New Lebanon War?

From Amir Taheri.

IS Syria preparing to seize the opportunity provided by the global financial crisis and the US presidential campaign to invade Lebanon? For the last week or so, Syria has been moving heavily armed elite military units to the Lebanese border - with up to 25,000 massed there by early last week. Backed by tanks, armored vehicles and attack helicopters, the units were on "maximum war footing," eyewitnesses say. Damascus says the build-up is a response to smuggling rings that run the black market in the Syrian capital and major provincial centers. My Lebanese contacts call that explanation "laughable" - noting that Syrian elite itself runs the black market in both countries through the security services. The buildup covers only the northern portion of the Syria-Lebanon border, leaving the eastern portions in the hands of the Iran-financed (and thus Syria-allied) Hezbollah militia. And Lebanese analysts say the type of force Syria is massing is better suited for a classical invasion than for chasing small and scattered groups of bandits along the border.

What will EU or America do to prevent a possible invasion?

President Assad might well be tempted to remedy his humiliation in 2005, when he was forced to withdraw his army from Lebanon after 29 years of occupation. If so, he may well be eyeing a brief window of opportunity right now. America is preoccupied by the financial crisis and the presidential campaign. And Europe, led by Sarkozy, has just committed itself to rehabilitating Syria and doesn't want to jeopardize the supposed gains of its "positive dialogue" with Damascus. Turkey would be in no position to criticize a Syrian incursion into Lebanon - Turkish forces have repeatedly entered Iraq, ostensibly to hunt down Kurdish rebels. And Russia - grateful for Syria's support in the recent war with Georgia - wouldn't frown at a Syrian move to topple the pro-Western regime in Beirut. Israel, politically paralyzed and possibly heading for early elections, is in no position to oppose a Syrian invasion. So far, Syria's military gesticulations on the Lebanese border haven't elicited warnings from the United States or the European Union, encouraging the hard-line faction in Damascus that is pressing for a "return to Lebanon."

For a full read, click here.

Assad warns North Lebanon has become base for extremism, poses danger to Syria

From The Daily Star.

Syrian President Bashar Assad told the head of Lebanon's Journalists Union Melhem Karam Monday that North Lebanon had become "a real base for extremism and constitutes a danger for Syria." Syria denounced the bomb attack in the restive Northern Lebanese city of Tripoli Monday that killed five soldiers, two days after a deadly car bombing in the Syrian capital. "Syria condemns the terrorist and criminal act which targeted Lebanese soldiers and civilians," a Syrian official said, according to the state-run SANA news agency. "Syria expresses its solidarity with brotherly Lebanon in the face of parties who are undermining the country's security and stability," the official said.

A few days ago, Syria deployed forces along the northern Lebanese border. One wonders if Syria will unilaterally go into northern Lebanon to "assist" Lebanon with it extremists in northern Lebanon and just stay in Lebanon since they are there?

For a full read, click here.

Report: Syria Deploys Troops On Lebanese Border

From MEMRI.

The Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reports that Syria has massively deployed army troops on the northern part of its border with Lebanon. It was also reported that the main force is positioned in the Al-Dabousiya area, overlooking the nearby border crossing. Sources in the region assessed that judging by the earthworks and tents, the move is not temporary.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

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

From Walid Phares at Counter Terrorism Blog.

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.

Why is Iran pleased?

In Iran, strategic planners knew all too well that even though it was the United States which threatened the regime’s ambitions, it was in fact the passive entente between the old foes of the Cold War that allowed Americans to come so close to Iran’s borders. Hence, in order to reverse the Western advance in the Middle East and, more importantly, in order to escape a democratic revolution against the regional tyrannies, the Russo-American entente would have to crumble. Therefore, the current escalation into what looks like—but is not exactly— a return to the Cold war is a “gift from heaven” to the Iranian regime. For even if these tensions do not climax into a full fledge comeback to the post-WWII era, they will and have already allowed Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to break loose from the containment and isolation processes. Here is how. In the past years after 9/11, Russia worked cooperatively with the West to pressure Iran and its allies in the region at the UN Security Council with the passing of UNSCR 1559 and its subsequent resolutions regarding Syria and Lebanon. Moscow still walked with the international community in pressuring Tehran to cooperate on the nuclear crisis. But in the last few years, Russian-Iranian, and to a lesser degree Russian-Syrian, cooperation began to grow and the attitude of the Kremlin towards U.S. policies in the region became more and more rigid.

Once again, Walid Phares provides an interesting perspective from a Middle East viewpoint. I concur with Mr. Phares. The US needs to ensure we do not resort to Cold War mentality with Russia. We need Russia as a partner against the greater Islamist threat.

For a full read, click here.

Iran cleric blasts US-Iraqi military agreement

From Yahoo via AFP.

A senior Iranian cleric on Friday slammed as treachery to Islam a security accord due to be sealed between Baghdad and Washington on the presence of American troops in Iraq. This agreement shows that "Iraqi tribunals will not be able to judge American military personnel and employees of firms who work for the US military," Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said during weekly prayers in Tehran.

Khatami then went on to say.

"American forces will keep the ministries of defence, interior and intelligence under their supervision for 10 years... and will be able to have private jails in Iraq," he said. Khatami charged that the accord will allow US troops to launch attacks from Iraq "against any country that backs terrorist groups." "It is open-ended slavery. It is the worst humiliation. "Any hand that signs such an agreement will be considered by Iran as a traitor to Islam, to Shiism and to the Iraqi people," he added.

I find Khatami's statements interesting and telling.

Obviously, he is concerned that the US will have private jails in Iraq which will hold terrorists and supporters of terrorists. The US will be able to attack countries from Iraq which back terrorists and those countries will be humiliated by the US. Finally, if Iraq signs the upcoming SOFA agreement, Iran will consider Iraq a traitor to Iranian Shiism.

If this isn't considered a military, political, and diplomatic victory in Iraq, what is?

Iran will be and is becoming more contained every day and it does not quite frankly like it. It will have US forces on both its western and eastern borders. It will have aircraft carriers along it southern coast. Economic sanctions are having an impact on its country because it refuses to give up nuclear production and state support of terrorism in the region. Its one ally in the region is discussing a formal declaration of peace with Israel.

Again, it is extremely interesting how much different a year makes. The US is in a position of authority again in the region. We could have cut and run last year and lost much of our international clout and prestige, but President Bush decided to surge combat forces to the region. Now, almost one year later from the start of the surge, Iraq is mostly secure, Al Qaeda in Iraq is effectively defeated, the Mahdi Army is subdued, Israel and Syria are discussing a peace treaty, and Iran is feeling contained and alone.

We can argue all day about whether we should have gone into Iraq in 2003. But in 2008, it appears the Bush Doctrine is well on its way to solving many long standing situations in the Middle East.

For a full read, click here.

Lebanon's "300"

From Walid Phares writing for the Counterterrorism Blog.

While the West is busy living its daily life, a beast is busy killing the freedom of a small community on the East Mediterranean: Lebanon. Indeed, as of last week, the mighty Hezbollah, armed to the teeth with 30,000 rockets and missiles and aligning thousands of self described “Divine soldiers” has been marching across the capital, terrorizing its population, shutting down media, taking its politicians and the Prime Minister as hostages, and looting at will. The hordes of Lebanon’s “Khomeinist Janjaweeds” have conquered already half of the Middle East’s cultural capital, Beirut. As I have reported before, Hezbollah has occupied West Beirut and has since sent its storm troops in multiple directions to resume the blitz.

Lebanon is falling to Hezbollah slowly and surely.

For a full read, click here.

ANALYSIS: Syrian-Israeli contacts worry Iran, Hezbollah

From M & C.

'Will there be another war this summer?' is a question frequently heard in Arab capitals these days.... Secret, indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel - held since April 2007 with Turkish mediation and publicly confirmed by Turkey and Syria for the first time last week - make no sense at all in this context. Or do they? Arab commentators conjecture that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is negotiating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in order to break Syria's tight embrace with Iran, Israel's archenemy. A commentator from the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat wrote that by concluding a peace treaty with Syria, Israel could 'strike Iran in the middle of the heart' and also weaken Hezbollah, which is said to be still getting Iranian weapons via Syria.

If this peace treaty is successful, Assad would get the Golan Heights back, end international isolation, and possibly stave off any further investigation of the Rafik Hariri murder. Israel would get a peace treaty with a as yet unfriendly neighbor to the northeast which would theoretically also weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon resulting in a secure north. There exists a lot of win-win in this agreement for both sides. The fact that a deal has not been struck between the two parties has probably less to do with the benefits both sides would gain from a treaty then the distrust of each of the participants for the other side.

