Committing to a resolution for Iran

2011 has been a whirlwind year, with the emergence of the "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East and the recent death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, this is hardly a time for the U.S. to mull presidential candidates with little to no foreign policy backbone. While TIME magazine recognized "the Protester" as its person of the year, it clearly showed how strong an impact one person can have - for better or worse. Now as Syrian protesters continue to be massacred on the streets, the U.S. stays mum to the violence committed by President Bashar Assad. Whatever happens in Syria could be part of a larger trail that could ultimately lead to Iran, resulting in either a stronger Islamic republic under Khomenei or a new democracy. Now, more than ever is the time to act in Iran and to sustain all current actions.

To the West and especially Israel, the largest concern from Iran has been with the undeclared and unregulated nuclear pursuits of a country that seeks to control the region and the world. This is a country that is bigger than its borders, exploiting partnerships in various regions to expand and establish presence inside virtually every corner of the globe. For the time being, Iran's activities have been primarily centered around fundraising. However, recent reports show that the U.S. has effectively diminished the flow of funds from Iran to groups like Hizbollah by as much as 25%. Continued sanctions can help manage the world's largest exporter of terrorism, but it does little to end the threat posed by Iran's proxies. Furthermore, the apparent drying up of money has reportedly pushed Hizbollah operatives in Northern Lebanon to deal drugs in an attempt to make up for losses.

Strategically, now is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the U.S. to capitalize on the revolutionary movements emerging throughout the region as well as the insecurity of Iran's government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will not run in the election in 2013, and the sanctions have proven disruptive to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and its funding of Hizbollah, which is reportedly in turmoil amid reports of internal corruption which reportedly had the group's investment manager having embezzled as much as $1.6 billion. That is how much money we are talking about. Consider Western intelligence having placed Hizbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah to have a net worth of $250 million.

According to reports, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is growing increasingly frustrated with Hizbollah amid the corruption allegations. Hizbollah, regarded as "the A-team of terror" amid intelligence circles, has taken a serious hit and may be at a bypass with many of its senior leaders and the IRGC. With the tension between Iran and Hizbullah building, and an inability to deliver funds, Iran's biggest and most feared proxy is in a weakened state. Combined with upcoming elections in 2013 and the growing movement inside Syria, Iran's biggest assets are in a struggle that they can either emerge stronger or weakened.

Last week, Ahmadinejad announced that by 2013 his country will be a major gasoline exporter. This move is a direct affront to the threat and usage of sanctions in an effort for his country to establish independence similar to its establishment of a joint bank venture with Venezuela.

Opportunity exists for the U.S. to partner with Western countries and regional players in seeking a new Iran that eliminates the violent rhetoric and apocalyptic direction that Ayatollah Khomenei seeks, regardless of who the country's president is. As Rep. Ron Paul questions why the U.S. should be meddling in Iranian affairs, the fact remains that with or without U.S. surveillance, Iran has an undeclared nuclear program, has consistently been the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, and has backed attacks globally on U.S. assets via its network of proxies.

Deaths of senior AQ leaders reported; where are we in the GWoT?

News broke yesterday morning stating that several AQAP leaders, including two U.S. citizens, had been killed in a Predator strike. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both American citizens, were reported among the dead in a statement by Yemen's Defense Ministry. Also reported to have been killed was AQAP's top bomb maker, Ibrahim Hassan Tali al Asiri, in a separate strike. These successes, if indeed fact, prove that the use of drones as assets in the GWoT are virtually invaluable in eliminating high-value targets. With the intensity of this tactic under President Obama, it appears that there is no hint of attempting to slow down anytime soon.

According to the Washington Post, the CIA is in the process of constructing four drone airstrip bases intended to strike AQ affiliates inside Yemen and Somalia. The enhancement of such a program should be welcomed by many, allowing the U.S. to fight this new-age war with new-age technology that does not risk our soldiers lives.

However, with such an intensity and fury coming from drones to target the leadership in faraway places, there is an underlying question. What is really being done here at home to enhance the U.S. in this War on Terror? When President Obama took office, critics questioned if he had the determination and ability to conduct a war. It appears that indeed he has skillfully handled the GWoT in regards to specifics, but like his predecessors, is unwilling to come to a full on confrontation with the pandemic of radicalism.

The real question is legally, are we enhancing our fight and clearly defining the legal abilities of law enforcement in confronting this war? I do not feel as though the outreach mission to incorporate the Muslim community has succeeded and quite honestly, has returned to the pre-9/11 days. Between the media and politicians, we have made this a war about names - similar to the Communist threat from nation states like the USSR. However, this is a war of ideals that has no boundaries or structural organization. Dare I say without OBL's pre-9/11 corporate structuring, Al-Qaeda as a whole will splinter off into the independent franchises based in the Northern Horn of Africa, Arabian Peninsula, and Kashmir/Pakistan.

Pakistan will always play host to a radical faction of jihadists, given its dispute with India, the alliances published most recently regarding the U.S. embassy strike in Kabul will always be an asset to the ISI. Inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. strategy is seen at odds with the tribal structuring and has done little to incorporate and facilitate a partnership. While most definitely easier said than done, a comprehensive approach to turn the dependence on Taliban and AQ, especially inside Pakistan, would drastically change the dynamics of this conflict that is about winning hearts and minds.

The fact of the matter is we can take out as many leaders as we want, but there will always be this radical jihadist element that will pose the primary national security threat to the U.S. Over the duration of the War on Terror, several major blows to terrorist organizations in Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Russia have been facilitated largely by U.S. cooperation in nearly almost every circumstance. We are taking this war to the terrorists doorsteps in, as Pres. George W. Bush stated was necessary so we would not have to fight them on our own streets as we felt on 9/11. While killing off bad guys is easy, defining the legal challenges and alliances in this war is where the real struggle lies.

The Arab Spring and the potential to be on the wrong side of history...again

As President Obama continues to push for the "democracies" emerging in Egypt and Tunisia, the question emerging is how much can we trust that the youths on the streets really know the answer to the question everyone seems to be asking once the established government leaders are unseated: "What now?" The fact remains, when the U.S. pulled its support for President Mubarak, shock waves echoed in the halls of the palaces of other U.S. regional partners who suddenly realized that the U.S. could and would redact its support in a heartbeat to accommodate a vision for the region, even at the expense of an uncertain future and potential anarchy.

This movement may have honest beginnings, it may be the legitimate outcry from suffering populations who have reached the breaking point and making Tahrir Square into the next Tiananman Square. However, without careful oversight, the potential for evil forces engaged in jihad and partnered with the global vision for an Islamic Caliphate. Many people have it wrong when using the term jihad, labeling it as solely a blood and guts war against society. There are three variants to jihad, all focusing on different components. Jihad is the term for "struggle," which can indeed relate to citizen/government relations, or a person's internal conflict. Either way, the ultimate goal in jihad is to construct a resilient Islamic mentality in either a Muslim, or society.

With jihad taking form against the Mubarak administration, time will tell how long it will after the elections for the new administration to establish its policies on the Christians that make up Egypt's minority. Mubarak took a great deal of pressure from Muslims worldwide for his acceptance of Christianity inside the country, refusing to bow to calls to establish a Muslim state. Now, with his protection out the window, the potential for sectarian violence (just like in Lebanon with Hizbullah forces in 2008) is on the rise. Just last week, in Cairo Christian-Muslim clashes killed 11 and injured 150.

It was for this very reason that the al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria was targeted in a brutal attack on New Year's Eve. In the weeks following the Mubarak administration rounded up over 50 terrorists suspected of being linked to the plot. Al-Qaida in Iraq had issued a warning that December suggesting the targeting of churches throughout the region, however it was not deemed to be responsible for the plot and it was pinned on the Palestinian Islamic Army.

In a unique twist, the new anti-Mubarak administration opened an investigation implicating the Interior Ministry in a plot to exacerbate sectarian tensions in the country and implicate Al-Qaida militants in a bid to receive increased aid from the U.S. Proclamation 1450 saw an internal affairs investigation that was one of many to follow as President Hosni Mubarak was forced from office. Who stands to gain from the coup that took place? It has been clear, most recently in Lebanon in 2008, that militant groups seeking government legitimacy play a significant role in these movements. Hizbullah was able to topple any internal resistance from within Lebanon, and force a government takeover, while appearing "democratic" in its manipulations. Who ultimately stood to gain from a Hizbullah-led Lebanon? Ask the Israelis and it will be a strong answer of Iran.

Now, as Bashar Assad faces the same domestic revolts that have undermined the governments in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, where is the global response? Rather than pointing all our resources at Qaddafi, the real ploy should be to aggressively aid the Syrian resistance and mandate Assad cease civilian attacks (essentially the same thing we did in Libya, but with more tact). In Syria, we can win a war with the Syrian people's cooperation, and win back our reputation in the region as a protector of human rights and democratic values. At the same time, to topple Assad would change the tables in Lebanon and possibly put the favor back in the hands of the elected officials that swiftly lost any government input at the hands of Hizbullah's 2008 civil war. We could free Lebanon and Syria at the same time, and make things extremely difficult for Assad's closest partner - Tehran.

For the most part, Tehran has sat silent. Now as the situation in Syria begins to make some recognition in the media, it is being forced to respond at a very embarrassing time for the country. The role of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been relegated to completely internal closed door meetings with Ayatollah Khomenei following a dispute over his dismissal of the Khomenei associate, Intelligence Director Heidar Moslehi. Ahmadinejad fired Moslehi on 4/17, then according to MEMRI, was forced to reinstate him under direct orders from Khomenei. For the week following, the usually outspoken and hate mongering Ahmadinejad was confined to his house as the regime leaders dictated the potential wrath for disobeying the Ayatollah.

As Iran's president is carefully monitored to insure he remains the puppet for Khomenei, now is the U.S. opportunity to shake up the region. However, we seem to be only imagining ways to sanction Assad and try and punish him utilizing tactics that are meant to bribe and attract someone to the bargaining table, not as a punishment. Sanctions, just like with Iran's nuclear program, should not be the only measure we take against someone who has so violently abused the power of the presidency. Assad's calculated pullback and then successful monitoring of Lebanon from just outside the mandated area has effectively rendered Lebanon and its Hizbullah-led government as Iran's proxy next door to Israel. With this lingering, how long will it take before the region erupts and we see the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict again? The only difference this time is we can have the support of Saudi Arabia and other anti-Iranian countries who will, as in times previous, arm Israel to confront the trouble.

Bin Laden's battle for relevance

This weekend saw the emergence of Al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden and the continued redefinition of Al-Qaida's jihad against the U.S. amid reports of a growing threat faced in Europe. The normally reclusive leader, who releases a handful of audio tapes usually annually, released two tapes this weekend in a ploy to rally support among Muslims. The consecutive releases of tapes raise several concerns, specifically with the recent revelation that OBL was connected to the recent plot thwarted in Europe.


Al-Qaida's resources are dwindling, and the necessities to implement a large-scale plot like 9/11 does not exist. However, the ability to take individuals (such as Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi) who actively pursue training abroad and then commit to executing terrorist attacks remains the most relevant and difficult threat to counter. The operational war against terrorism is the easiest fight, but the ideological aspect remains difficult to address by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.


Bin Laden's latest tapes went back to an issue released in a recording from January this year - climate change. This issue perhaps gained insertion due to the floods that devastated Pakistan a couple months ago. Bin Laden faulted Arab governments, lending credit to the UN for its response and accusing the regimes around the Middle East for closing their eyes to the suffering. The plight of the Palestinian people is no longer an opportunity for recruitment apparently, as the focus has shifted and the tapes no longer mention the continued stalemate among Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, bin Laden again makes a subtle cry for Muslims to avoid the U.S. economy (perhaps to attempt to gain more finances for his group's diminishing finances) and identifies the significance of each Muslim's role in his battle with the West.


This latest tape continues the normal message of blaming Arab governments for turning a blind eye to the suffering of Muslims. The reality is bin Laden is struggling in the battle to remain relevant. The surge Al-Qaida experienced as the superpower of jihadist groups for 9/11 has diminished, replaced by groups seeking to instigate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even more. Hizbullah's global dominance and established assets present the clearest threat to Israel and its allies, however the group understands the necessity of maintaining a covert threat. Bin Laden has constantly lost the recruiting power he once held, with his franchises operating in other groups like AQIM, AQAP, and now al-Shabaab. Recruits now are forced to independently travel abroad, in hopes of being considered trustworthy by al-Qaida and Taliban contacts inside Pakistan. Otherwise, they must travel to Yemen or Somalia with the same goal, but the ability to recruit from within the U.S. solely relies on the individual's radical leanings.


OBL now must utilize whatever global development he can, playing the role of the Muslim father trying to protect his suffering Muslim brothers and sisters. However, Sheikh Nasrallah has continuously been considered in poll after poll among Muslim nations that he and his group take up the Muslim fight best. Hizbullah's recruiting has not dwindled, nor its assets, unlike bin Laden. The desperation for OBL to continue to pursue his fight against the U.S. has made the group seem almost uninterested in the Israeli-Palestinian saga that seems almost too easy to utilize if Al-Qaida was interested in establishing legitimacy among Muslims. The dependence on individual's willing to pursue suicide or creating bombs will be the only thing that carries on the jihad when Al-Qaida is no more, with or without bin Laden. It is only when this is adequately addressed by Muslim nations, as well as Western nations, that the struggle to confront terrorism and its roots can begin.

9/11: Reviving U.S.-Muslim Relations with a new perspective

September 11, 2001, is a date that everyone will remember. The pain and anger that resulted from that day was felt by many worldwide, changing the dynamics of the United States-Muslim relationship. This week, everyone watched as Pastor Terry Jones announced plans to burn the Qu'ran as a demonstration against radical Islam, inciting a flash wave of anger amongst Muslims worldwide. This abuse of freedom of speech, driven by a narcissistic leader of a small congregation, sabotaged a day filled with remembrance for victims. Jones acknowledged he did not know the victims of 9/11, had not read the Qu'ran, and then attempted to state that this was a protest of radical Islam. The fact of the matter is by burning and desecrating a religious text used by followers of any faith, it is not targeting the problem-makers, but rather is offensive to all.


The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.

-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:


Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?

Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.

Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.

Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.

Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.

Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.

Video here.


In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?


Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?


The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.

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.

Terrorism a social problem? The battle to clearly counter terrorism's roots continues.

At the Annual Meeting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London, it seems that the roots of terrorism have been clearly defined now. Or not. Professor Scott Atran, research director in anthropology at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris and presidential scholar in sociology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, told the group that terrorism was a social problem and not a mental or health issue. Is this really a significant breakthrough that gets us any closer to confronting why there are still Al-Qaida sympathizers willing to go out and kill those who oppose their supremacist Islamic views? While I have read some of Professor Atran's works and find many to be accurate and informative, this "finding" seems to only continue with the acceptance that we can not adequately describe terrorism for what it is, allowing ourselves to do a pathetic job of countering the jihadist message.

In 2007, Professor Atran presented a piece to the State Department and House of Lords entitled "Terrorism and Radicalization: What Not to Do, What to Do." In the first slide he said "If people want to kill you or your friends, and you want to stop this from happening, it helps to know why they may want to kill. So ask them if you can." I believe this is the vital concept that the U.S. and its allies have overlooked. I believe that we have allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive about our actions in the Muslim world. We have allowed our successes to be overlooked and let jihadist leaders frame the talking points, only responding when accusations are leveled against us or something goes terribly wrong.

There is no doubt the U.S has a "Midas touch" in the region, except everything we touch is turned into bad PR. Whether it's right or wrong, the campaign against the U.S. is strong on Arab TV. Just ask any Muslim in the region if they've heard of Abu Ghraib. The embarassment surrounding the violation of Muslim prisoners' rights is still a talking point muttered by many when discussing the U.S., just like Guantanamo Bay. Perceived U.S. allies like President Musharraf and the Saudis take heat in every recording from bin Laden it seems. The ideals the U.S. pushes for have been forgotten by these distractions. The U.S. needs to change the image of being a controlling hand over the region into that of being a cooperative partner pushing for the acceptance of religious ideals and freedoms. The War on Terror is not a War on Islam, but a chuckle by the President with a quick and firm "no" does nothing to counter the claim.

While the U.S. can achieve as many operational successes in Iraq and Afghanistan as it wants, military successes like the Sunni Awakening Councils in Iraq hold little value in the war of thoughts. We need to broadcast that we have partnered with religious sects to promote an environment where their religious differences are discussed, not threatened. Figures like bin Laden and Zawahiri hold little power in the Western media, but their messages in the Middle East are what possess the power of persuading one suicide bomber. The U.S. needs to quit responding to the messages and issue statements preceding their release. Intensify the PR campaign on Arab television thoroughly explaining the U.S. role in the region. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and Iraq are at a stalemate over the Status of Forces agreement because many Iraqi leaders believe that the continued presence of U.S. troops in the country would mean the U.S. would effectively, "run the show" and mandate Iraqi affairs. This is the result of none other than the U.S. letting its foreign policy be hijacked by ideologues like bin Laden.

The War on Terror is not about operational successes, but it is structured around making partnerships in the Middle East and building bridges with not just the leadership, but the people as well. By no means does this mean sacrificing elements of our national security to make friendships, but it does mean approaching the people and discussing issues relevant to them. We should be clear that when threatened, we will be a threatening force, but our primary goal is to promote an alliance in the region that allows sovereignty of the countries. The United States could not have single-handedly won the Cold War, and it certainly can not win the War on Terror alone.