPEC international markets.  Obama was placed in Power to counter this Russian Influence by Bribing the MBH away from Russian Influence.

Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2E7mjc0Dz

War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.

King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.

"One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.

The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."

…

Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.

The Russian-assisted "cleanup" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achalov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achalov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003. Apparently they did their job well.

An article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on Dec. 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated: "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." According ... (READ ENTIRETY - Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq; By IBD Editorials; Investors Business Daily; 07/19/2012 07:02 PM ET)

And this dinner meeting by a Top Democratic leader who had been very Vocal about the WMDs in Iraq and Led the Democratic Party on this Chant in 2004 and beyond [about WMD] not being there, sure could be about making sure Assad keeps those weapons covered up, huh?  I just keep hearing from the Congressional leaders that they just want a Limited attack to send a message when Regime Change was the priority by Obama before. So something’s missing here regarding the Mission, its different now, why???

Kerry’s Cozy Past with Assad, ‘He’s a Very Generous Man’ - See more at:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/kerrys-cozy-past-with-assad-hes-a-very-generous-man_082013#sthash.4HmkxvP5.dpuf

Secretary of State John Kerry is calling for the overthrow and murder of his friend, Syria’s president Assad, claiming definitively that he used chemical weapons against his own people.

John Kerry was a frequent visitor of Assad’s over the last few years. Perhaps no one in U.S. politics knows him better than Kerry who was complimentary of Assad as short as 2 years ago when he referred to him as a “very generous man”.

Kerry (America) has not provided the world with any proof other than grainy videos allegedly taken during the event and a declassified report which is probably as reliable as Bush’s Iraq 45 minutes to nuclear launch reports. Assad has emphatically denied the accusations and no independent source has yet confirmed America’s claims.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me … (READ THE REST - Kerry’s Cozy Past with Assad, ‘He’s a Very Generous; By Activist Post; The Daily Sheeple; 8/31/13)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

John Kerry, who is expected to be nominated as secretary of state later this afternoon, has made frequent visits to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Assad is now under fire for mass murdering his own civilians, as he fights an internal war to keep his position of power. Even Obama has called for Assad to go.

In February 2009, Kerry led a delegation there to engage Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told visiting US members of Congress on Saturday that the United States should ‘move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.’ Assad's guests on Saturday included US Senator John Kerry, who headed the third delegation this week to call on the Syrian president's door as Washington reviews its policies toward countries the previous administration regarded as hostile. Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a ‘proper understanding’ by Washington of regional issues and on common interests, SANA news agency reported,” AFP reported at the time.

AFP followed up with this report after the visit stating that Kerry believes "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region":

“President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest... in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”

Later, a couple months later, Kerry met again with Assad. "US Senator John Kerry met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a second time in as many months on Saturday for talks on ‘regional issues,’ the American embassy in Damascus said," reported the AFP.

And in 2011, when Kerry again wanted to go to Syria, his visit was blocked--by the Obama administration. “The Obama administration and France reportedly nixed a visit by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Syria. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cultivated a relationship with the Syrian regime otherwise treated as a pariah in the West in the hope of drawing it away from Iranian influence. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Kerry had planned a visit last month, but the governments of the United States and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy blocked the visit out of concern that it would signal ‘Western weakness’ as … (READ THE REST - Kerry a Frequent Visitor with Syrian Dictator Bashar Al-Assad; By DANIEL HALPER; Weekly Standard; 12/21/12 12:26 PM)

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Keeping the Saudis Loyal to the U.S. Dollar is the Key

Sent: 9/5/2013 11:18 AM

I found this link someone posted and what is said below makes sense. The use of the Dollar and keeping Saudi loyal to its use is KEY to this Whole Mess!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s becoming clear that Obama has been using the Muslim Brotherhood in a Leverage position to keep Saudi Arabia from just walking all over the USA and EU interests. By Obama siding with other nations and possibly rejecting the dollar as the Trade currency for OPEC energy resources and trying to keep the dollar relevant in this Mess, but Egypt overthrowing the Brotherhood has now moved the goal posts to Syria to try and establish a front for the Brotherhood.