The treaty with Syria would allow Israel to focus on the Iranian nuclear issue without worrying about attacks from the North since Syria would theoretically not violate a new agreement and risk loosing the Golan Heights again. In turn, Hezbollah's power would be greatly reduced without a big brother resupplying them. We need not forget the fact that while Hezbollah did a good job of thwarting an Israeli offensive, they themselves never went on the offensive. Specifically, Hezbollah is a purely defensive entity. The only thing they could do to Israel is fire a whole bunch of rockets into Israel. Doing so without Syrian support would be risky. Once Israel finished with Iran, they could turn their Air Force back onto southern Lebanon.

Undoubtedly, Iran knew these negotiations were ongoing which begs the question. What was their reaction? Amir Taheri reported earlier that PM Maliki did not move into Basra on the offensive, but it was instead a defensive maneuver aimed at limiting Iranian consolidation of power in the south. If true, Iran's reaction was to consolidate power across Southern Iraq extending the Persian reach to Jordan in its quest westward towards the Mediterranean. If successful, this advance would have surely reduced the likelihood of Assad negotiating a peace with Israel. However, it proved unsuccessful. Iran is now weakened and within a few weeks, we hear of secret negotiations between Syria and Israel. In addition, attacks against Iranian sponsored groups, namely the Mahdi Army, continue in their strongholds of Sadr City and Basra, further weakening Iranian efforts across Iraq.

Turkey is not only a mediator, but it is an active participant as it cleans up the PKK problem in the north. While no state in the region wants a fully independent Kurdistan, one which is part of a greater Iraq is less threatening and acceptable for not only states, but apparently the Kurds also. Complete independence for Kurds can be something worked out in decades to come.

Last December (2007) PM Maliki's government signed a "memorandum of agreement" with the Kurdish and Sunni leaders which layed the groundwork for the continuation of PM Maliki reign after national elections in 2009. His recent action into Basra not only further consolidated his power in Iraq with the Kurds and Sunnis, but also limited Iranian influenced control in the South which is why the Sunnis just came back to the government.

Currently, Iraqi diplomats are in Iran proving to the government Iranian sponsored unrest in Iraq. While Iran can continue to deny, the fact that Iraqi officials are showing the Iranian leaders what proof they have is significant in and of itself. It shows the international community, and more importantly Sunni dominated countries bordering Iraq in the Middle East, that while Iraq will be Shiite dominated from now on, it will not be a puppet of Iran. Why is all this important?

In order for a Shiite led Iraq to persist for decades to come, the Iraqi leadership has to show its neighbors it is not a puppet of Iran else it will be in constant conflict with its Sunni neighbors, most notably Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey. Preventing Iranian control in the south clearly showed Sunni neighbors this fact which is why Iraqi Sunnis shortly afterward returned to the government. Showing Iran directly further proves this point, not to Iran who knows darn well what it is doing in Iraq, but to Iraqi's Sunni neighbors. The uncertainty of continued US presence in the region is only intensifying this diplomacy since that the US sponsored surge has allowed the Iraqi government the breathing room to consolidate power and grow its Army to defend not only its borders, but its interior.

I have stated before The Battle of Basra completely changed the dynamics in the region. The new dynamics are now starting to show themselves. Iran is becoming further isolated which is what all Middle East players wanted. Iraq is showing its independence from Iran and is building up its future role as a mediator between Sunni dominated governments and Iran in the future. No government, not even an uncommitted US has the military to take over Iran; hence, the only way to prevent further confrontation in the Middle East is to continue diplomatic pressure on Iran to further isolate it, just like Syria for the last few years. Syria, seeing the writing on the wall, is closer to peace with Israel in hopes of resecuring control of the Golan Height.

The sacrificial lambs in these latest developments are the Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, the PKK, and Al Qaeda. The beneficiaries are a stable democratic Iraq, a stable democratic Lebanon, a stable Turkish southern border which is doing a banner business with the Kurdish north who can focus its efforts on getting into the EU, a Syria which will be allowed back in the international community, Saudi Arabia and Jordan which no longer have to worry about a strong extremist salafist movement within their borders or a strong Shiite Theocracy in the east, and finally a free-independent Israel which can in the near term focus on Iranian nuclear aspirations and then later on an independent West Bank now that it has a new peace treaty with a former unfriendly neighbor, Syria.

