Facebook Feed

1 day ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

America Targeted by Autocratic Islamic Regimes

The USA is justly perceived as the role-model for democracy: freedom of expression, religion, movement, media, Internet and election. Therefore, the USA is perceived as a lethal threat by Muslim regimes in the Middle East, all of which are autocratic, representing an ethnic minority (or a military clique), suppressing the majority and fearing democracy.

The USA is properly perceived – by rogue Muslim regimes – as the most effective hurdle on their way to attain historically-strategic goals: Saddam Hussein’s drive to control the Arab World, Assad’s aim to reassert Greater Syria (encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, parts of Turkey and Israel), Iran’s aspiration to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, etc.

The USA has been targeted as a scapegoat by autocratic Muslim regimes, blaming the USA – along with the West and the Jewish State – for the humiliation, frustration and rage over the failure to reclaim the glory of ancient Islam.

Since the 7th century, the vision of Islam has been the gradual domination of the globe. According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the leading expert on Islam, Muslims believe that their victory in Afghanistan, over the USSR, caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they are convinced that defeating the USA would be less difficult, in view of US retreats from Vietnam (1973), the US Embassy in Teheran (1979/1980), Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993) and the expected evacuation/retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan. They assume that anti-US terrorism (e.g. 1995/6, 1998 and 2000 anti-US Islamic terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen, culminating in 9/11) entails sustained punishment, while yielding US concessions and retreats overseas and eventually on the US mainland.

Anti-US Islamic terrorism has been emboldened by counter-terrorism officials – such as John Brennan and Eric Holder, President Obama’s Advisor on Countering Terrorism and Attorney General respectively – who claim that there is no military solution to terrorism, that there is no global terrorism, that there is no Jihadist terrorism, since “Jihad is a process which purifies the soul” and that terrorism is largely a law-enforcement challenge rather than a military issue. Such deficient moral clarity breeds a deficient operational clarity, emboldening further terrorism.

Rogue/autocratic Muslim regimes have realized that terror is the most effective anti-US weapon, increasingly on the American mainland. They assume that Western leaders have reconciled themselves to engagement and coexistence with terrorism, rather than endeavor to devastate terror regimes through a systematic series of disproportionate traumatic blows. Terrorism provides the element of deniability, while eroding the confidence of Americans in the capability of their government to maintain homeland security. Terrorists are convinced that they can get away with murder, and even be rewarded. They have concluded that the pen and the tongue are extremely effective in complementing the sword in the battle against Western civilization, led by the USA.

The current Islamic assault on the US mainland, through the proliferation of many dormant terror cells and a campaign of conversion to Islam – largely funded by Saudi Arabia – is presented by Yehudit Barsky, Director of Middle East and International Terrorism Division of the American Jewish Committee:

*Omar Ahmed, co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which has been connected to Hamas and other Islamic terror organizations: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

*US-born Imam Zaid Shakir, a frequent participant at CAIR’s seminars, is a co-founder of the Muslim Zaytuna College, Berkeley, California, which aims at producing Islamic scholars, who will entrench Islam in the USA: “Every Muslim who is honest would like to see America become a Muslim country. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim.” Zaytuna College highlights the supposed relevance of the Sharia laws to the US legal system.

*US-born Al-Qaida operative, Anwar al-Awlaki, inspired US-born Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 American soldiers on November 9, 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas. He trained Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who attempted to detonate explosives on December 25, 2009 in Northwest Airlines flight on route from Amsterdam to Detroit.

*US citizen Faisal Shahzad was trained by Taliban and inspired by Anwar Al-Awlaki, attempted the May 1, 2010 Times Square car bombing.

*The Al Shabaab, “Holy Warrior Youth Movement,” is recruiting in the USA via Internet. Eight Al Shabaab recruits – including converts to Islam – were arrested in Minnesota.

Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century, in order to settle intra-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with the USA – the “Big Satan” ?! Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the USA and to the Free World, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel’s policies or even the very existence of Jewish State – the “Little Satan.”

Prof. Fuad Ajami, a leading Middle East scientist, issued a warning to US policy-makers: “No American diplomatic scheme would spare America the fury of those bent upon eradicating its presence in the region. It is a false reading of a large civilization to say that the terror springs from the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians… It springs from deeper social, economic and political pressures within Mideast society, from the traumas of dislocated newly urbanized youth…Some of it is hatched by merciless men for whom terror is a profession that pays… It does not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians to pretend that it would solve a problem much larger than their conflict…” (NY Times, April 17, 1986).


The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb