US and Israel on the Iran war redux

By Zainab Cheema
Martyred Major General Hassan Moqaddam, who was responsible for industrial research to ensure the Revolutionary Guards’ self-sufficiency in armaments, specialized in artillery during the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s before founding the country’s ballistic missile program.


In the face of its collapsing economy and spiraling domestic unrest, the US is blithely proceeding with its blueprint of remaking world cartography. After dispatching Muammar Qaddafi in a hail of gunmetal, US imperialists are confronting the Syrian stumbling block, item No. 2 on its regime change wish-list. With Bashar al-Asad clinging to power after 10 months of counter-revolutionary mayhem, US and Israeli eyes wend once more to the geopolitical foe holding the program of reprogramming the Muslim East at bay — Iran.
The media is humming with the US and Israel’s latest drumbeat for war against Iran. The reverberations measure the pitch of exasperation at Iran’s resistance to Pentagon Inc.’s desire to have open access to Syria. Recently, the US House Foreign Relations Committee passed the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011, which forbids any member of the US government to have any contact “in an official or unofficial capacity” with a member of the Iranian government. While the esteemed Representatives might be impervious to irony, the shade of the Iran Contra Affair of the 1980s lent a certain humorous cast to this little bit of stage comedy. Enjoying 349 co-sponsors from both parties, the bill signaled the die-hard determination of the US Congressmen to love Israel and hate Iran, in full view of the AIPAC lobbyists.


US political observers noted the folly of passing legislation that cuts off contact with the “enemy,” as Iran is fondly dubbed in US political circles. Diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers spelled out their sentiments: “Besides raising serious constitutional issues… this preposterous law would make it illegal for the US to know its enemy.” CIA analyst and Georgetown University professor Paul Pillar pointed out the self-importance behind the gesture, even as he brandished imperialist-chic Raybans dividing the world into a bifocal “us” and “them”: “This legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side.”


Then there is Israel’s threat to nuke Iran’s nuclear facilities, launched in concert with a double Molotov cocktail — a Stuxnet like computer virus attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Mossad bomb blast at an Iranian military base which killed 16 Revolutionary Guards and Hassan Moqaddam, the architect of Iran’s missile defense systems. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak preened visibly after the Moqaddam killing, declaring: “it would be desirable if [such blasts] multiply,” while Iranian students sent a counter-message by forming a human chain around Iran’s nuclear facilities.


US and Israeli saber-rattling comes on the heels of a rather contrived IAEA report, which gravely noted that Iran’s beleaguered nuclear energy program is indeed geared toward building a nuclear weapon. The rhetoric of the IAEA’s missive matched so exquisitely with press releases whipped up by Netan-yahu’s office that one wonders whether the Israeli Prime Minister didn’t write it for the UN agency. The implications of Netanyahu’s influence over the UN and the other bodies of international legitimacy — rather hollowed, as events in the world streets underwrite their irrelevance — are amusing, especially considering the recent conversation about Netanyahu exchanged by his nearest and dearest allies.


At the G-8 economic forum in Cannes on November 2 attended by Sarkozy and Obama, the French President turned to Barack and whispered to him: “I cannot stand him (Netanyahu). He is a liar!” Obama quickly returned: “You are fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!” This exchange occurred shortly after it was leaked that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, told her cabinet: “every word that leaves Netanyahu’s mouth is a lie.” So, by consensus of the triumvirate of Israel’s die-hard friends — Binyamin Netanyahu is a liar.


The exposure over this interesting exchange was more or less brushed aside by the US corporate-owned media. Israel, the convergence of the geostrategic and racial interests in subjugating the Muslim East, remains sacrosanct. Yet, the stress fractures are clear to see. That is, the global political class managing hegemony is not immune to the push-pull forces of resistance and the gravitational drag of its crumbling systems of rule.


According to the story, Netanyahu was exposed after an open microphone gave reporters an ear to the exchange. But it is entirely possible that Netan-yahu was given a pointed reprimand by the allies exasperated by his eagerness to humiliate them rather than put a sophisticated face on his belligerence. His penchant for openly flouting US politicians (Obama in particular), and arrive barreling in on state visits designed to showcase his political invulnerability in the United States led even Tom Friedman of the New York Times to rhetorically slap him on the wrist.


One feels for the once-complacent Friedman — while alarmed by Israel’s fall from grace in world opinion, he has been even more alarmed by the tarnish cast on the US’s reputation by its Faustian contract to underwrite Netanyahu’s actions. Ergo, the chess-game played by Pentagon Inc. is no longer a perpetual checkmate — the board is opening up for new moves, new arrangements of outcomes.


Understandably, this is a rather terrifying prospect for Pentagon Inc. It is rather exhausting to fight a global war against everything ad infinitum — precisely what the US signed on to do with its borderless, endless War on Terror. Even as AFRICOM expands its trophies from Libya, Sudan, and Somalia, Iran’s network of influence across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq threatens the motherlode of Pentagon military bases — Israel itself. Popular resistance in Iraq to continued US presence erodes US expectations that they will be able to “renew” their mandate of occupation at will. Drone aircraft in Iraq are relocated to Turkey. Syria counters (even if just barely) both Pentagon-funded covert militias and State Department campaigns to smear it as violating the human rights of its civilians. Hizbullah remains the flagrant thorn defying efforts to pluck the tantalizing Lebanon.


Not to mention Israel’s strategic defeat in its prisoner swap with Gaza — nearly 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were exchanged for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, which cast an ironic light over Netanyahu’s vehement declarations to never deal with Hamas, while boosting Hamas’ popularity through the region. Zionist networks balked at the humiliation, in response ramping up threats of Israel’s impending attack on Iran. An exemplary newspaper headline for the conservative newspaper Washington Times blared: “Israeli prisoner swap may be prelude to attack on Iran.” That is, even as Israel “keeps a low profile” (hiding in the napalm-scented apron of Pentagon Inc), it subcontracts the Tarzan chest-beating to the US media and UN agencies.


The US is rather in a bind. Seemingly, all roads for this gaudy military parade lead to Iran. For now, Pentagon Inc. is proceeding by covert operations, public relations brawls, and psychological warfare. It is comforting to distract oneself from economic breakdowns, public rage, and Occupy Wall Streets — and generals do love a good war. Iran may be a strategic threat, but some of the responses are downright simplistic (Paul Pillar bewailing the ridiculousness of the US legislation to bar anyone ever speaking to a member of the Iranian government comes to mind). Simplistic thinking is a sign of old age, when one loses the power to form complex thoughts, adapt to change, and make rational decisions. It is as subtle as elevator music — with the march onto the promised glories of Carthage, every boot step creaks out the tune of senescence.

Imam Khamenei's Message to Hajj Pilgrims 2011

The spiritual spring of hajj has arrived with its freshness, purity and God-given grandeur and majesty, gathering again the faithful and eager hearts like butterflies encircling the Ka'bah of Divine Unity and Islamic solidarity.

In the name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful


All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and may blessings and greetings be to the Master of creatures, Muhammad al-Mustafa, and his immaculate Family and his Companions.

The spiritual spring of hajj has arrived with its freshness, purity and God-given grandeur and majesty, gathering again the faithful and eager hearts like butterflies encircling the Ka'bah of Divine Unity and Islamic solidarity.

Camped at Mecca and Mina, Arafat and Mash'ar are the fortunate human beings who, having responded to the call of "proclaim the Hajj to all the people", are being honored with the hospitality of the munificent Lord. Here is the blessed House and the source of guidance from which the manifest signs of divinity radiated, and here is where a canopy of safety is set up.

Wash your hearts in the water of piety, humility and God's remembrance. Open the inner eye to the lights of the Divine signs. Embrace the spirit of submission and dedication, which are the hallmarks of the true servant-hood. Keep on refreshing in your hearts, the memory of that patriarch, who, in willing compliance, led his Ishmael to the scene of sacrifice, thus showing us the real path of attaining the friendship of the Glorious Lord, and the manner of traversing it with a resolve infused with faith, and an intent imbued with sincerity.

The station of Abraham is one among these manifest signs. The footprint of Abraham, Peace Be upon Him, by the side of the Holy Ka'bah, is only a symbol of the station of Abraham. The station of Abraham is his station of dedication and self-sacrifice, his fortitude and resistance to personal desires, and fatherly feelings, as well as against the domination of unfaithfulness, polytheism, and Nimrod, the tyrant of the time.

Today these two paths of deliverance lie open before each of us individuals belonging to the Muslim Ummah. Determination, courage and firmness of resolve on part each one of us, can advance us towards the same goals to which mankind has been invited by the Divine envoys, from Adam to Muhammad, with the promise of dignity and felicity in the world and the Hereafter, for those who take this path.

It will be worthy of the Hajj pilgrims at this great assembly of the Islamic Ummah to address the most important issues of the Islamic world. The uprisings and revolutions in some Islamic countries are at the head of these issues. The events that have taken place in the Islamic world in the interval between the previous and the present Hajj pilgrimages can change the destiny of the Islamic Ummah; these events speak of a bright future accompanied with dignity and progress, both material and spiritual. Dictators and 'corrupt' regimes, allied with foreign powers, have been overthrown in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and the stormy waves of popular uprisings in some other countries threaten to bring down the castles of wealth and power.

This new chapter in the history of our Ummah reveals certain truths, which are all manifest signs of divinity, and give us vital lessons. These truths should be taken into account by Muslim nations in all their calculations.

First, a young generation has emerged from the heart of these nations, after decades of political subjugation to foreign powers; with its admirable self-confidence, it is ready to face dangers, confront dominant powers, and is determined to change the status-quo.

Second, despite the authority and efforts of secular rulers and their overt and covert measures to curtail the influence of religion in these countries, Islam, with its conspicuous and impressive presence, has become the guiding principle of popular expression and sentiment. Like a fountainhead, it has given vitality and freshness to the rallies and activities of the millions. The mosques and minarets, Islamic slogans and calls of Allahu Akbar, are all clear indications of this fact, and the recent Tunisian elections provide clear evidence for this claim. Without doubt, free elections in any Islamic country will result in nothing but what happened in Tunisia.

Moreover, as revealed for all by this year's events, God Almighty has placed such a force in the resolve and determination of nations, that no power whatsoever, can withstand it. With this God-given power, nations can change their destiny and taste God's help.