Has Saudi Arabia been behind the Middle Eastern War on Terror to Use the West and primarily the USA to TAKE over the Middle East????

Syrian War is a Saudi Intelligence Operation

http://www.omegashock.com/2013/09/05/syrian-war-is-a-saudi-intelligence-operation/

Has Saudi Arabia been behind the Middle Eastern War on Terror to Use the West and primarily the USA to TAKE over the Middle East????

Just moments ago, I saw Secretary of State John Kerry admit that the Syrian War is a Saudi operation. And, I watched him squirm in his chair as he said it, because he KNOWS that this is what he’s admitting. I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Even more, he was tacitly admitting Saudi involvement in other interventions.

For those of us who have more than half a brain, and at least SOME knowledge of the Middle East… We’ve noticed the fingerprints of Saudi intelligence all over what’s going on in Syria. In fact, I was planning to write about the involvement of the Saudi General Intelligence Services (or, Al Mukhabarat Al A’amah) today, when John Kerry went and poured gasoline on my fire. (And, I must say, John, that you really, REALLY looked uncomfortable making that admission.)

So, America will go to war at the behest of their Saudi paymasters. This makes me sick, and it should make you sick, too. This will launch us straight into World War III, and it will be the Saudis that pulled the trigger.

For those of you who keep preaching ‘Zionist Conspiracy’, you are complete and utter fools. Furthermore, you have dragged others down with you, and THAT is inexcusable. [Editor: This an excerpt that Tony Newbill posted in this email. There is a lot more including videos. Here is a sneak peak of the rest of which the first sentence is actually the last sentence in which the author castigates Antisemitics that accuse of a “Zionist Conspiracy”:

God will protect Israel – although many, many Israelis will die – but, God will not protect YOU.

For a biblical introduction to what is happening, go to the website that I created to deal with this subject:

http://www.ezekiel36-39.com/

Read the Ezekiel Tetrad, which is Ezekiel 36, 37, 38 and 39. Here is my introduction to … (READ THE REST - Syrian War is a Saudi Intelligence Operation; By John; OmegaShock; 9/5/2013)]

Secretary of State John Kerry said at a House Foreign Affairs committee hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily: http://wapo.st/1ajCnKA

VIDEO: Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for military strike

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told, in this Video you will hear General Wesley Clark make some outlandish Claims!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk#t=272

Ben Swann Reality Check: What The Media Isn't Telling You About Syria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCBhyzRELLw#t=74

__________________________

© Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk

Brackets indicate Editor additions.

Obama’s Foreign Policy is Unfavorable to Israel

John R. Houk

© August 17, 2012

Caroline Glick has written an essay that begins with the U.S. Foreign Policy debacle of doing nothing to keep Mao Zedong (Mao Tse Dung) from his Communist conquest of China. Mao wrested control of the Chinese government from the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Chek who ended up fleeing to Formosa (Today’s Taiwan).

Glick compares Mao’s usurpation of power in China to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist President Mohamed Morsi of winning a close Egyptian election. Glick reports that Egyptian military authorities and generals have been fired and replaced with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists. Also Morsi has not called the Egyptian Parliament back (disbanded originally by Egyptian military) which Glick believes gives Morsi the power to write Egypt’s new Constitution. If Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood write the next Egyptian Constitution, this will probably instill dictatorial powers on the new Egyptian President. Glick believes these dictatorial powers will be on a larger scale than the Obama abandoned and deposed Hosni Mubarak’s power.

Glick then properly goes on to criticize Obama’s Foreign Policy of joining Turkey in supporting the Islamist rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now I realize there will be really no difference in Israel-hate and American-hate from which ever Syrian broker eventually stabilizes control of Syria; however deposing Assad would throw a monkey wrench into the Iranian-Syrian military alliance at least for awhile. That actually would be to America’s benefit. Anything that sets Iran back with only a little resource involvement by the US is a plus for America.

If the Sunni-Islamists succeed in taking over Syria the animosity with Iran would only be temporary in my opinion. The one thing that unites and smoothes over the hatred between Sunni and Shia Muslims (Iran is a Shia Theocracy) is a mutual hatred for Jews and Israel.

I suspect if Israel attacks Iranian nuke sites the Sunni regimes of Turkey (Islamist government) and now Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government) might begin to offer at the very least clandestine military aid to Iranian client Hezbollah and the Sunni-Islamist terrorists Hamas. Undoubtedly Hamas would join a Hezbollah attack from the north by making a southern military front against Israel. The Saudi Royal Family hates and fears the militant Shia Iran regime in becoming a regional hegemon. I believe it is a pretty good guess that the Wahhabi Clerics in Saudi Arabia would fully support the elimination of Israel’s existence. If the Saudi Royal Family does not want its own civil war it would probably support yet another invasion of Israel while working clandestinely with the USA to help thwart Iranian influence.

Israel’s existence is in volatile times. A nuclear armed Iran would be suicide for Israel. Israel must take the risk of regional war to stop the formation of nuclear warheads that can be placed on Iranian missiles that can easily reach Israel. If a regional war breaks out Israel would have to be harsh on the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians just to survive. I sense a President like Obama would condemn Israel for such self-preservation harshness against Palestinian Authority Arabs and Hamas governed Gaza Arabs. An Obama-like President might even desire to punish Israel by not helping the Jewish State to survive.

YOU DO KNOW what would happen to Jews in a defeated Israel, right? There would be a SECOND Holocaust that would either rival the Hitler-Nazi Holocaust or even exceed those dimensions of butchery.

American voters need to vote for a President that is Pro-Israel and willing to stand with Israel even if doing so is not Politically Correct to the rest of the Western World. Currently that man is GOP Nominee Mitt Romney. Standing with Israel will bring the blessings of God Almighty for blessing God’s Chosen People.

I am not Jewish; nonetheless I and other Biblical Christians support Israel because the Jewish State’s existence is prophetic. Eventually Jesus Himself will Return and the Jews will comprehend He is their Messiah as much as He is the Christian Messiah (i.e. the Christ) of Christian Believers looking for the fulfillment of God’s plans for His Creation. Salvation is of the Jews.

Yup, you pegged me: I am a Christian Zionist (SA Jewish Virtual Library). The kind of person Leftists, Muslims and erstwhile so-called Progressive Christians dislike immensely. Unfortunately many Liberal and Observant Jews distrust the motivation of Christian Zionists.

[SlantRight Editor Side Note: The distrust is in the Christian Zionist motivation to be a friend of Israel. Jews are not real hip to Christian proselytizing because of the unscriptural and horrid treatment Jews received at the hands of Christians taught to hate Jews as Christ-killers. The accusation was unfair in Christian history and it is unfair now.

For one thing polytheistic Romans were goaded into Crucifying Christ at the behest of power-station minded Jewish leadership (viz. the Sanhedrin monopolized by Pharisees but dominated by Greek mindset Sadducees).]

Well that is my two-cents. The analysis of Israel’s predicament and U.S. Foreign Policy is much more eloquently provided by Caroline Glick. You should READ IT.

JRH 8/17/12

Please Support With SlantRight 2.0 Tip Contributions.

******************************

Who lost Egypt?

By Caroline Glick

August 17, 2012, 10:09 AM

CarolineGlick.com

In 1949, the Communist takeover of China rattled the US foreign policy establishment to its core. China's fall to Communism was correctly perceived as a massive strategic defeat for the US. The triumphant Mao Zedong placed China firmly in the Soviet camp and implemented foreign policies antithetical to US interests.

