Editor’s Note – The ‘chickens are coming home to roost’ because of the collective failures of the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy failures. Putin is flexing Russia’s muscles and he is now cozy with China, and the entire Middle East is in complete disarray.
Perhaps an example of how bad it is, now the Obama Administration is laying prostrate before the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the new Saudi king has spurned Obama’s invitation to attend the big Camp David Summit with Arab Leaders and a one-on-one with Obama himself:
In a statement, al-Jubeir said the summit Thursday coincides with a humanitarian cease-fire in the conflict in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition is fighting Shiite rebels known as Houthis. He said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is also interior minister, would lead the Saudi delegation and the king’s son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is defense minister, will also attend.
President Barack Obama had planned to meet Salman one-on-one a day before the gathering of leaders at the presidential retreat but the White House did not take his decision to skip the summit as a sign of any substantial disagreement with the U.S.
The king, who took power in January after his brother King Abdullah died, has not traveled abroad since his ascension to the throne.
At the summit, leaders of Gulf nations will be looking for assurance that Obama has their support when the region feels under siege from Islamic extremists and Syria, Iraq and Yemen are in various states of chaos. Arab allies also feel threatened by Iran’s rising influence and worry the nuclear pact taking shape with the U.S., Iran and other nations may embolden Tehran to intrude more aggressively in countries of the region. (From the AP in Riyadh.)
The excuse sounds valid, but the King could be much more productive for his country and the Yemen/Iran issues by attending the summit – so the excuse to us is basically a snub; an insult! This is not the first time King Salman spurned Obama. Back in March when Obama was in Saudi Arabia, a meeting was supposed to be held on the 28th; it never happened.
The bigger insult, among many others, is having to explain our ‘policing’ issues here in the USA to the U.N. human rights body. When we see who sits in that body, the insult grows ever larger. Recently a statement about how best to hide your human rights abuses is to sit on that body. Hide in plain sight.
This is also the second time the US has been reviewed since 2010 – during the tenure of the man who had the best position in US history to advance race relations in this country. Instead, it is now ‘open season’ on our police, Guantanamo is still open, and Obama still bows everywhere. Embarrassing!
The United States heard widespread concern Monday over excessive use of force by law-enforcement officials against minorities as it faced the U.N.’s main human rights body for a review of its record.
Washington also faced calls to work toward abolishing the death penalty, push ahead with closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and ensure effective safeguards against abuses of Internet surveillance. Its appearance before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva is the second review of the U.S. rights record, following the first in 2010.
A string of countries ranging from Malaysia to Mexico pressed the U.S. to redouble efforts to prevent police using excessive force against minorities.
“We must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our civil-rights laws live up to their promise,” Justice Department official James Cadogan told delegates, adding that that is particularly important in the area of police practices and pointing to recent high-profile cases of officers killing unarmed black residents.
“These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress through both dialogue and action,” he said at the session’s opening. He added that the government has the authority to prosecute officials who “wilfully use excessive force,” and that criminal charges have been brought against more than 400 law-enforcement officials in the past six years.
Several countries, including Brazil and Kenya, voiced concern over the extent of U.S. surveillance in the light of reports about the National Security Agency’s activities.
David Bitkower, a deputy assistant attorney general, responded that “U.S. intelligence collection programs and activities are subject to stringent and multilayered oversight mechanisms.” He added that the country doesn’t collect intelligence to suppress dissent or to give U.S. businesses a competitive advantage, and that there is “extensive and effective oversight to prevent abuse.”
Faced with widespread calls for a moratorium on executions and a move to scrap the death penalty, Bitkower noted that it is an issue of “extensive debate and controversy” within the U.S. He pointed to “heightened procedural safeguards” for defendants prosecuted for capital offenses.
Brig. Gen. Richard Gross, the legal counsel to the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, told the council that President Barack Obama has said closing Guantanamo – in which he has been thwarted by Congress – is “a national imperative.” The remaining detainees are detained lawfully, he said.
The so-called Universal Periodic Reviews of U.N. member nations’ human rights records started in 2008. Each country’s record is reviewed roughly every four years.
Connecting Events Across the Globe that Prove Iran is a Grave Threat to America
By Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon, SUA Staff
Several stories in the news of late are seemingly unrelated but when we take a closer view, one thread connects them, Iran. Now ask yourself, is Iran a threat to America and how is Obama handling that threat?
Let us list a few events for you and then try to show the ties that bind them all in an interesting fashion. Please understand, if these questions are not answered, we have a problem that is biblical in scale and some people have a lot of explaining to do – Mr. Obama, and not to the Glo-Zelle’s of the world!
We also found out that a rift had opened between French President Hollande and Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The rift widened because Netanyahu questioned France’s ability to safeguard Jews living in France and Hollande told Netanjahu not to attend.
He did attend however and gave a speech where he told France’s Jews that they would be welcomed back in Israel. The French government “fumed” over it. Has France thrown Israel under the bus as well?
Soon after, the White House admitted it erred in not sending a higher ranking official and sent John Kerry to France on the now famous “big hug” tour with James Taylor in tow. Then there was the very awkward clench Kerry initiated and would not break from with Hollande.
Egg on the face was an understatement. But why really did the White House seemingly spurn the importance of the gathering? Would talks with Iran been jeopardized?
We then witnessed the President’s State of the Union address for 2015, and a state visit from British Prime Minister David Cameron and a puzzling joint press conference prior.
Much has been written about how Obama did not address foreign affairs adequately, but in both the SOTU and the Joint Press conference, we saw that Iran was once again being addressed very oddly, why?
Why are Cameron and Obama so in sync over the Iranian talks where deadlines had been postponed twice prior? Here is excerpt of his speech on Iran:
Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.
Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies – including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.
There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran.
But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.
It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom. (Emphasis added.)
Really Mr. President. “It doesn’t make sense?” It is clear to us that you do not make sense.
Of course the response from the White House was immediate and they called his move a breech of protocol. The Obama administration said they would not meet with Netanyahu because it was too close to his election date.
Again, the subject here is Iran and the White House is not happy at all despite “plausible” excuses from Josh Earnest.
In the joint press conference we also learned that Cameron and many other European leaders were backing Obama on Iran.
Cameron even undertook the extraordinary step of lobbying our Senators on the subject. In that press conference Obama admonished Congress to “hold your fire” on Iran. Again, why? Even some in his own party are questioning his stance.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.
Then news came out of Argentina, yes way down there, about a curious case involving international intrigue, and you guessed it, Iran’s involvement. How does Argentina mesh with all these other curiosities? What we know now is that the “Argentine prosecutor who had accused both the president and the Iranians of covering up the country’s worst terrorist attack.”
He had been uncovering clues and facts dating back to the 1994 attack perpetrated on a Jewish center was about to testify that Iran was behind it all. Well, he turned up dead over the weekend and it definitely was not a suicide we now know.
Incidentally, Argentina was negotiating in Aleppo with Iran to circumvent sanctions on them back in the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq days long ago.
In the centre of Buenos Aires, a Renault van packed with over 600lbs of explosives was detonated on July 18 in front of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association, or AMIA – Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina.
The building collapsed, killing 85 people and injuring over 300. It was the worst terrorist attack in Argentina‘s history, and a terrible blow to South America’s largest Jewish community. An estimated 300,000 Jewish people live in Argentina – the sixth largest Jewish population in the world.
Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor was initially declared a suicide, but now we know that is not true either. What makes this tie to Iran so interesting is that he uncovered that Iran had been setting a terror network up in South America.
Iran’s tentacles seem box the compass and yet Obama is so determined to allow diplomacy to work its magic, yet Iran has no intention, nor will it negotiate ever in believable terms.
Now we come back to Boehner’s invitation, it seems the White House has already stated it will not meet with Netanjahu before or after his speech to the joint session of Congress. Why? Maybe Tony Blinken’s testimony Wednesday is more telling than is being reported:
A senior official in the State Department admitted on Wednesday that the Obama administration’s goal during negotiations with Iran is delaying the regime’s development of nuclear weapons rather than shutting down the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program.
Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken acknowledged during a tense exchange with senators on Capitol Hill a deal being sought by the Obama administration that would constrain its nuclear breakout capability without eliminating its nuclear program.
Blinken also floated the possibility of extending nuclear talks past the June deadline should additional time be needed to finalize details of a possible deal with Iran.
Then we learned yesterday that the Israelis have discovered a new missile silo with intercontinental capability near the capital Tehran. But neither Obama nor Kerry will meet with him before the March elections and on the day of his speech scheduled for March 3rd.
But Obama will meet with the YouTube queen; “Glo-Zelle?”
In Obama’s SOTU he talked about an Iran that had ceased in its efforts to enrich nuclear fuel, but that too was not true.
The UN’s IAEA slammed Iran in the recent past and had indicated that Iran’s actions could not be validated and most experts know that Obama was out-of-touch with reality on the subject like he was on the status of actions against the Islamic State. Again, why?
Why is Obama and many in Europe so interested in slamming Israel and coddling Iran? Why is Iran so favored by Obama, maybe not in his words, but surely in his actions? We harken back to Obama’s “red line” in Syria, did he back down then because of his explainable favoritism for Iran?
Now that Sana’a, Yemen has fallen to Houthi Shiites supported by Iran, and Iran now controls at least four Middle East capitals; Damascus, Tehran, Sana’a, Baghdad, and arguably Beirut, Obama is detached, and/or showing that he is intentionally inept.
Incidentally, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki showed how woefully they were informed by a journalist yesterday in her briefing.
We also just learned that Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died, opening yet another question of great import, in which direction will the new king, his half-brother Salman will take our relationship. It has been a tepid relationship to say the least in their attempt to “kill American oil” and the way Obama has handled Syria.
While Iran is so clearly unworthy of joining the “community of nations” as a trusted equal, why is Obama so dead set on making them so, especially at Israel’s peril.
Maybe John Boehner has been waiting for just the right moment to expose the answer to some of these questions.
When Obama so clearly tells a story that misleads the American people, we are glad at SUA that Boehner invited Netanyahu to tell the real story, here, in a manner the White House can only try to “spin” away.
The excuse of the “proximity” to the Israeli elections is clear to critical thinkers, he has always hated Netanyahu and wants him to lose so his goals with Iran can be achieved.
To top it off and bring us back to our original question ponder this – in December of 2010, our presumptive next Attorney General was instrumental in gaining the conviction of the cell that planned to blow up JFK airport in New York. In that trial it was clear, Iran and its network in South America were up to their eyeballs in the plot:
At trial, Kadir, a former member of the Guyanese parliament, admitted that he regularly passed information to Iranian authorities about sensitive topics, including the Guyanese military, and believed himself bound to follow fatwas from Iranian religious leaders.
On June 2, 2007, Kadir was arrested in Trinidad aboard a plane headed to Venezuela, en route to Iran. He was subsequently extradited to the United States. (Also, read more here.)
By Tom Marin – Vicki Davis – MG Paul Vallely US Army (Ret.)
Tawassul in Arabic, describes the Islamic understanding of intercession. According to Shaykh Nuh Keller, who was educated in philosophy and Arabic at the University of Chicago and UCLA, author of “The Sunni Path: A Handbook of Islamic Belief”, and “See Without Shore”, Tawassul, or intercession, can be described as “supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High”.
In contrast to the international and Arab response toward Qaddafi, the Arab states have hesitated to adopt an assertive stance against Assad. Yet five months and two thousand dead later, different voices are starting to emerge: first, the joint statement by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which called for Syria to stop “the lethal oppression of its citizens,” and later the Saudi King’s statement, unusual for its severity, which declared that what is happening in Syria “is unacceptable to Saudi Arabia, which demands an end to the killing machine.”
This statement testifies to Saudi Arabia’s positioning itself against the radical front led by Iran – after it previously did so in Bahrain – as it understands that the events in Syria have reached a critical level that may tip the balance against the Assad dynasty. This joins Saudi Arabia’s adoption of a more assertive stance since the start of the uprisings in the Arab world and its attempt to redraw the map of regional alliances in accordance with its interests.
King Abdullah, who until now watched the regional upheaval from a distance, is at present eager to see Assad fall, if only because this would make Iran lose its primary ally, undermine the radical axis, and give Saudi Arabia the chance to lead a Sunni camp that is larger and more consolidated than in the past, should the Sunnis, who are the majority, rise to power in Syria. Until now, Saudi Arabia has failed to extricate Syria from Iran’s embrace and create a cohesive anti-Iranian front comprising pro-Western Sunni states.
The current protests in Syria give Saudi Arabia an extraordinary opportunity to realize this drive.
Although Saudi Arabia borders on some of the most extreme areas of conflict in the Middle East, it has to date preferred to neutralize these risks to its national security by avoiding overt use of military means and leadership-based activity. Diplomacy and cold cash were its preferred methods. Since the beginning of the Arab spring, the aging Saudi elite has started to understand that within a few years, it may find itself in very different political surroundings in which on the one hand vassals slowly become citizens with equal rights, and on the other, sectarian confrontations and instability grow. In its view, the Kingdom’s traditional means to shape its strategic environment no longer suffice, and thus it must shed its relative passivity in order to overcome national security threats and even, if necessary, attempt to lead the Arab region.
