LCCC ENGLISH
DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 27/07
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12,54-59. He also said
to the crowds, "When you see (a) cloud rising in the west you say immediately
that it is going to rain--and so it does; and when you notice that the wind is
blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot--and so it is. You
hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky;
why do you not know how to interpret the present time? Why do you not judge for
yourselves what is right?
If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to
settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the
judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you
into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last
penny
Free Opinions & Special
Reports
Jihad, Islamism, and the
Challenge of Anti-Freedom Ideologies.
By:
Jeffrey Imm. October 26/07
Undeclared truce.Al-Ahram Weekly.
October 26/07
With friends like America, Lebanon doesn't
need any more enemies.The
Daily Star. October 26/07
Civil law, religious law, and the right to change one's
religion.By
Shaykh Abdallah Adhami. October 26/07
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for October 26/07
Presidential Elections Ball in Bkirki's Court-Naharnet
Abul Gheit: Hands Off Lebanon-Naharnet
Israel Shifts Maneuvers to Lebanon Front-Naharnet
Cedar Revolution Overseas Urges Mekari to Shepherd Presidential Elections-Naharnet
Olmert-Abbas Discuss Problems Facing Peace Talks-Naharnet
Syria 'air strike site' removed.ABC
Online
Israel to halt large Golan manoeuvres.AFP
IDF Golan exercise cancelled to avoid tensions with Syria.Jerusalem
Post
Crossfire War - Lebanon Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes Over Lebanon.NewsBlaze
Syria executes 5 men for murder.International
Herald Tribune
Egypt urges no interference in Lebanon vote.AFP
Israel to comment on fuel tanks dropped during air strike in Syria.Jerusalem
Post
Think tank foresees dismal economic outlook for Lebanon.Daily
Star - Lebanon
Solana hopes for consistency in Iranian
nuclear policy despite new negotiator-Daily
Star
Ankara 'totally determined' to 'end' PKK
threat-Daily
Star
Olmert rules out early
peace as Barak plans Gaza blackouts-Daily
Star
Abu al-Gheit lauds 'great efforts' to end
Beirut crisis-Daily
Star
Youth loot Lebanese-owned shops in Sierra Leone.
(AFP)
Raad touts 'positive
mood' after talks with Sfeir-Daily
Star
Lebanese Army fires on Israeli planes violating
airspace over South-Daily
Star
Journalist interrogated over criticism of Rizk-Daily
Star
Norway to extend oil cooperation program-Daily
Star
Lebanese man drowns in Nigerian pool
(AFP)
Deal on presidency likely to precede official
vote-Daily
Star
ISF chief meets German
counterpart-Daily
Star
New report targets poverty, regional
disparities-Daily
Star
'Citizenship should go beyond carrying a
passport' - Qabbani-Daily
Star
Gibran's 125th anniversary and Hesse's 130th
anniversary: where German and Lebanese cultures meet.By
Kamal Dib
Beirut teams up with NGO to fight corruption-Daily
Star
Tourism Ministry goes online to lure visitors
back to stagnating sector-Daily
Star
Think tank foresees dismal economic outlook
for Lebanon-Daily
Star
Forest fires flare up again in North-Daily
Star
Japan starts project to improve Tele Liban-Daily
Star
Ford Foundation gives $1 million to AUB center-Daily
Star
Spam finds a new way to intrude in Lebanese
life-Daily
Star
Cluster bombs pose grim reminder of 2006 war-Daily
Star
Official
Statement/Article: New Sanctions IRGC: Secretary of State-Treasury - Rice /
Paulson
Written by State
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Secretary Condoleezza Rice - Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
October 25, 2007
SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. In May 2006, the United States offered the Iranian
Government an historic opportunity to improve its relations with the
international community and with us. We said that our nation deeply respects the
Iranian people and that we are eager to build a better future together. We
offered Iran new incentives to cooperate and negotiate with Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. We offered to support a
civil nuclear program in Iran under international supervision if it agreed to
give up pursuit of the fuel cycle. But we also said that if the Government of
Iran continued to violate its international obligations and continued its unwise
campaign for nuclear weapons capability that they would face serious
circumstances and sanctions.
We and our partners remain fully committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran.
On our behalf, the EU's Javier Solana reaffirmed that offer to Iran this week.
Unfortunately, the Iranian Government continues to spurn our offer of open
negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear
technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic
missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and denying the existence of a fellow
member of the United Nations -- threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
Working with other concerned nations, the United States is pursuing a
comprehensive policy to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranian
Government. We have worked with our fellow members of the UN Security Council to
impose two sets of Chapter 7 sanctions on the Iranian Government and we are now
discussing a third Chapter 7 resolution. We're taking additional actions to
defend our interests and our citizens and to help our friends to secure their
countries.
Today Secretary Paulson and I are announcing several new steps to increase the
costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior. Many of the Iranian regimes' most
destabilizing policies are carried out by two of its agencies: the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, and the Quds Force, an arm of the IRGC.
Because of the Revolutionary Guard's support for proliferation and because of
the Quds Force support for terrorism, acting under U.S. law and consistent with
our international obligations, the United States today is designating both of
these groups. We are similarly designating three Iranian state-owned banks: Bank
Melli and Mellat, for their involvement in proliferation activities, and Bank
Saderat as a terrorist financier. We are also designating several additional
Iranian individuals and organizations.
What this means is that no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed
to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities. In
addition, any assets that these designees have under U.S. jurisdiction will be
immediately frozen. These actions will help to protect the international
financial system from the illicit activities of the Iranian Government and they
will provide a powerful deterrent to every international bank and company that
thinks of doing business with the Iranian Government.
