DeYoung, Eilperin and Miller, "U.S. will not directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says": "Thank You, Vladimir, May I Have Another?"

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. will not directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says" by Karen DeYoung, Juliet Eilperin and Greg Miller, we are informed:

"President Obama has decided not to directly confront Russia over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladi­mir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian 'quagmire,' but he has approved a new escalation of U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.

. . . .

At the same time, the president also approved proposals, made prior to this week’s Russian actions, to strengthen the U.S. fight against the militants. Those measures were recommended by Obama’s new Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.

They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border."

Question: Why must Putin be informed in advance that he will not be confronted? Is this not the equivalent of undertaking a "surge" in Afghanistan, while concurrently informing the Taliban of a departure date for US forces? This is no longer "leading from behind." Rather, if you are familiar with the 1978 comedy "Animal House," Obama is effectively telling Putin, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Weapons shipments overland from Iraq to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters? Let's see how many of those shipments - if they are ever made - will be intercepted by Iranian forces and Shiite militias in Iraq and transferred over to Hezbollah.

The WaPo article additionally informs us:

"Current and former U.S. officials voiced concern that the Russian bombing would damage a covert program already struggling to gain traction in the fight against Assad. It is also likely to increase frustration among the rebels 'that the Americans don’t do as much as the Russians do for their side of the conflict,' said Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria who resigned that position in part out of frustration with administration policy.

. . . .

A former senior U.S. intelligence official said the U.S. failure to respond to the strikes or bolster support for CIA-trained units is likely to anger CIA paramilitary teams in the region that have for several years chafed at White House-imposed limits on the level of support given to moderate rebel groups.

'There is a huge amount of frustration with the indecision and ability to commit by this administration,' said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in the Middle East. 'The agency has a problem,' the former official said. U.S.-backed fighters 'look at the CIA or DOD trainers as reflecting the U.S. government. They believe that we know what’s going on and can influence what’s going on. If we’re not influencing it, it makes them insecure. They will defect, go home or join the refugee stream heading to Europe.'"

Ford and this "former senior U.S. intelligence official" are both correct. However, this is not the first time that we have witnessed Obama's abject indecisiveness in the Middle East. As Michael Oren wrote in "Ally":

"[T]he deeper disillusionment arose from Obama's handling of the Arab Spring. The president at first coddled Gaddafi and then aided his killers, cosseted Assad and then applauded the insurgency against him, and courted Mubarak only to cast him out. Such a leader could not be esteemed. And the eagerness with which Washington sought a nuclear deal with Iran - a regime actively working to undermine Middle Eastern governments while brazenly provoking America - only deepened Arab mistrust."

Needless to say, the repercussions of Obama's inaction in Syria extend beyond the Middle East. American allies in Asia and Eastern Europe are watching as Obama once again waves his white flag, tattered and frayed from overuse. It's not a pretty sight.

Maureen Dowd, "It’s the Loyalty, Stupid": Could Hillary Be a Good President?

Could Hillary be a good president?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "It’s the Loyalty, Stupid," Maureen Dowd segues from a 1993 interview of Robin Williams, who tragically committed suicide on Monday, to Hillary's 2002 Senate vote to authorize the Second Gulf War, or what Dowd labels "that baloney war." Dowd writes of Hillary's vote at the time:

"For me to believe that Hillary would be a good president, I would need to feel that she had learned something from that deadly, globe-shattering vote — a calculated attempt to be tough and show that, as a Democratic woman, she was not afraid to use power.

Yet, she’s still at it."

Ouch.

Indeed, it was a "baloney war," which undermined the delicate balance of power in the Middle East between Sunnis and Shiites, and positioned a militant Iran to pursue regional hegemony. But is Hillary "still at it"?

In her now famous, or infamous, interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, published by The Atlantic over the weekend, Hillary took the opportunity to deride Obama's inaction involving the revolt against Bashar al-Assad in Syria:

"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled."