While none of this could have been planned in March 2003 when the United States went to war in Iraq, it was a major tenet of the Bush Doctrine that a democracy in the heart of the Middle East would lead to a more friendly and stable Middle East. If even half of the above comes to pass, the invasion of Iraq would have accomplished its objectives.

The trouble makers of the Middle East will have been tamed. Iraq was made into a democracy. Syria is being turned away from Iran. Iran is being further isolated with not only enemies on its borders, but now US friendly enemies on its borders. Israel is seeing more friendly neighbors in a democractic Lebanon, a peace wanting Syria, and a Saudi government who, below the scenes, is cooperating with them against terrorists. Saudi Arabia is also able for the first time to confront Wallabism as intellectual turbulence created by a violent Al Qaeda has Muslims the world over wondering how they created a force which kills not only fellow Muslims but also innocent women and children. Simultaneously, the Great Satan, the United States, has gained international respect since it is shouldering the military burden of cleaning up the mess which was the Middle East.

Not a bad two terms for President Bush to say the least. The battles currently ongoing are either part of World War IV, continuing battles of the Cold War, or the final battles of World War II, but that is for another article. Whichever proves to be correct, it is why I have always stated that we are doing the Lord's work in with military operations Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic operations in the Middle East. Thank God President Bush had enough faith to not listen to defeatist liberals who wanted to pull defeat from the jaws of victory and defiantly executed a surge of forces in Iraq which again, by everything above, has been a resounding success, not only for Iraq, but the greater Middle East, which by the way, was exactly what was intended as part of his Greater Middle East Initiative, which most pundits would say failed, or has it.....

Are Sadr and al-Qaeda Teaming Up in Iraq?

From Omar Fadhil.

A few days ago, there were two suspiciously coordinated statements emerging from Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr made open-war threats followed immediately by a similar threat from al-Qaeda. As they say, there is usually no smoke without fire.

For a full read, click here.

Syria: Saudis behind slain Hezbollah commander's death say Iranian sources

From Aknkronos International.

Saudi Arabia is believed to be behind the death of a top commander with Lebanon's militant Shia group Hezbollah, Imad Mughniyeh, according to well-informed sources cited in a report on the Iranian news agency Fars. Mughniyeh was killed on 12 February in a car bombing in Syria.

Was it just Saudi Arabia?

"Through a Syrian woman, a Saudi secret service agent who works in Damascus acquired two cars that were used by Israeli secret service agents to kill the commander Haj Imad Mughniyeh," said the Fars report. According to the Iranian news agency, the people involved in organising the attack which killed the military leader of Hezbollah, were Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian citizens.

If true, this is interesting. Saudis, Jordanians, and Israelis coming together to kill the former Hezbollah military leader, Mughniyeh.

For a full read, click here.

Israel begins largest-ever home-front emergency drill

From Monsters and Critics.

With fears of Iran's nuclear programme very much in mind, Israel embarked on its largest-ever home-front emergency drill Sunday, meant to simulate responses to war and other emergency situations, such as a large-scale terrorist attack. The operative part of the five-day drill, dubbed 'Turning Point 2,' will begin Monday and will include, among other scenarios, simulated missile attacks on towns in populated areas.

For a full read, click here.

10,000 Syrian troops deploy in Kurdish region

From the Jerusalem Post.

The Syrian army has moved some 10,000 soldiers into five cities in the country's northern, Kurdish-dominated region, following violence over the weekend, which left three people dead. The killing occurred during celebration of the Kurdish New Year - Nowruz - in the city Qameshli close to the border with Turkey, according to several local news sources.

This situation is worth watching closely.

For a full read, click here.

Cairo official: Gaza Strip conflict serves Syrian interests

From Haaretz.