I want to repeat, the United States and our partners are fully committed to a
diplomatic solution with Iran. If the Iranian Government fulfills its
international obligation to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing
activities, I will join my British, French, Russian, Chinese, and German
colleagues and I will meet with my Iranian counterpart anytime, anywhere. We
will be open to the discussion of any issue. But if Iran's rulers choose to
continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the
international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime.
Let me finish by saying a few words directly to the Iranian people. We in the
United States have no conflict with you. We want you to have every opportunity
to develop and prosper in dignity, including the peaceful use of nuclear power.
So we hope that your government will embrace the path of cooperation that we and
the international community continue to offer.
And now, I would like to invite Hank Paulson, Secretary Paulson to speak.
SECRETARY PAULSON: Condi, thank you and good morning. Iran exploits its global
financial ties to pursue nuclear capabilities, to develop ballistic missiles and
fund terrorism. Today we are taking additional steps to combat Iran's dangerous
conduct and to engage financial institutions worldwide to make the most informed
decisions about those with whom they choose to do business.
The Iranian regime's ability to pursue nuclear and ballistic missile programs in
defiance of UN Security Council resolutions depends on its access to
international commercial and financial systems. Iran also funnels hundreds of
millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to
terrorists. Iran's banks aid this conduct using a range of deceptive financial
practices intended to evade even the most stringent risk management controls.
In dealing with Iran, it is nearly impossible to know one's customer and be
assured that one is not unwittingly facilitating the regime's reckless behavior
and conduct. The recent warning by the Financial Action Task Force, the world's
premier standard setting body for countering terrorism finance and money
laundering, confirms the extraordinary risks that accompany those who do
business with Iran.
We have been working closely and intensely with our international partners to
prevent one of the world's most dangerous regimes from developing the world's
most dangerous weapons. Part of that strategy involves denying supporters of
Iran's illicit conduct access to the international financial system. These
actors should find no safe haven in the reputable world of finance and commerce.
The UN Security Council has required member states to freeze the assets of, and
prohibit persons from doing business with, a number of entities and individuals
supporting Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile activities, including Iran's
state-owned Bank Sepah.
Today, as Condi said, we are designating Iran's Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, and
Bank Saderat. These are three of Iran's largest banks. They all have facilitated
Iran's proliferation activities for its support of terrorism. We are also
designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for proliferation activities
and its Quds Force for providing material support to the Taliban and other
terrorist organizations.
The IRGC is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises,
it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are
doing business with the IRGC. We call on responsible banks and companies around
the world to terminate any business with Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, Bank Saderat,
and all companies and entities of the IRGC.
As awareness of Iran's deceptive behavior has grown, many banks around the world
have decided as a matter of prudence and integrity that Iran's business is
simply not worth the risk. It is plain and simple: reputable institutions do not
want to be bankers to this dangerous regime. We will continue to work with our
international partners to prevent Iran from abusing the international financial
system and to advance its illicit conduct.
Thank you.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much.
2007/929
Released on October 25, 2007
US
Measures aim at the heart of the Iranian Regime
By Walid Phares
After Andy Cochran's posting, here is a quick comment on the Designation of
Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for
Terrorism Today's documents revealing the US financial measures taken against
Iran's military power hits the heart of the regime. The US official document can
only be described as a master strategic strike into the financial web of the
major power centers of the Iranian regime. See the full document. Following are
three points:
The first organization, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), according
to the document is "considered the military vanguard of Iran, the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is composed of five branches (Ground Forces,
Air Force, Navy, Basij militia, and Qods Force special operations) in addition
to a counterintelligence directorate and representatives of the Supreme Leader.
It runs prisons, and has numerous economic interests involving defense
production, construction, and the oil industry. Several of the IRGC's leaders
have been sanctioned under UN Security Council Resolution 1747."
Point One: The Pasdaran is indeed the backbone of the regime. Compare it to a
combined Communist Party, Militia and KGB during the peak of the Stalinist
regime in the Soviet Union.
The second organization, the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL):
According to the report, "the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL)
controls the Defense Industries Organization, an Iranian entity identified in
the Annex to UN Security Council Resolution 1737 and designated by the United
States under E.O. 13382 on March 30, 2007. MODAFL also was sanctioned, pursuant
to the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act, in November
2000 for its involvement in missile technology proliferation activities."
Point Two: This is Iran's Defense apparatus. Key positions are in the hands of
hard core Khomeinists, but the majority of the military bodies are not
necessarily part of the regime. The measures will have different effects on
various sectors of the military. More analysis will be released in the near
future on the projected impact.
Point Three: As important is the fact that, according to the report "MODAFL has
ultimate authority over Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO), which
was designated under E.O. 13382 on June 28, 2005. The AIO is the Iranian
organization responsible for ballistic missile research, development and
production activities and organizations, including the Shahid Hemmat Industries
Group (SHIG) and the Shahid Bakeri Industries Group (SBIG), which were both
listed under UN Security Council Resolution 1737 and designated under E.O.
13382."
Hence the measures are hitting the programs believed to be the home of the
future Iranian ICBM systems. This report reveals important information about the
entities involved in the build up. In a cross fire debate I was part of on al
Jazeera a few weeks ago, I confronted an Iranian advisor on Iran National
Security on the military nature of the nuclear program. He denied of course. But
after I gave him few names of Admirals and Generals in charge of the program,
(now on the long list issued by the US Government) he never responded on this
point again.
I am expecting significant debates on the subject in the region but also
important Iranian and Hezbollah reactions.
