Saudi Arabia: Trouble Taming the Tiger

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about heroin and other addictions. This follows this post about LGBT homosexuality.This follows this post about Planned Parenthood in light of Kamala Harris's raid. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

In Brief... World News Review

Saudi Arabia: Trouble Taming the Tiger

 by Cecil Maranville, Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

For decades, Saudi school children have been taught anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

For decades, Saudi school children have been taught anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda. It was no fluke that 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. A recently released Saudi intelligence poll shows that Osama bin Laden could have had thousands more volunteers. Taken just weeks after 9/11, the survey found that 95 percent of Saudi Arabians from ages 25 to 41—with college educations—supported the terrorist.
Clearly, the long-held premise that terrorists are poor and uneducated is no longer true.
Even Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah recently let slip an anti-Semitic remark, saying in a news conference after a terrorist attack on a Saudi oil refinery that the Jews were to blame. MSNBC reported the crown prince's statement: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don't say, I mean… It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”
The Saudi interior minister followed with this absurd claim: “Al-Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism” (Andrew L. Jaffee, “Saudis Blame Jews for Terror,” June 19, 2004).
Coming from average citizens, these statements would be unsettling. Coming from the head of the government and a chief aide, they are deeply disturbing.
Anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were undoubtedly in keeping with the thinking of the Arab peoples of the 1950s. It seems natural for poor people to hate the prosperous. Slandering others—especially Jews—undoubtedly seemed harmless. Strengthening nationalism through denigrating other nations that were traditionally unpopular was the easy way, and the Saudi government chose the easy way.
It allowed, encouraged and funded the radical Islamist Wahhabi sect. When the sect evolved into a threat to the sprawling self-indulgent Saudi royal family, the government continued funding the Wahhabis as virtual protection money. “We will fund you to take your radical actions to other countries; just leave Saudi Arabia alone” seems to have been the understanding.
For the very same terrorist attack that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah blamed the Jews on Saudi TV, the Saudi government told the Western press that the culprits were al-Qaeda: One message for the folks at home; another for the West. That is, the government has wanted it both ways: anti- and pro-American.
In this cozy little world, back in 1990 Osama bin Laden (living in Saudi Arabia at the time) actually offered his forces to the royal family to help it remove Saddam Hussein's invading troops from Kuwait.
Throughout the decades of teaching little children to hate the United States and Israel—throughout the decades of funding radical Islamic ideas—Saudi Arabia was also an ally of the United States. It made that plain to all Arabs by allowing a U.S. base on its soil in the 1991 Gulf War.
Now the tiger has returned home to attack its keeper. The Saudi's duplicity began to backfire after the United States pressured the kingdom to expel bin Laden in 1994. His al-Qaeda terrorists are now attacking Saudi Arabia from within.
So, we have a truly bizarre phenomenon: Anti-Semitic, anti-American terrorists are attacking Saudi Arabia for being pro-America and therefore pro-Israel, while the Saudi government officials blame the Jews (and therefore America) for the terrorists' attacks.
The Saudis are sitting on a ticking bomb—a nation of people schooled in prejudice and terrorists who no longer honor their protection money. Increasing unemployment and decreasing government handouts make the nation ripe for revolution.

terrorism al-Qaeda Osama bin Laden saudi arabia Middle East World Regions Governments Conflicts and War News and Prophecy

You might also be interested in...

Anti-Semitism and A Sober Warning

In Brief...World News Review: Intelligence Sources Believe Al Qaeda Has Nuclear Capacity

How dangerous are the bombs?

• 

  Cecil Maranville

• 

  Darris McNeely

  Beyond Today Presenter

  Darris McNeely works at the United Church of God home office in Cincinnati, Ohio. He and his wife, Debbie, have served in the ministry for more than 32 years. They have two sons, both married. Darris is the Associate Media Producer for the Church. He also is a guest instructor in Early Church History at the Ambassador Bible College. He enjoys hunting, travel and reading.
  

Add to my study list

Print this Page

Appeared In...

World News and Prophecy: July 2004

Join the conversation!

Log in or register to post comments

The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures

A very interesting post from www.stratfor.com about the Sunni and Shi'ite war in the Middle East. This follows this post about Saudi Arabia's problems this year. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures

Geopolitical Weekly

Print

Text Size

Stratfor

By George Friedman
Last week, a coalition of predominantly Sunni Arab countries, primarily from the Arabian Peninsula and organized by Saudi Arabia, launched airstrikes in Yemen that have continued into this week. The airstrikes target Yemeni al-Houthis, a Shiite sect supported by Iran, and their Sunni partners, which include the majority of military forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. What made the strikes particularly interesting was what was lacking: U.S. aircraft. Although the United States provided intelligence and other support, it was a coalition of Arab states that launched the extended air campaign against the al-Houthis.
Three things make this important. First, it shows the United States' new regional strategy in operation. Washington is moving away from the strategy it has followed since the early 2000s — of being the prime military force in regional conflicts — and is shifting the primary burden of fighting to regional powers while playing a secondary role. Second, after years of buying advanced weaponry, the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries are capable of carrying out a fairly sophisticated campaign, at least in Yemen. The campaign began by suppressing enemy air defenses — the al-Houthis had acquired surface-to-air missiles from the Yemeni military — and moved on to attacking al-Houthi command-and-control systems. This means that while the regional powers have long been happy to shift the burden of combat to the United States, they are also able to assume the burden if the United States refuses to engage.
Most important, the attacks on the al-Houthis shine the spotlight on a growing situation in the region: a war between the Sunnis and Shiites. In Iraq and Syria, a full-scale war is underway. A battle rages in Tikrit with the Sunni Islamic State and its allies on one side, and a complex combination of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army, Shiite militias, Sunni Arab tribal groups and Sunni Kurdish forces on the other. In Syria, the battle is between the secular government of President Bashar al Assad — nevertheless dominated by Alawites, a Shiite sect — and Sunni groups. However, Sunnis, Druze and Christians have sided with the regime as well. It is not reasonable to refer to the Syrian opposition as a coalition because there is significant internal hostility. Indeed, there is tension not only between the Shiites and Sunnis, but also within the Shiite and Sunni groups. In Yemen, a local power struggle among warring factions has been branded and elevated into a sectarian conflict for the benefit of the regional players. It is much more complex than simply a Shiite-Sunni war. At the same time, it cannot be understood without the Sunni-Shiite component.

Iran's Strategy and the Saudis' Response

One reason this is so important is that it represents a move by Iran to gain a major sphere of influence in the Arab world. This is not a new strategy. Iran has sought greater influence on the Arabian Peninsula since the rule of the Shah. More recently, it has struggled to create a sphere of influence stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea. The survival of the al Assad government in Syria and the success of a pro-Iranian government in Iraq would create that Iranian sphere of influence, given the strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the ability of al Assad's Syria to project its power.
For a while, it appeared that this strategy had been blocked by the near collapse of the al Assad government in 2012 and the creation of an Iraqi government that appeared to be relatively successful and was far from being an Iranian puppet. These developments, coupled with Western sanctions, placed Iran on the defensive, and the idea of an Iranian sphere of influence appeared to have become merely a dream.
However, paradoxically, the rise of the Islamic State has reinvigorated Iranian power in two ways. First, while the propaganda of the Islamic State is horrific and designed to make the group look not only terrifying, but also enormously powerful, the truth is that, although it is not weak, the Islamic State represents merely a fraction of Iraq's Sunni community, and the Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. At the same time, the propaganda has mobilized the Shiite community to resist the Islamic State, allowed Iranian advisers to effectively manage the Shiite militias in Iraq and (to some extent) the Iraqi army, and forced the United States to use its airpower in tandem with Iranian-led ground forces. Given the American strategy of blocking the Islamic State — even if doing so requires cooperation with Iran — while not putting forces on the ground, this means that as the Islamic State's underlying weakness becomes more of a factor, the default winner in Iraq will be Iran.
A somewhat similar situation exists in Syria, though with a different demographic. Iran and Russia have historically supported the al Assad government. The Iranians have been the more important supporters, particularly because they committed their ally, Hezbollah, to the battle. What once appeared to be a lost cause is now far from it. The United States was extremely hostile toward al Assad, but given the current alternatives in Syria, Washington has become at least neutral toward the Syrian government. Al Assad would undoubtedly like to have U.S. neutrality translate into a direct dialogue with Washington. Regardless of the outcome, Iran has the means to maintain its influence in Syria.
When you look at a map and think of the situation in Yemen, you get a sense of why the Saudis and Gulf Cooperation Council countries had to do something. Given what is happening along the northern border of the Arabian Peninsula, the Saudis have to calculate the possibility of an al-Houthi victory establishing a pro-Iranian, Shiite state to its south as well. The Saudis and the Gulf countries would be facing the possibility of a Shiite or Iranian encirclement. These are not the same thing, but they are linked in complex ways. Working in the Saudis' favor is the fact that the al-Houthis are not Shiite proxies like Hezbollah, and Saudi money combined with military operations designed to cut off Iranian supply lines to the al-Houthis could mitigate the threat overall. Either way, the Saudis had to act.
During the Arab Spring, one of the nearly successful attempts to topple a government occurred in Bahrain. The uprising failed primarily because Saudi Arabia intervened and imposed its will on the country. The Saudis showed themselves to be extremely sensitive to the rise of Shiite regimes with close relations with the Iranians on the Arabian Peninsula. The result was unilateral intervention and suppression. Whatever the moral issues, it is clear that the Saudis are frightened by rising Iranian and Shiite power and are willing to use their strength. That is what they have done in Yemen.
In a way, the issue is simple for the Saudis. They represent the center of gravity of the religious Sunni world. As such, they and their allies have embarked on a strategy that is strategically defensive and tactically offensive. Their goal is to block Iranian and Shiite influence, and the means they are implementing is coalition warfare that uses air power to support local forces on the ground. Unless there is a full invasion of Yemen, the Saudis are following the American strategy of the 2000s on a smaller scale.

The U.S. Stance

The American strategy is more complex. As I've written before, the United States has undertaken a strategy focused on maintaining the balance of power. This kind of approach is always messy because the goal is not to support any particular power, but to maintain a balance between multiple powers. Therefore, the United States is providing intelligence and mission planning for the Saudi coalition against the al-Houthis and their Iranian allies. In Iraq, the United States is providing support to Shiites — and by extension, their allies — by bombing Islamic State installations. In Syria, U.S. strategy is so complex that it defies clear explanation. That is the nature of refusing large-scale intervention but being committed to a balance of power. The United States can oppose Iran in one theater and support it in another. The more simplistic models of the Cold War are not relevant here.
All of this is happening at the same time that nuclear negotiations appear to be coming to some sort of closure. The United States is not really concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons. As I have said many times, we have heard since the mid-2000s that Iran was a year or two away from nuclear weapons. Each year, the fateful date was pushed back. Building deliverable nuclear weapons is difficult, and the Iranians have not even carried out a nuclear test, an essential step before a deliverable weapon is created. What was a major issue a few years ago is now part of a constellation of issues where U.S.-Iranian relations interact, support and contradict. Deal or no deal, the United States will bomb the Islamic State, which will help Iran, and support the Saudis in Yemen, which will not.
The real issue now is what it was a few years ago: Iran appears to be building a sphere of influence to the Mediterranean Sea, but this time, that sphere of influence potentially includes Yemen. That, in turn, creates a threat to the Arabian Peninsula from two directions. The Iranians are trying to place a vise around it. The Saudis must react, but the question is whether airstrikes are capable of stopping the al-Houthis. They are a relatively low-cost way to wage war, but they fail frequently. The first question is what the Saudis will do then. The second question is what the Americans will do. The current doctrine requires a balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the United States tilting back and forth. Under this doctrine — and in this military reality — the United States cannot afford full-scale engagement on the ground in Iraq.

Turkey's Role

Relatively silent but absolutely vital to this tale is Turkey. It has the largest economy in the region and has the largest army, although just how good its army is can be debated. Turkey is watching chaos along its southern border, rising tension in the Caucasus, and conflict across the Black Sea. Of all these, Syria and Iraq and the potential rise of Iranian power is the most disturbing. Turkey has said little about Iran of late, but last week Ankara suddenly criticized Tehran and accused Iran of trying to dominate the region. Turkey frequently says things without doing anything, but the development is still noteworthy.
It should be remembered that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hoped to see Turkey as a regional leader and the leader of the Sunni world. With the Saudis taking an active role and the Turks doing little in Syria or Iraq, the moment is passing Turkey by. Such moments come and go, so history is not changed. But Turkey is still the major Sunni power and the third leg of the regional balance involving Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The evolution of Turkey would be the critical step in the emergence of a regional balance of power, in which local powers, not the United Kingdom or the United States, determine the outcome. The American role, like the British role before it, would not be directly waging war in the region but providing aid designed to stabilize the balance of power. That can be seen in Yemen or Iraq. It is extremely complex and not suited for simplistic or ideological analysis. But it is here, it is unfolding and it will represent the next generation of Middle Eastern dynamics. And if the Iranians put aside their theoretical nuclear weapons and focus on this, that will draw in the Turks and round out the balance of power.

Send us your thoughts on this report.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Simply copy and paste this code:"<a href="https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/middle-eastern-balance-power-matures">The Middle Eastern Balance of Power Matures</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Saudi Arabia Faces Challenges in the New Year

A very interesting post from www.stratfor.com about Saudi Arabia's problems this year. This follows this post about Israel's elections. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.



Saudi Arabia Faces Challenges in the New Year

Geopolitical Weekly

January 6, 2015

Print

Text Size

Stratfor

By Michael Nayebi-Oskoui
The Middle East is one of the most volatile regions in the world — it is no stranger to upheaval. The 2009 uprisings in Iran and the brinksmanship of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government were followed by the chaos of the Arab Spring, the spillover of the Syrian conflict into Iraq and a potential realignment of the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Unlike recent years, however, 2015 is likely to see regional Sunni Arab interests realign toward a broader acceptance of moderate political Islam. The region is emerging from the uncertainty of the past half-decade, and the foundations of its future are taking shape. This process will not be neat or orderly, but changes are clearly taking place surrounding the Syrian and Libyan conflicts, as well as the region's anticipation of a strengthened Iran.
The Middle East enters 2015 facing several crises. Libyan instability remains a threat to North African security, and the Levant and Persian Gulf must figure out how to adjust course in the wake of the U.S.-Iranian negotiations, the Sunni-Shiite proxy war in Syria and Iraq, and the power vacuum created by a Turkish state bogged down by internal concerns that prevent it from assuming a larger role throughout the region. Further undermining the region is the sharp decline in global oil prices. While Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates will be able to use considerable cash reserves to ride out the slump, the rest of the Middle East's oil-exporting economies face dire consequences.
For decades, long-ruling autocratic leaders in countries such as Algeria and Yemen helped keep militancy in check, loosely following the model of military-backed Arab nationalism championed by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. Arab monarchs were able to limit domestic dissent or calls for democracy through a combination of social spending and repression. The United States not only partnered with many of these nations to fight terrorism — especially after September 2001 — but also saw the Gulf states as a reliable bulwark against Iranian expansion and a dangerous Iraq led by Saddam Hussein. Levantine instability was largely contained to Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, while Israel's other neighbors largely abided by a tacit agreement to limit threats emanating from their territories.
Today, Saddam's iron grip on Iraq has been broken, replaced by a fractious democracy that is as threatened by the Islamic State as it is by its own political processes. Gone are the long-time leaders of states like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Meanwhile, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman are facing uncertain transitions that could well take place by year's end. The United States' serious dialogue with Iran over the latter's nuclear program, once a nearly unthinkable scenario for many in the Gulf, has precipitated some of the biggest shifts in regional dynamics, especially as Saudi Arabia and its allies work to lessen their reliance on Washington's protection.

The Push for Sunni Hegemony

Riyadh begins this year under considerably more duress than it faced 12 months ago. Not only is King Abdullah gravely ill (a bout of pneumonia forced the 90-year-old ruler to ring in the new year in the hospital and on a ventilator), but the world's largest oil-producing country has also entered into a price war with American shale producers. Because Saudi Arabia and its principal regional allies, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, boast more than a trillion dollars in cash reserves between them, they will be able to keep production levels constant for the foreseeable future.
However, other OPEC producers have not been able to weather the storm as easily. The resulting 40 percent plunge in oil prices is placing greater financial pressure on Iran and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq, Saudi Arabia's largest sectarian and energy rivals. Riyadh's careful planning and building of reserves means the Saudi kingdom's economic security is unlikely to come under threat in the next one to three years. The country will instead continue to focus on not only countering Iran but also rebuilding relationships with regional Sunni actors weakened in previous years.
Riyadh's regional strategy has traditionally been to support primarily Sunni Arab groups with a conservative, Salafist religious ideology. Salafist groups traditionally kept out of politics, and their conservative Sunni ideology was useful in Saudi Arabia's competition against Iran and its own Shiite proxies. Promoting Salafism also served as a tool to limit the reach of more ideologically moderate Sunni political Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, groups Riyadh sees as a threat because of their success in organizing grassroots support and fighting for democratic reforms.
With rise of external regional pressures, however, Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia are re-evaluating their relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood. Internal threats posed by Salafist jihadists and a desire to limit future gains by regional opponents are pushing countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to try to forge a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood to limit the risks posed by rival groups in the region.
Restoring relations with the Muslim Brotherhood will also have effects on diplomatic relations. Qatar has long been a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fact that has strained its relations with other countries — Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates even went so far as to close their embassies in Qatar. However, the continuation of the United States' rapprochement with Iran and Riyadh's own discomfort with the rise of Salafist jihadist groups has made it reconsider its stance on political Islamism. Riyadh, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi's agreement to resume diplomatic ties with Doha, and the latter's consideration of changing its relationships with Egypt and Libya, points to a shift in how the bloc's engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood has the potential to streamline the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) efforts in the region.
The Gulf monarchies' attempt at reconciling with political Islamists can potentially benefit the GCC. For its part, Qatar has engaged with the staunchly anti-Islamist Libyan government in Tobruk, and it appears tensions with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's government in Egypt have calmed. Both scenarios point to the likelihood of the GCC moving closer to adopting a more unified regional stance beginning in 2015, one more in line with Riyadh's wishes to preserve the framework of the council.
This improvement in relations comes at a critical moment. With the United States and Iran undergoing a rapprochement of their own, the Gulf monarchies will try to secure their own interests by becoming directly involved in Libya, Syria and potentially Yemen. This military action will also aim to project strength to Iran while also filling the strategic void left by the absence of Turkish leadership in the region, especially in the Levant.
However, Qatar has been opposed to this course of action in the past. Despite its small size, the country has used its wealth and domestic stability to back a wide array of Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ennahda in Tunisia and rebel groups in Syria. Tensions between Qatar and regional allies came to a head in 2014 in the aftermath of Saudi and Emirati support for the July 2013 uprising that ousted the Doha-backed Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. The tension threatened the stability of the GCC and caused rebel infighting in Syria. This disconnect in Gulf policy has had wide regional repercussions, including the success of Islamic State militants against Gulf-backed rebel groups in Syria and the Islamic States' expansion into Iraq.
Without foreign military intervention on behalf of the rebels, no faction participating in the Syrian civil war will be able to declare a decisive military victory. As the prospects of a clear-cut outcome become less realistic, Bashar al Assad's Russian and Iranian backers are increasing diplomatic efforts to negotiate a settlement in Syria, especially as both are eager to refocus on domestic woes exacerbated by the current drop in global energy prices. Kuwait's recent decision to allow the Syrian regime to reopen its embassy to assist Syrian expats living within its borders points to a likelihood that the Gulf states are coming to terms with the reality that al Assad is unlikely to be ousted by force, and Sunni Arab stakeholders in the Syrian conflict are gradually giving in to the prospect of a negotiated settlement. A resolution to the Syrian crisis will not come in 2015, but regional actors will continue looking for a solution to the crisis outside of the battlefield.
Any negotiated settlement will see the Sunni principals in the region — led by the GCC and Turkey — work to implement a competent Sunni political organization that limits the authority of a remnant Alawite government in Damascus and future inroads by traditional backers in Tehran. Muslim Brotherhood-style political Islam represents one of the potential Sunni solutions within this framework, and with Saudi opposition to the group potentially fading, it remains a possible alternative to the variety of Salafist options that could exist — to include jihadists. Such a solution ultimately relies on a broader democratic framework to be implemented, a scenario that will likely remain elusive in Syria for years to come.

North Africa's Long Road to Stability

North African affairs have traditionally followed a trajectory distinct from that of the Levant and Persian Gulf, a reality shaped as much by geography as by political differences between the Nasser-inspired secular governments and the monarchies of the Gulf. Egypt, Saudi Arabia's traditional rival for leadership of the Sunni Arab world, has become cripplingly dependent on the financial backing of its former Gulf rivals. The GCC was able to use its relative stability and oil wealth to take advantage of opportunities to secure its members' interests in North Africa following the Arab Spring. As a result, Cairo has become a launching pad for Gulf intentions, particularly UAE airstrikes against Islamist militants in Libya and joint Egyptian-Gulf backing of renegade Gen. Khalifa Hifter's Operation Dignity campaign.
Like Syria, Libya represents a battleground for competing regional Sunni ambitions. Qatar, and to a lesser extent Turkey, backed Libya's powerful Islamist political and militia groups led by the re-instated General National Congress in Tripoli after the international community recognized the arguably anti-Islamist House of Representatives in Tobruk. Islamist-aligned political and militia forces control Libya's three largest cities, and Egyptian- and Gulf-backed proxies are making little headway against opponents in battles to gain control of Tripoli and Benghazi, prompting more direct action by Cairo and Abu Dhabi.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates are primarily concerned with the possibility of Libya, an oil-rich state bordering Egypt, becoming a wealthy backer of political Islam. Coastal-based infighting has left much of Libya's vast desert territories available for regional jihadists as well as a host of smuggling and trafficking activities, posing a significant security risk not just for regional states but Western interests as well. Egyptian and Gulf attempts to shape outcomes on the ground in Libya have proved largely ineffective, and Western plans for reconciliation talks favor regional powers such as Algeria — a traditional rival to Egyptian and Gulf interests in North Africa — that are more comfortable working with political actors across a wide spectrum of political ideologies to include Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamism.
Libya will likely find itself as the proving ground for the quid pro quo happening between the participants of the intra-Sunni rift over political Islam. In exchange for Saudi Arabia and its partners reducing their pressure on Muslim Brotherhood-style groups in Egypt and Syria, Qatar and Turkey are likely to work more visibly with Tobruk in 2015 in addition to pushing Islamist proxies into a Western-backed national dialogue. Libya's overall security situation will not be settled through mediation, but Libyan Islamists are more likely to re-enter a coalition with the political rivals now that both sides' Gulf backers are working toward settling differences themselves.

Regional Impact

Dysfunction and infighting have marred attempts by the region's Sunni actors to formulate a cohesive strategy in Syria. This has enabled Iran to remain entrenched in the Levant — albeit while facing pressure — and to continue expending resources competing in arenas such as Libya and Egypt. The next year will likely see an evolving framework where Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and to a lesser extent Turkey, will reach a delicate understanding on the role of political Islam in the region. 2014 saw a serious reversal in the fortunes of Muslim Brotherhood-style groups, which inadvertently favored even more far-right and extremist groups such as the Islamic State as the Gulf's various Sunni proxies were focused on competing with one another.
Iran's slow but steady push toward a successful negotiation with the United States, as well as the threats posed by militant Islam throughout the Levant, Iraq and North Africa, is necessitating a realignment of relationships within the Middle East's diverse Sunni interests. Less divisive Sunni leadership will be instrumental in coordinating efforts to resolve the conflicts in both Libya and Syria, although resolution in both conflicts will remain out of reach in 2015 and some time beyond.
A more robust Sunni Arab position, especially in Syria and the Levant, will likely put more pressure on Iran to reach a negotiated settlement with the United States by the end of the year. While a settlement may seem harmful to Gulf interests, the GCC is shifting toward a pragmatic acceptance of an agreement, similar to Riyadh's begrudging accommodation of a future role for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East. The GCC's new goal is to limit Tehran's opportunities for success rather than outright denying it. Part of this will be achieved through an ongoing, aggressive energy strategy. The rest will come from internal negotiations between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.
The next year will see the Sunni presence in Syria attempt to coalesce behind rebels acceptable to Western governments that are eager to see negotiations begin and greater local pushback against the Islamic State. More cohesive Gulf leadership will also present a more effective bulwark against Iranian and Alawite interests in the Levant. Most important, however, is the opportunity for regional Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, to present a more mature and capable response to mounting pressures. Whether through more assertive military moves in the region or by working with states such as Qatar to steer the Muslim Brotherhood rather than embolden the Islamist opposition, 2015 will likely see a shift in Sunni Arab strategies that have long shaped the region.

Send us your thoughts on this report.

An interesting article from www.debbieschlussel.com about the Taliban released from Guantanamo Bay. This follows this post about the Benghazi Committee and the West Point Speech. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

NAUSEATING VIDEO: Bergdahl Taliban 5 Living in Luxury to Heroes’ Welcome w NO Surveillance

By Debbie Schlussel
So, the Obama Administration claimed that the Taliban Five released in exchange for the freedom of Abdullah Bergdahl (the artist formerly known as Bowe Bergdahl) would be under guard and closely watched. Not so. Check out this video report on the welcome that these hardened Taliban terrorists-in-chief received and how they are living in Qatar. As I asked yesterday, why on earth would we trust the lying, dishonest Emir of Qatar to “keep an eye” on these cretins. They are his buddies.

ABC US News | ABC International News

Taliban Five Movin’ On Up Courtesy of Abdullah Bergdahl f/k/a Bowe Bergdahl
Taliban Five Theme Song . . .

You might also like:

Bowe Bergdahl & the Taliban 5: Obama’s US Negotiates w ...

OUTRAGE: Bowe Bergdahl’s Dad Praises allah, Makes Islamic ...

US Govt Concluded Bowe “Abdullah” Bergdahl Was Deserter ...

Bowe Abdullah Bergdahl: Parents Not

A very interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about the captive that the U.S. received back in exchange for the release of five Guantanamo Bay jihadists. This follows this post about a Muslim who murdered his wife in the U.S. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!

US Govt Concluded Bowe “Abdullah” Bergdahl Was Deserter Back in 2010; Converted to Islam, Taught Taliban to Ambush US

By Debbie Schlussel
So, despite claims that it’s merely “speculation” that Bowe Bergdahl–now “Abdullah” Bergdahl–is a deserter (he deliberately left his base without a weapon or armor, but took his diary–and a number of troops in his unit say he deserted), the Obama Administration had apparently concluded Bergdahl was a deserter four years ago, and yet went ahead with the ridiculous, lopsided Gitmo trade for Bergdahl anyway (thanks to reader Duane for the tip):

The Pentagon concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military curbed any high-risk rescue plans. . . . But the former Pentagon official said it was “incontrovertible” that he walked away from his unit. The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn’t formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, “delusional” person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his army post, the official said. . . .

Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served as an officer in Bergdahl’s unit, said in an article Monday on the Daily Beast website that Bergdahl was not on patrol, as some reports have suggested.
“There was no patrol that night,” he wrote. “Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon_including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.” Hagel, visiting troops in Afghanistan, was met with silence when he told a group of them in a Bagram Air Field hangar: “This is a happy day. We got one of our own back.”

And, yet, despite that conclusion, Bergdahl was promoted TWICE! while in captivity. HUH? Instead of promoting this deserter, they should have been preparing his court martial . . . the only reason we should have worked for his release. And, yet, as I noted yesterday, the government has already decided that five years was enough for the six lives of American soldiers he cost and countless other lives lost because we traded top Gitmo terrorists for him.
More:

A captured American soldier is training Taliban fighters bomb-making and ambush skills, according to one of his captors and Afghan intelligence officials. Private Bowe Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is thought to be the only U.S. serviceman in captivity. The 24-year-old has converted to Islam and now has the Muslim name Abdullah, one of his captors told The Sunday Times.
A Taliban deputy district commander in Paktika, who called himself Haji Nadeem, told the newspaper that Bergdahl taught him how to dismantle a mobile phone and turn it into a remote control for a roadside bomb. Nadeem claimed he also received basic ambush training from the U.S. soldier.

It’s disgusting, given all this, that Susan Rice–the Obama Administration’s Goebbelsette–would say this al-schmuck “served with honor.” HUH?
THIS. IS. WEAKNESS. Back in the day, Bergdahl would have faced the music. Today, he’s dancing a jig to the music. While those who died for him can’t make a move or say a word. They are gone forever.
The U.S. Armed Forces . . . No Deserter Convert to Islam Left Behind.
Exit Question: What exactly did Bowe Bergdahl do to “help the the Afghan people”? We already know what he did to “help” six Americans to their eternal sleep.
Exit Question #2: Was Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion and conversion to Islam his way of rebelling against those ballet lessons his parents made him take as a kid? Just askin’.

    

 

Tags: Abdullah Bergdahl, Bowe Bergdahl, Bowe Bergdahl converted to Islam, Bowe Bergdahl deserter, Bowe Bergdahl Muslim

25 Responses

Obamadan considers him a hero

HK on June 3, 2014 at 8:55 am

Reply

IMPEACH OBAMA !!!

HK on June 3, 2014 at 8:58 am

Reply

He is not a hero and Jane Fonda should not be honored as one of the top Women of the Century! How insulting is all this to the American people?
My concern of those prisoners released is how many more lives will be lost as a result.
These fanatics need to be eradicated. I’ll never forgot when a journalist asked General Powell something like how do you deal with an enemy that has no value for life, and he replied, “You accomadate them”.
Keep up the great work Debbie.

Frank E. Rotondo on June 3, 2014 at 9:15 am

Reply

Now let me see if I understand this correctly. A President named Hussein voted in as the next President after 9/11, exchanged a Muslim deserter who has Muslim parents and is responsible for the deaths of 6 of his comrades in arms, exchanged for 6 top terrorists who will inevitably kill more Americans and all with the blessings of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Thank God I’m a Canadian.

David Cameron on June 3, 2014 at 9:33 am

Reply

What is happening to this country??? Who could imagine this?? It’s a world turned upside- down.

Yehudit18 on June 3, 2014 at 9:51 am

Reply

Oh yeah what happened to this wonderful country based on a genocide,slavery and racial segregation,it’s so sad

J93 on June 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Reply

SCIENTISTS SAY that sarcastic cynics die younger than most people…for you ONLY may this be true!

It's just me again on June 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Reply

As some have pointed out, Obama believes this to be some sort of crazy confidence building measure which will aid in his negotiations with the Taliban. Obama wants to exit Afghanistan, and so he desperately needs an agreement with the Taliban. This is a sign of his desperation. It is already coming back to bite him, as people begin to understand exactly what was done for a solider who may very well turn out to be guilty of treasonous acts.

Adam on June 3, 2014 at 10:41 am

Reply

AS OBAMA ANTICIPATES THE END OF HIS TERM HE IS RAMPING UP HIS SABOTAGING , ANTI USA ACTIONS…..CANT ANYONE STOP HIM ???

HK on June 3, 2014 at 11:15 am

Reply

HK,
The military could stop him, like in Egypt or Thailand. They could throw him or his successor Hillary out of power, declare a national emergency, and then get rid of the communists in the media. But that is probably a few years down the road.

John M on June 3, 2014 at 11:28 am
Reply

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here: Bowe Bergdahl is not the issue, regardless of what you think of his actions – in hindsight, his behavior is all about our Afghanistan policy.
We have our troops there on an unclear mission fighting an enemy this Administration has made it clear doesn’t exist. So why shouldn’t Bergdahl seek out and befriend the Taliban? That is exactly what he did. And that is now Obama’s view, too.
I’m not one of those who says we should court-martial him. We’d be hypocrites and not to face up to the fact that his embrace of Islamic terrorists is now also official American policy.
We’re keeping American troops in Afghanistan on a pointless mission. Unless that mission is to make friends with those who blow up Americans. Seen in that light, Bergdahl’s conduct is entirely rational. He understood his mission and his country better than his critics understand him.
I’m not one to judge here and the reason I won’t attack him is because he and his family only did what his country asked of them in Afghanistan. People may say that doesn’t make him a hero but let’s be fair here: there is nothing heroic about the American mission in Afghanistan, period.
This isn’t about what Bergdahl may or may not have done. This is all about our country and how it treats soldiers sent to do anything but fight a war. Which was never Bergdahl’s assignment and we have no right to condemn him for deserting a battlefield that never existed.
All of that is true and a lot more could be said. One is thing is for sure: the Taliban are laughing at us precisely because we are unsure of why we put American soldiers’ in harm’s way. And if I was Bergdahl’s father, I can understand exactly why he thought it was time to bring his son home.
Our Afghanistan mission is in search of a reason to be there that people have a very hard time coming up with. And I think its high past to bring all our of troops, along with Bergdahl, home.

NormanF on June 3, 2014 at 11:33 am

Reply

“I’m not one to judge here and the reason I won’t attack him is because he and his family only did what his country asked of them in Afghanistan.”
Well, NormanF, then I gather you must believe that the overwhelming majority of his former fellow soldiers did NOT do what their country asked of them.

skzion on June 3, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Reply

The point is soldiers’ lives are being thrown away for nothing. Bergdahl was a babysitter for Islamic terrorists and so are the rest of our troops.
We are not there to defeat the Taliban! If any one can explain for us why Bergdahl should be made a scapegoat for official US policy failure in Afghanistan, I’d love to hear it.
As Debbie has pointed out in the past, we are not in it to win. Only if that was true, is Bergdahl a traitor. His actions are not all that different from the one the Obama Administration has been embracing there.

NormanF on June 3, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Reply


“The point is soldiers’ lives are being thrown away for nothing. Bergdahl was a babysitter for Islamic terrorists and so are the rest of our troops.”
NormanF, on this point I certainly agree. But that’s not the main point you were making. Granting this point, one could certainly say that a soldier who caused even more soldier deaths should not be cheered. Bergdahl did.

skzion on June 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Reply

He deserted Norman. He got 6 men killed. He gave training to the enemy.
You’re lost in the big picture my friend. Come back down to earth big guy.

passengerpigeon on June 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Reply

PG,
Are we fighting a war there? Heck, no! We are running an expensive and thankless social work scheme to benefit those who hate us and want to see us dead.
That is not what our military is trained for! Bergdahl got the impression we need to make friends with our enemies. Exactly what the Obama Administration is doing.
You are one in need come down to earth. I never said he was a hero but then again as I already pointed out, nothing about Afghanistan mission is worth the life of a single American soldier.
I am sure you know that already.

NormanF on June 3, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Reply

That “birddog” VOLUNTEERED to join the Army. NOT ONE PERSON FORCED HIM!
He knew there was a war on and I bet you that he is spoiled mama’s boy who flew by the seat of his pants. He NEVER really he gave fig or a thought to helping Afghans…or anybody else! He wanted adventure and he GOT IT, then turned white feather CHICKEN!
He is crybaby brat!
He should be tried for treason, convicted and promptly hung!
Signed,
Mom of a retired US soldier who served. Then volunteered to serve again! He NEVER RAN AWAY in the face of danger, changed orders OR BOREDOM!

It's just me again on June 3, 2014 at 7:36 pm
Reply

“there is nothing heroic about the American mission in Afghanistan, period.” – are you on drugs today or have you just got your head stuck up your ass again?
Every single one of those guys that went out to look for his useless POS ass are heroes.
If they weren’t 6 of them would still be alive.

passengerpigeon on June 3, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Reply

Don’t think he wasn’t rebelling. Like father, like son, like president. Chrislam marching soldiers.

passengerpigeon on June 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Reply

“The U.S. Armed Forces . . . No Deserter Convert to Islam Left Behind.”
It all started with Petraus and his asinine move to cranberry berets. Now soldiers look like boy scouts and it immediately took away the distictiveness of Special Forces uniform.
Oh, amd made us more resemble the French army.

DS_ROCKS! on June 3, 2014 at 2:33 pm

Reply

Everybody in the picture has the same religion.

passengerpigeon on June 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm

Reply

Sad for these guys,but it’s war and at war soldiers die
I don’t like talibans,they’re extremists,but US invade their country and kill many innocent people among many childrens,i think it’s worst and more sad than the death of five imperialist soldiers

J93 on June 3, 2014 at 4:27 pm

Reply

“I don’t like talibans,they’re extremists,but US invade their country and kill many innocent people among many childrens,i think it’s worst and more sad than the death of five imperialist soldiers.”
Well now J93, the “invasion” that initiated this happened to be 9/11. You Moooooslims kill people and then complain that others are making war on you when they fight back.
I don’t limit my dislike to “talibans”–I extend it to all Muslims, including “childrens.” After all, Moooooslim offspring are simply immature Bnei Amalek.

skzion on June 3, 2014 at 7:11 pm
Reply

There was once a time in western Armies that if you were accused of “grousing” ,that is,talking down your comrades or bitching about life in the army, you were placed in the stockade ,without benefit of legal counsel. If you were accused of cowardice in the face of the enemy as this former soldier is accused of,you were shot dead after a summary Court martial. usually in the field.
it is important to any soldier that you retain discipline,that is how you stay alive.
The American army under Obama has adopted the swedish child raising doctrine of “no smacking,you must negotiate” style of leadership.
This traitor has not only attempted to talk down his comrades,he has deserted in the face of the enemy and joined their ranks.
Added to this is the fact his actions of cowardicwe led to the deaths of fellow soldiers is beyond contempt .
perhaps the rest of his life in Gitmo is the answer. He can then comune with the fabled leader of his death cult..mohammad as he contemplates the lives he has taken in the name of the islamic death cult.

Aron B on June 3, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Reply

BO is both a moslem and marxist so his actions come as no surprise. I am betting the 5 released terrorists are the ones to watch, unfortunately.

Marily on June 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm

Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name *

Email * (won't be published)

Website

* denotes required field

Sponsor My Work!

Click to become a sponsor!

Support My Sponsors

Support My Advertisers

Valued Advertiser

Sweet Sixteen Dresses

sweet sixteen dresses

Robe de Cocktail Pour Mariage

robe de cocktail pour mariage

Copyright 2000–2014 www.debbieschlussel.com