In this context, Saudi Arabia is doing its utmost to prevent Egypt from forging closer ties with Iran. The concern in Riyadh is that the “new” Egyptian leadership will lean more towards Iran, in part to placate the masses inclined this way. In the months following Mubarak’s fall, voices in Cairo were calling for renewed diplomatic ties with Tehran.
Senior Iranian officials warmly greeted the calls in Cairo for a clean slate in relations and went so far as to say that Egyptian resistance to Israel and “the adoption of the model of the Islamic Revolution” would create a common denominator between Egypt and Iran. In addition to assistance to the tune of $4 billion designed to help the Egyptian economy “float above water,” Riyadh also dusted off ideas on a series of joint ventures to strengthen bilateral ties, including an old proposal to construct a bridge over the Straits of Tiran to connect the two nations.
While it attempts to close ranks in the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia is also trying to bring Jordan (and maybe Morocco) into a bloc of monarchies in order to prevent reforms and perhaps, as Morocco’s Kings has started to do, establish the separation of powers and edge towards constitutional monarchies. Riyadh, seeking to inoculate the monarchies against possible dangers to their stability, is expected shortly to lead negotiations with Jordan in order to include the latter in some manner or another in the exclusive Gulf Cooperation Council club, despite the reservations of some member nations. Saudi Arabia has also given Jordan $1.5 billion.
It is unclear to what extent Saudi Arabia’s declarative assertiveness vis-à-vis Syria is backed by substantial support of the Syrian protest movement (Riyadh has for some time supported the Syrian opposition), but it certainly serves as an Arab and Islamic seal of approval for steps that have not yet been taken. Yet despite the positive contribution to consolidating an anti-Iranian camp, Abdullah’s efforts are liable to decrease his freedom to maneuver, both at home and abroad.
He will find it hard to rebuild his relations with Syria should Assad and his cronies stay in power. Is the king hoping to deflect criticism aimed at him? Perhaps!!! However, should the protest come knocking at his door, he will be hard pressed to explain why he hasn’t implemented his own recommendations. Assad’s possible fall is liable to be another domino in a process that ultimately leads to the Kingdom itself.
In order to back up his declarations (called “historic” by the Saudi press), the King recalled his ambassador for consultations, a move that may give legitimacy to other states to intensify the pressure on Syria. Indeed, a day after King Abdullah’s speech, Bahrain and Kuwait – the two Gulf States closest to Saudi Arabia – announced they too were recalling their ambassadors from Damascus to protest the violent suppression of the demonstrations (thus joining Qatar, which had done so previously). The King’s speech has already generated a number of government-sponsored demonstrations in the Gulf against the Syrian regime and harsher critiques of Syria in the Sunni Arab world. Abdullah may also be paving the path for a change in America’s hesitant policy and give President Obama an opportunity to toughen the tone about the continuing massacres.
What prompted King Abdullah’s response at this time? The assertive position vis-à-vis Syria has to do with the King’s anger at the continuing killing of Sunnis during the sensitive period of Ramadan, especially among tribes close to the Kingdom, and possibly also his frustration at having failed to promote a behind-the-scenes deal with Assad to restore calm. Saudi Arabia’s firm stance on Assad may be understood as an admission of its inability to affect the direction of events, in Lebanon as well as Syria, or as recognition that the balance is now, more than in the past, tilting in favor of the Syrian protesters. According to this rationale, Saudi Arabia sat on the sidelines until now in order to see which way the internal Syrian pendulum would swing. Abdullah was also slow to act because his concern of an Iranian reaction and uncertainty about America’s policy on Assad, but he changed his position because of the emerging ethnic nature of the protest.
King Abdullah is hoping that this step will distance him from Assad, understanding that the Alawi minority regime (a heretical minority, because of its leanings to the Shi’a) has been significantly weakened and may even collapse, and that Saudi Arabia must prepare itself for such an eventuality.
This is a dramatic step, certainly for King Abdullah who is usually quite restrained, and has the potential to generate a new direction for Saudi Arabia in the Arab and Islamic world. It is not distress about human rights violations that is at the center of the King’s concerns; therefore, there is no contradiction between his support for the Syrian protests and the help he extended to suppress the protests in Bahrain. Rather, considerations of balance of power and ethnic rivalries are intertwined in Saudi “activism”.
Since the foundation of the Sunni-Shia schism is based on the lack of a “will” or “directive” by Muhammad in regards to a clear succession of Islamic religious leadership, we should understand two of the core differences of the Sunni and the Shia sects as well as King Abdullah’s development of his “essence of being”, his life experiences, as he ascended to the throne.
With over 85% representation, the majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni who believe the traditions that were laid down by the prophet Muhammad and his companions as well as other common people in the history of Islam are to be followed. Whereas, Shia with representation of about 15% of Muslim community, with the majority of that population residing in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Pakistan and India, and are also the largest religious denomination in Lebanon, believe that only the traditions of Muhammad and the family of the prophet are to be exclusively followed.
These views directly correlate to the differences of how the Sunni and Shia view the role of the Imam. For the Sunni, the Imam is the elected leader of a congregation in the worship of Islam and can also be scholars that give guidance to the community from the four (4) Sunni legal schools. Whereas the Shia believes that the Imam is chosen by God and incorporates many aspects of deity worship as the Inman is free from committing any sin.
In his book, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: Leader of Consequence, Rob Sobhani noted that he received formal religious education and spent a long period of time living with the Bedouin people of his homeland in order to learn and understand traditional Arab values. As an adult and member of the Royal Family, he was appointed to a major role in his country’s homeland security, becoming head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard which provided security for the Muslim Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, the royal family, and protecting against strategic threats to the House of Saud. His security force consisted of tribal militia from the Bedouin population. Although he is the first Saudi King to visit the Vatican and committed to advancing education, we should make note of the statement he made in addressing the 19th Arab League summit in March 2007:
“The first step on the path of salvation is the restoration of confidence in ourselves and in each other. Once confidence is restored, it will be accompanied by credibility. And if credibility is restored, then the winds of hope will blow. And when that happens, we will never allow any forces from outside the region to design the future of the region. Then no banner other than that of Arabism will hover over Arab land.”
Based on the current events in Syria, Egypt, and Libya, and the differences that have grown through the years from the Sunni-Shia schism, King Abdullah, as The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, could very well be viewing the current situation at his “moment” in history as indicated by his statement during Ramadan:
Jeddah, Ramadan 8, 1432, Aug 8, 2011, SPA – Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud directed a statement to his brothers in Syria, including the following:
“In the name of God the Merciful”;
“And prayers and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions”;
“To our brothers in Syria, Syria of Arabism and Islam”;
“Peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you”;
“The repercussions of events in sister Syria resulted in the loss of large numbers of martyrs, whose blood was shed, and other numbers of wounded and injured”.
“Everyone knows that every sane Muslim and Arab or others are aware that this is not of religion, values, or ethics. Shedding the blood of innocent people for whatever reasons or justifications will not find a reassuring opening that can enable Arabs, Muslims, and the whole world to see a glimmer of hope except through activation of wisdom by the Syrian leadership and carrying out of its historic role in a crossroads that only Allah knows where it leads to”.
“What is happening in Syria is unacceptable to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The event is greater than can be justified by reasons, but rather the Syrian leadership can activate quick and comprehensive reforms. The future of Syria is between only two options: either it chooses wisdom willingly, or drifts into the depths of the brotherly Syrian government and people know the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s positions by it in the past.”
Today, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands before its historical responsibility towards her brothers, demanding the stoppage of the killing machine and bloodshed, use of reason before it is too late, introduction and activation of reforms that are not entwined with promises, but actually achieved so that our brothers the citizens in Syria can feel them in their lives as dignity, glory and pride. In this regard, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announces the recall of its ambassador for consultation on current events there.”
An attempt to stop Iran and consolidate a Sunni front as a counter-force to Iranian influence. The fall of Assad would be the best outcome for Abdullah, second only to the fall of the Islamic republic itself, even if he understands, as Tarqi al-Faisal said, that “Assad will fight till the last Syrian standing.” Either way, the Kingdom seems more ready than ever to harness its not inconsiderable economic and political assets to tackle Iran’s regional ambitions.
If the Kingdom moves forward in taking action, we must consider how the dynamics of these events and the very nature of the two belief systems of the Islamic World and the roles of China and Russia affect the security of the United States and how our military and emergency responders are prepared to respond to any critical event that emerges, both foreign and domestic, from these geo-political forces that are exemplifying many similarities to the combination of forces of deity worship, imperialistic forces, and fascism that we faced once before in our history. And to further understand these dynamics and the true nature of this emerging situation, our Congressional and military leaders should review and understand the intelligence gathered in the field by both William Buckley and John O’Neill. They will be “shocked” and “surprised” to find out that many of the warnings of these two heroes have come true.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.