Dr. Walid Phares, Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies
October 25, 2007
Tom Harb on "latest tactical
dances"
CR Sec Gen Tom Harb
25th of October 2007
Washington, CRNews,
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Commenting on General Michel Aoun's statements on NBN TV station, the Secretary
General for the International Lebanese Committee for UNSC 1559 Tom Harb said
"former Prime Minister Michel Aoun must first denounce his agreement with
Hezbollah to be able to move back under the umbrella of the Cedars Revolution.
Anything below that, is just tactical dances going no where."
Harb said many claims made by the General on NBN need to be responded to. For
example he said that no one paid the price he and Hezbollah paid for the
sovereignty of Lebanon." Harb responded that "while the Lebanese people
certainly value the sacrifices of the Lebanese soldiers and officers who died or
were wounded in the battles against the Syrian occupation army, it doesn't
consider an agreement with Hezbollah as a logical step in the same direction.
For Hezbollah and the Syrian occupation have had and continue to have a joint
war room.
Harb said Aoun claimed the United States was against him and that it was
meddling in the way the Lebanese ought to elect their President. General Aoun
perhaps doesn't understand what drives Washington in Lebanon and worldwide, it
is the war on terror. America will not support any President, elected with two
thirds or with 50% plus one if he or she has an agreement with an organization
on the US Terror list. And if the Parliament elects a President committed to
1559 and the campaign against terror, he or she will be supported regardless of
the constitutional process.
Harb added that the General said he has the support of the people. "But that
support was given based on a program that was negated by the General. So Michel
Aoun after the agreement with Hezbollah doesn't have a mandate from the voters.
Harb added responding to Aoun that any non democratic action against a President
elected by simple majority will be considered as a coup, not the other way
around.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 25 October 2007 )
Cedar Revolution Overseas
Urges Mekari to Shepherd Presidential Elections
The World Council for the Cedar Revolution on Friday pleaded with Deputy House
Speaker Faird Mekari to convene a parliamentary session and elect a president,
claiming that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is not willing to shoulder his
responsibility. The council, in a statement distributed by the state-run
National News Agency, said Berri "does not wish to carry out his duty as speaker
of the legally-elected parliament," noting that he has failed to convene the
legislature for over a year.
It urged Mekari to "set the date for a session and proceed with electing a
president, irrespective of whether Berri supported the move."The statement
pleaded with "all free MPs to take part in the session and elect a president."
The group, which represents Lebanese immigrants supporting the March 14
movement, pad tribute to ex-President Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Forces leader
Samir Geagea for refraining from entering the presidential race. Beirut, 26 Oct
07, 10:12
Presidential Elections Ball
in Bkirki's Court
As army Commander Gen. Michel Sleiman outlined that he would not ask for a seat
in the power system, Egypt stressed that electing a head of state is strictly a
Lebanese issue and non-Christian opposition-majority leaders said naming a
consensus presidential candidate is in Bkirki's hands.
In line with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit's "Hands off Lebanon"
outcry and his announcement that Cairo does not support any presidential
candidate, Gen. Sleiman was quoted as telling officers upon returning from a
visit to Cairo and talks with President Husni Mubarak: "We will not ask for any
political seat."
"We will not allow, at all, the political manipulation of the martyrs' blood and
sacrifices" Sleiman was quoted by the daily an-Nahar as saying.
Meanwhile, the paper said the Egyptian initiative outlined during Abul Gheit's
one-day visit to Lebanon Thursday, focused on four major points:
-The need to reach a broad understanding on all pending issues and not just on a
consensus presidential candidate.
-Foreign and regional interests should refrain from exerting pressure on the
Lebanese people under the slogan: Hands off Lebanon.
-The interest of the Lebanese people and its future should be the base for any
discussion of a settlement.
-Electing a president for Lebanon is a strictly Lebanese interest and,
therefore, is a strictly Lebanese choice and "no one can choose a head of state
for Lebanon except the Lebanese People."
Meanwhile Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Majority leader Saad Hariri, who
represent the opposition and majority in the ongoing talks for choosing a
presidential candidate, said they are waiting for efforts by the Maronite Church
to achieve consensus on a candidate.
Berri was quoted by an-Nahar as saying: "I've informed Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir
that will support the white smoke that will billow from Bkirki's (chimney). I
also make this declaration on behalf of Sheik Saad Hariri." An-Nahar said Berri
and Hariri are keen on waiting for Bkirki to choose a candidate so they can
avoid the charge that the Shiites, Sunnis and Druze have chosen a Maronite
President without the approval of the Maronite Church.
A Hizbullah delegation informed Patriarch Sfeir Thursday that the Shiite party
supports Consensus by the Christians on a presidential candidate conditional to
nationwide consensus. A four-member committee representing Maronite factions of
the opposition and majority has already set the specifications of a presidential
candidate and set the assignments that the new head of state should shoulder.
The committee, meeting in Bkirki, is to proceed with its efforts to choose a
candidate or a list of candidates in line with the specifications and envisaged
assignments. Abul Gheit on Thursday urged foreign states not to interfere in the
Lebanese presidential vote, echoing an outcry by the late Anwar Sadat: "Hands
off Lebanon.""It is up to the Lebanese people to decide themselves," Abul Gheit
said after meeting pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose extended term in
office expires by Nov. 24.
The late Egyptian President Sadat launched his famous "hands off Lebanon" outcry
in the mid-1970s, during the early stages of the civil war that lasted until
1990 despite the intervention by 30.000 Syrian troops and a 10.000-strong
intelligence apparatus. During his visit Abul Gheit also met leaders of the
ruling majority and Hizbullah-led opposition as well as Prime Minister Fouad
Saniora and Berri in addition to Lahoud, Sfeir and Sunni Grand Mufti Sheikh
Mohammed Rashid Qabbani.
After meeting the patriarch, Abul Gheit said: "We will not interfere with
candidates and it should not be inferred that we prefer one candidate over
another. We hope that all interference stops." He explained that a recent
meeting between Gen. Michel Sleiman and Mubarak was in the framework of
"supporting the Lebanese army", which fought a bloody 15-week battle with Fatah
al-Islam terrorists in the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared. Beirut, 26
Oct 07, 08:33
Abul Gheit: Hands Off Lebanon
Visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Thursday urged foreign
states not to interfere in the Lebanese presidential vote, echoing an outcry by
the late Anwar Sadat: "Hands off Lebanon." "It is up to the Lebanese people to
decide themselves," Abul Gheit said after meeting pro-Syrian President Emile
Lahoud, whose extended term in office expires by Nov. 24.
A source close to the parliament's western-backed and anti-Damascus majority
told Agence France Presse that the remarks were particularly aimed at Syria,
which long wielded great influence in Lebanese politics. "Mr. Abul Gheit's
comments fall in line with pressures on Syria to stop interfering through its
Lebanese allies to hamper the presidential vote," the source said. The late
Egyptian President Sadat launched his famous "hands off Lebanon" outcry in the
mid-1970s, during the early stages of the civil war that lasted until 1990
despite the intervention by 30.000 Syrian troops and a 10.000-strong
intelligence apparatus.
The Lebanese parliament has been unable to pick a successor to Lahoud, raising
fears that the country could plunge into its most serious crisis since the
1975-1990 civil war. The parliament's majority accuses the Hizbullah-led
opposition of taking orders from Tehran and Damascus while it is accused by the
rival camp of bowing to the United States. Abul Gheit said on arrival in Beirut
that he was seeking to help resolve the crisis.
"We cannot say that we have brought viewpoints and instructions, but we will try
to convey the Egyptian vision to the (Lebanese) leaders," he said.
During his one-day visit Abul Gheit met the western-backed ruling majority and
Hizbullah-led opposition leaders as well as Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and
parliament speaker Nabih Berri. "I don't think Lebanese leaders have discussed
yet the names of the candidates," the minister said.
Shortly after arrival in Beirut he met Lahoud and Nasrallah Sfeir, patriarch of
the Maronite church. Sfeir has launched an initiative to bring Maronite
opposition and majority leaders closer in an attempt to break the deadlock.
After meeting the patriarch, Abul Gheit said: "We will not interfere with
candidates and it should not be inferred that we prefer one candidate over
another. We hope that all interference stops."
He explained that a recent meeting between Army Commander Gen. Michel Sleiman,
who has been cited as a presidential contender, and the Egyptian president was
in the framework of "supporting the Lebanese army", which fought a bloody
15-week battle with Islamist militants in a refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
The Egyptian foreign minister also held talks with Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid
Qabbani and parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri.
Berri on Monday again postponed a special session of parliament to elect a
president to give the feuding political factions time to try to agree on a
consensus candidate.
Saniora's government has been paralyzed since last November when opposition
forces, which include Iran- and Syria-backed factions, withdrew their six
ministers from government. Many Lebanese are on edge fearing another MP from the
ruling coalition could be assassinated, following the murder of lawmaker Antoine
Ghanem and five others in a car bombing just days before the previous
parliamentary session. Ghanem was the sixth lawmaker to be killed since 2005 in
attacks blamed by many on former power broker Syria, which has denied
involvement. There are fears that the standoff could lead to two rival
governments emerging, a grim reminder of the end of the civil war when two
competing administrations battled it out.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 25 Oct 07, 16:11
Israel
Shifts Maneuvers to Lebanon Front
Israel is shifting military exercises from the Golan Heights closer to the
southern Lebanese border to avoid raising tension with Damascus.
A major exercise planned for next week on the strategic Ggolan Plateau occupied
by Israel in 1967, as well as in Galilee in northern Israel, will now take place
only in Galilee, opposite to the Lebanese southern border, Israeli military
sources were quoted by media reports as saying.
"The maneuvers had been scheduled for both the Galilee and the Golan. They will
not take place on the Golan in order not to cause tension with Syria," one
source said. A top military source was quoted on the Internet site of the
Israeli daily Haaretz as saying: "We want to move away from any doubt that the
Syrians might have about hostile intentions on our side." Next week's exercises
involving elements from across Israel's arsenal have been planned to put into
practice lessons learned from the 34-day war in July-August 2006 with the
Hizbullah Shiite group in Lebanon, when grave deficiencies were highlighted in
military training.
Tension has also risen between Israel and Syria after a reported September 6
raid by Israeli warplanes on a target in northeast Syria.
A blackout was imposed on reports about the raid before the Israeli military
confirmed on October 2, without elaborating, that it had attacked a "military
target" in Syria. Syrian President Bashar Assad said the Israelis had attacked
an unused military building, but the New York Times said the target had been a
nuclear reactor being built with North Korean help. A charge denied by Damascus.
Peace negotiations between Israel and Syria have been frozen since January 2000
with the Golan -- annexed by Israel in 1981 -- the main sticking point as
Damascus demands its complete return.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 26 Oct 07, 09:15
Jihad, Islamism, and the
Challenge of Anti-Freedom Ideologies
By Jeffrey Imm
As previously discussed, large segments of America and the West have a
continuing dangerous denial on Jihad. But what of political Islamism itself? How
does it factor into a blueprint strategy in addressing our national security
issues?
In the documentary "Islam versus Islamism", anti-terrorist Muslim Dr. Zuhdi
Jasser states: "a majority, I believe, look at the lens of politics through an
Islamist lens... if we hand them the mantle of religion that they seek to
exploit for their own geopolitical issues all over the globe, then we are going
to really lose this war."
Any blueprint strategy for national security must define Jihad, must address it
within the national security threat, and must also define a national policy on
the ideology of political Islamism... a topic where there is a deafening silence
from among American political leadership. Instead of referring to ambiguous
terms such as "extremists", it is vital to refer to the specific political
ideology of Islamism and examine its impact on Jihad, on national security, and
on American foreign policy.
Islamism and its influence continue to grow in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where
the United States has been laboring to develop democratic institutions. Islamism
is vital to Pakistan's identity and its struggles with pluralism. Islamism is
fundamental to such closed societies as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Islamism
continues to grow through the Arab nations, Asia, Africa, and Europe. And as the
recent Holy Land Foundation trial shows the influence of Islamist organizations
continues to grow throughout the United States.
How is the West to fight a war against Jihadists without a policy on political
Islamism itself?
Defining Islamism
Wikipedia defines "Islamism" as "a term usually used to denote a set of
political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a
political system and its teachings should be preeminent in all facets of
society. It holds that Muslims must return to the original teachings and the
early models of Islam, particularly by making Islamic law (sharia) the basis for
all statutory law of society and by uniting politically, eventually in one
state; and that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural
influence in the Muslim world is un-Islamic and should be replaced by purely
Islamic influences."
The 9/11 Commission report mentions the term "Islamism" once in its 567 pages,
buried in the footnotes on page 562 (Notes Chapter 12, Note 3), to define
Islamism as follows: "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a
holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate."
This same footnote refers to Islamism as "a political/religious phenomenon"
where Islamists differentiate themselves from Muslims.
In summary, Islamism is a political ideology based on a theocratic version of
Islam and Islamic law as the basis for all aspects of life, government, and
society. It is an "anti-democratic" movement, and it is another of the
anti-freedom ideologies that Western society has found itself facing in the past
century. Rather than a "nationalist" movement, Islamism seeks the "restoration
of the caliphate", and Islamism is an internationalist political ideology.
Islamism has numerous branches, as Islam itself has numerous branches; in this
case there are branches of Islamism political ideology including groups based on
Wahhabism and Salafism (Sunni), Deobandism (Sunni), Muslim Brotherhood
philosophies (Sunni), and Khumeinism (Shiite).
But while there has been significant discussion regarding the branches of
Islamist political organizations, the strategic challenge remains in addressing
the impact of political Islamism -- as an overall ideology -- on Jihad and on
our national security.
Jihad as a Tactic of Islamists
Jihad, or Islamic "holy war", is a tactic employed by some Islamists. Not all
Islamists use the tactic of Jihad, but use other non-violent tactics to further
their anti-freedom ideology. But all Jihadists believe in the ideology of
Islamism. If we are to be precise in our national security blueprint strategy,
then the "violent Islamic extremists" (NSHS page 20) that we view as the enemy
are, in fact, Islamists practicing Jihad. In a meaningful strategy, the use of
meaningful terms is essential. Denying Jihad or denying Islamism only ensures
that we cannot identify the enemy or the ideology driving the enemy.
A famous Islamist was quoted on October 22 as viewing his political Islamist
vision as seeking: "The greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean,
Allah permitting. This quest is extremely dear, and infidelity on all its levels
- international, regional and local - is combing its efforts to prevent the
establishment of the state of Islam."
That famous Islamist is Osama Bin Laden... who chooses Jihad as his primary
tactic, but who also uses propaganda and other tactics. In Bin Laden's October
22 message, he also decries the efforts of those who "prevented the setting up
of the state of the Muslims" in Afghanistan, Sudan, and calls for "the Mujahdeen
in Iraq" to unify for the cause of this Islamist vision. Note that Bin Laden
does not call for Jihadists to fight in the cause of "Jihad", but "to perform
Jihad" for Islamism.
If Islamism is the cause of Jihadists, then how can the ideology of Islamism
itself not be a factor to address in the "War on Terror"?
Islamism and the "War on Terror"
In Iraq, clearly Bin Laden's message was not only one of calling for unity of "Mujahdeen",
but also one of calling for unity behind a common cause of Islamism, despite
"mistakes" in tactics and infighting. Rather than merely a sign of weakness, the
October 22 Bin Laden message provides further evidence of the belief among Sunni
Jihadists in a shared Sunni Islamist ideology. Where this vision of united
Islamism in Iraq fails is in the clashing of Islamist Sunni and Shiite branches,
which is the basis behind the ongoing sectarian clashes. But does this mean that
the Islamist ideology has no impact on the war effort in Iraq?
On October 16, Reuters published a news story about Shiite Islamism in Iraq
entitled "Shi'ite tribal leaders in Iraq say Islamism on rise". In the report,
four tribal leaders spoke on the basis that they would be kept anonymous due to
fear of reprisals. One tribal leader said "fear rules the streets now... We
cannot speak our minds, people are not allowed to oppose them. They would
immediately disappear or get killed." The article goes on to address increasing
Islamism in Iraq and reports that street committees intended to watch for Al
Qaeda attacks are being used to spy on possible Islamist-deemed infractions and
report them to militias. A tribal leader quoted in the news story says: "Some
say the Shi'ites are lucky because they are now ruling Iraq, but that is wrong.
It is the Islamist Shi'ites who are ruling Iraq." What will truly have been
accomplished in Iraq if Islamists (Shiite or Sunni) continue to gain power in
Iraq and within Iraq's government? What are the benchmarks in measuring such
challenges in the war strategy in Iraq, if America fails to have a policy on
Islamism in general?
In Afghanistan, America has seen what an Islamist government can and will do. We
experienced it first hand with the Islamist Taliban government's support for Al
Qaeda in the attacks on the United States in 9/11. Yet, as previously reported,
the U.S. State Department supports the Karzai governments outreach to the
Taliban and invitation to allow the Taliban to join the Afghanistan government.
