Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Calls for International Intervention!

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29641

Well, maybe now Obama will act. I would have to assume that Morsi and the Egyptians are saying the same thing.

Iran Nuke Talks End without Results

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/2013214162124206119.html

And without any date set for new talks. Interesting that Al Jazeera is reporting this as a major story, but I couldn't find any mention at the BBC or AP websites. They seem much more interested in the Pistorius case and the Neo-Django incident in CA.  Or maybe it just doesn't fit the "smart diplomacy" and let's talk narrative of the Obama administration? In any event, it's not a good sign.

Here is a key paragraph: "Late last year it [the Obama administration] set a March deadline for Iran to start cooperating with the IAEA's investigation, warning Tehran that it might otherwise be referred to the UN Security Council."

So let's see some of that "smart diplomacy," Mr. President!

Iranians Conclude Assad is Doomed?

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?ID=303217&R=R1

According to these reports, the Iranians are either flying their sensitive documents and materials back to Tehran or destroying them in place in Damascus. Recall reports a few days ago that the Iranians, working with Hezbollah, were building up militias in Syria with an eye on a post-Assad civil war.

Egyptians Flooding Gaza Tunnels

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=303159&R=R1

Interesting. Apparently Morsi wasn't happy when a border shoot-out killed some Egyptian soldiers. Next we'll see charges that Morsi is in league with "the Juice." 

Egyptian Death Spiral

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/02/13/egypt-death-spiral-watch-continues/

An interesting take on the declining fortunes of Egypt, as its political woes increase its economic problems, which, in turn, undermine its political stability.

Egypt's Black Bloc: Who are they?

http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2013/02/08/265071.html

This is a link to an Al Arabiya article about the Egyptian Black Bloc. They are, basically, hard-left and anti-Islamist.

http://anarchistnews.org/content/black-bloc-egypts-opposition-gets-more-radical

And here's a piece from Anarchist News. Hell, they ought to know.

Iranians caught in a photoshop lie?

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/02/13/266089.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9866347/Irans-flight-of-fancy-as-image-of-new-fighter-jet-is-faked.html

Telegraph claims that images of the new Iranian stealth fighter flying over mountains is a fake photoshopped image. Earlier reports raised doubts that the thing was anything more than a static mop-up.

Now, here's the point. If the Iranians will lie about this jet, are we to believe that they wouldn't lie about a nuclear weapons program?

Syria

http://wapo.st/Y3ew5d

Iranians and Hezbollah are building up Shia militias to help support Assad's regime. This has all the makings of a civil war, even when Assad falls.

Droning On!

Actually, this one is Bush's fault. After 911, Bush chose to term what had happened as a war on terror. There were two problems with that choice. First, Bin Laden was a Jihadist, not a terrorist. I believe that Bush chose to use the term terrorist because it is generic, in that anyone can be a terrorist. An Arab can be a terrorist; an Irishman can be a terrorist; as Basque can be a terrorist; and so, too, can an American--e.g., Tim McVeigh. Jihadists, on the other hand, by definition are Muslims and Bush didn't want to make it look like we had a problem with the Islamic world. Second, the problem with declaring Bin Laden and company terrorists, was that terrorism is a criminal activity. The use of the term implies that the terrorists ought to be treated as criminals, with all the due process that come with that. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Criminals, if at all possible, need to be apprehended in order to try them to determine their guilt. Criminals can't be held indefinitely without trial. And law enforcement officials can't simply tell their officers to shoot people on sight. Bush's choice of terminology thus opened the door to so many problems that have dogged us to this day. Obama, as a Senator, Presidential candidate, and President in his first term did nothing but reinforce Bush's initial and faulty decision. Obama wouldn't even allow his administration to use the phrase global war on terror. Instead we used an even less indicative of reality euphemism--overseas contingency operations. Now the Obama administration seems to have awoken, to some degree at least, to the reality. SECSTATE Clinton spoke of a global war against jihadism in her Congressional testimony. And now Obama seems prepared to step up his drone campaign. Obama's legal reasoning, in my opinion, is sound, if you work from the assumption that we are in a war. Zogby's critique of Obama is spot on, if you work on the assumption that we are fighting global criminality. What Obama needs to do is to make the case for his use of drone in the context of a global war against jihadism. For example, in April 1943 the US intercepted a plane transporting Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto near Bougainville in the Solomon Islands. It was a planned assassination of a major Japanese leader. Had we captured Yamamoto after the war, we would have had to try him in a court for crimes, e.g., planning the attack on Pearl Harbor, and had to prove his guilt before punishing him. It would not have been legal to have simply taken him out and shot him. But during the war, it was legal to assassinate him as part of on-going military operations. What if, for the sake of argument, Yamamoto had been born in the US and been, technically, a US citizen? Would his assassination then been illegal? Would FDR have been guilty of murdering a US citizen without due process? No! As long as Yamamoto, despite his US citizenship, had voluntarily chosen to serve the Japanese Imperial forces, despite their being in a state of war with the US, he would have been a legitimate target. Zogby offers the example of the Iranians launching a drone attack against an American official in the region. The problem with that example is that the US and Iran are not at war. If, for example, for whatever reason US naval forces tomorrow struck Kharg Island with a strike by naval aircraft and cruise missiles, then the Iranians would be justified to try to zap one of our officials with a drone strike. If the Israelis do preemptively hit Iranian nuclear sites, yes, the Iranians would be justified in striking against the Israelis, with drones. We didn't hit Yamamoto solely because he was planning operations against us, we hit him because he was planning those operations for an organization that had planned AND executed earlier operations. In other words, it was legal to hit Yamamoto on 18 April 1943; it would have been illegal to have done the same on 18 November 1941. What Obama needs to do is to explain to the American people a wartime rationale for what he is doing. But will he? I doubt it. Because to lay out that rationale he would have to speak the truth about what we are up against, and he, like his predecessor, is extremely reluctant to do so. Obama will take the heat, trusting that his friends in the media and the Congress won't push him too hard. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-and-drones-unkept-p_b_2652514.html

I'm Back!

Not that anyone will notice. But after an absence of four years, I've decided to start blogging again. Much has changed in my life. I'm no longer a department chair. I thought I was going to die, but I didn't. I divorced my wife. I found a new love, wonderful that second time around. Many things have changed in the Middle East. Many things have not. The Iranians are still working on their bomb, and still dissing Obama. The Israelis and the Palestinians.... Enough said. But we did see "The Arab Spring" sweep through Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Too bad that isn't working out as well as so many hoped. I'll have more to say on that topic. For me, I'm even more pessimistic about the course of events than I was four years ago. I still think we are headed for the abyss. For the few who read this, and the very few who kept checking for four years, good to see you again.