According to Egyptian sources, the heads of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, currently based in Damascus, are the only ones authorized to make a decision regarding a cease-fire with Israel, and it is possible that the Syrian government is behind the failure of truce negotiations thus far. "All the evidence points to the fact that Syria wants to divert attention from Lebanon and point the spotlight on Gaza," the Egyptian official said. "The current escalation [of violence] in the Palestinian arena serves the Syrian interests," they said, explaining that the embarrassment caused by continuing violence in Gaza to Arab Leaders may prompt the Arab nations to send high-level representation to the upcoming Arab summit hosted by Syria later this month, after having threatened that state leaders will not attend if Syria continues to interfere in the political crisis in Lebanon.

For a full read, click here.

USS Cole and Hizballah

From the Counterterrorism Blog.

On February 28, the USS Cole was deployed off the coast of Lebanon. Ostensibly, the presence of the warship is intended to demonstrate Washington's ongoing commitment to the democratically elected pro-West government vis-à-vis the Hizballah-led opposition and ally, Damascus. Hizballah and Syria are currently preventing presidential elections in Lebanon; the office has been vacant since November 2007.... Senior Hizballah officials have described the USS Cole as "a threat." In October 2007, Hizballah officials threatened that if US troops ventured onto Lebanese soil, they would be treated as “occupation forces” and attacked. UNIFIL has been attacked three times since its deployment in 2006.

Even more significant than it being any warship is the fact it is the USS Cole which was attacked by terrorists in a boat in a Yemeni port in October 2000. If that does not help in showing America's resolve to a democratically elected Lebanon, nothing will.

For a full read, click here.

Mugniyah behind establishment of Mahdi Army

From Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal.

Imad Mugniyah, the senior Hezbollah military commander who was killed in Syria earlier this month, helped form the Mahdi Army, the military wing of the radical Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr, according to an Iraqi intelligence official. He was described as a “co-founder” of the Mahdi Army, Naharnet reported, based on a translation from the Iraqi daily Al Zaman. Mugniyah helped form the Mahdi Army after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003. He recruited from the Shia communities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and then sent the recruits to Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley for training. “The 300 fighters were trained on the use of assault rifles, booby-trapping and kidnapping operations,” the unnamed intelligence official told Al Zaman.

Another excellent analysis by Mr. Roggio.

For a full read, click here.

Iran: Slain Hezbollah military chief's widow points the finger at Syria

From Adnkronos International.

The wife of assassinated militant leader Imad Mughniyeh, claims that Syria was behind the killing of her husband, reported Alborz, a pro-Iranian government source. Her husband, Imad Mughniyeh was killed in a bombing in Damascus on 13 February and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Syria and Iran have blamed Israel for assassinating him. Mughniyeh was the intelligence chief of Hezbollah's secretive military wing, the Islamic Resistance. " The Syrian traitors assisted in my husband's murder," said the wife.

Very Interesting.

For a full read, click here.

Why was Mughniyah so important?

From Al-Ahram Weekly.

The Americans described Imad Mughniyah as one of the deadliest enemies of the United States. Even before 9/11, he had more American blood on his hands than any other militant in the world. Many in the Arab world had not heard of him before because he never gave interviews or speeches, and changed his appearance several times through plastic surgery to avoid Israeli reprisal. The Americans had a $25 million bounty on his head, and he was on the FBI's most wanted list. Mughniyah was accused of masterminding the April 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and six months later the bombing of the US Marines Barracks in Beirut during the days of Ronald Reagan.

Ms. Fielder continues,

This is when Mughniyah became good friends with Nasrallah, who was two years his senior. Robert Baer, an ex-CIA official who has been tracking Mughniyah for years, commented: "This is a personal loss for Nasrallah. They are basically the ones who made Hizbullah.".... In 2006, he is believed to have played a part in the border operation that led to the capturing of two Israeli soldiers, an act that triggered the latest war between Hizbullah and Israel.... Many in Lebanon believe that Mughniyah was killed by the Americans because in recent months he had been operating out of Basra with the aim of re- structuring the Mahdi Army in Iraq. He had been charged with revamping the troops of Muqtada Al-Sadr into a more disciplined military force, modelled after Hizbullah. This might explain why Sadr has been calling for repeated freezes on activities of the Mahdi Army, with the aim of filtering and fine-tuning the troops into a Hizbullah-like force.

All around, Mughniyah was a bad character who was responsible for the deaths of several innocent people. If the above story is correct, his death will not only hurt Hezbollah, but will have stymied the formation of the Madhi Army into another Hezbollah type organization.

For a full read, click here.

Was Syria involved in Mugnieh's death?