This is the same "democratic" Afghanistan government that made a man flee his
country because he changed his religion. How will we achieve victory in
Afghanistan when we have no policy on Islamism?
On October 15, the UK Guardian reports about Afghanistan that "British officials
have concluded that the Taliban is too deep-rooted to be eradicated by military
means", and that a British official states, and quotes a senior British
official: "It is conceivable you could have chunks of the Taliban breaking off
and giving up violence". While some in UK believe "Afghanistan is lost", UK
diplomats agree with the U.S. State Department that a non-violent Islamist
Taliban could be negotiated with to "stabilize" Afghanistan. These are the
results of a failure to have a policy on Islamism. What is to prevent a
"non-violent" Taliban from restoring Afghanistan into the Islamist nation that
was the base camp for the 9/11 attacks on America?
These comments are merely a reflection on the tactical operations in these
theaters of war, not in the ideological aspects of allowing an anti-freedom
ideology to reclaim power in nations where we seek to establish "democratic
institutions". As Dr. Walid Phares writes in his book "The War of Ideas":
"Islamist electoral victories without reform in their ideological agendas, will
ineluctably lead to the establishment of exclusionary Islamist states,
unleashing jihadi war in the region."
Islamism and the U.S. Allies in the "War on Terror"
In Pakistan, the recent news stories about the attacks on Benazir Bhutto and the
struggles of the Pakistani government against various Jihadist groups masks a
more fundamental challenge. Political Islamism is part of the identity and the
law in Pakistan. News reports have frequently described the beatings, torture,
and killing of Christians due to Pakistan's Islamist "blasphemy" law. In
Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden is more popular than President Musharraf. This is the
same Pakistan that supported Afghanistan's Taliban prior to the 9/11 attacks. It
is the same Pakistan where even Benazir Bhutto's 1980's and mid-1990's
governments supported the Taliban. It is the same Pakistan where President
Musharraf has called for the Taliban to reform into becoming a mainstream
political organization. It is the same Pakistan where Taliban commanders are
moving out of the hills and into the suburbs of Islamabad and Peshawar.
But America's concern is with Pakistan fighting "terrorists". How successful is
such a tactic going to be when a meaningful portion of Pakistan supports
political Islamism? How meaningful will the results of Pakistan's "war on
terror" be when we have no policy on the growth of Islamism in that nation? If
Pakistanis have to choose between Islamism and an alliance with the United
States, what is their decision likely to be?
Similar issues could be raised with U.S. "ally" Saudi Arabia, where the majority
of the 9/11 attackers came from, or various other Islamist nations with which
the U.S. has friendly relations.
Moreover, our ally, the United Kingdom, has reported that over half of its
mosques are run by Deobandi Islamists. As the London Times has reported,
Deobandi "Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live
peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practice
Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle." This is the same
UK where its citizens have attempted three mass-casualty terrorist attacks on
the United States homeland.
If America is to fight global Jihad, how can it not have a policy on Islamism
itself, and how does that align our diplomatic, trade, and economic support for
such nations? Certainly, American diplomats have no desire to offend such
nations, especially those nations where the U.S. has significant trade and
financial reliance. But the idea that fence-sitting on Islamism will allow us to
"fight terrorists" and still retain such relationships will only continue to
undermine our very national security concerns that were awakened by the 9/11
attacks themselves.
As Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser suggests, if America does not stand up to Islamists,
how will it win this war?
Facing Anti-Freedom Ideologies and Their Impact on American Security
In addressing an anti-freedom ideology, it is essential that a blueprint
strategy be examined to address all aspects of the threat and solutions to
addressing the threat. As seen on October 25, the United States is perfectly
willing to use economic sanctions in pressuring the Islamist nation of Iran to
stop Iran's efforts to seek nuclear weapons.
But even in the case of Islamist Iran, our approach is tactical, rather than
strategic. America is reacting to a specific threat from Islamist Iran regarding
Iran's nuclear proliferation goals. Despite Tony Blair's suggestions that Iran's
ideology is similar to 1930's fascism, there is not a clearly defined policy on
the position of Iran's Islamist ideology as an overarching threat to freedom. We
are reacting to the actions of Iran in its nuclear proliferation and Iran's
efforts to providing weapons to various terrorist groups. However, the facts are
that the Islamist ideology of Iran has not significantly changed in nearly 30
years. Iran's threat to freedom is well-known and documented, just as the
Taliban's threat to freedom was well-known and documented prior to 9/11.
America's historical isolationist views regarding anti-freedom ideologies
demonstrate a reactive foreign policy. It took Pearl Harbor for the U.S. to
truly confront the global threat of fascism. It took USSR's nukes for the U.S.
to truly confront the global threat of communism. Despite being the pillar of
freedom for the world, America's foreign policy towards anti-freedom ideologies
has been reactive, an approach that America has been able to survive - thus far.
Even the American awakening on Jihad took the 9/11 attacks to get America to
react. But unlike Pearl Harbor and unlike USSR's nukes, in this case, America
has been unwilling to clearly define the ideology behind the threat... other
than "terrorism"... or "violent Islamic terrorism". There remains a refusal for
America to awaken to the ideology of Islamism and address it as an anti-freedom
ideology, just as fascism and communism was recognized.
Facing anti-freedom ideologies has historically required sacrifice and effort
from the American people. It has changed the way we viewed the world, and it has
changed our lives. It has changed our economic and personal priorities. We did
what was necessary to protect America from anti-freedom ideologies. But what was
the alternative? Deny the threat of fascism? Deny the threat of communism? So
then how can we deny the imperative to address the political ideology of
Islamism?