During the last decades, arrogant powers, led by the United States, had reduced regional states to a state of subjugation through their political and security ploys. They thought they had opened an obstacle-free highway for their rising economic, cultural and political domination over this sensitive part of the world. But now, they are the primary target of disgust and hatred of the region's nations. To be certain, the governments and powers emerging from these revolutions, will never submit to the disgraceful inequalities of the past; the political geography of the region will be drawn by these nations, which will hopefully result in their dignity and complete independence.

The crafty nature of the hypocritical Western powers has become all too clear for the people of these countries. The US and Europe made their utmost efforts to retain their pawns in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, each of them in a particular way. But when they were forced to give in to the resolve of the nations, they cast a wily and cunning smile at the triumphant public.

There are further precious facts and manifest Divine signs embedded in the regional events of the past year, which are not hard to discern for reflective minds.

Nevertheless, the entire Islamic Ummah and especially the revolutionary nations stand in need of two basic elements:

First, the continuity of their stance and avoidance of slackness in their resolve. In the Holy Qur'an, God almighty addresses Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him). He says: "Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded, [you] and whoever has turned [to God] with you; and do not overstep the bounds (11:112)" and elsewhere He tells the Prophet: "Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded (42:15)." Prophet Moses, Peace Be upon Him, is quoted as telling his people: "Turn to God for help and be patient. The earth indeed belongs to God, and He gives its inheritance to whomever He wishes of His servants, and the outcome will be in favor of the God-fearing. (7:128)"

At the present, the most significant aspect of God-fearing for these rising nations is not to stop in their auspicious movement, and not to be complacent. This is the most important part of being pious; whoever is pious, is rewarded with a "favorable outcome."

Second, vigilance against the plots and gimmicks of arrogant international powers, who have suffered a setback from these uprisings and revolutions. They will not stand idle. They will reenter the arena with all their political, financial and security ploys to reestablish their influence in these countries. Their policies are the carrot and stick, and deceit. Experience has shown there are some among the elite who are susceptible to these gimmicks. Fear, greed or negligence prompt them to serve the enemy. The vigilant eyes of the youth, intellectuals and religious scholars, should be watchful.

The biggest danger that threatens unfaithful and arrogant powers is the intervention and influence of the new political systems in these countries, they will do their utmost to see that these new systems do not take on an Islamic and democratic identity. All concerned people in these countries and all those who cherish their homeland's honor, dignity and progress, should work hard to ensure the establishment of a complete and perfect Islamic and democratic character. In this regard, the role of the constitutions will be prominent.
National unity and official recognition of sectarian, tribal and ethic differences, are a precondition of future success.

The brave revolutionary nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as well as other nations, should know that the only way they can free themselves from the oppression and guile of the United States and other Western powers is the establishment of a balanced global power conducive to their interests. Muslims should take themselves to a level that is equal to where world powers currently stand in order to solve their differences and problems with these world powers. This cannot be achieved except with the cooperation, understanding and solidarity of Islamic countries. This was an unforgettable advice of the great Imam Khomeini.

For months on, the United States and NATO dropped bombs on Libyan people, making Gaddafi, a vicious dictator, an excuse. Gaddafi was someone who was considered their close friend prior to the uprising of the Libyan people. They used to coddle him, steal the wealth of Libya through his hands, and press or kiss his hand in order to dupe him. Following the people's uprising they made him an excuse to destroy the entire infrastructure of Libya. Which state could stop the tragic massacre of the Libyan people and destruction of the country at the hands of NATO? Until the claws and fangs of the bloodthirsty and barbaric Western powers are not broken such dangers will remain conceivable for Islamic countries. Their safety from such dangers is not possible except by transforming the Islamic world into a powerful pole.

Today, the West, the United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before. Economic troubles, successive failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, deep-running public outrage in America and other Western countries, with its daily widening scope, the struggles and sacrifices of the people of Palestine and Lebanon, the daring popular uprisings in Yemen, Bahrain and some other countries under the influence of the US - all these are a good omen for the Islamic Ummah especially for revolutionary nations. Faithful men and women throughout the Islamic world particularly in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, should make the most of this opportunity for the formation of an international Islamic power-block. The vanguard and the elite of the uprisings should place their trust in Almighty God, and with reliance on his promise of help adorn the new chapter in the history of the Islamic Ummah, with their lasting achievements; thus, earning God's approval and fulfilling the prerequisites of His help.

May Peace Be upon God's righteous servants!

Seyyed Ali Hossaini Khamenei

29 Dhul Qa'adah, 1432
5 Aban, 1390
27 October, 2011

Has the Arab Spring wilted before its blossom?

Zafar Bangash

Expectations for rapid change in the Muslim East have not materialized despite two long-entrenched dictators in Tunisia and Egypt respectively being driven from power in quick succession. What has prevented change in places like Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria, that the people in Tunisia and Egypt were able to achieve in short order? Are conditions in these societies so different than in Tunisian and Egypt to frustrate change? Let us be clear: there are few representative governments anywhere in the Middle East. The two examples in the region are those of Turkey and Islamic Iran. The other wall-to-wall Middle Eastern dictatorships have managed to fight off challenge to their rule, which General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were unable to do.

