Jihad and Western Liberty

Whatever you may say about him personally (and I do), Newt Gingrich is brilliant, and is as politically insightful as the best among us.

At a recent address to the American Enterprise Institute, Gingrich argued that we need to reframe our understanding of the so-called War in Terror. That name distorts the nature of our present international conflict involving radical Islam.

It began not in 2001, but in 1979 with the Iranian revolution.

It has nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, America's image in the world, or the presence of American troops in the Middle East. The essence of the conflict is the struggle on the part of radical Islamists to impose Sharia law universally. It is what their religion requires (as they understand it), and technology as well as culotural and political circumstances have opened the opportunity to make great strides toward that end.

It takes two forms: militant and stealth, i.e., the former using violence, and the latter using cultural, intellectual, and political means to achieve the same goal. Framing the conflict as a war on terror takes into account only the former. Iran is the locus of the militant effort. Saudi Arabia pushes the stealth agenda.



Watch the entire speech, "America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan."

Andrew McCarthy has an eloquent summary of the speech and the issue it addresses at NRO, "It's About Sharia: Newt Gingrich Resets Our National Security Debate."

He explains,

• "The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia."
• "Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system."
• "...the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example."
• "It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam."
• "Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated."
• "By pressing the issue, Newt Gingrich...gives us a metric for determining whether those who would presume to lead us will fight or surrender."

Iran Truly Rocks the Vote

This is a moving video and musical tribute to the Iranians who are protesting for their democratic rights in Tehran.



People don't invest this level of passion and bloodshed only to call it day and resign themselves to a sham democracy. With the right leadership, this uprising could bring significant change and introduce an enduring spirit of liberty that previously was dormant and unaware of its strength. Notice that the protests involve everyone from university students to middle aged women swinging handbags.

Chatham House and the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland has released an analysis of the disputed (let's say it: "stolen") Iranian election poetically entitled, "Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election." Here is a summary of what they discovered:

• In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100% was recorded.

• If Ahmadinejad's victory was primarily caused by the increase in voter turnout, one would expect the data to show that the provinces where there was the greatest 'swing' in support towards Ahmadinejad would also be the provinces with the greatest increase in voter turnout. This is not the case.

• In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

• In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these trends.

Note: "Whilst it is possible for large numbers of voters to cast their ballots outside their home district (one of 366), the proportion of people who would have cast their votes outside their home province is much smaller, as the 30 provinces are too large for effective commuting across borders. In Yazd, for example, where turnout was above 100% at provincial level, there are no significant population centres near provincial boundaries."

CNN reports on it here.

The Iranian government could have engineered a squeeker, but not such a close one as to require a recount. However that would have called into question what they see as the obvious superiority of the theocracy as it stands. It should be loved by the people of the Islamic Republic, and so they could not stomach rigging any outcome other than one that clearly expressed that love. But, of course, given the obvious and widespread popular dissatisfaction with the government, their overstatement made the lie utterly transparent, the uprising inevitable, and the ferocity of the uprising deep and sustained.

The video is set to Pat Benatar's "Invincible," the theme song from the film, "The Legend of Billie Jean" (1985). Music and words by Simon Climie and Holly Knight. The song appears on "Seven the Hard Way" (1985) and "Best Shots" (1989), a compilation album, as well as the film's soundtrack. (I have not seen the film and I do not plan to see it.)

These are the lyrics

This bloody road remains a mystery
This sudden darkness fills the air
What are we waiting for?
Won't anybody help us?
What are we waiting for?

We can't afford to be innocent
Stand up and face the enemy
It's a do or die situation
We will be Invincible

This shattered dream you cannot justify
We're gonna scream until we're satisfied
What are we running for?
We've got the right to be angry
What are we running for?
When there's nowhere we can run to anymore

We can't afford to be innocent
Stand up and face the enemy
It's a do or die situation
We will be Invincible
And with the power of conviction
There is no sacrifice
It's a do or die situation
We will be Invincible

Won't anybody help us?
What are we running for?
When there's nowhere,
No where we can run to anymore

The song then repeats itself.

Perhaps thirty years after Komeini's Islamist Revolution history will repeat itself, but more constructively.

The Voice of the Iranian Uprising

I recall the revolutionaries of 1979 saying to America, "The blood of our martyrs drips from your fingers." The shooting of Neda Agha-Soltani on Saturday turns what were no doubt Ahmadinejad's own words thirty years ago back at himself.

Neda (her name in Farsi means "the call" or "the voice," which is inconvenient for the regime) was a young woman in her twenties, engaged to be married, attending the protest with her father. She was gunned down by the government that should have been protecting her life and liberty. The blood streaming from her body has become a symbol of a nation suffering under a tyrannical government.

After her death come the reverberations of the Shi'ite mourning cycle. Robin Wright of Time Magazine reports:

The cycles of mourning in Shi'ite Islam actually provide a schedule for political combat — a way to generate or revive momentum. Shi'ite Muslims mourn their dead on the third, seventh and 40th days after a death, and these commemorations are a pivotal part of Iran's rich history. During the revolution, the pattern of confrontations between the Shah's security forces and the revolutionaries often played out in 40-day cycles.

Read the front page report in The New York Times: "In a Death Seen Around the World, a Symbol of Iranian Protests."

The Iranian Nuclear Game Plan

We had no indication that there was any difference between the candidates in the recent Iranian Presidential race on that country's nuclear program, but now that Ahmad I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket has secured the office for another term (which in The Islamic Republic is not the same as winning the election, apparently), dealing with Iranian nuclear ambitions becomes a matter of all the more serious foreign policy planning.

John Bolton in last week's Wall Street Journal thought through various scenarios ("What If Israel Strikes Iran?").

Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow....Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:

1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. "Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military."

2) Iran cuts its o wn oil exports to raise world prices. "An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency."

3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. "[D]oing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran"

4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. "If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America...even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran."

5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. This would "provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear capability."

6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. This would "argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities."

This seems like a no win situation for Iran, yet the Islamic Republic will proceed with its nuclear program, Israel will eventually destroy it, and then Iran will do little in response, and Arab states will (privately) cheer.

There's a Bear in the Woods Again

It was a dangerous world when the Democrats and Republicans settled on their choices for presidential nominees. It is now an even more dangerous world.

Russia is threatening Poland with nuclear attack. If Poland deploys the defensive missile shield we have agreed to supply them, Russia will target them with nuclear weapons. In the event of a conflict, Poland would be a priority target.

The bear has come out of hibernation. He's hungry. He's angry. And he's feeling his strength. In a post as tribute to Reagan's ad man, Hal Riney, when he died this year, I gave you a link to his 1984 ad, "A Bear in the Woods." It's worth viewing again.

There is a bear in the woods.
For some people the bear is easy to see.
Others don't see it at all.
Some people say the bear is tame.
Others say it's vicious...and dangerous.
Since no one can be really sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear...if there is a bear.

Closer to home, Iran is developing plans to launch a nuclear armed Scud missile from a trawler off the American coast with a view to detonating the device over the United States, sending an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) across the country frying electronic circuitry everywhere. This is the report from Dr William Graham, former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, to a Claremont Institute conference on missile defense. “An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz. Read all the frightening details.

But Barack Obama is more concerned about disarming the country than about doing whatever is necessary to protect it, including space based missile defense that could protect us from this sort of plot. He explains it himself in this video.

This is no game for the unpracticed.

Troubling Saudi Arms Deal

The proposed $20 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia raises troubling questions.

First of all, let us all understand that the Middle East is extremely complicated, and so, as I am not a scholar in this area and have not seriously researched this matter, I shy away from bold, bloggish pronouncements. But I have noticed several "dots" which I will pass along for anyone to add whatever other dots needs connecting.

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. On its own, perhaps this is not a cause for concern.

The Saudis fund radical, Wahhabist (click here or here) schools worldwide. These are ideological feeder schools for al Qaeda.

Though peace in the middle east is essential to stabilizing the region and winning the war on terror, the Saudi's are doing nothing substantive to advance this. Only now do they "say," according to the Washington Post, that they are "prepared to seriously consider participating in [President Bush's recently announced] push for Arab-Israeli peace" (New York Sun, Aug. 2, 2007).

The Saudis are hindering our efforts to stabilize the new government in Iraq. They have refused to recognize the Iraqi government, and are only now talking about opening an embassy (NYS, 8/2/07). Robin Wright and Josh White report that, "The Sunni-led kingdom has long resisted such a formal step, which would bolster the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and signal to Iraq's minority Sunnis that their prospects of returning to power are over." Despite this fact, "the Saudi foreign minister expressed anger" at the suggestion by Zalmay Khalilzad, our UN ambassador, that Saudi Arabia is "not doing enough to help with reconciliation in Iraq," according to Wright and White.

Gary Shapiro of the New York Sun reports that the Saudis are using British courts "to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism." The agent in this operation is Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Saudi businessman. Deborah Lipstadt, a professor at Emory University, herself unsuccessfully sued by Mahfouz, says that the Saudis are "'systematically, case by case, book by book' challenging anything critical of them or anything that links them to terrorism." Of course they are free to sue if they think they are being libeled, but the British libel laws are more generous toward plaintiffs than ours and the aggressive and well funded threat of lawsuits effectively shuts down publisher interest in this topic.

Presumably, we are concerned about the rising power of Iran as a regional hegemon. Arming the Saudis who are mortally hostile to Israel and no help to us in Iraq does not seem to be the best way to deal with that situation, and certainly not without securing concessions on matters of serious foreign policy interest to us. John Edwards is right in saying that, "Saudi Arabia has not done the things that it needs to do in Iraq in controlling terrorism." He should not be the only one saying it.