Islamist Finance and American Business
In many parts of the United States and the West, facing the impact of addressing
the ideology of Islamism is extremely unpopular. This is certainly the case in
the financial marketplace. The Wall Street Journal and other financial
organizations have participated in or sponsored conferences on "Islamic
Finance". In an effort to promote "Sharia-compliant securities", "[t]he Wall
Street Journal is delighted to be associated" with UAE's Dubai International
Financial Center (DIFC) week to promote Sharia-compliant finance, according to
Michael Bergmeijer, managing director, Dow Jones consumer media group. This is
for a conference in November in Dubai. The Wall Street Journal apparently thinks
Sharia-compliant securities is good for business.
But who do such Wall Street professionals think that Sharia-compliant securities
are really supporting? Alex Alexiev asks this question in his recent article
"Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism?" Just as in the 1930s, there are
American businesses that are blind to anti-freedom ideologies in their business
strategies, even if such ideologies seek the destruction of the very freedoms
that allow such capitalist environments to exist.
Certainly, this illustration of Wall Street's views on Sharia are but the tip of
iceberg in the energy, petroleum, and military industries, which deal with
Islamist nations on a routine basis. But without a policy on Islamism, how can
the American public be surprised?
Efforts to Silence Debate on Islamism
There are numerous ongoing efforts to silence the debate on Islamism including
some political scientists in academia, misguided press organizations, and
apologists for Islamism. This effort at "mind control" regarding an anti-freedom
ideology is one of the more disturbing developments of the 21st century.
One approach to blunting the debate on Islamism is "divide and conquer" -
focusing on only fractions of the problem, so that the ideology itself cannot be
seen as a whole. At the beginning of October, French political science scholar
Dr. Olivier Roy told AKI that the war on terror was not a global problem, but
merely a number of regional conflicts. Dr. Roy is well known as a scholar of
Islamic movements, and is the author of "The Failure of Political Islam". In a
previous speech Dr. Roy states that he believes that Islamism has moved to "Islamo-nationalism",
and is focused on nationalistic issues. Moreover, Dr. Roy believes that
Islamists are willing to negotiate. In this case, Dr. Roy "over analyzes" his
subject with the focus on the detailed branches of individual Islamist groups,
much like the tactical approach taken in addressing terrorism. But what Dr. Roy
misses, ironically, is the "big picture" that Islamism represents an
anti-freedom ideology that the West must come to terms with, not simply
negotiate with in various regional conflicts. It is comparable to a potential
1930s viewpoint that fascism was unique to individual European countries, and
therefore fascism as an ideology itself was no threat. Dr. Roy's arguments also
deal employ the misdirection of Islamism as a nationalist ideology.
Arguing that Islamism is merely a tactic to pursue nationalism is a common
approach in silencing debate on Islamism as an ideology. This is the argument
made by those justifying support for the Jihadist group Hamas, for example,
whose organization has been represented in both the Washington Post and the New
York Times. Basically, both the Washington Post and the New York Times
apparently view Hamas as a nationalist organization, rather than as the U.S.
Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that Hamas is. Therefore, since in
their view, Hamas is a legitimate nationalist organization, such major media
feel no compunction in providing Hamas propaganda as editorials. The free press
should not serve as an apologist or as a platform for anti-freedom ideologies.
However, since there is no agreed upon U.S. policy on either Jihad or Islamism,
such media decide to treat Hamas as a legitimate nationalist organization,
despite the well-documented anti-freedom Islamist ideology that Hamas
represents.
The recent Holy Land Foundation mistrial also demonstrates this widespread
acceptance of Islamist organizations such as Hamas as "nationalist" underdogs.
As the Dallas Morning News reported, juror William Neal "had difficulty calling
Hamas a terrorist group." He is quoted as saying: "Part of it does terrorist
acts, but it's a political movement. It's an uprising...I believe they were
benefiting the Palestinians and others who needed charity." When the ideology of
Islamism is not debated, when Islamism is tolerated as a nationalist means to an
end, and when there is no US policy on Islamism, this type of denial that
defends such Islamist anti-freedom organizations as Hamas will be the result.
The nationalist argument to silence debate on Islamism is misleading. As Dr.
Walid Phares points out in his book "The War of Ideas": "Islamists may well
operate in the midst of a specific nationality (Arab, Turkish, Asian) and in the
context of a particular country (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia), but their aim
is for the whole umma, which theoretically would include all 52 Muslim states."
Moreover, Dr. Phares states that "many in the West confused the jihadi movement
and its overarching Islamist current with a reaction on behalf of 'underdogs' -
victims of colonialism, neocolonialism, and underdevelopment. The same misguided
application to jihadis of the rationale of economic factors was also committed
with regard to national identities."
Addressing Islamism and Defending Muslims' Freedoms
America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, which it continues
to prize as one of its top freedoms. Addressing an anti-freedom political
ideology like Islamism is only an issue regarding freedom of religion to the
extent that America continues to defend the freedoms of non-Islamist Muslims to
practice their religion as they choose without intimidation, threats, and
violence from anti-freedom Islamist organizations.
Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser has the right to freely practice his religion in the
United States without threats and harassment by Islamist organizations... as do
all other American Muslims. The idea that organizations that support Islamist
ideologies represent all Muslims is no doubt an insult to Muslims like Dr.
Jasser. The idea that America can not take a stand on anti-freedom political
ideologies for fear of "offending Muslims" is indeed offensive to America as a
free nation that defends such freedom of religion.
