Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, "The Islamic State’s Bahraini Backers": Obama's Bullshit Coaltion Against the Islamic State

Tweet

In a blog item yesterday, I observed regarding Obama's coalition against ISIS :

"His 65-nation coalition against the Islamic State includes such big guns as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Estonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Nigeria, Panama, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, and Tunisia. The coalition also includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, whose wealthy citizens have been busy funding the Islamic State."

I failed to mention that the Persian Gulf island nation of Bahrain is also one of Obama's partners in his "struggle" against the Islamic State.

Well, in case you missed it, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, declared in a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "The Islamic State’s Bahraini Backers":

"While Bahrain imprisons political activists and rights advocates at home, it also participates in the American-led coalition against the Islamic State. The bitter irony of this is that the Islamic State’s Bahraini recruits come not from among the government’s opponents, but from within its own ranks.

Unlike the United States, Britain and France, where typically the Islamic State recruits among alienated young people, in Bahrain the group finds willing jihadists in the establishment. The most prominent Bahraini member of the Islamic State, the terrorist preacher Turki al-Binali, comes from a family closely allied with the Khalifa royal family. Other recruits have come directly from the security forces of Bahrain. (Mr. Rajab, the human rights advocate, was imprisoned for six months recently for pointing out links between the Bahraini military and the Islamic State.)

Another Binali family member who has defected to the Islamic State, Mohamed Isa al-Binali, is a former Interior Ministry officer. He worked in Jaw Prison, a facility notorious for overcrowding and harsh conditions. One former prisoner told me that he’d witnessed Mr. Binali overseeing the ill treatment of juvenile Shiite inmates, not long before Mr. Binali disappeared in 2014 to join the Islamic State."

A fitting testament to the quality of Obama's coalition and his administration's dedication to human rights? I think so.

New York Times Editorial, "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs": Who Wrote This Twaddle?

What I would give to know who wrote today's New York Times editorial entitled "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs"! The editorial begins:

"Saudi Arabia is so angry at the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers that it is threatening to develop its own nuclear capability — one more indication of the deep differences between the United States and the Persian Gulf Arab states over the deal, which the major powers and Iran aim to complete by June 30. President Obama had hoped to bridge that gap with a show of American-Arab unity at this week’s summit meeting at Camp David. The summit meeting fell well short of his ambitions, an unfortunate outcome for both sides.

. . . .

The most overt evidence of the unsettled ties between the United States and its longstanding Arab allies was a decision by King Salman of Saudi Arabia to stay home, after the White House announced he would be at the meeting. Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, also a no-show, chose to attend a horse show in Britain."

A pity Obama is not inviting Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu to Camp David to bridge their differences. Netanyahu would come, but Obama has no intention of inviting his bête noire, who might educate the president concerning the realities of the Middle East.

The Times editorial continues:

"It is hard to see how threatening and snubbing a president who is offering crucial assistance to the Saudi-led war in Yemen and who still has two years left in office advances Arab interests. Even so, Mr. Obama could have done a better job of calming Arab insecurities long before he invited the gulf leaders to Camp David.

The Sunni Arabs have two main worries. One is that the nuclear agreement with Iran would leave Iran with a limited capability to produce nuclear fuel for energy and medical purposes, instead of ending it outright. They also worry that Iran’s re-entry into the international community after decades of isolation would mean that Washington’s loyalties would henceforth be divided and that America could no longer be counted on to defend them."

It is "hard to see" why Sunni Gulf State leaders are snubbing the president? For the love of heaven, Obama is giving Iran the right to manufacture a nuclear arsenal after 10 years, if Khamenei doesn't cheat before the expiration of the agreement - which he will. Then, too, Obama is giving Iran a signing bonus of $50 billion of freed bank deposits, which will quickly find its way into the hands of the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Yes, I know: the editorial claims that the funds will be used for "accumulated domestic needs." Indeed, this might be a cogent argument were it not for the fact that Iran is a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, and persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims, as its leaders await the return of the Mahdi. Attribute rational conduct to Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? I don't think so.

Remarkably, the editorial does not address Obama's nonsensical claim that if Iran cheats, sanctions will "snap back" into place. On Wednesday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin gave the lie to this outlandish attempt to sell the deal with Khamenei by declaring:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

The editorial concludes:

"A verifiable nuclear deal that limits Iran’s abilities has the best chance of keeping Iran from a nuclear weapon. The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities, which could set off a new arms race and inflame the region even more."

A "verifiable nuclear deal" of the kind that was also negotiated by Wendy Sherman with North Korea in the past? Good luck!

Moreover, as previously observed, the deal is not intended to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. Rather, it is intended to delay by ten years the fabrication of such a weapon. "The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities"? True. The solution lies in a credible effort by the US to stand up to Tehran and deny them any possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not occurring, and the Arabs, who better understand Iran than Obama, know this.

[Regarding Obama's credibility involving his "unique" interpretation of events in the Middle East, see also "Obama Claims Chlorine 'Historically Has Not Been Listed as a Chemical Weapon': Liar!."]

Nicholas Kristof's "Release My Friend!": Sorry, Nick, It's Not All About You and Your Friends

Dear Nicholas,

I just read your New York Times op-ed "Release My Friend!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=1&hp), which, in the form of an open letter to King Hamad of Bahrain, requests the release of Hassan al-Sahaf.

Don't misunderstand me, Nick. I hope your friend has not been tortured in his Bahraini prison cell, and I pray that he will be swiftly released. But this world is not all about you and your friends, and there are hundreds of thousands of persons like Hassan al-Sahaf being abused and murdered in prisons throughout the Muslim Middle East.

