Greg Sheridan: A new cold war in the Middle East

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor

June 11

WAS the surprising Lebanese election result, in which the pro-Western government won a clear victory over the Hezbollah-led opposition, the first flower of Barack Obama's new spring for the Muslim and Arab worlds? Were enough Lebanese voters won over by the charm and eloquence of the handsome young American President to give the fading Western power one more try?

I am tempted to write a wholly optimistic column. I want to declare "Let Lebanon be Lebanon", as Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War so famously and effectively declared "Let Poland be Poland". Lebanon, its sons and daughters will tell you, used to be the best country in the world. Beirut was the Paris of the east. It was the cradle of much civilisation. Its offspring have been magnificent citizens of Australia, from the last Victorian premier to the incumbent NSW Governor.

Can this glory come again? Well, sadly, it is better to tell the truth.

This election result is good news, but it is very modest good news.

Hezbollah won all the seats it contested. The alliance it leads will have just under a half of the parliament. Hezbollah is a devoutly Shi'ite terrorist group controlled by Iran.

It will continue to wield by far the most powerful army in Lebanon. It will continue to receive weapons and financial support from Syria and Iran at will. It will continue to possess 50,000 rockets deployed on Israel's border. It will continue to exercise dominance within Lebanon whenever it wants to by force of arms.

The best piece of writing on Lebanon in recent months was a brilliant cover story in the May 20 issue of The New Republic. In it, journalist David Samuels recounts an interview with former Lebanese president Amin Gemayel, in which he outlines Hezbollah's strategic value to Iran.

Gemayel says: "In the form of Hezbollah, they (Iran) get a brigade on the Mediterranean and on the border with Israel. So $100 million a year they spend here is nothing."

In 2007, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah made a famous speech in which he answered directly the charge that Hezbollah was not complying with UN resolutions that forbade it from bringing armaments into Lebanon.

Nasrallah said: "We are being very clear and we have arms. We have arms of all shapes and sizes. The resistance (Hezbollah often refers to itself as the resistance) has arms. It is saying it in public, adding that it is rearming and increasing the scope of its armaments in order to get more dangerous arms ... We are transporting the arms secretly and in straw trucks so as not to embarrass you (the Lebanese government). I am saying we will remain on the border, in Beirut and everywhere in Lebanon."

You've certainly got to hand it to Nasrallah and Hezbollah generally: they say what they mean, even if athousand Western commentators try to find some other meaning in their words.

One of the most striking features of Samuels's long essay is his description of his interview with Saad Hariri, son of Lebanon's assassinated former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, and the leader of the winning coalition in the recent election. Hariri, the successful and just-elected senior politician in Lebanon, lives behind a fortress, seldom leaving his stockade, with street traffic kept at least a block away so no car bomb can kill him as it killed his father.

If he wants to go out for an evening meal at a restaurant, he goes overseas.

Of course, much normal life goes on in Lebanon. The Lebanese have a national genius for making the most of what normality is afforded to them. But giant, convulsive and violent forces are at work within their society, and from outside.

In one sense, the Lebanese election was the latest episode in what is becoming a fairly clear cold war in the Middle East. On one side of this cold war are the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and, despite Arab unease with them, the Israelis. On the other side are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip. Communal, ethnic, religious and national identities and loyalties are infinitely more complex than these cold war divisions, naturally, but the strategic competition between the US and Iran is a central axis around which the region revolves. Read the rest here.....

Source: The Australian

(EN) New cold War against genocidal Totalitarism - (IT) Nuova Guerra fredda contro Totalitarismo genocidale

(EN) The Cold War Against Political Islam
Jawa Report 28 May 2009 - By Rusty

Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy and reviewed by Diana West (hat tip: Robert Spencer).

I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to. I've argued since 9/11 that our strategy in dealing with political Islam (Islamism) should be modeled after the Cold War. It's good to finally see someone agreeing.
We will not win this war, though, unless we tackle the underlying ideology. As long as traditional Islam -- which, by definition, is political -- is off limits for debate, how can we win? We can't.
Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, and Maoism were widely criticized in the West for 50 years. Idiotic Marxist notions such as the "labor theory of value" and "praxis" were scoffed at by nearly all. One cannot defeat ideas without attacking those ideas.
The notion that God revealed his last will and testament to a man soaked in the blood of tribal genocide seems far more silly to me than the notion that one can discern the end of history by walking around the British Museum all day while your children starve to death. Consider it part of my natural skepticism of epistemological certainty combined with my disdain for acts of evil.
A far less silly criticism of Marxism is that it was the ideology that gave us the Soviet gulags, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the Vietnam War. It is intellectual laziness to dismiss Stalin or Mao as megalomaniacs who's crimes are unconnected to Communism. In fact, their genocidal tendencies were deeply rooted in their faith that tens of millions dead were a small price to pay in the service of reaching the scientifically deduced end of history -- the Communist utopia.
The same criticism applies to political Islam: the violent jihad started by Mohammed continues unabated. Tens of millions dead in the name of Allah are a testament to the bloody ideology which combines unlimited state power with religious fanaticism.
Lest we forget, the Christian world has had its share of bloodshed. But the bloody religious wars in the West only began after church and state were combined by Constantine and ended when church and state began to be separated after the 30 Years War. No sane person in the West, though, believes that the Inquisition was a good thing. Or that the atrocities committed in the Crusades were done on orders from God.
That is to say, the underlying philosophies of the late Roman period all the way to the Enlightenment are completely open to criticism. One does not see protests in the street when one points out the errors of Augustine, Aquinas, and Henry VIII.
And academics need not write under a pseudonym when attacking Rousseau.
I'm not sure if Muthuswamy gets it right or what the grand strategy for defeating political Islam should look like exactly. But I can say with complete conviction that until we are free to criticize Muhammed and his philosophy in the same way that we are free to criticize Marx and his, then even conceiving of a grand strategy is pointless.
An enemy unnamed is no enemy at all. Identifying who and what we fight against is just as important as identifying who and what we fight for.

Source: http://europenews.dk/en/node/23493

(IT) La Guerra fredda contro l’Islam politico
[http://europenews.dk/en/node/23493 ]
Jawa Report 28 maggio 2009 - Di Rusty

Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (‘Sconfiggere l’Islam politico: la nuova Guerra fredda’) di Moorthy S. Muthuswamy e reviewed by Diana West (rivisto da Diana West) - hat tip: Robert Spencer (su suggerimento di Robert Spencer)

Non ho ancora letto il Libro, ma pianifico di farlo. Dall’11 settembre sto dicendo che dovremmo modellare la nostra Strategia contro l’Islam politico (Islamismo) sul Modello di quella usata nella Guerra fredda, e finalmente qualcuno è d’accordo.
Non vinceremo questa Guerra se non affrontiamo l’Ideologia alla Radice. Finché l’Islam tradizionale – che per definizione è politico – è esentato da critiche, come possiamo vincere? Non possiamo.
Il Marxismo, il Marxismo-leninismo, e il Maoismo sono stati largamente criticati in Occidente per 50 anni. Le idiote Nozioni marxiste quali la ‘Teoria del Valore del Lavoro’ e la ‘Teoria della Pratica teorica’ sono state schernite praticamente da Tutti. Uno non può sconfiggere le Idee senza attaccare queste Idee.
La Nozione che Dio ha rivelato la sua Volontà ultima e il suo Testamento ad un uomo imbevuto del sangue genocidale di Tribù mi sembra tanto sciocco quanto la Nozione che uno può capire come va a finire la Storia camminando tutto il giorno attorno al British Museum mentre i Figli stanno morendo di Fame. Consideratelo parte del mio naturale Scetticismo in merito alle Certezze epistemologiche combinato al mio Sdegno per gli Atti malevoli.
Una Critica molto meno sciocca al Marxismo è quella relativa al Fatto che esso ci ha dato i Gulag sovietici, la Rivoluzione culturale cinese, e la Guerra del Vietnam. È Pigrizia intellettuale liquidare Stalin o Mao dichiarandoli megalomani, i cui Crimini sono connessi al Comunismo. Infatti, le loro Tendenze genocidali erano profondamente radicate nella loro Fede che decine di milioni di Morti fossero un piccolo Prezzo da pagare per raggiungere la supposta Fine della Storia – l’Utopia comunista.
La stessa Critica si applica all’Islam politico: la Jihad violenta è iniziata con Muhammad e continua senza Sosta. Decine di milioni di Morti in nome di Allah sono il Testamento dell’Ideologia sanguinaria che combina Potere statale illimitato a Fanatismo religioso.
Si ricorda che anche il Mondo cristiano è stato sanguinario. Ma le Guerre religiose sanguinarie in Occidente sono iniziate solo dopo che la Chiesa e lo Stato sono stati messi insieme, da Costantino, e esse sono finite quando la Chiesa e lo Stato hanno iniziato ad essere esparate, dopo 30 anni di Guerra. Inoltre in Occidente nessuna Persona sana di Mente pensa che l’Inquisizione sia stata una Cosa buona. O che le Atrocità commesse nelle Crociate siano state compiute per Ordine di Dio.
Inoltre le Filosofie basilari del tardo Periodo romano fino all’Illuminismo sono totalmente aperte alle Critiche. Uno non deve assistere a Proteste per le strade quando fa notare gli Errori di Agostino, di D’Aquino, e di Enrico VIII.
E gli Accademici non hanno bisogno di scrivere sotto Pseudonimo quando attaccano Rousseau.
Non sono certo se Muthuswamy abbia capito esattamente il Problema o quale debba essere esattamente la Strategia per sconfiggere l’Islam politico. Ma posso dire con totale Convinzione che finché non siamo liberi di criticare Muhammad e la sua Filosofia come siamo liberi di criticare Marx e la sua, persino concepire una Strategia è infondato.
Un Nemico senza Nome non è affatto un Nemico. Identificare contro Chi o Cosa si stia combattendo è tanto importante quanto identificare per Chi o Cosa lo si stia facendo.