From the Middle East Times.

February 12 marked a point against radical Islam. The killing of Hezbollah's mastermind and legend, Imad Mughnieh, in Damascus should be considered a great victory. The death of one of the most sophisticated and bloody terror masters that had been in "business" for 25 years makes the world a much better place, commented a U.S. State Department spokesman. The question remains: who is ultimately responsible for this? Increasingly, it seems that maybe Syria was behind the attack. Indeed, on Feb. 17, Mike McConnell, the director of National Intelligence, told Fox News: "There's some evidence that it may have been internal Hezbollah. It may have been Syria."

Olivier Guitta provides an interesting arguments about why Syria would want Mughnieh dead.

For a full read, click here.

Iraq Sadr declare 3day mourning for Mughniye

From Alsumaria.

Spokesman for Cleric Moqtada Al Sadr Salah Al Ubaidi announced that Sayyed Al Sadr has issued a statement in which he declared three-day mourning in Sadrist bloc offices in Iraq for the martyrdom of Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniye who was assassinated on Tuesday due to a car bomb explosion in the Syrian Capital, Damascus. Al Ubaidi added that Al Sadr Bloc condemns the assassination and reject it completely.

If this declaration does not express where Al Sadr's loyalties ride, nothing does. While Sadr has withdrawn from the government, put his militia into a cease fire, and is undergoing training to become an ayatollah, he is only biding his time awaiting for US forces to withdraw from Iraq. Afterwards, his organization is wanting to mirror Hezbollah in Lebanon.

However, unlike Hezbollah, the Badr Organization is a strong pro-government militia that is currently keeping and will keep his organization in check.

Mughniyah's Assasination

From the American Thinker.

When the news reported that Imad Mughniyah was assassinated I was stunned. This is equivalent to killing Bin Laden. Except that locating and successfully executing an attack on "Mughsy" was a much more difficult task. To say he had a heightened security posture would be the understatement of the year. He is/was the mythological equivalent of the unicorn, something that has always been talked about but never actually seen. To illustrate this point, most of the pictures Mughniyah were taken very early in his life (his late teens/early 20s... he is now roughly 45). He was vital to Iranian interests in Lebanon because he was someone the Iranians could depend on to execute Tehran's will. He demonstrated that back in 1983 when he orchestrated the Marine Corps Barracks bombing. He was vital to Hezb'allah because of his trusted status with Tehran and the weapons, finance, and training they provided.

For a full read, click here.

Hezbollah terrorist leader Imad Mugniyah killed in Syria

From Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal.

Imad Mugniyah, the leader of Hezbollah’s military wing and a senior officer in Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, was killed in yesterday’s car bombing in Damascus, Syria. Mugniyah was behind multiple terror attacks against US, Israel, and other nations, and most famously the 1983 Beirut suicide attacks which killed 241 US Marines and 58 French paratroopers. Hezbollah has confirmed Mugniyah’s death....

An excellent examination of this terrorist is provided by Mr. Roggio. It is a must read.

For a full read, click here.

US envoy: Iran gained from US invasions

From Yahoo via AP.

The headline of this article, "US envoy: Iran gained from US invasions" does not accurately represent what Khalilzad stated or implied in his speech at Columbia University, but unfortunately will be used as another example of the failure vice success of Bush's presidency.

Iran is stronger today because of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the American ambassador to the United Nations said Friday. The 2003 invasion of Iraq removed a key rival of Shiite Iran with the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government. Iran has friendly ties with the Shiites now in power in Iraq.... And Afghanistan, too, the change was helpful to Iran."

Five terrorist sponsoring states in a row (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) enabled terrorists to freely roam from Asia to Europe. Now three of those five states are actively pursuing terrorists. Two are still actively supporting terrorists. This dramatic change is not a bad record for seven years however it is attempted to be portrayed. Khalilzad notes,

"And I used to tease the (Iranian) ambassador that we have done so much for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, the least you can do is to be helpful to this effort. Otherwise, one day you will get a big bill."

The two remaining terror sponsoring states have indeed been momentarily strengthened due to the decline of other terror sponsoring states; however, Khalilzad also warned Iran to be helpful to this effort or it may one day get a big bill. The following statement would be a much more appropriate title, "US envoy: Iran will pay for its defiance" because in time it will pay for the terrorists it supports or harbors just like Pakistan is currently paying for it.