Let's talk about another one of your friends, Roger Cohen. In June 2009, in a New York Times item entitled "Questions About Iran? Ask a Witness" in your column "On the Ground" (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/questions-about-iran-ask-a-witness/), you wrote:

"I’m delighted to welcome back Roger Cohen, my fellow Times columnist, from Iran. For the last couple of weeks, frankly, I’ve been gnashing my teeth with jealousy, both over Roger’s two-week visa to Iran (which left him there after other reporters had to leave) and over his superb columns and videos.

He has agreed to take your questions about Iran and what it was like there, so fire away.

But since I’m here at the keyboard, I get first dibs…"

"Superb columns"? Not a mention of how Cohen attempted to persuade his readership over the course of some six months that "Iran is not totalitarian." Not a mention of how Cohen largely ignored Iran's horrific persecution of Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis and homosexuals. Not a mention of how Cohen wrote an op-ed "What Iran's Jews Say," but failed to state that his interviews were conducted via a government-appointed interpreter (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html).

But why should Cohen's coverage of Iran disturb you? Although you covered events at Tahrir Square at great length, you ignored the ongoing persecution and murder of Egypt's Christian Copts. Was it because this didn't comport with your storyline exalting the Arab Spring?

Back to your Bahraini friend, Hassan al-Sahaf: I fervently hope that he will soon be released, but, as earlier stated, he is only one of hundreds of thousands of persons jailed and undergoing torture throughout the Muslim Middle East. The Arab Spring notwithstanding, murder and intolerance persist in Egypt and Tunisia.

Nick, where are your columns on the Kurds, Copts and Baha'is?

It's not all about you and your friends.

Obama: Out of Control in the Middle East

I care little for truisms and refuse to live my life according to adages; however, there is indeed one which has set me to thinking of late:

"You are either in control, or out of control."

Make no mistake about it, in the Middle East Obama is "out of control".

After Obama refused to back, even vocally, the dissidents in Iran in 2009, their street rebellion was destined to failure.

More recently, Obama called for, and received, the head of Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally.

Now, after Obama claimed that the United States is "slowly tightening the noose" on Qaddafi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_obama) and Hillary declared that "nothing is off the table" regarding a possible U.S. response to the Libyan crisis (http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/02/28/clinton-no-option-off-table-in-libya-crisis-2/), we now know that the U.S. is refusing to back the no-fly zone sponsored by France and the U.K. (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/14/un.libya.no.fly.talks/index.html?hpt=T2). We also know that on Monday Qaddafi's forces had retaken the town of Zuwara from the rebels (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/15/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently that noose around Qaddafi's neck is tightening very, very, very slowly.

Saudi Arabia is furious with Obama, and without consulting the U.S., which has shown itself to be impotent in Saudi eyes, it has sent, together with the United Arab Emirates, 2,000 troops to Bahrain in support of its Sunni leadership. Bahrain's king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, is facing opposition from the island's majority Shiite population, and the entry of Saudi and UAE soldiers has in turn raised the wrath of Iran, which is labeling the troop movement an "invasion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/middleeast/16bahrain.html?hp).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is reeling from the recent refusal of Saudi Arabia to play host to Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton, who were both forced to cancel their visits to the desert kingdom. According to The New York Times, "American officials were left wondering whether the cause was King Abdullah’s frail health — or his pique at the United States" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15saudi.html?hp).

I cannot believe how daft and obtuse the Obama administration can be, but in any event, so as to leave no stone unturned, I picked up the phone earlier today to King Abdullah, and he is indeed livid with Obama. I don't think I've ever heard this 87-year-old monarch so angry.

As I stated at the outset, "You are either in control or out of control." In the Middle East, as elsewhere, Obama is out of control.

North Korea and Obama: Pathological Bully Meets Doctrinaire Pacifist

How crazy are those North Koreans? Answer: No crazier than Obama.

Do you recall in March how the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton corvette, was sunk by a North Korean torpedo? According to the BBC:

"The patrol vessel, with 104 people aboard, sank after an unexplained explosion tore through its hull.

Several sailors also died, officials are quoted saying as divers prepared to return to the scene after daybreak.

South Korean officials played down earlier reports that it may have been the result of an attack by North Korea."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8589507.stm

Oh, yes, the old unexplained explosion in the hull . . .

And now, try to remember Obama's personal response to this outrage? Whoops! That's right: Always anxious to avoid a potential confrontation, Obama didn't react. Am I exaggerating? Perhaps. Three months after the incident Obama did say that North Korea should be "held to account" for the sinking of the Cheonon, and, "There has [sic - he was speaking without a teleprompter] to be consequences for such irresponsible behaviour" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10426209). Yet, was North Korea ever "held to account"? What exactly were the "consequences"?

Obama rode into office believing that North Korea and Iran were simply misunderstood. Show them kindness and radiate the charm that brought him into the Oval Office, and they, too, could be turned around.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work on this basis.

Remember the bully from school who demanded your lunch money? If you stood up to him on day one, he subsequently pursued weaker quarry. Heck, you didn't even have to fight. But if you were foolish enough to believe that he was just a poor misunderstood child from a dysfunctional family and attempt to befriend him, you would be going hungry for the remainder of the year.

Obama, in his infinite wisdom, never learned this lesson. Quite the contrary: One of his first foreign policy moves was to seek rapprochement with Iran, and this has blown up in his face.

But imagine now if Obama continues to appease the Islamic Republic of Iran. What will happen when Iran, armed with atomic weapons, shells territory along its disputed border with Iraq in a manner akin to that of North Korea? Or when Iran demands dominion over Bahrain? Or when Iran threatens Saudi Arabia?

Far-fetched? Just wait.