Here is why: In a well-orchestrated process which unfolds the ruling Mullahs’ scrutiny, four candidates have been selected by the Guardian Council — the supreme Islamist politbureau which sanctions all critical decisions in the country — to run for this election: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezai, and Mehdi Karoubi. The first is the current president, a previous member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). The second was Iran’s prime minister during the war years of the 1980’s, under Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leader who advocated the nuclear weapons program. The third is a former chief of the Pasdaran, wanted by the Interpol for alleged involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina. The fourth, a former speaker of the Parliament, was one of Khomeini’s activists who supported the fatwa to execute British novelist Salman Rushdie.

More »

President Barack Obama 

More »

More »

Since the deadly attacks in Mumbai, counter-terrorism experts worldwide, particularly those based in democracies in the crosshairs, have been drawing long-term conclusions as to the forthcoming type of operations which may hit cities and interests on more than one continent. Today, we are in the post-Mumbai era where the expectation of recidivism and copycats is eerily high. Indeed, the jihadists who seized a few buildings in India’s financial centre and who wreaked havoc at several locations in the city have brought to the attention of national security analysts a concept for the future: Urban jihad. I have predicted these scenarios of mayhem perpetrated by determined terrorists in chapter 13 of my first post 9/11 book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West, published in 2005.

More »

By: David Major

More »

As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move — but this time it’s inside Pakistan. As I’ve written over the past few months, we need to look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as one regional battlefield where the “other side” is coordinating strategically, acting methodically and for sure beating the international coalition in speed. If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which unfortunately may be the case now, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India, if not beyond. That’s how I suggest “reading” the recent worrisome leaps achieved by the Taliban from the SWAT valley into the neighboring district of Buner. So what’s the story and why should we consider it as a crossing of the red lines?

More »

Most of the media discussion about piracy in the Gulf of Aden has drifted understandably towards the sensational part of the story: how are the Pirates able to roam the Ocean? Is paying them ransom a better option than to engage them militarily? Last but not least, will a military intervention against the Pirates worsen the situation; will it lead to a massive escalation in Somalia and a Vietnam like quagmire for many years to come?

More »

The administration’s plan to send 4,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a step in the right direction. The fight against the jihadi war machine in that region must meet the strategic threat posed by the Taliban network and the Al Qaeda organization. They threaten not only NATO troops and the government in Kabul, but also Afghan civilians and, just as importantly, the democratically elected government in Pakistan.

More »

The British government’s announcement to open a dialogue with “the political wing of Hizballah” is most troubling. In a statement to a parliamentary committee, Bill Rammell, the British foreign office’s minister for Middle East affairs, rationalized the decision on the grounds of what his office perceives to be “more positive developments within Lebanon.”

More »

President Obama addressed a message to the Iranian people and leadership calling on the regime to open a new page in the strained relationship. Tehran answered quickly that its expectations are to see Washington change its behavior. In comments made on Russia Today TV, I clarified that the Iranian regime expects the Obama Administration to take more steps including apologizing for so-called ‘past mistakes’. But the US Administration is on a different track, as far as we know. It is giving Ahmedinijad a chance to begin changing its own policies. While on the surface, we see a moment of rapprochement, the actual issues to discuss are still too tough to solve. Washington wants to engage Iran on the ground of stopping the military nuclear program and ceasing support to Hezbollah and Hamas, while Tehran considers these matters as a no-go area of concession.

More »

Following is a scholarly article titled “Syria’s Strategy in Lebanon” published in Infocus Policy Review. Dr Phares summarizes the background of Syrian Baathist strategies in Lebanon over the decades, the Bush and Obama policies regarding Bashar Assad and its implications on the future of Lebanon. The footnoted version will appear later.

More »

In an interview with the New York Times this week (March 7), President Barack Obama said he “hopes U.S. troops can identify moderate elements of the Taliban and move them toward reconciliation.” The proposition came as a conclusion to a larger picture: the battlefield situation in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times he said the United States “was not winning the war in that country” and thus the door must be opened to a “reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.”

More »

Now that President Obama and his aides have announced their plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by August 31, 2010, they must consider what the forces engaged against the Coalition and Iraqi Government plan to do in this time. For the Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups, can affect the U.S. withdrawal plan.

More »

Post Mumbai analysis in German Magazine

More »

“Al Gharam mamn’uh, al Gharam kufr,” screamed the self-declared cleric in al-Ansar’s chat room this Friday. “Love is forbidden, love is infidel” — said the online fatwa about the “legitimacy of loving and being in love.”