Fonte: http://europenews.dk/en/node/23493

The Statistical Analysis of Islamic Doctrines

What does it mean if 61% of the Koran talks hatefully of unbelievers -- and only 2.6% of it talks about the overall good of humanity?

By Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Moorthy Muthuswamy, an expert on terrorism in India. He grew up in India, where he had firsthand experience with political Islam and jihad. He moved to America in 1984 to pursue graduate studies. In 1992, he received a doctorate in nuclear physics from Stony Brook University, New York. Since 1999 he has extensively published ideas on neutralizing political Islam's terror war as it is imposed on unbelievers. His new book is Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.

FP: Moorthy Muthuswamy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Muthuswamy: Thank you for the opportunity, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to talk about statistical Islam.

First, introduce for us the context of statistics in a scientific analysis.

Muthuswamy: Statistics is a tool of science.

In doing a scientific analysis of a large pool of data, statistical analysis is by and far the most effective way of interpreting or extracting useful information. Especially in the social context, data may often represent views or outlook in varying or even in opposing directions. The statistical synthesis consists of representation of data in certain percentages that clearly bring out the overall thrust of what should otherwise be a confusing set of information. Read more ...

Source: FrontPage Magazine

Iran's Fantasy: A Renewed Cold War between "Infidels" Russia and America

By Walid Phares

The post-Soviet world has never been closer to what we knew as the Cold War than right now. Iran is pleased. We should all be concerned. New proxy conflicts may soon emerge.

The starkest reminder of the new chill came after Russian forces recently executed a military operation inside South Ossetia in Georgia. Ostensibly, the Georgian incursion was to bring back constitutional order. But Russia’s massive reaction has their forces entrenched just miles away from Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital.

Recent statements by Russian and Western leaders, the flights of long range Russian bombers across international skies, and the cruising of Russian battleships on the high seas are all images from the past months. But they are also a chilling reminder of what were four dangerous decades of the past century.

Moscow and NATO still stockpile thousands of nuclear heads. So any significant confrontation between the two camps is potentially lethal to the planet even though the ICBMs are no longer pre-targeted at major cities around the world. Targeting can change. Dangers emanating from these tensions - Cold War or not - are real and must be addressed seriously by the leaderships at the White House and the Kremlin. Read more ...

Source: Counterterrorism Blog

Islamists have the West just where they want us

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world domination?

Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."

But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist it?

The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have been lost. Read more ...

Source: Jewish World Review