Asks UN to Stop WAR

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro (above) urged world leaders Tuesday to create new rules governing the use of force in the wake of a series of violent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa that have sparked a refugee crisis, as hundreds of thousands of people flee to Europe looking for safety.

Speaking for the annual gathering of heads of state at the United Nations General Assembly, Maduro said he supported a plan by proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin to create an international coalition to coordinate foreign military action in Syria.

Arguing that the Middle East is more more violent and unstable than it was before U.S.-led military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, along with foreign military support of rebel groups in Syria, Maduro called on the U.N. to restrict the ability of powerful countries to wage war.

“We should take advantage, we believe, of the total and complete, tragic failure of these four wars,” Maduro said, drawing applause from the crowd.

“So that from the Security Council, from the United Nations, we can move forward toward creating new rules that prohibit the use of interventionist methods to bring war, to sow terror, to bring destruction and death to people who are declared by the elites of the world to be undesirable people or enemies.”

Some 250,000 people have died in Syria since the fighting broke out in 2011.

The violence there has fueled the largest refugee crisis facing Europe since World War II.

Read More:

Can WE Stop ISIS?

WASHINGTON — Maj. Gen. Michael K. Nagata, commander of American Special Operations forces in the Middle East, sought help this summer in solving an urgent problem for the American military: What makes the Islamic State so dangerous?

Trying to decipher this complex enemy — a hybrid terrorist organization and a conventional army — is such a conundrum that General Nagata assembled an unofficial brain trust outside the traditional realms of expertise within the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence agencies, in search of fresh ideas and inspiration. 

Business professors, for example, are examining the Islamic State’s marketing and branding strategies.

“We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it,” he said, according to the confidential minutes of a conference call he held with the experts. “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”

General Nagata’s frustration is shared by other American officials. Even as President Obama and his top civilian and military aides express growing confidence that Iraqi troops backed by allied airstrikes have blunted the Islamic State’s momentum on the ground in Iraq and undermined its base of support in Syria, other officials acknowledge they have barely made a dent in the larger, longer-term campaign to kill the ideology that animates the terrorist movement.

Four months after his initial session with the outside advisers, General Nagata, one of the military’s rising stars and the man Mr. Obama has tapped to train a Pentagon-backed army of Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State, is still searching for answers.

“Those questions and observations are my way of probing and questioning,” General Nagata said in a brief email this month, declining on orders from his superiors to say any more.

The minutes of internal conference calls between General Nagata and more than three dozen experts he convened through Pentagon channels in August and October offer an unusual insight into the struggle to understand the Islamic State as a movement, and where the American military’s top leaders are most focused.

One of the panel’s initial observations that has intrigued General Nagata is the Islamic State’s “capacity to control” a population, according to the minutes.

It is not so much the number of troops or types of weapons the militants use, the experts said. Rather, it is the intangible means by which the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, wrests and maintains control over territory and its people.

This ability, they discussed, centers on “psychological tactics such as terrorizing populations, religious and sectarian narratives, economic controls.”

The minutes reveal disagreements among the experts over whether ISIS’ main objective is ideological or territorial — General Nagata encourages competing views, urging the group to have “one hell of a debate” over his questions.

But the panel raised doubts whether ISIS “has the bureaucratic sophistication necessary to govern.”

“The fact that someone as experienced in counterterrorism as Mike Nagata is asking these kind of questions shows what a really tough problem this is,” said Michael T. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency who has publicly raised similar concerns.

A final report by the group, which draws from industry, academia and policy research organizations, is due next month.

How to defang the Islamic State’s enticing narrative weighs heavily on many other senior administration officials, as well as top leaders in the Middle East and Europe.

An Arab Warning

Saudi Arabia has warned it has been forced to go its own way in foreign policy as its Western allies seek diplomatic solutions to the war in Syria and crisis with Iran.

Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to London said US-led diplomacy in the region was risking the stability of the Middle East.

Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud said his country is determined to independently arm Syria rebels and could not stand idly by while thousands of children were being killed by Syria’s regime.

Despite almost a century of friendly ties with countries such as Britain and America, the oil rich monarchy can no longer follow its allies as they pursue diplomacy with its Middle Eastern enemies.

