Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

Why did Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt endorse an American no-fly zone in Syria? In Islamic terms, to invite an infidel power to “invade” an Arab land cannot be justified by any Islamist, in contrast to a non-Islamist Muslim-majority state. The Muslim Brotherhood can justify this support, however, because the goal of this action will be to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria.

In four other places, U.S. policy is not — yet? — backing the Brotherhood.

– Because of pro-Israel sentiment in the United States, the Obama administration is still anti-Hamas — the Muslim Brotherhood group which rules the Gaza Strip. Hamas has also committed too many terrorist attacks, and is in revolt against the U.S.-backed nationalist Palestinian Authority.

In an unguarded moment, Obama’s then-counterterrorism adviser let slip that he would engage Hamas if he thought he could get away with it. But this would be too big a step for even pro-Obama Democrats to accept. Besides, right now Hamas is in a conflict with Egypt, so that doesn’t have to be addressed by the U.S. yet.

– In Jordan, the Obama administration still supports the monarchy, though it often seems to do so only absent-mindedly. The Brotherhood, which is the chief opposition group, wants to overthrow the king, but is afraid — precisely because the regime is so south — to try violence. Who knows what will happen, though, if Syria is ever taken over by the rebels.

– In Lebanon, the leadership of the Sunni Muslims is pro-Western and moderate. Radical Islamists are in a small minority. Both Sunni groups hate Hizballah, which is of course the ally and now co-belligerent of Iran and the Syrian regime. Still, there is no sign that the United States is going to do anything on Hizballah’s home court.

It is somewhat ironic that the one place where the Sunni Muslim leadership is most moderate is where Obama isn’t acting, even though Hizballah (another force Brennan declared moderately not long ago) is now a proven enemy beyond denial.

– The Obama administration has not yet supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Israel. The strategy on this point is to get a two-state peace agreement and thus defuse the issue. Of course, the Islamists will not be satisfied with that result even if it happens, which it won’t.

Why is the United States backing the Brotherhood in Syria? Most immediately, it is being done in order to prevent an Iranian bloc victory in Syria, even though the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are on the same side there. Except in Iraq, U.S. policy is backing the Sunnis over the Shia.

Beyond that, however, the Obama administration has argued that backing the Brotherhood is the best way to defeat al-Qaeda, which wants to attack America directly. Obama has also claimed that the Brotherhood will inevitably moderate — the same argument that was once heard about Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Yasir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Saddam Hussein.

Are the Sunnis the lesser of two evils compared to Iran?

Arguably, yes. But that doesn’t mean that the Sunni Islamists are better than the non-Islamists, who range from nationalist army officers to traditionalist conservatives and pro-democratic liberals.

At any rate, the new policy is in place. America has had many unlikely allies in its history, including Stalin and a number of Third World dictators. But have any been such strange partners as those who would like to kill all the Jews, wipe out Christianity, reduce women to permanent second-class citizens, and murder gays?

Indeed, these are not only strange, but unnecessary and mistaken allies.

——————————————–

An interesting MEMRI piece gives an example of Sunni closing of ranks: Muslim Brotherhood and chief Sunni Islamist guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi attacks Hizballah (Islamist, but on the Shia side) and extols his friendship with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia (anti-Islamist but on the Sunni side).

And here’s another Sunni Islamist, a Kuwaiti, wishing in a MEMRI video that he could personally slit the throats of Hizballah soldiers. Why is this significant? Because Kuwait has a lot of Shia with whom the Sunni Islamists have worked pretty well. The new Sunni-Shia conflict may also bitterly divide Kuwait.

What this all means is that the Sunni Islamist war against the Shia supersedes the Islamist war against the non-Islamists.

On demonstrations in Turkey, see this source: Turkish demonstrations for English-speakers.

——————————————-

 

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The entire ME problem would be completely different had Dear Leader not, in a monumentally stupid move, bolted out of Iraq over phony issues about the status of forces agreement. He thus lost a strategic base in a friendly country with a functioning national society. Instead, he chose an irrelevant exercise in the tribal waste land of Afghanistan.

The problem seems to be that Dear Leader favors the Sunni (and Saudi) side of the conflict against the Shia. Staying with a Shiite Iraq between Shiite Iran and Alawite Shia Assad would have provided an immensely influential position in the present area of conflict. Mere presence of the US in Iraq would frustrate Iran in subverting Iraq and establishing a bloc of dominance from Afghanistan through the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.

The likely prospect now is either that very Iranian hegemony, if Assad wins, or a strengthened Sunni Islamist base, if the rebels win (or both if Syria splinters). And because of his earlier blunders, Dear Leader has little control over the outcome. Given his record and the Kerry/Clinton clown act, I would expect the worst or horrors yet unimagined.

There is a certain symmetry in a Saudi-based foreign policy commitment and a Saudi-centered domestic energy policy. That has to be inadvertent, given the lack of skill on display here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Okey dokey...once again, this is the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia's (and they are a criminal/political syndicate, posing under a religious guise) overall plan. Even though it applies inside America, its essence is manifestly the same all over the world - TOTAL Islamic Law/rule and nothing else in between. An iron fist - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/25/the-muslim-mafia-aka-the-brotherhood-their-overarching-plan-what-it-means-for-americas-future-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually Mr. Rubin, Glenn Beck predicted all of this back when he was on Fox two years ago. Don't believe me? Watch it for yourself.
http://youtu.be/PH7GPPpsw6g


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah, Badi did that. And then 4 months later the Muslim Brotherhood publicly declared they would not participate in the Jan. 25, 2011 street protests that kicked the whole thing off. For all their supposed political shrewdness, it does not extend beyond winning elections, as Morsi is presently under siege in his own country worse than Mubarak was prior to the revolution.

As for Egypt being a client state, you may have noticed they have an American equipped army they can't use offensively. That means, for example, when it comes to the dam being built far to the South of them, Egypt is screwed, blued and tattooed.

It's an irony the Turks and Egypt are eye-balling Syria the same way they did at the end of the 11th C. because it has turned into the same no-man's land that brought on the First Crusade. And now the Crusaders will ally with the same Asia Minor with slightly different comrades and use it as a base to take Aleppo. In reality, Syria is in a civil war that will not end for a long time, even if Assad dies tomorrow. There's loot to be had.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If the MB were involved and openly admitted to it it would have hampered the revolution, and they knew, based on their past experience, if it had failed the regime would have cracked down on them mercilessly. An Islamic revolution a-la Iran wouldn't have gained the same support either in Egypt or, more importantly, the West who would have allowed Mubarak more freedom to suppress it rather than withdraw the American support for the regime. Making it a non-Islamist popular revolution, without the MB, allowed it to unify different segments of Egyptian society with different beliefs and worldviews and different political aspirations and goals, as well as gain massive support in the West with very little opposition. The MB openly joined in only later, when it was clear the revolution is almost certain to topple the regime and wouldn't cost them that many lives and that much repression they could expect in the case of failure.

We're told the MB had absolutely nothing to do with it, and just rode the wave later, but, for instance, what part did the mosques play in it? The media faithfully maintained the image of a "hitech" revolution, with a hitherto anonymous Google operative as its leading hero and the social media as its tool, entertaining the (false) assumption that Islamic revolutionaries are some kind of cave dwelling neandertals who wouldn't know their mouse from their keyboard if both hit them in the face, so it must be all liberal revolution. But even the reports in the media widely, albeit usually offhandedly, mentioned masses going to Tahrir Square after their Friday prayers at the mosques. Who were the imams preaching at the mosques and what did they say we'll never know because the media, 100% confident in their romantic version of Arab Spring of liberal youth (just like in America), united by their social media, going to the streets to replace the dictator with social democracy, didn't bother to find out.

Were there any MB operatives, agents in disguise or otherwise, who were agitating in the streets, mosques, work places and labor unions, educational institutions, social clubs, social media and other types of gatherings? Of course not! Just like there were never any communists in disguise using such methods with the aim of agitating, transforming the culture and society and finally bringing about a revolution using naive useful idiots to do their job for them. The MB were preparing for it for over 80 years. For over 80 years they have been usually suppressed and not allowed to operate in the open, but to infer from that that the MB might, just might, have developed some stealth methods would be insane, so there's no need to investigate such possibilities. Suffice is for the journalists to ask the few people in Tahrir Square who could speak English what is it all about and take them on their word. That is also how - by asking such people and colleagues - they got the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood was weak and won't win the elections.

continued below...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Continued...

When there are mass demonstrations, as we've seen in Israel last year, it's not always as spontaneous as it seems. Protesting in the streets there were all kinds of individuals and organizations, and even many Israeli popular musicians who held free concerts for them (which REALLY drew out the masses), though I'm sure not all of them support a radical left regime for Israel. But when finally some journalists asked who supplied the tents for the tent camps they, those who paid for the tents, were all of a known certain political inclination. So were some of the hitherto anonymous leaders who suddenly emerged "from the people", judging by their lingo, even though none of them talked of a communist or socialist revolution.

The majority of the people attending the demonstrations in Israel were protesting real hardships of various types. It was anything but focused on one clearly defined strategic goal, which is why it could draw such a large mass of people with different worldviews. The question is, were there any agitators, except that Facebook page that started it all, who took advantage of the various problems to draw the people to the streets. First you draw large masses of people in the streets, protesting for whatever reason, then after they topple the government you take charge. Of course, that couldn't have succeeded in Israel because even if they had toppled the government, which they claimed isn't their aim, it would have only led to a new election where a centrist or center-right government, most likely headed again by Netanyahu, would be elected, or at best (from their perspective) a center-left government, since the far left hasn't a strong enough base in Israel to get more than a few seats in the Knesset. Things were very different for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - they had the popular base, they've worked for decades to get it, and they only needed one free election to get to power. Where there any Muslim Brotherhood clandestine operatives involved? We can't know because no journalist had asked "who supplied the tents" so to speak.

So we are to believe that Badi declared they were going into the active revolutionary phase now, but no MB revolution followed, and instead, by sheer coincidence, there was a completely different kind of revolution shortly after that statement, that just happened to lead to the election of the MB, even though the MB had no part whatsoever in leading it, either from the front or from behind, to paraphrase some rather well-known American president. It's not like they could possibly have a sophisticated plan for a revolution they could start clandestinely as to garner massive support and avoid the repercussions in case of failure. It's not like in their 80 years of conspiring revolutions they had time enough to organize and come up with a plan like that and play the liberals and Westerners like a fiddle. No, Badi is just a cranky ol' man who just said it for the hack of it, without actually having any plan for an actual revolution, and then a revolution just spontaneously happened because Allah heard Badi from the heavens and made it happen by way of miracle.

I could believe that if our journalism was even remotely close to real investigative journalism instead of the combination of ignorance, laziness and ideological dogmatism pretending to be journalism that we have today. But as things stand we can only know very little and much of it is lies, and the rest is left to speculation.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You went off the rails at "the West who would have allowed Mubarak."

You're trying to make a neat case for a revolution that surprised the protesters themselves. There is no neat answer. No one conspired to make it seem non-Islamist, no one has said it was only liberal youth, no one has said the MB was absolutely not involved. That's all straw man stuff you win cuz of the way you portray it.

No one knew what would happen, no one knew what the next day would bring. This was all unprecedented and there were no sophisticated plans or anyone being played like fiddles. What's a sophisticated plan worth if the army had opened fire? Did Syrians have a sophisticated plan? What would the sophisticated plans of Gandhi and MLK been worth in Nazi Germany?

An much of this did start as Facebook stuff. The earliest protesters, organizing around the police killing of Khaled Sayd were surprised at how many people showed up at pre-revolution protests and what they were allowed to get away with.

When people comment about the Egyptian revolution, they usually reveal more about themselves and what they want to believe than the revolution.

There are very few mosques in Cairo per se. People didn't stream out of mosques cuz there are none, relatively speaking. There are alleys and coffee places men put out green carpets, some with loudspeakers.

There were only 3 Fridays during the revolution. The first when protesters finally fought their way into Tahrir, the second, which was indeed crucial and the imans did sanction, and the last, the day Mubarak stepped down. Tent cities had no impact on the whole affair. This affair in Tahrir only lasted 18 days and then Mubarak was gone. He was gone because of mass protests that included everybody when there was little threat of imminent violence.

It was a close call at one point and could've gone either way. In the end, the army didn't fire on the protesters because there are no divisions within Egyptian society like in Syria. The whole thing was a perfect storm of weirdness no one can easily explain. If they could, there would be no dictators in the first place.

Morsi won a very close election, 51%. He wouldn't win today. Too many people have turned on him. What will happen now? As usual, no one knows.

The main myth, the Iran-On-the-Nile, the one-vote-one-time simply never happened and no one wants to admit they were totally wrong about that. And, it won't happen. Morsi is facing a recall and huge protests are called for June 30.

People are protesting all over the world and it's not religion but too many people with too much social media and too little money. People are going nuts in Brazil right now even though things have been much worse in the past. Why? I don't know. Is it the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey? Was OWS Muslim Brotherhood?

Trust me, the MB in Egypt are sowing the seeds of their own political destruction by grasping at too much too soon while being gelded by outside forces saying, "Here's an army you can't use, here's a dam to suck your water and here's a train to bypass the Suez." Once Egyptians truly realize the MB is bringing ruin to Egypt with their constant bitching over nothing, they'll wake up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
With regard to:

"In an unguarded moment, Obama’s then-counterterrorism adviser let slip that he would engage Hamas if he thought he could get away with it. But this would be too big a step for even pro-Obama Democrats to accept. Besides, right now Hamas is in a conflict with Egypt, so that doesn’t have to be addressed by the U.S. yet."

Can you or someone provide a source for this?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama doctrine?

In the spirit of fairness we'd better name that idiotic US policy The Obama-McCain doctrine.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These savages have been killing each other for centuries. We have had to take sides, mostly because we had no real domestic energy policy and we relied on Middle Eastern oil. With the advent of the development of our own natrual gas and shale oil reserves, we don't need their stinking oil anymore. I say keep then contained and let them go back to what they do best, slaughtering each other.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is no other way for region 4 of the WTO to be born except to sell out to the Muslim Brotherhood. It's called the Arab spring pagan blood bath.

In return, America will be cursed for helping the enemies of Israel.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"In an unguarded moment, Obama’s then-counterterrorism adviser let slip that he would engage Hamas if he thought he could get away with it. But this would be too big a step for even pro-Obama Democrats to accept. Besides, right now Hamas is in a conflict with Egypt, so that doesn’t have to be addressed by the U.S. yet."
Exactly - "yet". Obama allied himself with the MB at home FIRST, and this is where his policy comes from. These murdering b'tards are here in the U.S.A. and they have been for years; but under Obama they have allied and flourishing beyond their wildest dreams. Of course Obama doesn't want to rock the boat openly by allying with Hamas openly. Who in the hell do we think came up with the idea of sending money to Egypt? FBI and NASA doing outreach? MB operatives getting tours of our national security apparatus? Hakim Muhammed taking an oath of office using an effing Quran? No mosques were spied upon? C'mon ... this is ALL treason and there's NO other name for it!!!!!!!
Middle East partners my hind end ... Obama is openly allying us with Muslim Terrorist tyrants and totalitarians that are hell bent on destroying our culture, our constitution and "flying the flag of Islam over the WH; not to mention changing the name of our country once they've accomplished their goals. WTF? Congress just CANNOT be THAT dumb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've had enough Muslim Brotherhood influence in the WH - enough is enough ... Obama comes clean or he gets removed from office - his choice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your entire rant was good... until the end

"I've had enough Muslim Brotherhood influence in the WH - enough is enough ... Obama comes clean or he gets removed from office - his choice."

this shows your naivety. Neither will EVER happen until the next free election (which I dont believe will happen, EVER)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Typo alert: What word does the author mean instead of "south" in this sentence? I'm darned if I can deduce his intention but "south" makes no sense as it stands.

"The Brotherhood, which is the chief opposition group, wants to overthrow the king, but is afraid — precisely because the regime is so south — to try violence. Who knows what will happen, though, if Syria is ever taken over by the rebels?"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All