Well, in this instance, Hillary is probably right: Obama's decision not to influence events in Syria allowed events to take their own tragic course, including more than 170,000 people dead, 9 million persons who have fled their homes, and the rise of ISIS.

But if Obama's policy in Syria was so disastrous, how is it possible that Hillary declared in 2011:

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Assad a "reformer"? Yeah, right.

Dowd's conclusion:

"After buoying Hillary, Obama is learning the truth of another unofficial slogan in politics: 'The Clintons will be there when they need you.'"

Although I have no plans to cut my life short, as did Robin Williams, we truly live in depressing times, when a spineless president stands to be replaced by a self-serving snake.

The Disintegration of Obama's Foreign Policy: Iran and Syria

With unemployment over 9% in the US and trillions of dollars wasted on failed stimulus, Americans are naturally focused on jobs as we approach the 2012 presidential election. However, Obama's foreign policy, currently not under scrutiny given US economic travails, has proven even more of a catastrophe.

Obama rode into the Oval Office determined to demonstrate that the countries comprising the Bush administration's "axis of evil" were merely misunderstood and could be won over with tolerance and a kindly outreach program. More specifically, he believed that Israel was the fount of all tensions in the Middle East, and if a peace agreement could be imposed upon a purportedly intransigent Israel, tranquility would prevail throughout the region.

In keeping with this sea change in foreign policy, Obama promptly sent new year's ("Nowruz") greetings to Iran's tyrannical theocratic leadership in March 2009, referring to the "true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization" and making clear that the US did not seek regime change. Moreover, Obama sat on the sidelines as Iran's population rose in revolt and was slaughtered in the streets following the country's fraudulent June 2009 presidential election.

What has this restraint earned Obama? Iran has continued undeterred with its program to manufacture nuclear weapons. This week, we have also learned that Iran sought to murder the Saudi ambassador to the US and bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

Regarding Syria, after repeated visits by Senator John Kerry with Assad, Obama appointed a new ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus, without Senate confirmation, for the first time since 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafi Hariri, a friend of the West, was murdered by Hezbollah at the behest of Assad. Obama barely said a word when earlier this year Assad mowed down protesters, but grew uneasy when the number of dead spiraled over 2,000 (now closer to 3,000) and the number of missing also moved into the thousands.

What has this restraint earned Obama? As reported by The Washington Post on October 10 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-rights-group-clashes-between-soldiers-and-defectors-leave-dozens-dead/2011/10/10/gIQAZPDbZL_story.html?hpid=z4):

"In a speech late Sunday, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun, a state-appointed cleric and Assad loyalist, issued a clear warning to the West.

'I say to all of Europe, I say to America, we will set up suicide bombers who are now in your countries, if you bomb Syria or Lebanon,' Hassoun said in a speech late Sunday. 'From now on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'”

Keep up the good work, Barack, and compliments to the chef, Samantha Power.

Iran Threatens US Atlantic Coast: Thanks, Obama

I am angry. Correction: I am furious.

Iran is threatening to deploy warships opposite the US Atlantic coast purportedly owing to the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. The official Islamic Republic News Agency quotes Iranian Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying:

“Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders.”

Sayyari's threat came in parallel with the announcement by the Iranian defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, that Tehran will begin to mass-produce cruise missiles with a 124-mile range, which can "sink giant warships."

And if that is not enough, America's ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who has yet to be recalled from Damascus, was today assaulted with stones and tomatoes while visiting Hassan Abdel-Azim. Abdel-Azim, a centrist politician, has been demanding an end to Assad's crackdown on dissidents, which has claimed over 3,000 Syrian lives in recent months.

Yes, a tomato is a fruit, and we are now witnessing some of the fruit reaching the market from Obama's outreach program to the world's "misunderstood" tyrannies.