More »

In the wake of the Munich security conference, CT and military analysts are attempting to read the new trends developing between the US, NATO partners and the Russian Federation regarding international terrorism, Iran, Afghanistan and other relevant issues. The annual conference is a platform for mostly Western powers and democracies to brand their policies and test ideas and suggestions. At times the forum is used to raise challenges, especially since the 2003 Iraq war. This year the US delegation made noted efforts to signal “changes in strategic approaches” regarding Russia, Iran and to some extent Afghanistan. In my reading these changes are still in the abstract stage which means that they can go in different directions. On these matters I had the following media conversation with military expert Thomas Smith published in the World Defense Review and Family Security Matters. I added a related interview on Russia Today TV and a link to my participation in a debate on France 24 TV (English channel) on Afghanistan’s future.

More »

As part of a panel held in the US Congress to review the Mumbai attacks, I raised four points in my global analysis of the Terror operation and its strategic goals:

More »

For his very first interview after the inauguration, President Barack Obama chose to grant the Saudi-funded, Dubai-based al Arabiya TV the first media salvo of the new presidency. According to Hisham Melhem, the veteran journalist who conducted the interview, it was the White House who decided so, after discussions about approaching “the situation in the Muslim world especially after closing Guantanamo and starting the withdrawal from Iraq.”

More »

The launching of an Iranian satellite into orbit, said to be about “communications technology” and “earthquake monitoring,” would have been a normal news item not exceeding the greater news report about India landing a space craft on the moon last month. But according to news agencies around the world, Western chanceries and national security agencies have taken the development “seriously.” Associated Press and the BBC described reactions as “nervous.” Although the debate about the value of Iranian space technology and commercial rocket capacity usually concludes that the Mullah regime is far away from reaching a respectable level, many defense analysts dismiss the issue as about the sole industrialization of the Islamic Republic: In fact it is about the “weaponization” of the satellite. Obviously this one launch may not be the crossing for the line, but the first step was accomplished and statements were made about the immediate following steps. The quasi consensus today is about the strategic intention of Tehran’s war room, solidly in the hands of the Pasdaran. As I argued in discussions I had on France 24 TV and the BBC this week, the space program is one component of a regional strategic deployment. Hence it deserves to be analyzed from this perspective. Following is a short article published about the issue:

More »

Over the past few weeks more reports about Iranian suppression of opposition surfaced, including by Iranian-backed media. One particular report revealed a number of arrests among Ethnic Azeris inside Iran, only months after other reports about significant incidents in the Ahwaz southern region. Azeris in the North West and Arab ethnics in the south West are among the largest minorities in Iran. However arrests in Iranian Azerbaijan can be a significant development as traditionally the region has not been as agitated as other ethnic provinces. Interestingly, Iranian regime sources described their action as “counter intelligence” accusing the United States of inciting against Tehran. Even more surprising was Iranian intelligence accusations against US-based NGOs and a number of American public figures on the left of the political landscape of fermenting these unrest. This is happening as the Obama Administration is bracing for the long expected talks to come with the Mullahs regime.In the wake of these Iranian reports about arrests of Azeri opposition elements, I had a conversation with military commentator Thomas Smith published in the World Defense Review and other outlets. Following is the text:

More »

Why are the Iraqi elections important to Americans and the rest of the international community? Simply because it will show, or won’t, that “spreading democracy” is possible in that part of the world, a principle against which Jihadist forces, authoritarian regimes and many critics within the West have challenged.

More »

 Inmate 372, now an al Qaeda commander 

More »

 Dr Phares’ Annual Address at the Florida Society for Middle East Studies

More »

World Defense Review Maj. W. Thomas Smith, Jr. interviews Dr Walid Phares on the feasibility of the “Ten Points Plan for Demilitarization and Internationalization”

More »

With the end of the Bush presidency in sight, it’s time to take stock of the War on Terror, something that didn’t begin with George W. Bush but which entered the American collective consciousness on his watch. So, where are we now, as we get ready to usher in a new era with a new president?

More »

It may be too early to discuss both a comprehensive solution for the future of a Palestinian state and to anticipate an end to the global War on Terror at the same time but here goes. In any discussion of peace in the Middle East it’s important to remember the intentions of the Iranian and Syrian regimes and their proxy, Hezbollah when we think about saving the civilian population of Gaza from war, shielding the Israeli populations from rockets and avoiding an escalation of violence that could engulf the entire region. The Iranian and Syrian regimes and their ally Hezbollah will always oppose the peace process and try to sink it.

More »

More »

Following are ten top questions needed to engage in strategic discussion of the ongoing Israel-Hamas confrontation in Gaza. These items can be altered if ground developments would take different directions in the next days or weeks.

More »

An intelligence assessment, the “Internal Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-2013, obtained by the Associated Press projected several “dramatic” developments.

More »

On the eve of this Christmas 2008, I will shift from my ongoing field of research and commentary in Terrorism, international and ethnic conflict and global strategies to address a subject dear to the heart of many among us, and dream maker to most of us, i.e., the children: Christmas.

More »

As I observed the immediate aftermath of the shoe throwing incident in Baghdad, I noted that the most striking effect occurred among the Western public, and particularly within the United States. Commentators and regular citizens were asking themselves again, seven years later, “why do they hate us?” missing one more time the fact that this particular violent expression, far from being a unique emotional reaction by one individual, is part of a war of ideas; it is a continuous organized confrontation over the future of the region. In short, this was another form of Jihadism, one I am coining now as a Jihad by the Shoe (Jihad bil Hizaa). Here is why.

                                                  

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an association of the world’s Islamic states, is pushing the United Nations to outlaw “defamation” of religion in general, and of one religion in particular.

My remarks that follow are based on 27 years of researching in the field of international relations and conflicts, and on a decade of teaching Religions and World Politics. Since I published my first book in Arabic in 1979, where I addressed the issue of relationships between civilizations and cultural blocs worldwide, I have had the opportunity to publish ten books and hundreds of articles focusing on the rise of ideologies including self-described, theologically-inspired ones such as Jihadism. I also had the opportunity to interact and meet politicians, legislators, authors and academics on three continents, particularly under the auspices of the European Foundation for Democracy. In addition, I was pleased to contribute to the preparation of legislation in the US Congress and initiatives at the European Parliament to defend religious freedom and basic rights of minorities around the world. Last but not least I was privileged to work with diplomats and NGOS on preparing for and passing UN Security Council Resolutions related to the Middle East.

From this background I have prepared a few comments about some initiatives put forth by members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to be introduced at the UN Human Rights Council (headquartered in Geneva) and at the Durban II Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination. These initiatives center on the driving principle of sanctioning what was coined as “defamation” of religions, and particularly the Islamic faith, under the term “Islamophobia.”

Let me first state clearly that I do agree with UN efforts, declarations and legislations aimed at countering incitement to violence, physical and psychological against any religion or religious group, or on behalf of any religion or ideology against others. This principle is universal and should apply in protection of Muslims anywhere, and of non-Muslims as well. Any religion or religious group who are the victims of discrimination, intimidation or suppression must receive protection under international law. The United Nations and all of its institutions, including the Human Rights Council, as well as its conferences, including Durban II, must be even-handed and fair in extending their protection on a universal basis, to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, all other religions as well as to Atheists and Agnostics. No exception should be made to a particular faith or community and no privilege should be granted to one at the exception of the other. Thus we believe that the highest protection granted to all is epitomized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948. Creating another special Charter for one particular religion group would be an act of discrimination against all others.

However, the current proposal by the OIC member States to create legislation that would sanction perpetrators of “defamation of religion” has at least five problems.

Problem of Definition

First, there is a problem about the substance of the concept. Indeed how can one define “defamation” as an aggression against faith, any faith? Where is the limit between criticizing a set of beliefs or ideas and defaming a whole religion? How can members of a religion reform their system if they cannot criticize it? Will reform become synonymous to defamation? If the very concept of “defamation” is not clarified and thoroughly defined, legislation such a sought would lead to blocking reforms and punishing reformers. As it stands at this stage the wording of “defamation of religion” — even if some are well intentioned in pushing for it — is a stark reminder of the blasphemy laws of medieval times which were behind religious persecution and the Inquisition. Defamation of religion as a concept has to be specified and accepted within the state of international consensus so that it won’t become a serious setback to human rights instead of an additional protection to it.

Targets of “Defamation”

By opening the door to create a new set of protected categories under international law, in this case religions — and particularly the Islamic faith — one has to expect that other religious groups, faiths and sects will also want to protect their entities from “defamation.” To the camp irritated by so-called “Islamophobia” (since it still has to be debated internationally) other quarters will respond with “Christaphobia,” “Judeophobia” or “Hinduophobia,” let alone possibly “Atheophobia.”

Muslims have serious reasons to fear discrimination and these fears have to be addressed, but Christians, Jews and Hindus (to name a few) also have significant reasons to fear discrimination. One example can illustrate so-called “defamation” as applied theologically to non-Muslims: the principle of “Infidels.” Indeed, the theological identification of non-Muslims as Kuffar is considered by the latter as a standing, institutional, theologically-based defamation of their very faiths. If the “defamation of religion” initiative led by the OIC passes as legislation its very first implementation should automatically sanction the xenophobic principle of “Kuffar.” If that concept is to be sanctioned under “defamation” those who are attempting to abuse the concept of “defamation” would have opened Pandora’s box, exploding the relationship between modernity and religions. Is the OIC ready to include banning the term “Infidels” as part of its initiative?

 NGO Panel at UN Geneva

Muslims’ Human Rights

Such an international law, if enacted, will be harmful first to Muslims seeking their Human Rights inside the Muslim world. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, particularly those claiming theological supremacy, are already abusing their own Muslim citizens on the ground of defamation to religion, as they see it. The Taliban oppression of the Afghan people, including women and minorities, was claimed to be in defense of their faith against those who defamed it. The use of the principle of defending religion from defamation by ideological regimes has led to unparalleled abuse of human rights.

Such abuses, in different versions and degrees, have been practiced in Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. In other more moderate or secular countries in the Muslim world, courts and clerics have issued rulings against so-called defamation, not always fairly. We’ve seen militant organizations and individuals taking the matter in their own hands despite the rule of law. Muslim women, students, artists, workers and secular political parties have been abused in the name of defending the faith against “defamation”.

Such realities have also been part of the history of both Western and Eastern Christianity and other religious civilizations. In the contemporary Muslim world — with all the tensions provoked by radicalization — such an international “defamation law” would provide oppressive regimes and extremist factions with a formidable weapon to suppress opposition and intellectuals. Those Muslims who see “otherwise” would be accused of defamation of the official interpretation of the faith. Radical Sunni and Shia clerics would invoke this international legislation to suppress each other’s sects. In short, if this concept is irresponsibly approved at the UN, it will have incalculable negative consequences on the Muslim world’s civil societies and their future.

Non Muslim Minorities

In Muslim countries where non Muslims form a minority, such an anti-defamation agenda will be devastating against the weakest segments of society. The legislation will be used by Islamist regimes and militant organizations to repress these minorities under the aegis of defending “faith.” Christian Copts in Egypt, who call for equality of treatment with other citizens, are often accused of “defaming” the state religion and thus kept in an awkward state of political backwardness. Baha’is, Christians and Jews are suppressed in Iran in the guise of defaming the established religious hierarchy. In Iraq, Assyro-Chaldeans have been physically attacked by Jihadi terrorists under the slogan of “insulting religion.” In many cases, as in South Sudan, minorities reject the application of Sharia on their own communities. With “anti-defamation” becoming UN sponsored, any rejection of Sharia will automatically become synonymous with “insulting the faith.” Hence religious minorities which should be protected under human rights laws will find themselves persecuted by such a declaration.

Jihadist abuse

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the adoption of vague “anti-defamation” legislation — allegedly to address “Islamophobia” — will be to embolden the Jihadi Islamist movements around the world into further violence. Indeed, both Salafists and Khomeinists already claim they are defending the Muslim world against infidels. If the OIC is successful in forcing such a declaration through the UN or the Durban Conference into international law, Jihadists around the world will score a tremendous moral and psychological victory by claiming that the present conflicts are indeed about religion, and that Islam is indeed under attack at the hands of Infidels. An anti-defamation declaration will validate al Qaeda’s agenda and reinforce the Iranian regime’s ambitions. The Jihadists’ ideology, based essentially on their interpretation of theology, builds radicalization by asserting that they are the defenders of the faith. A declaration against the defamation of Islam declaration will serve their strategic interests perfectly, and fuel their indoctrination processes. In short, it will protect their Takfiri ideology.

Dangerous Consequences

If an “anti defamation” declaration or covenant were to be forced through the UN Human Rights Council and the Durban II Conference in 2009 by the OIC, it would have dangerous consequences for the credibility of the UN Council in Geneva, for the state of international law, and for the state of human rights around the world. Among these consequences would be:

1. It will find itself opposed by many democratic and Human Rights NGOs and activists, both within the Muslim World and internationally, on the grounds of it creating discrimination against liberal Muslims, non Muslims and other faiths as well. Such a declaration will create more “phobia” than ever before since it is the product of the medieval concept of inquisition rather than the progressive concept of equality among individuals.

2. The Human Rights Council of the UN would thus be transformed by authoritarian regimes and radical ideologues into a “super regime” covering up and aiding in the oppression of democratic opposition, women and minorities in many countries. This would constitute a major blow to the credibility not only of the highest international institution in defense of Human Rights but eventually of the United Nations as a whole.

3. Such a declaration would naturally unleash a massive protest movement against the “super discrimination regime” by NGOs and activists from Arab, Muslim, and Hindu, African, Asian, Westerner and other backgrounds. The inquisitorial system advanced by members of the OIC against criticism and reform would be opposed as a return to the oppressive, medieval methods of the Dark Ages, which through harsh religious defamation laws caused great harm to Humanity and obstructed progress for centuries. There is no doubt that a contemporary Inquisition — as proposed by some members from the OIC — would deeply affect the Durban II Conference on Racism and Xenophobia, establishing a more lethal form of discrimination via this UN sponsored (and funded) event.

4. One would also expect to see Human Rights groups and pro-democracy movements demanding from national assemblies, particularly in liberal democracies, legislation to protect targeted segments of society such as women, intellectuals, artists, authors, publishers, minorities, reformists and other entities expected to suffer from “defamation persecution.” Democratic constitutions cannot accept a setback to their long evolution away from religious inquisition and theological legal frameworks. It is to be expected that civil societies will rise against such a modern-day inquisition and blast its authors, including unfortunately those UN institutions which were initially designed to protect individuals from religious persecution.

5. Last but not least one would not be surprised if NGOs and individual citizens would take the matter to courts around the world where justice is independent. Intellectuals and opinion makers would seek both protection and reparation from the potential implementation of such an international declaration or legislation. Governments who pushed the “defamation-inquisition” through the UN, and the latter as well, may find themselves taken to court, regardless of the results. The image of judges requesting states and international organization to pay reparation for moral and physical damages caused by a UN declaration responsible for discrimination is not a bright one, but could very much become reality if the OIC project, initially designed by radical ideologues, is not withdrawn or at least restructured.

 Phares at the Geneva UN Conference

Suggestions

Here are some suggestions which might help in defusing the emerging crisis between the OIC members who are pushing for this declaration and those pro-democracy and Human Rights NGOs who are opposing it.

1. We suggest that neutral members in the UN Human Rights Council intervene to prevent this crisis by calling for a special forum where both points of views are heard and a new consensus is built: Government representatives, NGOs, and International Organizations should be invited by member states of the Council who wish to engage in this mediation. The mediation forum must find ways to address the real and specific concerns of the OIC regarding the psychological stress induced by severe attacks on religion on the one hand and the concerns of the Human Rights community with regards the discriminatory dimension of the current “anti-defamation” project on the other.

2. We also suggest the organization of a special conference of experts to address the following questions:

a. Define the concept of defamation of religions in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

b. Define the body that can determine the nature of defamation of religions, including the concept of “Kuffar” (infidels) and incorporate this issue in the general discussion of Racism and Xenophobia at the forthcoming Durban II Conference.

Conclusion

In the end, we hope that the voices of reason within the United Nations will prevail over the movement towards increasing radicalization, and strike a balance between the right to be protected emotionally and the right of expression: the one must not eliminate the other.

                                                  *******

Dr Walid Phares is a Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington DC. Dr Phares is a professor of Global Strategies and author of numerous books including the latest The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad

More »

Agence France Presse and the Associated Press are reporting that Belgian authorities have arrested 14 suspected Al Qaeda terrorists including a jihadi who was allegedly planning a suicide attack. Sixteen raids were executed by 242 police officers in Brussels and in the eastern city of Liege. Security and judicial sources described the arrests as the “most important anti-terrorism operation in Belgium.” Citing the Federal prosecutor’s office, AFP reported that the move was targeting “a Belgian Islamist group involved in training as well as fighting on the Pakistan-Afghan border in cooperation with important figures in Al Qaeda.”

More »

Al Qaeda’s great moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted it would when I wrote about this in June. The Guantanamo trials will provide leading figures in the 9/11 massacre their “moment” to deliver a blow to America’s psyche, image and legal system.

More »

 Phares on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo

More »