For a full read, click here.

Is Ahmadinejad setting a trap for Israel and the US?

From James Lewis at The American Thinker.

Like the Jedi Knights in Star Wars, much of Israel's safety depends on an absurdly small number of daring pilots and their jet planes. The Israel Air Force has managed to use that capacity with amazing skill and daring, as it showed last September when a dozen fighter bombers and support aircraft jammed Syria's Russian-supplied air defenses and destroyed a secret nuclear facility on the Euphrates river --- not far from Iran. The nature of that target has still not been revealed, but it must have been important enough to risk triggering a missile attack from Syria. That means the target was believed to be very important: most likely a joint Iranian-Syrian-North Korean nuclear facility.

Mr. Lewis believes Ahmadinejad, with Russian assistance, is attempting to trap the Israeli airforce.

The whole thing smells like an Ahmadi-Nejad shell game, with Russian help: put your nuclear materials under a dozen different giant concrete shelters, and dare the enemy to attack all of them, without knowing which one has nuke materials. All of the sites would be heavily defended with state-of-the-art Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Not just one trap for attacking aircraft, but a dozen or more.

For a full read, click here.

Geopolitics of Gaza

From The Terror Wonk.

The Terror Wonk provides a different perspective on the "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza brought about by the Israeli blockade and subsequent destruction of the border wall with Egypt.

In the coverage of the breach of the Gaza border, the focus has been on the increased threat to Israel. While there is little question that terrorists will acquire new capabilities and use them against Israel, their gaze may turn to a nearby but softer target. In his memoirs Knights under the Prophet’s Banner: Meditations on the Jihadist Movement, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri observed: The problem of finding a secure base for jihad activity in Egypt used to occupy me a lot, in view of the [activity against us] by the security forces and because of Egypt’s flat terrain, which made government control easy, for the River Nile runs in its narrow valley between two deserts that have no vegetation or water. Such a terrain made guerilla warfare in Egypt impossible…

Many folks see the destruction of the border wall between Egypt and Gaza as a response to the recent Israeli blockade. However, this is an incorrect inference. The wall was cut with torches and then explosive charges were strategically set along the wall which resulted in almost two-thirds of a 12km section coming down.

As shown in this photo, provided by Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty, this was a large, synchronized, deliberately planned operation by Hamas, not something that could have been done in a few days. Instead, a better inference would be that the current crisis was a manufactured by Hamas. For its part, Hamas played Israel perfectly in this crisis and won unhindered access to Egypt as a result.

Hamas used Israel's targeting on militants as stepping stone to start the crisis. Hamas begin to bombard Israel with a multitude of rocket. Israel in turn started a blockade. Knowing Israel's response, Hamas sought international sympathy by playing up a "humanitarian crisis" happening in Gaza as a result of the blockade. At the height of the Israeli blockake, Hamas brought the wall down, not only effectively ending the blockade, but also opening a new, porous border with Egypt as shown in the photo below (courtesy of the BBC).

The Terror Wonk provides the reasoning for Hamas' action.

However, a new base of operations against Egypt could have vast geopolitical implications. Egypt has a fragile economy, frustrated populace with a large Islamist movement, and an aging leadership. There have already been terror attacks in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with Gaza links. Even if the regime is not overthrown, HISH [Hezbollah-Iran-Syria-Hamas] will acquire substantial leverage over Egypt, and further the penetration of radical Islam into the largest Arab state, while acquiring a staging ground into the Maghreb, sub-Saharan Africa, and beyond.

For a full read, click here.

Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq's Foreign Insurgents

From the Washington Post.

Muhammad Ayn-al-Nas, a 26-year-old Moroccan, started his journey in Casablanca. After flying to Turkey and then to Damascus, he reached his destination in a small Iraqi border town on Jan. 31, 2007. He was an economics student back home, he told the al-Qaeda clerk who interviewed him on arrival. Asked what sort of work he hoped to do in Iraq, Nas replied: "Martyr."

This article details the records kept by Al Qaeda in Iraq on 606 insurgents who came to Iraq to fight the Coalition between August of 2006 and 2007.

Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed.

For a full read, click here.

"Syria's Jihadists and Hezbollah are two arms of one body"

From Walid Phares at Counterterrorism Blog commenting on who targeted Ambassador Feltman.

Following the bombing of a US embassy car in Beirut this week many analysis were made available about the authors of this terror attack. Several thesis struggled with what they coined different and opposed possibilities. One main option being Hezbollah and the other option being Jihadi groups controlled by Syria. I argued that as long as it is either Hezbollah or Syrian-controlled Jihadists executing the operation, these two networks are two arms of one body. The decision-making process is at the "axis" level, that is Tehran and Damascus joint war room in the region.

Dr Phares cites Stratfor analysis of the attack which states it is unlikely to be Hezbollah which executed the attack, but instead believes the attack was executed by Jihadist forces. He points out that these two forces are linked.

"What is strange in the analysis is that it says that Hezbollah is unlikely to carry an attack against US target, but Jihadists controlled by Syria are very likely to do so. But these are two arms from one Terror body, the Syro-Iranian axis."

I concur with Dr. Phares. The two groups are different arms of the same body. They are all ultimately controlled by Iran.

For a full read, click here.

A Message for Departing Ambassador Feltman

From Counterterrorism Blog.

Yesterday’s car bomb attack on a US embassy convoy in Beirut comes just days before US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman returns to Washington. The bomb, which killed three Lebanese civilians and injured dozens—purportedly at least one of whom was a host country national employee of the embassy—appears to have been intended for the Ambassador. According to press reports, the carbomb hit the wrong group of cars: Ambassador Feltman was traveling in another convoy and escaped injury. Given the operational capabilities and extensive intelligence networks of the groups that most likely perpetrated this outrage (i.e., Hizballah, Syria, Fatah al Islam) it’s difficult to imagine that this was a failed operation. An alternative and perhaps more convincing explanation is that this attack intentionally missed the Ambassador. In this context, the bombing was intended as a message to Ambassador Feltman—who was a key driver of the robust US policy in Lebanon backing the democratically-elected anti-Syrian March 14th Government—and his successor, Ambassador Sison, who was confirmed by Congress last week and heads out to Beirut in February. Quite simply, this message is: “stay out of internal Lebanese politics.” Lebanon is a dangerous diplomatic post for US personnel, and is increasingly becoming a dangerous locale for international deployed forces: UNIFIL has been attacked three times in the past year. The attack on the US Embassy and the increasing frequency of attacks targeting the international community are cause for serious concern. In the past, the response to these kind of developments has been for the US and the international community to draw down and scale back. Obviously, this response is what those who seek to destabilize Lebanon most want. To counter this dangerous trend, it is increasingly important for Washington and the international community to strengthen the commitment to Lebanon. A good demonstration of this commitment would be to press forward expeditiously with the seemingly stalled UN-mandated international tribunal to prosecute the murderers of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri. Movement on the tribunal stands a chance of changing the current dynamic in Lebanon. At the very least, it would put the Syrians and their allies in Lebanon—who currently hold the initiative—on the defensive. (emphasis added)

David Schenker makes a great point. This could have been a message and should be followed up by an appropriate response. Expediting the international tribunal for the Hariri assassination should be the first step in a U.S. response.

Syria rebuilding alleged nuclear site bombed by IAF

From Haaretz.

Syria has started to rebuild the site of an alleged nuclear facility bombed by the Israel Air Force on September 6, 2007, according to a report released Friday by The New York Times. A satellite photograph of the site shows new construction in place that resembles the former building, which according to foreign media reports was a nuclear facility in northeastern Syria built with North Korean assistance. Syria and North Korea, however, have both vehemently denied any nuclear cooperation. The New York Times reported that the new satellite photograph shows a tall, square building under construction that appears to bear close resemblance to the original structure, with the exception that the new roof is vaulted instead of flat.

Later in the article, it states

Syrian President Bashar Assad has since maintained that Israel bombed an "unused military building" in the September raid.

A few things I find fascinating about this article are:

1. It was supposedly an unused, abandoned military building, but Syria is spending money to rebuild it.

2. Syria never really publically came out and decried the attack nor did they seek to get the UN involved to denounce Israel.

3. Israel banned coverage of this attack and only recently allowed it to be stated that it had successfully attacked a target inside Syria.

4. If the building wasn't important, why is it being rebuilt so fast?

5. If it is important, why build it in the same spot?

For a full read, click here.