New York Times Editorial: "The Arab States and Syria"

In an opinion piece entitled "The Arab States and Syria" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/opinion/the-arab-states-and-syria.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), the editorial board of The New York Times writes:

"It took far too long, but the cruelty of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has finally registered with his Arab neighbors. They are speaking out against a reign of terror that has claimed the lives of as many as 1,600 courageous Syrians since pro-democracy protests began in March.

. . . .

The fact that they waited so long is a disgrace. Mr. Assad — a member of Islam’s minority Alawite sect — has escalated the violence dramatically, with brutal tank assaults on two mainly Sunni cities. Not even the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan has deterred him."

Excuse me, but what does this say about the refusal of Obama to recall US Ambassador Ford from Damascus. Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010. Hasn't this also taken "far too long"?

I would only add that although the editorial mentions the 1,600 persons known to have been murdered by Assad in recent months, it ignores the some 3,000 additional Syrian civilians, including children, who have "disappeared" (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/28/syria.disappeared.website/index.html?hpt=hp_mid).

Syria: Butchery Ignored by Arab Neighbors

Homework: Go to the home page of The Saudi Gazette (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?) today and see if there is any mention of the violent unrest, approaching a civil war, in Syria. Although the lead story concerning the increase in prices of cucumbers and zucchinis on the first day of Ramadan might indeed be of interest to you, there is not a single mention of Syria. Why? Because when Arab despots kill their own citizens, it is considered an internal affair, which is not to be broached with foreigners, even if 1,600 persons have been slaughtered and another 3,000 have "disappeared" (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/28/syria.disappeared.website/index.html?hpt=hp_mid).

Equally astounding is the silence of the so-called "peace activists," who were intent upon creating a media stir involving their efforts to break the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza, but are unmoved when Assad's tanks attack the residents of Hama.

As I stated two weeks ago (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/assad-is-finished-obama-again-on-wrong.html), this will not continue much longer. Ultimately, elements of the Syrian army will defect, and Assad will fly with his family to Iran. All that remains to be seen is whether Syria's Sunnis will be intent upon inflicting revenge upon the ruling Alawite minority.

Meanwhile, Italy has recalled its ambassador to Damascus for consultations, owing to Assad's onslaught against the civilian population. Why has Obama not recalled US ambassador Ford? Yet another instance of leading from behind?

U.S. Approves U.N. Tribunal's Indictments: When Will Ambassador to Damascus Be Recalled?

As reported by Yahoo News (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-urges-lebanon-act-hariri-indictments-193934338.html):

"The United States on Thursday welcomed a U.N.-backed tribunal's indictments in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese statesman Rafik al-Hariri and urged Lebanon's government to act on them.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the indictments and four arrest warrants marked 'an important step towards justice and ending impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon.'

. . . .

'It's important that the indictments now handed over to the special prosecutor now be acted upon. Obviously we want to see this chapter in Lebanon's history closed, and that closure involves taking the next steps,' Toner said.

'The sealed indictments have been handed over. We're now going to look to see what the Lebanese government does next. We're looking for it to take action,' he said."

The U.S. is looking for the Lebanese government "to take action"? When does the U.S. recall its ambassador to Damascus, Robert Ford, given Assad's involvement in the murder?

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

There had been no ambassador to Syria following the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, which was carried out at the behest of Damascus.

Sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Obama administration.

U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich Meets With Mass Murderer Assad: Imagine If Kucinich Had Become President in 2008

Notwithstanding the thousands of persons Syrian President Assad has butchered, imprisoned and tortured over recent weeks, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich deemed it appropriate to meet with this monster in Damascus on Monday. As reported by the Syrian Arab News Agency (http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/06/27/355083.htm):

"President Bashar al-Assad on Monday stressed the importance of differentiating between the people's legitimate demands to which the State responded through issuing decrees and laws and the organized armed groups which utilized these demands to create chaos and destabilize the country.

Meeting U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the accompanying delegation in the morning and holding another meeting with British Conservative Party MP Brooks Newmark, President al-Assad reviewed the recent events taking place in Syria and the advanced steps achieved in the comprehensive reform program."

As if this was not enough, Kucinich initiated a letter to Hillary Clinton, also signed by five other representatives, asking that she "do everything in [her] power" to help "ensure the safety of all American citizens on board The Audacity of Hope," which is seeking to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza (see: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=226947).

Did it occur to Kucinich that it might make more sense to warn the radicals participating in the Gaza flotilla, some of whose names appear on the FBI Watch List, that any attempt to breach this blockade, intended to prevent Hamas from receiving advanced weaponry, recklessly endangers lives and is contrary to American interests?

Kucinich was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2004 and 2008 elections. Imagine the consequences if he had won the nomination and election in 2008.

Equally appalling, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, participated this week in a tour of northern Syria sponsored by Assad. As reported by Yahoo News in an article written by Bradley Klapper, entitled "US defends participation in Syrian-organized tour" (http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_syria):

"The Obama administration struggled Tuesday to explain why its ambassador to Syria participated in a sanitized trip to the country's restive north that was sponsored by President Bashar Assad's regime to attempt to justify its military crackdown.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday's trip to the abandoned town of Jisr al-Shughour allowed Ambassador Robert Ford to 'see for himself the results of the Syrian government's brutality.'

Yet it was unclear how Ford would have gathered such evidence on the government-organized tour."

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html).

There had been no ambassador to Syria following the murder in 2005 of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, which was carried out at the behest of Damascus.

To her credit, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is demanding that Obama immediately recall Ford (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/27/ros-lehtinen-pushes-obama-to-recall-ambassador-to-syria/)

New York Times Editorial, "President Assad’s Bloody Hands": A New Level of Hypocrisy

In an editorial entitled "President Assad’s Bloody Hands" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/04sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), The New York Times decries the failure of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the murder of civilians in Syria:

"Most appalling, the United Nations Security Council is unable to muster the votes to condemn the bloodshed much less impose sanctions. Russia, cynically protecting longstanding ties with Damascus, is blocking meaningful action and China has fallen in lockstep. India is also reluctant to act — a shameful stance for a democracy that has been bidding for a permanent seat on the Council."

Remarkably, this editorial never once mentions Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria or Obama's failure to recall him.

In 2005, Assad explicitly approved the murder by Hezbollah of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, and the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by President Bush. Obama, however, made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy to reach out in friendship to heretofore "misunderstood" tyrannies, e.g., Iran and Syria. In furtherance of this revolutionary foreign policy, Obama repeatedly sent Senator John Kerry, who aspires to be the next U.S. secretary of state, to court Assad in Damascus.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). This move has now backfired on Obama, leaving him in a quandary how to clean up the mess.

The New York Times Editorial additionally states:

"After the killing began, the United States and Europe imposed sanctions — mostly travel bans and asset freezes — on certain key regime officials while exempting Mr. Assad. Only later did they add his name to the list. The rhetoric is stiffening. On Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that Mr. Assad’s legitimacy is 'if not gone, nearly run out.' But some American and European officials still buy the fantasy that Mr. Assad could yet implement reforms."

Assad's legitimacy has "nearly run out"? Hillary's rhetoric is "stiffening"? Hillary's declarations are as stiffening and useless to the protesters in Hama as a bottle of Viagra. Recall Hillary's declaration in late March in which she sought to shield Assad from disapproval (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

Once again, the U.S. ambassador to Syria should have been recalled months ago without consideration for what the United Nations Security Council does or does not do. Shame on Obama, shame on Hillary, and shame on The New York Times!

Obama, Recall Ambassador Ford from Syria!

Sixty-three protesters were murdered throughout Syria yesterday by Assad's security forces, but mostly in Hama, in the worst outbreak of violence since the beginning of unrest in this country. The horror came as no surprise (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/civil-war-in-syria-beginning-of-end-for.html).