“We believe that many of the West’s policies on both Iran and Syria risk the stability and security of the Middle East,” he wrote in the New York Times. “The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.”

The comments come as Syria opposition officials report that Western diplomats have privately said that next month’s peace talks may not lead to the removal of President Bashar al-Assad from power. 

At a summit of opposition backers in London last week, the opposition was told that the transitional arrangements must preserve key parts of the current regime.

“Our Western friends made it clear in London that Assad cannot be allowed to go now because they think chaos and an Islamist militant takeover would ensue,” said one senior member of the opposition said.

High level warnings from Saudi royals over the West’s betrayal of previously shared foreign policy goals have also included demands for the Gulf countries to have a seat at negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence, said Riyadh felt the US and its allies had worked behind its back to achieve a diplomatic accord with Iran.

“It is important for us to sit down at the same table,” he said. “We have been absent.”

Prince Turki added that the US had “given the impression” it would take actions against Syria but had subsequently not delivered.

Saudi Arabia still expects its allies to challenge the two regimes over the bloodshed in Syria but is finding that West is refused to take action, Prince Mohammad added. 

As a result Saudi Arabia would take its own approach to the conflict, and orchestrate its own financial and military strategy of support to the Syrian rebels.

“To do otherwise is to walk on by, while a humanitarian disaster and strategic failure continue to fester,” Prince Mohammad wrote.

Julian Barnes-Dacey, a Syria expert at the European Council for Foreign Relations, said the Saudi leadership viewed support for the Syrian rebels and overthrow of the Iranian-aligned Syrian regime as vital for its own security. 

“There is broad consensus on the need to push hard on Syria because they don’t want the Iranians to gain the upper hand,” he said. “Saudi Arabia is upping its game to help the rebels on the ground. 

This is not just empty talk but is an appeal to the West to stand alongside them as they look to change the end game.” 

Arabia's Milestone

It was a film that seemed guaranteed to enrage its homeland: the first feature from a Saudi Arabian woman director, which painted the Kingdom as an oppressive society in which women are second class citizens and girls are forbidden to laugh in public. 

And yet Wadjda, the critically acclaimed drama from Haifaa Al Mansour, has been selected as Saudi Arabia's official nomination for the best foreign film Oscar.

"We are proud of the film as as authentic representation of our country and culture and are pleased to see the themes of the film resonate with audiences well beyond out borders," said Sultan Al Bazie, the head of the Saudi nominating committee. It is the first time the nation has selected a film to compete for the Academy awards.

Set in the homes and madrasas of Riyadh, Wadjda charts the fortunes of a 10-year-old girl who enters a Qur'an reading competition in order to raise money to buy a bicycle. Her teacher is scandalized and her mother is fearful. "You won't be able to have children if you ride a bike," the girl is informed.

Writer-director Al Mansour (above) has said that she intended the film to be an inspiration to the women of Saudi Arabia. But she admitted that shooting the picture was a "challenging experience". In more conservative neighborhoods she was forced to call the shots from inside a van for fear of sparking protests.

"It's exciting to be a part of Saudi Arabia right now," she told the Guardian in July. "It's a moving society. And for me, just to be a part of it is all right, either in a van or outside the van. The most important thing is to make an authentic film."

Backed by European money, Wadjda opened to rave reviews in the UK in July and is released in selected US cinemas this Friday. The 85th Academy Awards take place on March 2, 2014.

Iranian voters turned out in huge numbers recently, a late surge of interest in the presidential vote that seemed to swing the tide in the favor of the most moderate candidate in the field. But it was uncertain whether any single contestant would exceed the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff next week.

With long lines at the polls, voting hours were extended by five hours in parts of Tehran and four hours in the rest of the country. Turnout reached 75 percent, by official count, as disaffected members of the Green Movement, which was crushed in the uprising that followed the disputed 2009 presidential election, dropped a threatened boycott and appeared to coalesce behind a cleric, Hassan Rowhani, and the mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf.

Iran’s interior minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, said Saturday morning on state television that preliminary results showed Mr. Rowhani with a strong lead, followed by Mr. Ghalibaf. Mr. Najjar did not say when the final result would be available. Iran has more than 50 million eligible voters and as of early Saturday morning nearly three million votes had been counted.

The early results seemed to be a repudiation of the coalition of conservative clerics and Revolutionary Guard commanders, the so-called traditionalists, who consolidated power after the 2009 election, which the opposition said was rigged. The traditionalists’ favored candidate, Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and a protégé of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not seem to have gained much traction with the public, emphasizing vague concepts like “Islamic society” and standing up to Western pressure.

Early Saturday, officials at the Interior Ministry with access to the preliminary tallies said that Mr. Rowhani appeared to be the clear winner in some cities but that nothing had been confirmed. The ministry’s early figures showed Mr. Rowhani with just under 50 percent of the votes counted, news agencies reported. Early Saturday, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for the Guardian Council, warned against publishing any rumors and urged all to wait for the official results.

Can there be free elections in a country like Iran is the question that many of us have regardless of the outcome?

DOHA, Qatar (AP) 

Qatar's emir looked over an assembly of Arab leaders Tuesday as both cordial host and impatient taskmaster. His welcoming remarks to kings, sheiks and presidents across the Arab world quickly shifted to Qatar's priorities: Rallying greater support for Syrian rebels and helping Palestinians with efforts such as a newly proposed $1 billion fund to protect Jerusalem's Arab heritage.

No one seemed surprised at the paternal tone or the latest big-money initiative. In a matter of just a few years, hyper-wealthy Qatar has increasingly staked out a leadership role once held by Egypt and helped redefine how Arab states measure influence and ambition.

Little more than a spot to sink oil and gas wells a generation ago, Qatar is now a key player in nearly every Middle Eastern shakeout since the Arab Spring, using checkbook diplomacy in settings as diverse as Syria's civil war, Italian artisan workshops struggling with the euro financial crisis, and the soccer pitches in France as owners of the Paris Saint-Germain team.

As hosts of an Arab League summit this week, Qatar gets another chance to showcase its swagger.

With power, however, come tensions. Qatar has been portrayed as an arrogant wunderkind in places such as Iraq and Lebanon where some factions object to its rising stature, and Qatar's growing independent streak in policy-making has raised concerns among its Gulf Arab partners. It also faces questions — as do other Gulf nations and Western allies — over support for some Arab Spring uprisings while remaining loyal to the embattled monarchy in neighboring Bahrain.

"The adage that money buys influence could very well be the motto of Qatar," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of regional politics at Emirates University outside Abu Dhabi. "But it goes beyond that. Qatar also has learned the value of being flexible and, at the same time, thinking big."

It's hard these days to find a point on the Mideast map without some link back to Qatar.

In recent years, Qatar mediated disputes among Lebanese factions and prodded Sudan's government into peace talks with rebels in the Darfur region. Qatar's rulers even broke ranks with Gulf partners and allowed an Israeli trade office — almost a de facto diplomatic post — before it was closed in early 2009 in protest of Israeli attacks on Gaza. And Doha has been atop the Arab media pecking order as headquarters of the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera, which was founded with Qatari government money in 1996 and is now expanding its English-speaking empire into the United States.

But it was the Arab Spring that opened the way for Qatar to stake out an even bigger role in regional affairs, filling the vacuum for regional powerhouse Egypt as that country was mired in turmoil after the revolution that ousted longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.

Qatar was among the few Arab states offering active military assistance to NATO-led attacks against Moammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya and, at the same time, was a key arms-and-money pipeline for Libyan rebels. In Egypt, Mubarak's fall offered Qatar's rapid-reaction outreach a head start over other Gulf states because of its longstanding ties with the now-governing Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who attended the Doha summit, has turned to Qatar to help prop up the country's stumbling economy.

"We expect that financial pledges will be respected," Morsi said in a message to Qatar and other Arab countries that have promised money for Egypt.

Almost nothing happens in the Syrian opposition without a voice from Qatar, which has played matchmaker for a broader political coalition against Syrian President Bashar Assad and leads appeals to provide rebel fighters more heavy weapons in attempts to turn the tide in the 2-year-old civil war. On Tuesday, Qatar led the official transfer of Syria's Arab League seat from the Assad government to the opposition Syrian National Coalition.

Read more…  

 

Al Jazeera in New York

Al Jazeera is checking out spaces for its American-based network's New York City headquarters and has looked at the former New York Times building, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The building is one of several the broadcaster is looking at as a space for Al Jazeera America, which is set to replace Current TV this year. According to the Journal, the “search appears to be in the early stages” and the Qatar-funded network is viewing multiple spaces in the city.

Currently, the network has made no decisions for a permanent space, the Journal reported, but has rented temporary space in two buildings as it prepares for its launch.

Al Jazeera was drawn to the space because the building was capable of being wired for digital media distribution, according to a person familiar with the matter.

But another person familiar with the search said the company was concerned that there were "too many columns" for the construction of the kind of studio space that Al Jazeera America will need.

The company hasn't made any decisions about where it will end up, the people said, and the search appears to be in the early stages.

The broadcaster has rented some temporary studio space in two buildings—at the Manhattan Center at 311 W. 34th St., and at another building nearby—for a crew of about 150 people, as it ramps up its broadcast capabilities for the launch, according to people familiar with the matter.

The New York Times sold its building on West 43rd Street in 2004 as part of its move to a new headquarters on Eighth Avenue.

Founded in 1996 as an Arabic-language satellite channel, Al Jazeera has become the most-watched news channel in the Arab world. It sparked controversy in the U.S. in the early 2000s for airing videos made by the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, and drew complaints from members of the Bush administration for reporting they considered anti-American.

In 2006, it launched Al Jazeera English, but reaching its goal of gaining national television distribution within the U.S. has proved elusive, as cable outlets refused to carry it outside of a few local markets.

In January, Al Jazeera bought Current TV, the struggling cable channel co-founded by former vice president Al Gore, and announced plans to launch a new U.S.-based channel. Since then, Al Jazeera has been seeking to add new journalists, placing ads for more than 100 jobs in New York and Washington.

Although at the time of the January announcement Al Jazeera said it planned to double its U.S. head count to more than 300, the total number will be as many as 700, according to a person familiar with the situation. It isn't clear how many of them would be based in New York.

 

 

Christians in the Middle East

Five Iranian Christian converts who were detained late last year will reportedly begin trial in Iran’s Revolutionary Court this week, according to a human rights group following the case.

 

The five men were among seven arrested in October when security forces raided an underground house church in the city of Shiraz during a prayer session. They will be tried at the Revolutionary Court in Shiraz’s Fars Province on charges of disturbing public order, evangelizing, threatening national security and engaging in Internet activity that threatens the government, according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a religious persecution watchdog group.

“Judging from recent cases, it is likely that, at the very least, those detained may face lengthy prison sentences,” said CSW spokesperson Kiri Kankhwende.

According to Kankhwende, the crackdown against Christian converts and house churches parallels a general increase in repression against many, including journalists, religious and cultural minorities and others as the government is leading up to June’s presidential elections.

 “There has been a noticeable increase in the harassment, arrests, trials and imprisonments of converts to Christianity, particularly since the beginning of 2012," Kankhwende said. "Any movement that differs from or offers an alternative to orthodox Shia Islam, and any persons who chooses to follow an alternative belief system, are interpreted as a challenge to the very state itself.”  

“House churches are growing because the converts have nowhere else to go,” said Tiffany Barrans, international legal director at the American Center for Law and Justice, “When you’re a convert to Christianity in Iran, you can't go worship at the church on the corner, because conversion is not acceptable. If they were allowed to go to an official place of worship, there wouldn't be a house church movement,” Barrans said.

Barrans and the ACLJ are also the U.S.-based family attorneys for Pastor Saeed Abedini,  held in Iran’s notoriously brutal Evin prison since September 2012 as his wife and two young children fear for him at their home in Idaho.

More than a decade ago, Abedini worked as a Christian leader and community organizer developing Iran’s underground home church communities for Christian converts who are forbidden from praying in public churches. He was arrested in 2005, but released after pledging never to evangelize in Iran again. When he left his wife and two kids in Idaho last summer to return to Iran to help build a state-run, secular orphanage, Iranian police pulled him off a bus and imprisoned him.

After months of imprisonment without any notice of charges, Abedini was sentenced at the beginning of this year to eight years in prison, as his family and attorneys continue to pressure the State Department and other public and private groups to facilitate his release.

Under Shariah, or Islamic law, a Muslim who converts to Christianity is on a par with someone waging war against Islam. Death sentences for such individuals are prescribed by fatwas, or legal decrees, and reinforced by Iran’s Constitution, which allows judges to rely on fatwas for determining charges and sentencing on crimes not addressed in the Iranian penal code.          

Read more:

Sending a Message

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran’s Balls

There is both annoyance and frustration in Washington over Tehran's unwillingness to agree on the venue for the next round of talks over Iran's nuclear activities. The two sides have agreed on a date -- January 28-29 -- but it will likely have to be rescheduled due to Tehran's procrastination over the venue choice.

Mindful of the short and closing window of opportunity for an intermediate agreement on the nuclear issue -- before the Iranian New Year in March and the Iranian elections in June -- time has not been used effectively since Obama's reelection in November. And Tehran is not helping.

It took the P5+1 (the Permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) a full month to agree on a new negotiation strategy and package, after the U.S. Presidential elections. The P5+1 sent Tehran a formal letter on December 12, 2012, requesting a new meeting. Now, more than six weeks later, the Iranians are still sending conflicting messages -- agreeing on a date while creating disagreements on the venue.

The Security Council states prefer Istanbul, Turkey, while Iran has given several proposals, including Cairo, Egypt.

But why are the Iranians procrastinating?

According to Huffington Post contributing writer Trita Parsi, a few possible explanations exist.  To read these explanations, click here: 

 

But, in truth, America has a BIG footprint in the Middle East as well as in the rest of the world as it manipulates foreign governments (either directly or indirectly) to acquiesce to American demands which has worked for decades as it balances its economic and military power with fueling the economies of its allies and trading partners while financing “over-throwing the present government” activities by rebels it is perceived will be pro-American once in control.  This balancing act is further exacerbated by America’s presence in the rebuilding of countries that have been decimated by years and years of brutal conflict further drawing down the treasuries of those countries.

Consequently, there are many countries in South America, Europe, and the Middle East that have simply had enough of US help and involvement and would do just about anything or join forces with their enemies to go repel American influence.  Iran is no different and is “thumbing its nose” at the US knowing that very little will happen in return and if it does, its Arab Brothers will come to its aid, “under the table,” a clever trick learned from the US.

The I's Have It

A Middle Eastern SNAFU

United Nations: The European Union and United States are set to toughen nuclear sanctions aiming to punish Iran while seeking to hold back Israel from a military strike, top officials said as the showdown enters a critical phase.

Western moves to pressure Iran have been made more urgent by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stern call for a “clear red line” against Iran’s nuclear drive, diplomats said.

Netanyahu’s conversation with US President Barack Obama on Friday reassured some envoys that Israel and the United States are more in tune over Iran. But they highlighted lingering uncertainty about if and when Israel could launch unilateral action.

click to enlarge

The European Union will be first to step up sanctions as part of the international campaign of pressure alongside increasingly frustrating efforts to negotiate a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment.

Even though Iran’s food prices have risen 50%  while the value of the currency has decreased 60%, Iran seems steadfast in its convictions to move forward with their nuclear campaign.  The European Union has also taken sanctions against Iran via its selling of oil but that he done little to deter the country’s ruling party.

The Israelis under the leader of Netanyahu seem to be showing little patience as their country is positioned to be the first in line to receive an attack from Iran.  And, I am wonder how Americans would feel if either Canada or Mexico or Cuba was pursuing nuclear weapons and had an intense hatred of us?  Wait a minute that did happen during the Kennedy administration.  As I recall, it did not matter if Americans were Republican or Democrat, they all wanted our Democratic President to put an end to that crisis.

Iran's President,
what's his name...

I think it is prudent to simply let Israel have their way with Iran and paint that picture PATRIOTIC.