At the outset we must acknowledge the undoubted courage of the people participating in the uprisings. They managed to shed their fear of the dreaded security forces. Fear has been a powerful instrument in the hands of all oppressors throughout the ages. There is also no doubt that the ubiquitous security and intelligence forces have acted with absolute ruthlessness to crush any attempt at dissent. But this was also the case in Tunisia and Egypt. Thus, in order to understand fully what is afoot we need to look a little deeper. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, the militaries refused to obey the dictators’ orders to open fire on unarmed civilians. When the police forces failed to quell the protests, the dictators were forced to flee. The credit for all the uprisings belongs to the people of Tunisia who were the first to take a stand. Their example has been emulated by people elsewhere.

We must also recognize that the conditions in each society are not identical. Further, there is external interference both in support of the dictators as well as against them. Again, this represents a curious paradox. For instance, in the case of Libya and Syria, external powers are actively backing the people’s movements. In Libya, the West led by Britain, France, Italy and the US, has gotten involved directly. They have now overstepped their original dubious mandate given by the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to prevent the Libyan government from attacking the rebels from the air. The Libyan government immediately declared a ceasefire and offered to negotiate with the rebels but the West was not interested. Since the March 17 no-fly resolution, Western planes have bombed Libyan ground formations, their equipment, oil installations and even residential areas. At the end of April, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s house was attacked killing his youngest son and three grandchildren. How does this advance enforcement of the no-fly zone? This was an act of cold-blooded murder perpetrated by Western forces. NATO attacks on residential areas have continued unabated as reported in this edition of the Crescent International. While Western forces have not intervened in the same manner in Syria, there is active support for the rebels there and money and guns are being supplied by the Saudis, Lebanese and Israelis.

The West’s policy toward Libya and Syria stands in sharp contrast to its behaviour in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In all three cases, the West has not only maintained a studied silence but has actually supported suppression of peaceful protesters. This is most shocking in the case of Bahrain where peaceful protesters including women and children have been attacked and killed. Even medical personnel have not been spared because they treated those that had been injured during the protests. Entire neighbourhoods have been placed under curfew while armed thugs of the regime have gone about arresting and dragging youth from their homes as well as vandalising their properties and cars. Even masjids have been destroyed and copies of the Qur’an desecrated. Women have been raped. Such crimes have evoked little reaction from the West or its human rights organizations that are quick to denounce those they do not like. Why the double standards?

Saudi Arabia managed to both crush the meek attempts at uprising as well as bribe others into silence. The Saudi regime has also used its court ‘ulama’ to issue “fatwas” to declare uprisings against the ruler as “haram”. One is forced to ask: what ayat of the Qur’an or what hadith of the noble Messenger (pbuh) support such contention? If per chance, this is true, then why has the Saudi regime joined in the assault on Qaddafi’s regime and why is it supporting the uprising in Syria?

So we see that there is more at work than meets the eye. Many of these dictators quickly re-adjusted their policies once they had overcome the shock of the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak. In fact, it is known that Saudi king Abdullah was upset with US President Barack Obama for allowing the overthrow of Mubarak who was a major lynchpin of the US-crafted order in the region. After Mubarak’s removal, the new dispensation in Egypt announced on May 26 that the Rafah crossing with Ghazzah would be opened so that the long-besieged and oppressed Palestinians can get much needed supplies of food, medicine and cement and steel to rebuild their homes.

It is clear that rulers like Qaddafi, the two Abdullahs and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen will fight back to retain power. Saleh also has the support of the Americans because he is seen as a bulwark against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Whether there is any substance to this claim is open to debate but Saleh has convinced the Americans that he is their man to fight the al-Qaeda “menace”. Thus, while the regimes are fighting back, the West’s hypocrisy stands exposed as does the brutal nature of these regimes. Finally, the lack of leadership of all these movements is a major cause for concern. They can and are being manipulated. That is why Islam lays so much emphasis on leadership.

While one must extend every support to the people’s movements in these countries, it must be admitted that change will not come about easily or without huge cost. The dictators are fighting back and will show no respect for people’s rights or lives. They never have in the past; why should they behave differently now that they are fighting for their lives?

Libya and Bahrain: contrasting Western attitudes

Zafar Bangash

The West’s hypocrisy stands exposed yet again in the contrasting policies toward uprisings in Libya and Bahrain. The US and allies Britain and France pressed the UN Security Council on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone on Libya. In Bahrain, on the other hand, 2,000 troops, mainly Saudis from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), were rushed in on March 13 where they promptly perpetrated a bloodbath against unarmed peaceful civilians. The Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati troops also invaded hospitals dragging the wounded from their beds and throwing them in the streets. Doctors were also beaten up. Despite such barbarism by Western-backed Middle Eastern tyrannies, the US and its allies remain unmoved. The lives of Bahrainis are clearly unimportant compared to their vested interests. The people of Bahrain are asking for the same rights as people elsewhere in the Middle East: dignity, freedom and fair elections.

In Libya’s case, the West’s wrath has been directed at Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. True, Qaddafi is neither a democrat nor loved by his people but the manner in which he has been targeted while ignoring the brutality unleashed by Saudi and Bahraini troops on unarmed civilians in Bahrain clearly exposes Western hypocrisy. Is Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain or Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia any less brutal or corrupt than Qaddafi?

Immediately after the Security Council vote, US President Barack Obama started issuing threats: Qaddafi must immediately comply; he must stop all attacks against civilians and he must withdraw his troops from areas recaptured from the rebels. Obama also borrowed language from his notorious predecessor George Bush: “these demands are not negotiable.” Obama, the president for change, has now surpassed even Bush in resorting to raw force despite US woes in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have bankrupted the US economy.

Numerous targets were hit in the first cruise missile strikes on Libyan cities on March 19. The date coincides with the Western crusade launched against Iraq in 2003 resulting in 1.5 million deaths. Neither Obama nor his British and French counterparts are likely to lose any sleep over the killing of Arabs; they have honed their murderous skills over hundreds of years. The latest assault on Libya is merely a continuation of the colonial enterprise launched behind the veneer of a Security Council resolution. The crucial question is: what right do Western rulers have to decide who should rule in Libya or anywhere else?

There is mounting evidence that the Saudi invasion of Bahrain was part of a larger plan involving both Raymond Davis, the CIA undercover agent who murdered two Pakistanis at point blank range in Lahore, Pakistan on January 27, as well as an attempt to prevent their own shaky hold on power in Riyadh. The Saudis were permitted to invade and occupy another country in exchange for securing the release of Davis. The murders became a bone of contention between an irate Pakistani public already seething under US drone attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people, and the US whose CIA operative shot dead two Pakistanis in broad daylight in a busy street in Lahore. The Saudis arranged for blood money to be paid to relatives of the deceased in exchange for Davis’s release. The much-maligned Shari‘ah law was invoked to get Davis off the hook. So, Shari‘ah is OK if it facilitates the release of an American murderer but not OK if Muslims want to apply it in their lives?

The other point is also significant. The Saudis do not want disturbances spreading to the kingdom, at least not in any significant way. There were demonstrations in al-Qatif on March 10 and in Riyadh and Jeddah on March 11 but these were ruthlessly suppressed. The Saudis would rather fight their battle for survival in the streets of Manama than shooting Saudis in the streets of Riyadh or Jeddah. The Saudis view any challenge to the status quo in the region as a threat to their hold on power. Any change is also seen as benefitting Islamic Iran whose growing influence the Saudis fear.

The uprising in Bahrain and now gathering momentum in Yemen sends shivers down the Saudis’ collective spine. They fear their grip on power becoming loose. But it is Bahrain that worries the Saudis the most. The tiny Gulf state has a Shi‘i majority ruled by the oppressive Khalifa family that is closely linked with the Americans whose naval Fifth Fleet prowls the Persian Gulf from there. This explains why the Americans have been so lukewarm in supporting the struggle of the Bahraini people.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Closer look at the uprisings in the Islamic East

By Zafar Bangash

Since the first stirrings of revolt erupted in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, the entire Islamic East has been engulfed in civil uprisings. Two tyrants — General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and General Hosni Mubarak — have been swept from power. Other dictators are feeling the heat to varying degrees. The uprisings have been described variously as “pro-democracy movements”, the “Arab Awakening” or even “revolution”. Absent from all these is mention of any Islamic movement. In the West this is greeted with much relief. While Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of Islamic East’s population, the West does not want Islam to have anything to do with shaping the socio-political order in these societies. Similarly, Islamic parties — al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon, al-Nahdah and others — are either banned or seldom mentioned as having played any role in the uprisings. This, however, is only one dimension of the problem.

The more important question is whether these uprisings can be characterized as revolutions. At one level, perhaps they could be, insofar as new methods of protest, such as twitter and facebook, are being utilized for mass mobilization. Additionally, in almost all countries, the youth are in the vanguard. This, too, is a new phenomenon but it would be simplistic to get carried away with this. The youth can and have offered great impetus to movements in all countries; they usually do but in the current uprisings, they are not following any particular leader or ideology. At one level this may be considered a blessing since an identifiable leader can be arrested and the movement dealt a blow but one should not fall for romanticism. In the real world, there are certain requirements that must be in place for a movement to succeed. It is not enough to get rid of a tyrant or be content with a change of faces. What follows next is equally, if not more important. Thus we need to have a better understanding of certain basic rules.

First, let us be clear about the phenomenon of revolution. While the word revolution has great romantic appeal, the minimum requirement for any movement to be called revolutionary is that it overthrows the existing order and replaces it with a new, radically different one. This has not happened either in Tunisia or Egypt where old-time dictators have been removed from power but the old order is still in place and does not appear to be in any danger of collapse. The Egyptian military, an important pillar of the old regime, is fully in control. The newly appointed foreign minister, Nabil al-Araby, endorsed the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain in order to crush the people’s uprising there. The state of emergency remains in place; the border with Gaza remains sealed and even the old pharaoh, Hosni Mubarak, who presided over decades of torture, is living comfortably in his opulent villa in Sharm al-Shaikh. So what has changed in Egypt?

The same is true of other countries — Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — where uprisings are underway. With the exception of Bahrain and Jordan, there are no identifiable leaders or movements leading these protests. In Bahrain, the movement is led by the ‘ulama while in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) is in the lead but its demands are modest. The IAF has not demanded abolition of the monarchy; it is only calling for resignation of the prime minister and curtailment of some of the king’s vast powers. These can hardly qualify as revolutionary demands much less leading to any revolutionary change.

Muslims must understand that the systems in their societies are constructs imposed by colonial occupiers. These are not designed to serve the interests of the people. The ruling elites in every Muslim society barring Islamic Iran are all subservient to the West. Unless Muslims strive to dismantle these systems completely as happened in Iran in 1979, their desire for change will not be realized. For change to occur, certain conditions must be met. There must be an Islamic movement led by charismatic muttaqi leadership that will give a directional course to the movement. All energies of the people must be channeled toward the goal of not only overthrowing the old order but also replacing it with an Islamic order. Such a movement can have no parochial, tribal or national interests. Further, the movement and leadership must not be dependent on any outside powers, such as the US, Britain, France etc. In Egypt, for instance, the new regime is still pursuing old policies and the movement that forced the removal of Mubarak is too consumed by internal, purely nationalistic issues to worry about the plight of the Palestinians. This nationalistic trend is worrying. Similarly, the rebels in Libya want the West to help them against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Since when has the West supported people’s yearning for freedom and fundamental rights? If Qaddafi is overthrown, the Libyan people may find themselves entering a period of direct colonialism once again.

While one must applaud the courage and dedication of the youth and other segments of society in the Islamic East for rising up against their tyrannical rulers, there is still a long way to go before they will taste true freedom. This will not come about by espousing nationalistic slogans or accepting servitude to the West, regardless of how much they may hate their present rulers. The ruling oligarchies in the West are not their friends; they are nobody’s friends, not even their own people whom they oppress and exploit. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.

Muslims struggling for dignity and freedom must have a much clearer understanding of the reality both in their own societies and of the global setup if they are to achieve success in their undoubtedly genuine struggles. Nothing comes easy. This is what we learn from the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Muslims should not harbor any illusions about the price that freedom demands.

A new Western crusade: this time against Libya

By Zafar Bangash

The West’s attack on Libya is yet another crusade launched against a Muslim country on the pretext of protecting its people. Pope Urban II would be pleased to learn that his disciples are still marching on as good “Christian soldiers” against another group of “heathens” in the Muslim world nearly a thousand years after his sermon on Mount Clermont. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi does not have to be our favourite tyrant but like Saddam Husain of Iraq, he has enjoyed Western support for decades. Western multinationals salivate at the prospect of consuming his sweet crude. Now they can have their belly full.

Interestingly, too, the UN Security Council was pressed into service to pass a resolution (#1973), imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya on March 17, ostensibly to “protect” the Libyan people. Twenty years ago, a similar no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq but without even the formality of going through the motion of a Security Council resolution. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions and the Western-imposed no fly zone. On May 12, 1996, when Leslie Stahl of CBS 60 Minutes program asked Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, whether the death of 560,000 children was worth the price for ousting Saddam from power, the latter, without hesitation, said it was! Would it be any different in Libya?

Let us look at the lineup of countries attacking Libya: the US, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Italy repudiated its friendship treaty with Libya and US President Barack Obama said Qaddafi had lost his legitimacy. Did Qaddafi ever have legitimacy; if yes, when and how did he lose it? If not, why were the same Western powers eager to deal with him before the recent troubles? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had visited Qaddafi in his tent in March 2004. The Libyan dictator also received former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008. Qaddafi famously referred to her as “that black woman.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi both hosted Qaddafi in their capitals a few months before the uprisings started in the Middle East. So what has changed to make Qaddafi the bad boy of the Middle East again so quickly?

True, like Saddam, Qaddafi has had a rocky relationship with the West. From being the West’s darling to mad dog and then back into their good books, he has been through many ups and downs. Qaddafi’s current pariah status has nothing to do with the West’s argument of “humanitarian intervention” to save Libyan lives. Since when have Western rulers become concerned about the plight of Libyans or Muslims? If they do not care for the lives of their own friends — look at how the children of poor families are being sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq — why should they care about Libyans?

We need to understand what is afoot in Libya. Despite claims to the contrary, Western troops are already operating on the ground in Libya under the cover of “protecting” Western diplomats but actually providing training to the rebels. Even with the deeply flawed no-fly resolution that does not authorize attacks on Libyan ground forces or armored columns such as tanks, that is precisely what Western bombers are doing. This is creeping occupation of Libya as the world’s attention is diverted to the nuclear disaster in Japan. What might be the reason for the latest Western crusade?

Libyan oil, much coveted by the West because of its low sulphur content, has already been mentioned. Similarly, the US has frozen about $32 billion in Libyan assets under Executive Order 13566. Libya’s frozen assets represent a significant portion of its wealth, according to the Washington Post (March 23, 2011). “In 2009, Libya had a gross domestic product of $62 billion; its sovereign wealth fund is estimated at $40 billion and its central bank reserves at $110 billion. The European Union has added the central bank, the wealth fund and three other Libyan institutions to its sanctions — two weeks after the US action [of February 25],” according to the Post. Britain, not to be left behind, has seized more than $19 billion in Libyan assets.” The looting of Libya has begun in earnest by thieves that have honed their robbing skills over centuries.

Neither Qaddafi nor a successor regime — whatever its shape or color — will ever see this money again. Americans have a habit of stealing others’ wealth, whether by freezing their assets or robbing them through direct invasion and occupation. The US froze $40 billion of Iranian assets in 1980 and barring a few million the rest have been usurped. The Saudis have invested more than one trillion dollars in the US economy. They, too, are not likely to see any of this, especially given the precarious state of the US economy.

But the West’s crusade has another, more sinister purpose. Libya will serve as a beach-head for Western penetration into sub-Saharan Africa that is rich in minerals. Chad, Niger and Sudan have vast mineral deposits that the West covets. This also fits into the election of Obama as president of the United States in 2008. With a black man in the white house, the people of Africa as well as African Americans at home would not be too concerned if the US were to attack and occupy parts of Africa. After all, nobody would accuse Obama of racism. The American establishment has had it all neatly figured out.

A hint to the permanence of Western military intervention was given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates when he said there was no definite answer about the duration of the Libyan campaign. But he did reveal what was afoot. “Let’s just call a spade a spade,” he said in what a no-fly zone over Libya would entail. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” A closer look at what Gates said reveals that there is no end in sight. Let us also recall the statement of Dick Cheney, former US vice president about the “war on terror”. He said it may last 50 to 100 years. We can now begin to get a glimpse into the thinking of Western policy-makers.

Wars necessarily create humanitarian crises. There are already nearly 100,000 refugees trying to flee Libya. These include Egyptians, Tunisians, Algerians and citizens of sub-Saharan African countries as well as poor Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. The West would use their plight as a pretext to send in “humanitarian” aid and workers. Then their “protection” would be used as a pretext for sending in large numbers of ground troops. Libya would once again be colonized directly.

We can see also that while the no-fly zone resolution was authorized by the UN Security Council, the military operations have been taken over by France and Britain and placed under NATO command. Thus, NATO powers have, once again, set themselves up as “authoritative judges of the world common good.”

Libyans clamoring for Western support to help them topple Qaddafi will rue that day when they wake up. Foreign intervention has never brought liberation to any people. Horace Campbell, Professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University and currently working on a book on AFRICOM has said: “US involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM (US Africa Command). AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. It has 1,500 people operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. If Libya is indeed partitioned, that new state could provide a base for AFRICOM.”

Libyans must wake up before they end up in even worse shape than they are under Qaddafi, however bad he may be. There are better ways to seek liberation than foreign help. It always comes with long strings attached and ends up enslaving rather than freeing people.

Uprisings for dignity sweep the Islamic East

Zafar Bangash

The unthinkable has happened in Egypt. The masses have consigned Hosni Mubaak, the most brutal Middle Eastern despot, to the dustbin of history. This became possible only because people shook off the fear that had paralysed them for 30 years. They have also crossed another important landmark: they refused to be provoked by the thugs unleashed by the regime. This would have provided the regime the pretext to unleash its massive firepower and crush the uprising as happened in Algeria 20 years earlier.

Protests have now spread to other parts of the Middle East with people rising up against long-time rulers in Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya, Algeria, Djibouti and Morocco. The response of the regimes has been equally brutal but people have not been cowed down. If earlier, people kept their heads down and their voices low against state brutality, now they are standing firm and defying the regimes’ shock troops.

Sometimes, seemingly insignificant events can assume global proportions. It was the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, an unemployed university graduate (not the first in Tunisia) that sparked the uprising forcing the Tunisian dictator general Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali to flee on January 14. According to reports, Ben Ali has since suffered a stroke in exile in Jeddah and is in a coma. If true, he deserves the fate but it would have been better if he were put on trial, something he denied tens of thousands of people during his brutal rule, and face the consequences for his crimes.


The uprising in Tunisia encouraged the Egyptians also to rise up, with protests quickly spreading to other countries as well. This in turn has caused immense panic in the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia where the ailing old monarch, King Abdullah seems to have lost nerve completely. He is also upset with US President Barack Obama for “abandoning” Mubarak. Abdullah now feels the heat of the desert spreading.

But it is the change in Egypt that has great significance because the country is a leading player in the Islamic East. While influenced by the example of the intrepid Tunisians that surprised everyone, there was an Egyptian element as well involved. Last June, the Egyptian police beat to death Khalid Sa‘id, a 27-year-old internet buff. His crime? He had obtained a video of the police smoking dope that he wanted to post on the internet. He never lived to do so. There were sporadic protests against the killing but the spark was provided when Wael Ghoneim, a young Google executive opened a Facebook account in the name of Khalid Sa‘id, saying “We are all Khalid Sa‘ids”. This mobilized the Egyptian people who felt they had enough of tyranny and would not put up with any more humiliation.

Western commentators have tried to spin the uprisings in terms of people hankering for bread, lower food prices and jobs. While there is some truth to such assertions, what they have deliberately ignored is that the people’s uprising was and is for dignity and honour. They refuse to put up with the humiliations they have been subjected to for decades by their cowardly rulers that are completely subservient to the Zionists and the Americans. The people have said and continue to proclaim loudly that they are fed up with corruption, cowardice and the craven attitude of their rulers.

The rulers’ cowardice and treachery can be gleaned from the following episode. Even as Mubarak was teetering on the brink, he signed an executive order on February 8 prohibiting entry of Palestinians from Ghazzah even if they had valid visas. Similarly, hundreds of Palestinians were stranded at Cairo airport and other locations in Egypt unable to return to Ghazzah. The border was opened — but only one way into Ghazzah — on February 20 to allow the Palestinians to return home. The military regime has refused to lift the Zionist-imposed illegal siege of Ghazzah despite the Egyptian people wanting such restrictions ended. They must continue the struggle not only to demolish all pillars of the old regime completely but also break the siege of Ghazzah and reject the unjust peace imposed on them by the Americans and the Zionists if they are to achieve true dignity.

