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.

"Until Allah Inherits the Earth and Everyone on It"

That's the name of the game in this production by Qaeda al-Jihad's media arm. No need to read between the lines. Just get your head out of your ass.

Lift the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie!

The Iranians have been spelling out numerous preconditions for the US to meet before talks. Here's one I'd like to see the Obama administration demand: lift the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. According to the AFP story in Lebanese The Daily Star:

Iran says fatwa ordering Rushdie's death still valid
By Agence France Presse (AFP) Thursday, February 12, 2009

TEHRAN: Iran said on Wednesday that a fatwa ordering the death of British writer Salman Rushdie was still valid 20 years after it was issued by the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "It is natural that as long as a fatwa has not been annulled, it is still valid," foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said at a news conference suggesting that Khomeini's order was still valid.

The Indian-born Rushdie, 61, was forced to go into hiding for a decade after Khomeini issued the 1989 death sentence over his book "The Satanic Verses," saying it insulted Islam.
Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in 2005 that he still believed the British novelist was an apostate whose killing would be authorized by Islam. - AFP

A Tale From Two Cities

Washington and Tehran. Here's the headline from the WAPO story: "Iran Signals Willingness to Talk to U.S. in Fair Atmosphere." Wow! That sounds fairly positive, unlike the tone I've outlined in several earlier posts about how Iran has been responding to Obama's overtures.

Here's the Tehran Times's coverage of the same Ahmadinejad speech:

TEHRAN - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that Iran is safe from any foreign military threat since the country has become a responsible superpower.

“Today, I officially declare that Iran has become a real and righteous superpower, and the shadow of threats over Iran has been removed forever,” the president stated at a rally in Tehran marking the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad also said Iran would welcome a “fundamental” and not “tactical” change by the new U.S. administration and was ready for dialogue provided talks were held in a “fair atmosphere and with mutual respect.”

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on Monday that the United States is looking for opportunities for “face-to-face” dialogue with Iran after nearly three decades without diplomatic ties. “There’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it’s not going to happen overnight,” CNN quoted Obama as saying during his first news conference. Ahmadinejad went on to say “belittlement, threats, and monopolization of science” are the arrogant powers’ means to dominate nations, but the Iranian people have surpassed all these obstacles and are now filled with self-confidence. He pointed to Iran’s recent satellite launch, saying Iran is now one of only eight countries that possess the complete cycle of launch pad, rocket, reception station, and satellite.

Iran launched its first domestically manufactured satellite, called Omid (hope), into orbit on February 2. The satellite, carried on a Safir-2 rocket, is meant for telecommunications and research purposes. Today the world is about to enter the era of logic, thought, and dialogue, and the era of force and domination is over, Ahmadinejad added.

Note Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase about the "monopolization of science." That needs to be read as American insistence that Iran not develop the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

Note also that Iran's willingness to talk reflects its confidence in its new found and self-declared status as a "real and righteous superpower."

Even less positive is the report from the FARS News Agency. Ahmadinejad's statement came at a rally at which Iranians were "chanting anti-US slogans."

"It is quite clear that real change must be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear the Iranian nation welcomes real changes. The Iranian nation is ready to hold talks but talks in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect," Ahmadinejad told a mass rally at Tehran's Azadi square. Millions of Iranians chanting anti-US slogans took to the streets of the capital and other cities of Iran on Tuesday for the annual demonstration to mark the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

In fact, at the rally Ahmadinejad came up with a new demand:

Referring to US President Barack Obama's slogan about "change in US policies", Ahmadinejad noted, "…if you (the US administration) are seeking change, try and punish the agents behind the recent wars in the region because Saddam (former Iraqi dictator) was not the sole war criminal."

The Iranian president called for trial and punishment of former US President George W. Bush, his administration, companions and accomplices as well as leaders of the Zionist regime (of Israel) for their crimes against humanity.

For reasons I cannot fathom, non of this made its way into the WAPO report.

So where does that leave Obama? Well, the Iranians are ready for talks as long as the US: lift sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets, apologize for past actions, stop all talk about regime change in Tehran, view Iran as a "victim" of, rather than an exporter of terrorism, free the Iranian "diploamts" under detnetion in Iraq, remove the "pressure" of the Jews from the backs of American voters, and bring Bush and members of his administration and the leaders of "the Zionist regime" to trial for war crimes.

Why doesn't this crap get reported by the American media? The fact that the Iranian leadership insists on looking a gift horse in the mouth isn't Obama's fault. But the reality is that the abysmal Iranian reaction to his sincere and well intentioned approaches could be and was predicted by many, making our new president appear . . . somewhat naive. Nevertheless, all of this says far more about the American press than it does about the American president.