Many critics say that the Middle East is a region that will remain at war, plagued by conflicts that can not be resolved. Just as things looked on the rise from the region, the six-month ceasefire with Hamas ended. In an instant, the temporary peace exploded. All the boasting of Israeli ministers on the ceasefire's success disappeared with a fresh volley of rockets.
While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.
Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.
There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.
1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?
It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.
2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?
Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.
The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.
9-11-01
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
U.S.-Syrian relations on the horizon?
During a trip this week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated that he believed under the incoming Obama administration "the situation will improve between the United States and Syria after we have a new president." This type of rhetoric remains in line with Syrian President Assad's commitment to pursue talks with the U.S. once a new administration had been set. Now, the Bush administration is in its final month and prepares to hand off to President-elect Obama.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The need for a global campaign against terrorism
Nearly a week ago, the images from Mumbai of nearly a dozen terrorists crippling a major city was broadcast all over the screens worldwide. Bodies lay in the streets, gunmen walking amongst them spraying police with bullets. The typical Hollywood mass murder attack finally happened. With 163 people dead, an investigation hopes to uncover what exactly went wrong to allow such an attack.
As we look to the future on how to confront the threat of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks set an example of how vulnerable the world still to such violence. While Western countries have taken the lead to address this problem, many developing countries - such as India - refuse to take the role seriously. Consider that the anti-terror squads, the elite groups meant to fight off the attackers, were armed with World War One rifles and defective bulletproof vests. This clearly begs the question as to how much funding India provides its reactionary response to terrorism that clearly failed that day.
Where was the flow of Western money going to for anti-terror training? U.S. forces are training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which have accomplished nothing in the tribal regions of the country. In August, the EU announced that over the next three years it would increase its economic aid for the lawless Northwest Frontier Province to $63 million for education, trade, and farming projects. This is not an answer to fight terrorism. Sinking money into countries that shy away from confronting terrorists in their borders deserve no aid.
Making a connection between poverty and terrorism is not a factual statement by any means. As one expert I once heard say, "When was the last time you heard of a suicide bombing in Haiti?" This is a simple excuse to allow countries to do what they do to other problems, and try to fix everything with money. What really exists is a war of ideals. For too long, the voices of moderate Muslims have been silenced in their home countries while the West has sat idle.
How come we are behind the curve in fighting terrorism. We still see it as a crime, something that can be dealt with in our courts. It is far bigger than that. Dr. Yonah Alexander, who has authored nearly 90 books on security issues, said:
"This is true especially after 9-11; terrorism was labeled as a threat of war. I'd like to remind all of us that in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, we dealt with the Cold War, and since 1979 we've dealt with a "war" with Iran, and the third war is the "war" with jihadism and extremism, personified by the "war" with Bin Ladin."
The war on terrorism is a war, despite being labeled as a "bumper sticker war" by some. As some lawmakers ponder how far is too far in this war, we are losing the fight of winning hearts and minds. It is time to specifically target the propaganda stream from terrorist outfits, filled with the hatred for anything deemed un-Islamic. As Saudi Arabia uses textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia that promotes jihad and hatred, the State Department does nothing. The war on terrorism is bigger than a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something that is spread through paranoia and intolerance by Islamic radicals.
The fight against terrorism is one that encompasses numerous aspects and requires the assistance of the international community. No one country should lead the way, and while the United States took the lead after the September 11 attacks, it is time for organizations to lead the way. This is not just the U.S. response to those attacks, but is the world's voice that it wants to overcome the social fears spewed by radicals. Through a global referendum that addresses the aspects that promote terror and a pledge to confront them, we can make the operations and ability to create new terrorists a more difficult process for those groups.
As we look to the future on how to confront the threat of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks set an example of how vulnerable the world still to such violence. While Western countries have taken the lead to address this problem, many developing countries - such as India - refuse to take the role seriously. Consider that the anti-terror squads, the elite groups meant to fight off the attackers, were armed with World War One rifles and defective bulletproof vests. This clearly begs the question as to how much funding India provides its reactionary response to terrorism that clearly failed that day.
Where was the flow of Western money going to for anti-terror training? U.S. forces are training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which have accomplished nothing in the tribal regions of the country. In August, the EU announced that over the next three years it would increase its economic aid for the lawless Northwest Frontier Province to $63 million for education, trade, and farming projects. This is not an answer to fight terrorism. Sinking money into countries that shy away from confronting terrorists in their borders deserve no aid.
Making a connection between poverty and terrorism is not a factual statement by any means. As one expert I once heard say, "When was the last time you heard of a suicide bombing in Haiti?" This is a simple excuse to allow countries to do what they do to other problems, and try to fix everything with money. What really exists is a war of ideals. For too long, the voices of moderate Muslims have been silenced in their home countries while the West has sat idle.
How come we are behind the curve in fighting terrorism. We still see it as a crime, something that can be dealt with in our courts. It is far bigger than that. Dr. Yonah Alexander, who has authored nearly 90 books on security issues, said:
"This is true especially after 9-11; terrorism was labeled as a threat of war. I'd like to remind all of us that in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, we dealt with the Cold War, and since 1979 we've dealt with a "war" with Iran, and the third war is the "war" with jihadism and extremism, personified by the "war" with Bin Ladin."
The war on terrorism is a war, despite being labeled as a "bumper sticker war" by some. As some lawmakers ponder how far is too far in this war, we are losing the fight of winning hearts and minds. It is time to specifically target the propaganda stream from terrorist outfits, filled with the hatred for anything deemed un-Islamic. As Saudi Arabia uses textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia that promotes jihad and hatred, the State Department does nothing. The war on terrorism is bigger than a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something that is spread through paranoia and intolerance by Islamic radicals.
The fight against terrorism is one that encompasses numerous aspects and requires the assistance of the international community. No one country should lead the way, and while the United States took the lead after the September 11 attacks, it is time for organizations to lead the way. This is not just the U.S. response to those attacks, but is the world's voice that it wants to overcome the social fears spewed by radicals. Through a global referendum that addresses the aspects that promote terror and a pledge to confront them, we can make the operations and ability to create new terrorists a more difficult process for those groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)