It must also be emphasized that simply getting rid of despotic rulers will not solve the problems afflicting the region, or indeed the Muslim world. There are systemic problems plaguing Muslim societies. The exploitative systems from the ground up must be uprooted, Iran-style, if people are to achieve true independence. Change will not come about at the hands of the militaries. They are instruments of oppression working to advance the US-Zionist agenda. The officer class in virtually every Muslim country — trained in the West and beholden to it, especially the Americans — is the bastion of nifaq in the local establisment. Unless the militaries are purged of the westoxicated officer class, no meaningful change can occur in the Muslim world.

Some rulers may have been driven from office, others may be running scared because their fragile state structures stand exposed but the struggle for dignity and honour is far from over. There is also the real danger that their struggles will be hijacked by vested interests — as has happened in Tunisia where the trade unions have joined the regime and betrayed the masses — and people may be left out in the cold. It will depend on the sagacity and wisdom of these leaderless movements to stay in the field until they achieve total victory. That will not come about as long as the old state structures are intact regardless of the soothing words uttered by the ruling elite and the military to respect the wishes of the people.

If the people fail to heed this elementary lesson, they would find themselves in the same sorry state that the people of Pakistan are in today after 60 years of broken promises. The struggle and the sacrifices would then all be in vain.

Saudis panic amid unrest in the Islamic East

Zafar Bangash, Reflections

Nowhere is there more concern — and panic — about the rapidly escalating protests in North Africa and the Islamic East than inside the marbled, air-conditioned palaces of Saudi Arabia. While the House of Saud faces no imminent threat like despots in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen or Bahrain, the fear in Riyadh is genuine. The Saudis know their rule is illegitimate. It was the British that installed them in power by carving out a kingdom from the ruins of the Ottoman Khilafah to serve British colonial interests. Now the Americans are protecting them because the Saudis continue to pump oil to satiate the Americans’ addiction to black gold. But America has lost its clout on the global stage, thanks to its wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US and its Arabian lickspittle can no longer dictate to the world.

The Saudis’ real concern is not only America’s loss of clout; their worry is that Uncle Sam ditched a long-time trusted ally Hosni Mubarak so casually. The Saudis may be cowards but they are not fools. They understand what is afoot. If the Americans can discard Mubarak whose regime was a major bulwark against the rising tide of Islam and loyal ally of the Zionist State of Israel, what chance do the pleasure-loving Saudis have if protests erupt in the kingdom? The Americans might abandon them just as quickly, oil or no oil. Further, the Saudis now feel alone in standing against the emerging power of Islam.

While there is little prospect of a Tunisian, Egyptian or Libyan style uprising in Saudi Arabia — most Saudis are bone lazy — it is the possibility of a palace intrigue that the Saudis worry about. True, a protest is planned for March 11 in Riyadh but it is unrealistic to assume anything significant would come out of it. Saudi society is far too tightly controlled and the religious establishment has been completely compromised to offer an alternative to the corrupt and decrepit monarchy. It is, however, developments elsewhere, especially in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain that worry the Saudis so much. With Mubarak gone, the Saudis feel dangerously exposed. And to this end, to placate any hint of frustration in the people, the Saudi King on his return from a convalescense holiday in Morocco has offered up over $10 billion to his people in various economic concessions like the government of Algeria and Syria. The ailing and aged King Abdullah (he is 87 and suffering from multiple ailments) feels the Americans have betrayed their Arabian allies.

Uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain also have a direct bearing on Saudi Arabia. The kingdom shares borders with both. With Yemen, it is 1,100 miles long and many Yemenis — including the Bin Ladens — hail from there. Instability in Yemen can easily spill over into the kingdom. This explains the Saudis’ attack on the Houthis last year in one of the Forbidden Months, even if it was badly bungled, and exposed the Saudi military’s incompetence. Bahrain is even more problematic. The tiny Gulf State has a Shi‘i majority ruled by a Sunni minority. Bahrain is linked to the kingdom by a 15-mile causeway that is used by the Saudis not merely to drive across and enjoy Bahrain’s nightlife, but for a more serious purpose: in case of unrest the Saudis would rush in troops to Bahrain to contain it. It is better to fight their battle for survival in the streets of Manama than in Riyadh or Jeddah.

Further, any success by the Bahraini majority may encourage similar protests in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia that have long been suppressed by the Nejdi tribe from Dar‘iyah. This in turn may spread to the rest of the kingdom and undermine the House of Saud.

Far from welcoming the people’s aspirations for dignified existence, the Saudi rulers stand completely exposed as the enemies of Islam and the Islamic movement. Saudi-linked and financed Islamic organizations should take note: the blood of innocent people killed in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Morocco and Yemen would be on their hands as well if they fail to sever links with the corrupt Saudi royals.

The Saudis view any challenge to the status quo as a direct threat to their survival. In fact, changes in the region are viewed as a gain for Islamic Iran, and its allies: Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

People in the Peninsula must grasp the opportunity offered by the uprisings elsewhere. They must also rise above sectarianism to establish a system based on the pristine principles of Islam. They can either walk in the footsteps of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) or cling to the jahili practices of the likes of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab. History will render a very harsh judgement if they fail to rise to the occasion. The choice is theirs.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought