Islamic Terrorism Targeting the United States

Islamic terrorism has been an integral component of Mideast politics since the 7th century, 1,300 hundred years BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Three of the initial four Caliphs – Umar, Uthman and Ali – were ousted through political assassinations, and each of the current Moslem leaders in the Mideast is facing the threat of Islamic terrorism, INDEPENDENT OF ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE OR ISRAEL’S POLICIES.

ANTI-U.S. ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAS BEEN A BY-PRODUCT OF THE INTER AND INTRA-MUSLIM POLITICAL SYSTEM, which has employed violence, rather than political negotiation, as the preferred method for resolving conflicts. Other than Turkey, all Mideast Islamic regimes have ascended to power – and have maintained power – through the bullet, rather than through the ballot, while abusing the human rights of their subjects. Eventually, they lose power through a more skillful use of violence by opponents. Thus, regimes which exploit terrorism to subdue domestic opposition, tend to employ the same instrument against external opposition. Moreover, no Moslem regime has been immune to domestic, or external, terrorism supported by at least one of its “fellow” Moslem regimes. For instance, Syria has harbored, trained or equipped the Popular Fronts for the Liberation of the Arabian Peninsula, Bahrain and Oman. One should not separate domestic, from international, terrorism – two central and fundamental elements of inter-Muslim policies, also toward the United States.

In 1948, the U.S. was vilified by most Moslem regimes, IN SPITE OF WASHINGTON’S BRUTAL PRESSURE ON ISRAEL to postpone the declaration of its independence, and despite a U.S. arms embargo on the region (while Britain supplied weaponry to Iraq and Jordan). In 1957, Egyptian President Nasser tightened his alliance with the USSR, ALTHOUGH IT WAS THE U.S. WHICH FORCED ISRAEL INTO A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SINAI PENINSULA. In 1998, the U.S. became the central target for Islamic terrorism (bombing the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania), WHILE PRESIDENT CLINTON DISPLAYED OVERT HOSTILITY TOWARD PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU and glowing warmth toward Arafat, the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House.

NO U.S. PRESSURE ON ISRAEL WOULD SPARE WASHINGTON THE WRATH OF IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA AND OTHER RADICAL MUSLIM REGIMES. An inherent conflict has prevailed between U.S. values and interests and those of radical regimes. They are determined to push the U.S. out of the Persian Gulf, the Mideast, the Indian Ocean and Africa. Their territorial aspirations have suffered a severe setback by U.S. military, economic and diplomatic dominance in the region. For instance, U.S. military involvement denied Iran a historic victory over Iraq, and has slowed down the exportation of Iran’s Islamic revolution. The U.S. freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and has prevented the conquest of Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf sheikhdoms by Iraq and Iran. US military power projection in the Mideast and the Mediterranean has deterred Syrian belligerence and terrorism against Turkey and Jordan, and has minimized Libyan agitation in Africa and the Mideast.

NOTWITHSTANDING ISRAEL’S POLICIES, MOST MUSLIM REGIMES REJECT WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, CONSIDERING THE U.S. AS THE “GREAT SATAN,” responsible for the collapse of the “Arab in Oil-Land Dreams.” Free minds, free markets and freedom of religion – the trade marks of the U.S. – are regarded as a chief threat to the survival of most Muslim regimes, their policies, economy and values. In addition, anti-US sentiments have been nurtured by skillful Mideast despots, scapegoating the US in order to divert attention away from disruptive consequences of social, economic and political dislocation. They believe that a defeat of the only Super Power, would free the Muslim Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, from the presence of the U.S. military next to the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. They also assume that such a Muslim victory could resurrect Islamic grandeur.

In contrast to superficial observations, Israel’s existence or policies have not been the root cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism. Rather, Israel has been depicted, by most Muslim regimes, and their controlled-media and clergy, as the loyal Mideast outpost of the “Great U.S. Satan.” The annihilation of the Jewish outpost has been perceived, by Mideast Muslims, as a step toward the ejection of “U.S. imperialism” from the region.

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

Recent Articles

Search

Islamic Terrorism Targeting the United States

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

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