For the American foreign policy establishment, China's fall forced a reconsideration of basic axioms of US foreign policy. Until China went Red, the view resonant among foreign policy specialists was that it was possible for the US to peacefully coexist and even be strategic allies with Communists.

With Mao's embrace of Stalin this position was discredited. The US's subsequent recognition that it was impossible for America to reach an accommodation with Communists served as the intellectual architecture of many of the strategies the US adopted for fighting the Cold War in the years that followed.

Today the main aspect of America's response to China's Communist revolution that is remembered is the vindictive political hunt for scapegoats. Foreign Service officers and journalists who had advised the US government to support Mao and the Communists against Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists were attacked as traitors.

But while the "Red Scare" is what is most remembered about that period, the most significant consequence of the rise of Communist China was the impact it had on the US's understanding of the nature of Communist forces. Even Theodore White, perhaps the most prominent journalist who championed Mao and the Communists, later acknowledged that he had been duped by their propaganda machine into believing that Mao and his comrades were interested in an alliance with the US.

As Joyce Hoffmann exposed in her book Theodore White and Journalism as Illusion, White acknowledged that his wartime report from Mao's headquarters in Yenan praising the Communists as willing allies of the US who sought friendship, "not as a beggar seeks charity, but seeks aid in furthering a joint cause," was completely false.

As he wrote, the report was "winged with hope and passion that were entirely unreal."

What he had been shown in Yenan, Hoffmann quotes White as having written, was "the showcase of democratic art pieces they (the Communists) staged for us American correspondents [and] was literally, only showcase stuff."

Contrast the US's acceptance of failure in China in 1949, and its willingness to learn the lessons of its loss of China, with the US's denial of its failure and loss of Egypt today.

On Sunday, new President Mohamed Morsy completed Egypt's transformation into an Islamist state. In the space of one week, Morsy sacked the commanders of the Egyptian military and replaced them with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists, and fired all the editors of the state-owned media and replaced them with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists.

He also implemented a policy of intimidation, censorship and closure of independently owned media organizations that dare to publish criticism of him.

Morsy revoked the military's constitutional role in setting the foreign and military policies of Egypt. But he maintained the junta's court-backed decision to disband the parliament. In so doing, Morsy gave himself full control over the writing of Egypt's new constitution.

As former ambassador to Egypt Zvi Mazel wrote Tuesday in The Jerusalem Post, Morsy's moves mean that he "now holds dictatorial powers surpassing by far those of erstwhile president Hosni Mubarak."

In other words, Morsy's actions have transformed Egypt from a military dictatorship into an Islamist dictatorship.

The impact on Egypt's foreign policy of Morsy's seizure of power is already becoming clear. On Monday, Al-Masri al-Youm quoted Mohamed Gadallah, Morsy's legal adviser, saying that Morsy is considering revising the peace accord with Israel. Gadallah explained that Morsy intends to "ensure Egypt's full sovereignty and control over every inch of Sinai."

In other words, Morsy intends to remilitarize Sinai and so render the Egyptian military a clear and present threat to Israel's security. Indeed, according to Haaretz, Egypt has already breached the peace accord and deployed forces and heavy weaponry to Sinai without Israeli permission.

The rapidity of Morsy's moves has surprised most observers. But more surprising than his moves is the US response to his moves.

Obama administrations officials have behaved as though nothing has happened, or even as though Morsy's moves are positive developments.

For instance, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, one administration official dismissed the significance of Morsy's purge of the military brass, saying, "What I think this is, frankly, is Morsy looking for a generational change in military leadership."

The Journal reported that Egypt's new defense minister, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sissi, is known as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. But the Obama administration quickly dismissed the reports as mere rumors with no significance. Sissi, administration sources told the Journal, ate dinner with US President Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan during Brennan's visit to Cairo last October. Aside from that, they say, people are always claiming that Morsy's appointments have ties to Morsy's Muslim Brotherhood.

A slightly less rose-colored assessment came from Steven Cook in Foreign Affairs. According to Cook, at worst, Morsy's move was probably nothing more than a present-day reenactment of Gamal Abel Nasser's decision to move Egypt away from the West and into the Soviet camp in 1954.

Most likely, Cook argued, Morsy was simply doing what Sadat did when in 1971 he fired other generals with whom he had been forced to share power when he first succeeded Nasser in 1969.

Certainly the Nasser and Sadat analogies are pertinent. But while properly citing them, Cook failed to explain what those analogies tell us about the significance of Morsy's actions. He drew the dots but failed to see the shape they make.

Morsy's Islamism, like Mao's Communism, is inherently hostile to the US and its allies and interests in the Middle East. Consequently, Morsy's strategic repositioning of Egypt as an Islamist country means that Egypt - which has served as the anchor of the US alliance system in the Arab world for 30 years - is setting aside its alliance with the US and looking toward reassuming the role of regional bully.

Egypt is on the fast track to reinstating its war against Israel and threatening international shipping in the Suez Canal. And as an Islamist state, Egypt will certainly seek to export its Islamic revolution to other countries. No doubt fear of this prospect is what prompted Saudi Arabia to begin showering Egypt with billions of dollars in aid.

It should be recalled that the Saudis so feared the rise of a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt that in February 2011, when US President Barack Obama was publicly ordering then-president Hosni Mubarak to abdicate power immediately, Saudi leaders were beseeching him to defy Obama. They promised Mubarak unlimited financial support for Egypt if he agreed to cling to power.

The US's astounding sanguinity in the face of Morsy's completion of the Islamization of Egypt is an illustration of everything that is wrong and dangerous about US Middle East policy today.

Take US policy toward Syria.

Syria is in possession of one of the largest arsenals of chemical and biological weapons in the world. The barbarism with which the regime is murdering its opponents is a daily reminder - indeed a flashing neon warning sign - that Syria's nonconventional arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to international security. And yet, the Obama administration insists on viewing Syrian President Bashar Assad's murderous behavior as if it were a garden variety human rights crisis.

During her visit with Turkey's Islamist Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu last Saturday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't even mention the issue of Syria's chemical and biological weapons. Instead she continued to back Turkey's sponsorship of the Islamist-dominated opposition and said that the US would be working with Turkey to put together new ways to help the Islamist opposition overthrow Assad's regime.

Among other things, she did not rule out the imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria.

The party most likely to be harmed from such a move would be Israel, which would lose its ability to bomb Syrian weapons of mass destruction sites from the air.

Then of course, there is Iran and its openly genocidal nuclear weapons program. This week The New York Times reported a new twist in the Obama administration's strategy for managing this threat. It is trying to convince the Persian Gulf states to accept advanced missile defense systems from the US.

This new policy makes clear that the Obama administration has no intention of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Its actions on the ground are aimed instead at accomplishing two goals: convincing Iran's Arab neighbors to accept Iran as a nuclear power and preventing Israel from acting militarily to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The missile shields are aspects of a policy of containment, not prevention. And the US's attempts to sabotage Israel's ability to strike Iran's nuclear sites through leaks, political pressure and efforts to weaken the Netanyahu government make clear that as far as the US is concerned, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not the problem.

The prospect of Israel preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the problem.

Several American commentators argue that the Obama administration's policies are the rational consequence of the divergence of US and Israeli assessments of the threats posed by regional developments. For instance, writing in the Tablet online magazine this week, Lee Smith argued that the US does not view the developments in Egypt, Iran and Syria as threatening US interests. From Washington's perspective, the prospect of an Israeli strike on Iran is more threatening than a nuclear-armed Iran, because an Israeli strike would immediately destabilize the region.

The problem with this assessment is that it is nonsense. It is true that Israel is first on Iran's target list, and that Egypt is placing Israel, not the US in its crosshairs. So, too, Syria and its rogue allies will use their chemical weapons against Israel first.

But that doesn't mean the US will be safe. The likely beneficiaries of Syrian chemical weapons - Sunni and Shi'ite terrorist organizations - have attacked the US in the past. Iran has a history of attacking US shipping without a nuclear umbrella. Surely it would be more aggressive in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz after defying Washington in illegally developing a nuclear arsenal. The US is far more vulnerable to interruptions in the shipping lanes in the Suez Canal than Israel is.

The reason Israel and the US are allies is that Israel is the US's first line of defense in the region.

If regional events weren't moving so quickly, the question of who lost Egypt would probably have had its moment in the spotlight in Washington.

But as is clear from the US's denial of the significance of Morsy's rapid completion of Egypt's Islamic transformation; its blindness to the dangers of Syrian chemical and biological weapons; and its complacency toward Iran's nuclear weapons program, by the time the US foreign policy establishment realizes it lost Egypt, the question it will be asking is not who lost Egypt. It will be asking who lost the Middle East.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

________________________

Obama’s Foreign Policy is Unfavorable to Israel

John R. Houk

© August 17, 2012

_______________________

Who lost Egypt?

© 2012 Caroline Glick

About Caroline Glick:

I grew up in Chicago's ultra-liberal, anti-American and anti-Israel stronghold of Hyde Park. Hyde Park's newest famous resident is Barack Obama. He fits right into a neighborhood I couldn't wait to leave.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from Beir Zeit on the Hudson -- otherwise known as Columbia University. I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

After leaving the IDF at the end of 1996, I worked as the assistant to the Director General of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

I then returned to geo-politics serving as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997-1998.

From 1998-2000 I went back to the US where I received a Master's in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in June 2000. Although I … READ THE REST

Special Report: Iran and the Saudis' Countermove on Bahrain

Here is a STRATFOR update on Bahrain that examines the possibility of some sort of destabilizing influence from Iran.

JRH 3/15/11

*****************************

Special Report: Iran and the Saudis' Countermove on Bahrain

By George Friedman

March 14, 2011

STRATFOR

Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition force into Bahrain to help the government calm the unrest there. This move puts Iran in a difficult position, as Tehran had hoped to use the uprising in Bahrain to promote instability in the Persian Gulf region. Iran could refrain from acting and lose an opportunity to destabilize the region, or it could choose from several other options that do not seem particularly effective.

The Bahrain uprising consists of two parts, as all revolutions do. The first is genuine grievances by the majority Shiite population — the local issues and divisions. The second is the interests of foreign powers in Bahrain. It is not one or the other. It is both.

The Iranians clearly benefit from an uprising in Bahrain. It places the U.S. 5th Fleet’s basing in jeopardy, puts the United States in a difficult position and threatens the stability of other Persian Gulf Arab states. For the Iranians, the uprisings in North Africa and their spread to the Arabian Peninsula represent a golden opportunity for pursuing their long-standing interest (going back to the Shah and beyond) of dominating the Gulf.

The Iranians are accustomed to being able to use their covert capabilities to shape the political realities in countries. They did this effectively in Iraq and are doing it in Afghanistan. They regarded this as low risk and high reward. The Saudis, recognizing that this posed a fundamental risk to their regime and consulting with the Americans, have led a coalition force into Bahrain to halt the uprising and save the regime. Pressed by covert forces, they were forced into an overt action they were clearly reluctant to take.

We are now off the map, so to speak. The question is how the Iranians respond, and there is every reason to think that they do not know. They probably did not expect a direct military move by the Saudis, given that the Saudis prefer to act more quietly themselves. The Iranians wanted to destabilize without triggering a strong response, but they were sufficiently successful in using local issues that the Saudis felt they had no choice in the matter. It is Iran’s move.

If Iran simply does nothing, then the wave that has been moving in its favor might be stopped and reversed. They could lose a historic opportunity. At the same time, the door remains open in Iraq, and that is the main prize here. They might simply accept the reversal and pursue their main line. But even there things are murky. There are rumors in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to slow down, halt or even reverse the withdrawal from Iraq. Rumors are merely rumors, but these make sense. Completing the withdrawal now would tilt the balance in Iraq to Iran, a strategic disaster.

Therefore, the Iranians are facing a counter-offensive that threatens the project they have been pursuing for years just when it appeared to be coming to fruition. Of course, it is just before a project succeeds that opposition mobilizes, so they should not be surprised that resistance has grown so strong. But surprised or not, they now have a strategic decision to make and not very long to make it.

They can up the ante by increasing resistance in Bahrain and forcing fighting on the ground. It is not clear that the Bahraini opposition is prepared to take that risk on behalf of Iran, but it is a potential option. They have the option of trying to increase unrest elsewhere in order to spread the Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council forces, weakening their impact. It is not clear how much leverage the Iranians have in other countries. The Iranians could try to create problems in Saudi Arabia, but given the Saudis’ actions in Bahrain, this becomes more difficult.

Finally, they can attempt an overt intervention, either in Bahrain or elsewhere, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. A naval movement against Bahrain is not impossible, but if the U.S. Navy intervenes, which it likely would, it would be a disaster for the Iranians. Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan might be more fruitful. It is possible that Shiite insurgents will operate in Iraq, but that would guarantee a halt of the U.S. withdrawal without clearly increasing the Iranians’ advantage there. They want U.S. forces to leave, not give them a reason to stay.

There is then the indirect option, which is to trigger a war with Israel. The killings in the West Bank and Israeli concerns about Hezbollah might be some of Iran’s doing, with the emphasis on “might.” But it is not clear how a Hezbollah confrontation with Israel would help Iran’s position relative to Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. It diverts attention, but the Saudis know the stakes and they will not be easily diverted.

The logic, therefore, is that Iran retreats and waits. But the Saudi move shifts the flow of events, and time is not on Iran’s side.

There is also the domestic Iranian political situation to consider. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been strong in part because of his successful handling of foreign policy. The massive failure of a destabilization plan would give his political opponents the ammunition needed to weaken him domestically. We do not mean a democratic revolution in Iran, but his enemies among the clergy who see him as a threat to their position, and hard-liners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who want an even more aggressive stand.

Ahmadinejad finds himself in a difficult position. The Saudis have moved decisively. If he does nothing, his position can unravel and with it his domestic political strength. Yet none of the counters he might use seem effective or workable. In the end, his best option is to create a crisis in Iraq, forcing the United States to consider how deeply it wants to be drawn back into Iraq. He might find weakness there that he can translate into some sort of political deal.

At the moment we suspect the Iranians do not know how they will respond. The first issue will have to be determining whether they can create violent resistance to the Saudis in Bahrain, to both tie them down and increase the cost of occupation. It is simply unclear whether the Bahrainis are prepared to pay the price. The opposition does seem to want fundamental change in Bahrain, but it is not clear that they have reached the point where they are prepared to resist and die en masse.

That is undoubtedly what the Iranians are exploring now. If they find that this is not an option, then none of their other options are particularly good. All of them involve risk and difficulty. It also requires that Iran commit itself to confrontations that it has tried to avoid. It prefers covert action that is deniable to overt action that is not.

As we move into the evening, we expect the Iranians are in intense discussions of their next move. Domestic politics are affecting regional strategy, as would be the case in any country. But the clear roadmap the Iranians were working from has now collapsed. The Saudis have called their hand, and they are trying to find out if they have a real or a busted flush. They will have to act quickly before the Saudi action simply becomes a solid reality. But it is not clear what they can do quickly. For the moment, the Saudis have the upper hand. But the Iranians are clever and tenacious. There are no predictions possible. We doubt even the Iranians know what they will do.

___________________________

Copyright 2011

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com