Homework: Go the website of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/). Although there is a very lovely picture of Ambassador Robert Ford, do you see any mention of the violence sweeping Syria?

Now click on "News & Events" in this website. Do you see any mention of unrest? I don't. Sickening.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). It's high time for Obama to acknowledge his mistake in reaching out to the world's most barbarous regimes and immediately recall Ambassador Ford.

Recall the U.S. Ambassador to Syria Now! Shame on Obama and Hillary!

Yesterday, at least 88 more protesters were murdered in Damascus, Latakia, Homs, Hama and Izra'a by Syrian security forces at the behest of President Bashar al-Assad. In response, President Obama issued a written statement (see: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/04/obama-condemns-violence-in-syria/1):

"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now.

. . . .

Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria's citizens through the same brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies. We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."

A well-drafted declaration by Obama, but the American president is not:

1. recalling the U.S. ambassador to Syria;

2. seeking economic sanctions against the Assad regime;

3. condemning Assad at the United Nations.

All of the above measures are being demanded by former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_el_ge/us_syria_pawlenty_1), but the Obama administration is ignoring these requests.

Why doesn't Obama bring the U.S. ambassador to Damascus home? Answer: The recall of the U.S. ambassador would amount to tacit acknowledgment of the failure of Obama's foreign policy.

In 2005, Assad explicitly approved the murder by Hezbollah of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, and the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by President Bush. Obama, however, made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy (the "Obama Doctrine") to reach out in friendship to heretofore "misunderstood" tyrannies, e.g., Iran and Syria. In furtherance of this revolutionary foreign policy, Obama repeatedly sent Senator John Kerry, who aspires to be the next U.S. secretary of state, to court Assad in Damascus.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). Three months later, this move had backfired on Obama, leaving him in a quandary how to clean up the mess.

By way of explanation for Obama's inaction in the face of Assad's coldblooded murder of civilians, Hillary Clinton sought to shift the blame for the gaff by declaring in late March (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

A "reformer"? How about a butcher? Meanwhile, Obama hopes that his display of naiveté and duplicity will have been forgotten by November 2012.

Homework: Go the website of the U.S. embassy in Damascus (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/). See if you can find a single mention of the current unrest in Syria. Next, go to the "interesting articles" listed by by embassy (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/media/pdf/press-releases-pdf/intersting-articles.pdf): At the top of the list is the inane New York Times op-ed, "Hoping for Arab Mandelas", written by -- you guessed it -- Thomas Friedman.

Does the U.S. embassy in Damascus still harbor any illusion that Assad is a "reformer" or could become an "Arab Mandela"? Sickening.

Like a Thief in the Night, Obama Appoints Robert Ford Ambassador to Syria

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many are on holiday, Obama has appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). There has been no ambassador to Syria following the involvement of Damascus in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, in 2005.

The appointment comes at a time when the U.N. tribunal investigating the Hariri murder is preparing to announce its determination that Hezbollah, which doesn't dare act without Syrian approval, perpetrated the assassination. For the avoidance of doubt, Syria is deemed a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. State Department.

The message being conveyed by Obama: You can murder friends of the U.S., yet give it a few years, and all will be forgiven. Provide advanced Scud missiles to Hezbollah (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/syria-is-shipping-scud-missiles-to-hezbollah-1.284141)? It doesn't bother Obama in the least. Begin building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=200858)? No need to fret.

Revolting? You bet!

In this manner, can Obama possibly wean Syria away from Iran? Not a chance. Obama is acting out of weakness, and all the Arab states are now wondering whether they should begin hedging their bets and mending fences with Tehran. Note the recent warming of Jordan, a long-time ally of the U.S., to Iran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-in-middle-east-obama-losing-jordan.html).

Has Obama been influenced by John Kerry's budding friendship with Syrian tyrant Assad, or, is this another display of Obama's closet radicalism? Either way, it portends no good in the volatile Middle East.