Still there are Islamist propagandists who try to leverage American's great
respect for freedom of religion as a mean to silence criticism of their
anti-freedom ideology. In the October 24 issue of Middle East Times, Ohio
pro-Islamist Abukar Arman writes a propaganda editorial claiming that Steven
Emerson and other anti-Jihadists are "Islamophobes", and calling Steven Emerson
and others as "Grand Wizards". This type of propaganda claiming that those who
challenge Jihad and Islamist organizations are "Islamophobes" are not restricted
to such propagandists. The Washington Post published similar comments regarding
The Investigative Project on September 29, as a result of IPT's investigation of
Esam Omeish.
But the fact remains that those fighting Jihad and those challenging
anti-freedom ideologies like Islamism are not anti-Muslim. They simply seek to
defend the United States and to defend the freedoms that we hold dear,
especially freedom of religion, that Islamism denies. It is vital that Americans
not fall into the propaganda trap from Islamists and Islamist apologists that
support an anti-freedom agenda. In a piece of irony in Abukar Arman's propaganda
editorial, he quotes Aldous Huxley in a 1936 speech where Huxley complains of
labeling individuals who support ideologies as "fascist" or "communist", which
are merely "principles" in Huxley's speech. History would soon prove the fallacy
of the world's delays in facing such anti-freedom ideologies, as it will again
on the issue of Islamism today.
In a free world, principles matter. And in a free world, facing up to
anti-freedom ideologies proves the courage of our convictions. The question
remains, will Americans have the courage of their convictions to face up to the
ideology of Islamism?
Failing to address the ideology of Islamism, its anti-democratic thrust, its
rejection of freedom of religion, its rejection of pluralism, its rejection of
democratic values will only lead to an ever spiraling vortex of conflict with
Islamist organizations and nations, regardless of our tactical operations.
Sources and Related Stories:
October 15, 2007 - The Dangerous Denial of Jihad's Threat - Jeffrey Imm,
Counterterrorism Blog
Documentary "Islam Versus Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center"
Wikipedia Topic: Islamism
9/11 Commission Report Footnote on "Islamism"
October 22, 2007 - "Bin Laden Sounds the Call of Defeat in Iraq (updated 10/23
with transcript)" - Andrew Cochran, Counterterrorism Blog
October 16, 2007 - Reuters: Shi'ite tribal leaders in Iraq say Islamism on rise
October 15, 2007 - Guardian: UK backs plan to split Taliban from within
October 12, 2007 - AFP: Taliban leader Mullah Omar boasts Kabul forced to
bargain with insurgency
October 2, 2007 - AFP: US backs Karzai's offer to talk to Taliban
October 2, 2007 - Afghanistan's Taliban: US Tactics - Defeat or Negotiate? -
Jeffrey Imm, Counterterrorism Blog
March 30, 2006 - Gulf News: Asylum-seeking convert must not escape: MPs
October 25, 2007 - Daily Telegraph: Afghanistan is lost, says UK's Lord Ashdown
Wikipedia: Blasphemy law in Pakistan
September 12, 2007 - CNN: Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan
Pakistan Poll Results
April 17, 2007 - Pakistan: Seven Christians arrested in false blasphemy cases
and men tortured to extract false confessions
October 26, 2007 - The Asia Times: Pakistan's nut that won't crack
August 13, 2007 - Pakistan President Seeks Mainstream Taliban - Jeffrey Imm,
Counterterrorism Blog
October 21, 2007 - Newsweek: Pakistan: Where the Jihad Lives Now
Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia
October 19, 2007 - The Gulf Times: Blair accuses Iran of backing terrorism
October 11, 2007 - Iran police warn 122,000 over unIslamic dress
September 14, 2007 - Report: Muslim Brotherhood U.S. Front Groups a Threat -
Jeffrey Imm, Counterterrorism Blog
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, CR NO. 3:04-CR-240-G,
Attachment A - List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers
Evidence submitted in the Dallas federal courtroom shows that ISNA was
established in 1980 by American members of the Muslim Brotherhood
July 18, 2007 -- Family Security Matters: Preventing the West from Understanding
Jihad -- Walid Phares
The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy by Walid Phares, February 20, 2007,
pages 18, 191
October 25, 2007 - AP: US levies harsh sanctions against Iran
September 8, 2007 - London Times: Our followers "must live in peace until strong
enough to wage jihad"
October 24, 2007 - Middle East Times: Commentary: On propaganda and Islamophobia
in the US -- Abukar Arman
September 29, 2007 - Washington Post - Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging
Violence
September 27, 2007 - AMEInfo: DIFC and The Wall Street Journal launch Islamic
and Ethical Finance Conference
"Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism?" - The Center for Security Policy,
October 2007, No. 29, by Alex Alexiev
October 2, 2007 - AKI: Terrorism: 'War on terror' not a global fight says expert
Olivier Roy: "The Failure of Political Islam"
October 30, 2006 - "Islamism's failure, Islamists' future" - Olivier Roy,
openDemocracy
June 22, 2007 - Reuters: Hamas scores publicity coup in U.S.
June 20, 2007 - Washington Post: Engage With Hamas - We Earned Our Support -
Ahmed Yousef
June 20, 2007 - New York Times: What Hamas Wants - Ahmed Yousef
April 30, 2007 - U.S. State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization Listing
September 4, 2007 - AP: Hamas bans public prayer in Gaza
October 23, 2007 - Dallas Morning News: 'There was not enough evidence'
September 17, 2007 - 9/11 and the Inconvenient Truths about Jihad and Islamism -
Jeffrey Imm
August 13, 2007 - Australian ABC News: Indonesian group rallies for world
Islamic rule
August 7, 2007 - Jyllands-Posten: Islamic group incites war on West
October 10, 2007 - U.S. National Strategy for Homeland Security
October 26, 2007 09:20 AM Print