- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #862 9/11, The Muslim Brotherhood and the Earth Island Boogie, Part 1

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [1] The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by late spring of 2015. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more) con­tains FTR #850 [1].  

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE [2].

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [3]

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4].

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE [5].

This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment [6]

[7]

ISIS recruits pledg­ing alle­giance

Intro­duc­tion: This pro­gram under­scores key aspects of the high­ly com­plex dynam­ics sur­round­ing the 9/11 attacks and sub­se­quent events.

What is miss­ing in dis­cus­sion of the attacks and sub­se­quent events is analy­sis of the rela­tion­ship between the Broth­er­hood’s Islam­ic fas­cism and the ter­ror­ist groups [8] that occu­py the headlines–Al Qae­da and ISIS, Hamas, Pales­tin­ian Islam­ic Jihad and Chechen ter­ror­ists.

Beyond that, the cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic doc­trine of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and the appar­ent use [9] of its knock­off ter­ror­ist groups as proxy war­riors [10] by ele­ments of West­ern and Sau­di intel­li­gence [11] are as fun­da­men­tal to a true under­stand­ing of the phe­nom­e­non and they are absent from the vast bulk of media dis­cus­sion.

Broth­er­hood off­shoots have proved par­tic­u­lar­ly valu­able [12] as proxy war­riors in petro­le­um and min­er­al-rich areas of the Earth Island [13].

Very, very trag­i­cal­ly, the world has cho­sen to ignore the fun­da­men­tal­ly impor­tant Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids [14] of 3/20/2002, which revealed pro­found links between the Bush admin­is­tra­tion, the Islam­ic Free Mar­ket Insti­tute of Grover Norquist [15] and the fund­ing appa­ra­tus [16] sup­ply­ing Al Qae­da and Hamas with liq­uid­i­ty [17].

The con­tin­ued blood­shed is part of the price [18] peo­ple are pay­ing for that dead­ly fail­ure [19].

It might be dif­fi­cult for some peo­ple to under­stand this. A dual­i­ty dom­i­nates analy­sis of the dynam­ics of this situation–a dual­i­ty sim­i­lar to one under­ly­ing both the Sec­ond World War and the Cold War. World War II was a very real con­flict, with Amer­i­can ser­vice men and women, as well as those of the oth­er Allied coun­tries, fight­ing against the armies of fas­cism. At the same time, dom­i­nant U.S. and West­ern finan­cial and indus­tri­al inter­ests favored their car­tel part­ners [20] in the Axis nations and the cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy they embraced.

[21]

[22]

Chechens in Ukraine (pho­to cred­it Reuters)

After the offi­cial end of the com­bat of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. incor­po­rat­ed the resid­ua [23] of the Third Reich’s nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment [24] into their own and saw to it that the fas­cist infra­struc­ture [25] in Ger­many, Japan [26] and else­where was main­tained in pow­er, behind a thin facade [27] of democ­ra­cy.

In addi­tion, they sup­port­ed and enlist­ed fas­cists from oth­er coun­tries to assist with the fight against Com­mu­nism. The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood [28] was one of those.

The polit­i­cal dual­i­ty we are expe­ri­enc­ing is sim­i­lar to that of World War II–even as Amer­i­can ser­vice per­son­nel and those of oth­er coun­tries are fight­ing a very real war against Islam­ic fas­cism, pow­er­ful cor­po­rate inter­ests are sup­port­ive of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood fas­cists and their cor­po­rate phi­los­o­phy.

The broad­cast begins by review­ing the fact that legal advice to the Bin Laden con­struc­tion firm [29] is pro­vid­ed by the Sul­li­van & Cromwell law firm.

Sul­li­van & Cromwell fea­tured Allen and John Fos­ter Dulles as its (arguably) most impor­tant attor­neys.  It does­n’t require a great leap of imag­i­na­tion to see con­ti­nu­ity [30] between that fir­m’s role on behalf of SBG (Sau­di Bin Laden Group), the Dulles broth­ers’ involve­ment with the finan­cial net­works that financed the Third Reich and the fir­m’s efforts on behalf of U.S. finan­cial firms seek­ing to blunt the Trea­sury Depart­men­t’s pro­posed new anti-ter­ror­ism reg­u­la­tions.

Note that Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Paul O’Neill was forced to resign [31] short­ly after the Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids of 3/20/2002.

Next, we note that the pres­ence in Chech­nya [32] of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, Wah­habi and Al Qae­da relat­ed ele­ments is well doc­u­ment­ed. Sau­di Prince Ban­dar (nick­named “Ban­dar Bush”) has been quite frank about Sau­di con­trol of the Chechen fight­ers [33].

Two dif­fer­ent types of fas­cist cadres are oper­at­ing in tan­dem in Ukraine–in addi­tion to the OUN/B heirs such as the Pravy Sek­tor for­ma­tions, Chechen fight­ers [34] (almost cer­tain­ly allied with some ele­ment of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood) are now fight­ing along­side them [35] and under the Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand.

[36]

Hamas Sol­diers Salut­ing (Hamas is the Pales­tin­ian branch of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood)

The Chechen for­ma­tions are described as “broth­ers” of the Islam­ic State. (The Boston Marathon bomb­ing [11] appears to have been blow­back from a covert oper­a­tion [33] back­ing jihadists in the Cau­ca­sus [37]. That “op” has appar­ent­ly been extend­ed to Ukraine.)

Much of the pro­gram focus­es on the cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy [38] of the Broth­er­hood. It is this eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy [39] that has endeared it [40] to pow­er­ful cor­po­rate inter­ests in the U.S. [41] and else­where, as well as the GOP [42].

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

1a. The broad­cast reviews some of the “net­work­ing” that has occurred among the house of Saud, the Third Reich, the Dulles broth­ers (prin­ci­pal oper­a­tors in Sul­li­van & Cromwell) and British spy and Nazi agent Jack Phil­by.
The Secret War Against the Jews: How West­ern Espi­onage Betrayed the Jew­ish Peo­ple; John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons; Copy­right 1994 [HC]; St. Mar­t­in’s Press; ISBN 0–312-15648–0; p. 21. [43]

. . . . This peri­od, stretch­ing from the end of World War I to just after the end of World War II, was char­ac­ter­ized by three very evil men: Jack Phil­by, a British spy; Ibn Saud, his Arab pro­tégé; and Allen Dulles, an Amer­i­can spy and Wall Street lawyer spe­cial­iz­ing in inter­na­tion­al finance.

The racist nature of their secret war against Zion­ism does not appear in his­to­ry books for a sim­ple rea­son. Jack Phil­by lat­er was paid by West­ern oil com­pa­nies to write pro-Arab pro­pa­gan­da dis­guised as his­to­ry. Ibn Saud is remem­bered as the glo­ri­ous Arab leader who uni­fied Sau­di Ara­bia and led the rich­est oil region in the world into part­ner­ship with the West. Phil­by, if he is remem­bered at all, has the rep­u­ta­tion of a schol­ar­ly British Ara­bist over­shad­owed by his son, Kim, the infa­mous Sovi­et dou­ble agent.

Jack Phil­by has become an obscure foot­note to the his­to­ry of the Cold war. But his lega­cy was far from minor. He is one of the less­er-known but most influ­en­tial per­sons in the mod­ern his­to­ry of the Mid­dle East, the rene­gade British intel­li­gence agent who plucked an obscure ter­ror­ist out of the desert and helped to make him the king of Sau­di Ara­bia. Ibn Saud was very much his cre­ation. Phil­by stole the infor­ma­tion from British intel­li­gence files that engi­neered Sau­di con­trol over the holi­est shrines of the Moslem world.

Jack Phil­by and Ibn Saud betrayed the British Empire and made the Amer­i­can oil com­pa­nies eco­nom­ic mas­ters of the region. The man who helped them do it was Allen Dulles, an Amer­i­can spy who had befriend­ed Phil­by while he was coor­di­nat­ing Amer­i­can intel­li­gence gath­er­ing in the Mid­dle East in the first half of the 1920’s.

Between them, these three men built the very foun­da­tions of the mod­ern Mid­dle East. They were the archi­tects of the oil weapon, the insti­ga­tors of war, the manip­u­la­tors of his­to­ry. More impor­tant, Philby’s and Ibn Saud’s polit­i­cal and philo­soph­i­cal alle­giance was to Nazi Ger­many, while much of Dulles’s prof­its came from the same source. . . .

1a. The broad­cast reviews the fact that legal advice to the Bin Laden con­struc­tion firm is pro­vid­ed by the Sul­li­van & Cromwell law firm.

Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden; Peter L. Bergen; Copy­right 2002 [SC]; ISBN 0–7432-3495–2; p. 49. [29]

“Fur­ther­more, the fam­i­ly com­pa­ny main­tained a satel­lite office in Mary­land dur­ing the 1990’s, employs a pub­lic rela­tions agency in Man­hat­tan, and receives legal advice from the white-shoe law firm Sul­li­van & Cromwell.”

2. Sul­li­van & Cromwell fea­tured Allen and John Fos­ter Dulles as its (arguably) most impor­tant attor­neys.  It does­n’t require a great leap of imag­i­na­tion to see con­ti­nu­ity between that fir­m’s role on behalf of SBG (Sau­di Bin Laden Group), the Dulles broth­ers’ involve­ment with the finan­cial net­works that financed the Third Reich and the fir­m’s efforts on behalf of U.S. finan­cial firms seek­ing to blunt the Trea­sury Depart­men­t’s pro­posed new anti-ter­ror­ism reg­u­la­tions.

Note that Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Paul O’Neill was forced to resign [31] short­ly after the arti­cle excerpt­ed here was pub­lished.

“Finance Sec­tor Hits at Moves to Curb Ter­ror Funds” by Edward Alden; Finan­cial Times; 7/3/2002; p. 2.

“The U.S. finan­cial ser­vices indus­try has launched its first seri­ous chal­lenge to the slew of new reg­u­la­tions from Wash­ing­ton aimed at staunch­ing the flow of funds to ter­ror­ist groups.”

3. “The con­cerns, spelled out this week by 11 indus­try trade groups rep­re­sent­ing near­ly every major U.S. finan­cial insti­tu­tion, cast seri­ous doubt on the U.S. admin­is­tra­tion’s plans to imple­ment the most impor­tant of those reg­u­la­tions by a July 23 dead­line.”

(Idem.)

4. “They could also mark the begin­ning of a split between the gov­ern­ment and indus­try over just how much new reg­u­la­tion in need­ed to dis­cour­age financ­ing of ter­ror­ist groups.”

(Idem.)

5. “The Trea­sury depart­ment wants all banks and oth­er finan­cial groups to set up elab­o­rate schemes to mon­i­tor cor­re­spon­dent and pri­vate bank­ing accounts opened in the U.s. by for­eign banks or indi­vid­u­als.  These are thought to be a main con­duit for dirty mon­ey flow­ing into the U.S. finan­cial sys­tem.”

(Idem.)

6. “The rules could also seri­ous­ly dis­rupt estab­lished finan­cial rela­tion­ships, the let­ter warned.  In the most extreme instances, finan­cial insti­tu­tions from a hand­ful of coun­tries such as Rus­sia, the Philip­pines and Egypt could be barred from deal­ing with U.S. banks unless they make avail­able data on all their cus­tomers world­wide.”

(Idem.)

7. H. Rod­gin Cohen, a lawyer with Sul­li­van & Cromwell, who led the effort on behalf of the 11 groups, said the Trea­sury’s def­i­n­i­tion of risky cor­re­spon­dent accounts was ‘so broad that they pick up basi­cal­ly all rela­tion­ships between U.S. finan­cial insti­tu­tions and for­eign insti­tu­tions and for­eign finan­cial insti­tu­tions.”

(Idem.)

8. The broad­cast delin­eates Labaviere’s alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing the pro­found rela­tion­ship between the Saud­is, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, ele­ments of U.S. intel­li­gence and the Bin Laden orga­ni­za­tion.

Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; pp. 14–5. [44]

. . . . Many times over, Amer­i­can, Euro­pean and Arab diplo­mats and pub­lic offi­cials advised me to fol­low the trail of ‘the dol­lars of ter­ror.’ . . Every time, I was brought back to both the offi­cial and the secret struc­tures of Sau­di finance. Every time, I stum­bled on the fra­ter­ni­ty of the Mus­lim Broth­ers. . .Where does the mon­ey for this dan­ger­ous pros­e­lytism come from? . . . Sau­di Ara­bia and oth­er oil monar­chies allied with the Unit­ed States. The great­est world pow­er is ful­ly aware of this devel­op­ment. Indeed, its infor­ma­tion [intel­li­gence] agen­cies have encour­aged it . . . . The CIA and its Sau­di and Pak­istani homo­logues con­tin­ue [as of 1999] to spon­sor Islamism. . . .

9. High­light­ing the com­par­isons between the Brotherhood’s pro­gram and those of Mus­soli­ni and Hitler, the broad­cast con­tin­ues:

Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 127. [45]

. . . . Tak­ing Italy’s choic­es under Mus­soli­ni for inspi­ra­tion, the eco­nom­ic pro­gram set three pri­or­i­ties . . . The social pol­i­cy fore­saw a new law on labor, found­ed on cor­po­ra­tions. This eco­nom­ic pro­gram would more direct­ly reveal its rela­tion­ship to total­i­tar­i­an ide­olo­gies a few years lat­er, with the works of Mohamed Ghaz­a­li . . . . Mohamed Ghaz­a­li rec­om­mend­ed ‘an eco­nom­ic reg­i­men sim­i­lar to that which exist­ed in Nazi Ger­many and fas­cist Italy.’ . . . The moral code is also an impor­tant com­po­nent in this pro­gram, which is intend­ed to cre­ate the ‘new Mus­lim man.’ . . . The notion of the equal­i­ty of the sex­es is inher­ent­ly negat­ed by the con­cept of the suprema­cy of male social respon­si­bil­i­ties. . .the ‘nat­ur­al’ place of the woman is in the home. . . .

  10. About the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s eco­nom­ic doc­trine:

“Islam in Office” by Stephen Glain; Newsweek; 7/3–10/2006. [39]

Judeo-Chris­t­ian scrip­ture offers lit­tle eco­nomic instruc­tion. The Book of Deuteron­omy, for exam­ple, is loaded with edicts on how the faith­ful should pray, eat, bequeath, keep the holy fes­ti­vals and treat slaves and spous­es, but it is silent on trade and com­merce. In Matthew, when Christ admon­ishes his fol­low­ers to ‘give to the emper­or the things that are the emperor’s,’ he is effec­tively con­ced­ing fis­cal and mon­e­tary author­ity to pagan Rome. Islam is dif­fer­ent. The prophet Muhammad—himself a trader—preached mer­chant hon­or, the only reg­u­la­tion that the bor­der­less Lev­an­tine mar­ket knew. . . .

. . . In Mus­lim litur­gy, the deals cut in the souk become a metaphor for the con­tract between God and the faith­ful. And the busi­ness mod­el Muham­mad pre­scribed, accord­ing to Mus­lim schol­ars and econ­o­mists, is very much in the lais­sez-faire tra­di­tion lat­er embraced by the West. Prices were to be set by God alone—anticipating by more than a mil­len­nium Adam Smith’s ref­er­ence to the ‘invis­i­ble hand’ of mar­ket-based pric­ing. Mer­chants were not to cut deals out­side the souk, an ear­ly attempt to thwart insid­er trad­ing. . . . In the days of the caliphate, Islam devel­oped the most sophis­ti­cated mon­e­tary sys­tem the world had yet known. Today, some econ­o­mists cite Islam­ic bank­ing as fur­ther evi­dence of an intrin­sic Islam­ic prag­ma­tism. Though still guid­ed by a Qur’anic ban on riba, or inter­est, Islam­ic bank­ing has adapt­ed to the needs of a boom­ing oil region for liq­uid­ity. In recent years, some 500 Islam­ic banks and invest­ment firms hold­ing $2 tril­lion in assets have emerged in the Gulf States, with more in Islam­ic com­mu­ni­ties of the West.

British Chan­cel­lor of the Exche­quer Gor­don Brown wants to make Lon­don a glob­al cen­ter for Islam­ic finance—and elic­its no howl of protest from fun­da­men­tal­ists. How Islamists might run a cen­tral bank is more prob­lem­atic: schol­ars say they would manip­u­late cur­rency reserves, not inter­est rates.

The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood hails 14th cen­tury philoso­pher Ibn Khal­dun as its eco­nomic guide. Antic­i­pat­ing sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics, Khal­dun argued that cut­ting tax­es rais­es pro­duc­tion and tax rev­enues, and that state con­trol should be lim­ited to pro­vid­ing water, fire and free graz­ing land, the util­i­ties of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khal­dun the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion. [Empha­sis added.] His found­ing influ­ence is a sign of mod­er­a­tion. If Islamists in pow­er ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over com­merce. . . .

11. In addi­tion to the appar­ent use of Mus­lim Brotherhood/Islamist ele­ments as proxy war­riors against Rus­sia and Chi­na, the Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ics [46] are beloved to Gra­ham Fuller, as well as cor­po­rate ele­ments cdham­pi­oned by Grover Norquist.

“Chech­nyan Pow­er” by Mark Ames; nsfwcorp.com; 6/5/2013. [47]

. . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jiha­di form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-eco­nom­ic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon ene­my to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller.

Accord­ing to jour­nal­ist Robert Drey­fuss’ book “Devil’s Game,” Fuller explained his attrac­tion to rad­i­cal Islam in neoliberal/libertarian terms:

“There is no main­stream Islam­ic organization...with rad­i­cal social views,” he wrote.Clas­si­cal Islam­ic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully object­ed to social­ism and communism....Islam has nev­er had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is uneven­ly dis­trib­uted.” . . . .

12. Fuller has long been an advo­cate of a “turn to the Broth­er­hood.”

“In Search of Friends Among the Foes: U.S. Hopes to Work with Diverse Group” by John Mintz and Dou­glas Farah; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 9/11/2004; p. A01. [40]

. . . Some fed­er­al agents wor­ry that the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood has dan­ger­ous links to ter­ror­ism. But some U.S. diplo­mats and intel­li­gence offi­cials believe its influ­ence offers an oppor­tu­ni­ty for polit­i­cal engage­ment that could help iso­late vio­lent jihadists. ‘It is the pre­em­i­nent move­ment in the Mus­lim world,’ said Gra­ham E. Fuller, a for­mer CIA offi­cial spe­cial­iz­ing in the Mid­dle East. ‘It’s some­thing we can work with.’ Demo­niz­ing the Broth­er­hood ‘would be fool­hardy in the extreme’ he warned.” . . .

13. More about the cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood fol­lows. Note that Khairat el-Shater was alleged by Egypt­ian intel­li­gence to have been run­ning Mohamed Mor­si, in effect. (We cov­ered this in FTR #787 [48].) In turn, he was report­ed [49] to be serv­ing as a liai­son between Mor­si and Mohamed Zawahiri, the broth­er of Al-Qae­da leader Ayman Zawahiri. Shater was also net­worked with: Anne Pat­ter­son, U.S. ambas­sador to Egypt, GOP Sen­a­tor John McCain and GOP Sen­a­tor Lind­say Gra­ham. In turn, Shater was alleged to have trans­ferred $50 mil­lion from the Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood to Al-Qae­da at the time that he was net­work­ing with the Amer­i­cans and Mor­si. Hey, what’s $50 mil­lion between friends?

“The GOP Broth­er­hood of Egypt” by Avi Ash­er-Schapiro; Salon.com; 1/25/2012. [42]

While West­ern alarmists often depict Egypt’s Mus­lim Broth­er­hood as a shad­owy orga­ni­za­tion with ter­ror­ist ties, the Brotherhood’s ide­ol­o­gy actu­al­ly has more in com­mon with America’s Repub­li­can Par­ty than with al-Qai­da. Few Amer­i­cans know it but the Broth­er­hood is a free-mar­ket par­ty led by wealthy busi­ness­men whose eco­nom­ic agen­da embraces pri­va­ti­za­tion and for­eign invest­ment while spurn­ing labor unions and the redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth. Like the Repub­li­cans in the U.S., the finan­cial inter­ests of the party’s lead­er­ship of busi­ness­men and pro­fes­sion­als diverge sharply from those of its poor, social­ly con­ser­v­a­tive fol­low­ers.

The Broth­er­hood, which did not ini­tial­ly sup­port the rev­o­lu­tion that began a year ago, reaped its ben­e­fits, cap­tur­ing near­ly half the seats in the new par­lia­ment, which was seat­ed this week, and vault­ing its top lead­ers into posi­tions of pow­er.

Arguably the most pow­er­ful man in the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is Khairat Al-Shater, a mul­ti­mil­lion­aire tycoon whose finan­cial inter­ests extend into elec­tron­ics, man­u­fac­tur­ing and retail. A strong advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood busi­ness­men who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Free­dom and Jus­tice Party’s impres­sive elec­toral vic­to­ry this win­ter and is now craft­ing the FJP’s eco­nom­ic agen­da.

At Al-Shater’s lux­u­ry fur­ni­ture out­let Istak­bal, a new couch costs about 6,000 Egypt­ian pounds, about $1,000 in U.S. cur­ren­cy. In a coun­try where 40 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion lives on less than $2 a day, Istakbal’s clien­tele is large­ly lim­it­ed to Egypt’s upper class­es.

Although the Broth­ers do draw sig­nif­i­cant sup­port from Egypt’s poor and work­ing class, “the Broth­er­hood is a firm­ly upper-mid­dle-class orga­ni­za­tion in its lead­er­ship,” says Sha­di Hamid, a lead­ing Mus­lim Broth­er­hood expert at the Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion in Wash­ing­ton.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, these well-to-do Egyp­tians are eager to safe­guard their eco­nom­ic posi­tion in the post-Mubarak Egypt. Despite ris­ing eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty and pover­ty, the Broth­er­hood does not back rad­i­cal changes in Egypt’s econ­o­my.

The FJP’s eco­nom­ic plat­form is a tame doc­u­ment, rife with promis­es to root out cor­rup­tion and tweak Egypt’s tax and sub­si­dies sys­tems, with occa­sion­al allu­sions to an unspe­cif­ic com­mit­ment to “social jus­tice.” The plat­form prais­es the mech­a­nisms of the free mar­ket and promis­es that the par­ty will work for “bal­anced, sus­tain­able and com­pre­hen­sive eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment.” It is a pro­gram that any Euro­pean con­ser­v­a­tive par­ty could get behind. . . .

14. An arti­cle touch­es on Russ­ian charges that the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Al Qae­da-relat­ed ele­ments are involved with the Chechen rebels. The arti­cle is patron­iz­ing and dis­mis­sive in tone, despite the fact that the pres­ence in Chech­nya of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, Wah­habi and Al Qae­da relat­ed ele­ments is well doc­u­ment­ed.

Note that Prince Ban­dar (nick­named “Ban­dar Bush”) has been quite frank about Sau­di con­trol of the Chechen fight­ers [33].

 “Rus­sia Recasts Bog in Cau­ca­sus as War on Ter­ror” by Steven Lee Myers; The New York Times; 10/5/2002; p. A1. [50]

Three years after Russ­ian forces poured into Chech­nya for the sec­ond time, the war grinds on, but Russia’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of the fight with­out end has changed. No longer are 85,000 Russ­ian troops and police offi­cers sim­ply engaged in crush­ing a bat­tle for inde­pen­dence; instead, Chech­nya has become Russia’s war on ter­ror. Using the ratio­nale and some­times the rhetoric of the Bush administration’s antiter­ror­ism cam­paign, com­man­ders here said this week that the Chechen war is financed, armed and increas­ing­ly fought by Islam­ic mil­i­tants from abroad. The shift explains Russia’s roil­ing ten­sions with Geor­gia the for­mer Sovi­et repub­lic bor­der­ing Chech­nya that pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin has accused of shel­ter­ing what he calls Chechen and inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ists. . . .

. . . .The accu­sa­tions against Georgia–like the accu­sa­tions against the Chechens are spon­sored by Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and oth­er for­eign fighters—appear root­ed in Russia’s frus­tra­tion and a desire to exter­nal blame for the con­tin­ued fight­ing. [Those accu­sa­tions appear to be based in con­sid­er­able mea­sure in fact–D.E.] . . .

15. FTR#’s 330 [51], 334 [52], and 337 [53] describe [Sau­di intel­li­gence chief] Prince Turki’s res­ig­na­tion short­ly before the 9/11 attacks. In addi­tion, FTR#343 [38], among oth­er pro­grams, dis­cuss­es the alle­ga­tion that Tur­ki “ran” Osama Bin Laden. An intrigu­ing (and detailed) piece of schol­ar­ship recent­ly linked Tur­ki, the Sau­di Roy­al fam­i­ly, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Youssef Nada (Al Taqwa’s founder.) In turn, the broad­cast delin­eates these ele­ments’ activ­i­ties vis a vis the Chechen rebels.

“The Pol­i­tics of Three—Pakistan, Sau­di Ara­bia, Israel” by Paul W. Rasche; Stu­di­en von Zeit­fra­gen; 35. Jahrgang Inter­ne­tAus­gabe 2001; p. 6; accessed at www.studien-von-zeit…bal/Coalition_Risks/coalition_risks.html. [32]

The pres­i­dent of the Al Taqwa Bank Group is Youssef Mustapha Nada, nat­u­ral­ized Ital­ian, and a mem­ber of the Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Jamaa-al-Islamiya, which is direct­ly allied with Al Qae­da through Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, said by some intel­li­gence sources to be the brains behind bin Laden. When the Bahamas closed Al Taqwa Bank Ltd. ear­ly this year, Swiss author­i­ties required a name change in Al Taqwa Bank, which then became reg­is­tered in Switzer­land as Nada Man­age­ment Orga­ni­za­tion SA. It is the same Al Taqwa Bank. . . .

16. Nada’s rela­tion­ship with the Broth­er­hood, the Saud­is and Islamist finance is high­light­ed in the fol­low­ing pas­sage.

In 1970, Youssef Nada moved to Sau­di Ara­bia and, with help from the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, estab­lished con­tact with mem­bers of the Sau­di Roy­al fam­i­ly, and found­ed a con­struc­tion com­pa­ny in Riyadh, much the same as the Bin Laden fam­i­ly. He remained active in Riyadh, and soon found­ed the first Islam­ic bank in Egypt, the Faisal Bank.

(Idem.)

17. Review­ing infor­ma­tion first pre­sent­ed in FTR#343 [38], the broad­cast under­scores the rela­tion­ship between for­mer Sau­di intel­li­gence chief Prince Tur­ki, Bin Laden, Nada and the Faisal Islam­ic Bank.

The Faisal Islam­ic Bank of Sau­di Ara­bia is the head bank of a num­ber of affil­i­at­ed Islam­ic Banks under that name across the Islam­ic world from Egypt to Pak­istan to the Emi­rates and Malaysia. The head of Faisal Islam­ic Bank of Sau­di Ara­bia is for­mer Sau­di Intel­li­gence Chief, Tur­ki al-Faisal. Faisal Islam­ic Bank is direct­ly involved in run­ning accounts for bin Laden and his asso­ciates, and has been named by Lux­em­bourg bank­ing author­i­ties in this regard.

(Ibid.; p. 7.)

18. The nexus out­lined above is inti­mate­ly involved with the Al Hara­main reli­gious char­i­ty, alleged­ly used to chan­nel funds to the Chechen rebels.

In Sudan, Osama bin Laden and Al Qai­da have been named as prin­ci­pals in the Shamal bank in the 1990’s. The bank trans­ferred the funds for the US Embassy bomb­ings in East Africa in 1998, accord­ing to tri­al tes­ti­mo­ny in New York. A 15% share in al Shamal is held by wealthy Sau­di financier, Saleh Abdul­lah Kamel of the Dal­lah al Bara­ka Group, which owns the Jed­dah al Bara­ka bank. The oth­er non-Sudanese share­hold­er of the Khar­toum al Shamal bank is Faisal Islam­ic Bank. Russ­ian FSB intel­li­gence has charged that al Bara­ka Bank was used by a Sau­di reli­gious char­i­ty, Al Hara­main, to fun­nel funds to Islam­ic ter­ror­ists tied to al Qai­da in Chech­nya.

(Idem.)

19. Two dif­fer­ent types of fas­cist cadres are oper­at­ing in tan­dem in Ukraine–in addi­tion to the OUN/B heirs such as the Pravy Sek­tor for­ma­tions, Chechen fight­ers (almost cer­tain­ly allied with some ele­ment of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood) are now fight­ing along­side them and under the Pravy Sek­tor admin­is­tra­tive com­mand.

The Chechen for­ma­tions are described as “broth­ers” of the Islam­ic State.

The Boston Marathon bomb­ing [11] appears to have been blow­back from a covert oper­a­tion [33] back­ing jihadists in the Cau­ca­sus [37].

“Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists” by Robert Par­ry; Con­sor­tium News; 7/7/2015. [34]

In a curi­ous­ly upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islam­ic mil­i­tants have joined with Ukraine’s far-right and neo-Nazi bat­tal­ions to fight eth­nic Russ­ian rebels in east­ern Ukraine. It appears that no com­bi­na­tion of vio­lent extrem­ists is too wretched to cel­e­brate as long as they’re killing Russ-kies.

The arti­cle [54] by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islam­ic bat­tal­ions “deployed to the hottest zones,” such as around the port city of Mar­i­upol. One of the bat­tal­ions is head­ed by a for­mer Chechen war­lord who goes by the name “Mus­lim,” Kramer wrote, adding:

“The Chechen com­mands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-cen­tu­ry Chechen resis­tance fig­ure. It is sub­or­di­nate to the nation­al­ist Right Sec­tor, a Ukrain­ian mili­tia. … Right Sec­tor … formed dur­ing last year’s street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist groups like White Ham­mer and the Tri­dent of Stepan Ban­dera [55].

“Anoth­er, the Azov  [56]group, is open­ly neo-Nazi, using the ‘Wolf’s Hook’ [57] sym­bol asso­ci­at­ed with the [Nazi] SS. With­out address­ing the issue of the Nazi sym­bol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nation­al­ists because, like him, they loved their home­land and hat­ed the Rus­sians.”

As casu­al­ly as Kramer acknowl­edges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white suprema­cists fight­ing for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his arti­cle does mark an aber­ra­tion for the Times and the rest of the main­stream U.S. news media, which usu­al­ly dis­miss any men­tion of this Nazi taint as “Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da.” . . .

. . . . Now, the Kiev regime has added to those “forces of civ­i­liza­tion” — resist­ing the Russ-kie bar­bar­ians — Islam­ic mil­i­tants with ties to ter­ror­ism. Last Sep­tem­ber, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Inter­cept, reached [58] a van­guard group of these Islam­ic fight­ers in Ukraine through the help of his “con­tact in Turkey with the Islam­ic State [who] had told me his ‘broth­ers’ were in Ukraine, and I could trust them.”

The new Times arti­cle avoids delv­ing into the ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions of these Islamist fight­ers. . . .

20. We present more about the Chechen/Islamic State fight­ers in Ukraine. Note that, as dis­cussed in FTR #830 [59], the Islam­ic State appears to be anoth­er branch of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. Note, also, that Geor­gia also was har­bor­ing Islamist fight­ers cam­paign­ing against Rus­sia. We high­light­ed [37] this in FTR #710. [12]

The Dai­ly Beast has a new piece on the Chechen Jihadists fight­ing in Ukraine after fight­ing for ISIS and how, with talk of mak­ing Right Sec­tor part of the SBU, there’s grow­ing spec­u­la­tion that a Chechen ‘vol­un­teer bat­tal­ion’ is just a mat­ter of time:

“Chechen Jihadists Join Ukraine’s Fight­ers” by Anna Nemtso­va  ; The Dai­ly Beast [35]; 9/04/2015. [35]

Chechen Jihadis Leave Syr­ia, Join the Fight in Ukraine

A bat­tal­ion of fight­ers from the Cau­ca­sus is deployed on Kiev’s side in the Ukraine war. But their pres­ence may do more harm than good.

Just an hour’s dri­ve from this city under siege, at an old resort on the Azov Sea that’s now a mil­i­tary base, mil­i­tants from Chechnya—veterans of the jihad in their own lands and, more recent­ly, in Syr­ia [60]—now serve in what’s called the Sheikh Mansur Bat­tal­ion. Some of them say they have trained, at least, in the Mid­dle East with fight­ers for the so-called Islam­ic State, or ISIS [61].

Among the irreg­u­lar forces who’ve enlist­ed in the fight against the Russ­ian-backed sep­a­ratists in the Don­bas region of east­ern Ukraine [62], few are more con­tro­ver­sial or more dan­ger­ous to the cred­i­bil­ity of the cause they say they want to serve. Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin would love to por­tray the fight­ers he sup­ports as cru­saders against wild-eyed jihadists rather than the gov­ern­ment in Ukraine that wants to inte­grate the coun­try more close­ly with West­ern Europe.

Yet many Ukrain­ian patri­ots, des­per­ate to gain an edge in the fight against the Russ­ian-backed forces, are will­ing to accept the Chechen mil­i­tants on their side.

Over the past year, dozens of Chechen fight­ers have come across Ukraine’s bor­der, some legal­ly, some ille­gally, and con­nected in Don­bas with the Right Sec­tor, a far-right-wing mili­tia. The two groups, with two bat­tal­ions, have lit­tle in com­mon, but they share an ene­my and they share this base.

The Dai­ly Beast spoke with the Chechen mil­i­tants about their pos­si­ble sup­port for the Islam­ic State and its affil­i­ate in the North­ern Cau­ca­sus region of Rus­sia, which is now called the Islam­ic State Cau­ca­sus Emi­rate and is labeled a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion by both Rus­sia and the Unit­ed States.

The Chechen fight­ers said they were moti­vated by a chance to fight in Ukraine against the Rus­sians, whom they called “occu­piers of our coun­try, Ichk­eriya,” anoth­er term for Chech­nya.

Indeed, they were upset that Ukrain­ian author­i­ties did not allow more Chechen mil­i­tants to move to Ukraine from the Mid­dle East and the moun­tains of the Cau­ca­sus. The Sheikh Mansur Bat­tal­ion, found­ed in Ukraine in Octo­ber 2014, “needs re-enforce­ment,” they said.

The man the Chechens defer to as their “emir,” or leader, is called “Mus­lim,” a com­mon fore­name in the Cau­ca­sus. He talked about how he per­son­ally crossed the Ukrain­ian bor­der last year: “It took me two days to walk across Ukraine’s bor­der, and the Ukrain­ian bor­der con­trol shot at me,” he said. He lives on this mil­i­tary base here open­ly enough but is frus­trated that more of his recruits can’t get through. “Three of our guys came here from Syr­ia, 15 more are wait­ing in Turkey,” he told The Dai­ly Beast. “They want to take my path, join our bat­tal­ion here right now, but the Ukrain­ian bor­der patrol is not let­ting them in.”

Mus­lim pulled out a piece of paper with a name of anoth­er Chechen head­ing to join the bat­tal­ion. The hand­writ­ten note said that Amayev Khavadzhi was detained on Sep­tem­ber 4, 2014, in Greece and now could be deport­ed to Rus­sia. (Khayadzhi’s lawyer in Greece told The Dai­ly Beast on the phone that there was a chance that his defen­dant would be trans­ferred to his fam­ily in France instead.)

“Two more of our friends have been detained, and are threat­ened with depor­ta­tion to Rus­sia, where they get locked up for life or Kady­rov kills them,” Mus­lim told The Dai­ly Beast, refer­ring to the pro-Putin strong­man of Chech­nya, Ramzan Kady­rov.

The com­man­der point­ed at a young beard­ed mil­i­tant next to him: “Mansur came here from Syr­ia,” Mus­lim said. “He used ISIS as a train­ing base to improve his fight­ing skills.” Mansur stretched out his right hand, which was dis­fig­ured, he said, by a bul­let wound. Two more bul­lets were still stuck in his back, he said.

“No pho­tographs,” Mansur shook his head when a jour­nal­ist tried to take his pic­ture. Not even of his hand, not even from the back: “My reli­gion does not allow that.”

...

Mansur said he did not have to run across the bor­der under a hail of of bul­lets like Mus­lim. “We man­aged to reach an agree­ment with the Ukraini­ans,” he said.

The arrival of pro-Ukrain­ian Chechen fight­ers from abroad helped relieve some of the immi­gra­tion prob­lems of Chechens already liv­ing in Ukraine, the mil­i­tants explained.

Kady­rov had sent some of his Chechens to fight on the Russ­ian side of the con­flict last year, said Mus­lim, and as a result “there was a tem­po­rary dan­ger that Chechen fam­i­lies might be deport­ed from Ukraine… But as soon as we start­ed com­ing here last August, no Chechen in Ukraine had rea­sons to com­plain.”

Were for­mer fight­ers com­ing to Ukraine from Syr­ia because they were dis­ap­pointed (or appalled) by the ide­ol­ogy of ISIS?

“We have been fight­ing against Rus­sia for over 400 years; today they [the Rus­sians] blow up and burn our broth­ers alive, togeth­er with chil­dren, so here in Ukraine we con­tinue to fight our war,” the com­man­der said. Many in Ukraine remem­bered the Chechen war of the mid-1990s as a war for inde­pen­dence, which briefly was giv­en, then tak­en away.

Since then the war in the Cau­ca­sus has mor­phed into ter­ror­ism, killing about 1,000 civil­ians, many of them chil­dren, in a series of ter­ror attacks. And what­ever the com­mon ene­my, that pos­es a seri­ous prob­lem for Kiev if it embraces such fight­ers.

“The Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment should be aware that Islam­ic rad­i­cals fight against democ­racy,” says Var­vara Pakhomenko, an expert at the Inter­na­tional Cri­sis Group. “Today they unite with Ukrain­ian nation­al­ists against Rus­sians, tomor­row they will be fight­ing against lib­er­als.”

Pakhomenko says some­thing sim­i­lar hap­pened in Geor­gia in 2012 when the gov­ern­ment there found itself accused of coop­er­a­tion with Islam­ic rad­i­cals from Europe, Chech­nya, and the Pankisi Gorge, an eth­nic Chechen region of Geor­gia.

For inter­na­tional observers cov­er­ing ter­ror­ism in Rus­sia and Cau­ca­sus in the past 15 years, the pres­ence of Islam­ic rad­i­cals in Ukraine sounds “dis­as­trous,” mon­i­tors from the Inter­na­tional Cri­sis Group told The Dai­ly Beast.

But many ordi­nary Ukraini­ans and offi­cials in Mar­i­upol sup­port the idea of retain­ing more Chechen mili­tia fight­ers. “They are fear­less fight­ers, ready to die for us, we love them, any­body who would pro­tect us from death,” said Gali­na Odnorog, a vol­un­teer sup­ply­ing equip­ment, water, food, and oth­er items to bat­tal­ions told The Dai­ly Beast. The pre­vi­ous night Ukrain­ian forces report­ed six dead Ukrain­ian sol­diers and over a dozen wound­ed.

“ISIS, terrorists—anybody is bet­ter than our lame lead­ers,” says local leg­isla­tive coun­cil deputy Alexan­der Yaroshenko. “I feel more com­fort­able around Mus­lim and his guys than with our may­or or gov­er­nor.”

The Right Sec­tor bat­tal­ion that coop­er­ates with the Chechen mil­i­tants is a law unto itself, often out of con­trol, and tend­ing to incor­po­rate any­one it wants into its ranks. In July two peo­ple were killed and eight wound­ed in a gun and grenade bat­tle between police and Right Sec­tor mili­tia in west­ern Ukraine. On Mon­day, Right Sec­tor mil­i­tants trig­gered street bat­tles in the cen­ter of Kiev that left three police­men dead and over 130 wound­ed.

Yet the gov­ern­ment in Kiev has been con­sid­er­ing the trans­fer of the Right Sec­tor into a spe­cial unit of the SBU, Ukraine’s secu­rity ser­vice, which has made many peo­ple won­der whether the Chechen mili­tia will be join­ing the gov­ern­ment units as well. So far, nei­ther the Right Sec­tor bat­tal­ion nor the Chechen bat­tal­ion have been reg­is­tered with offi­cial forces.

In Ukraine, which is los­ing dozens of sol­diers and civil­ians every week, many things could spin out of con­trol but “it would be unimag­in­able to allow for­mer or cur­rent ISIS fight­ers to join any gov­ern­ment-con­trolled or –spon­sored mil­i­tary unit,” says Paul Quinn-Judge, senior advis­er for Inter­na­tional Cri­sis Group in Rus­sia and Ukraine. “It would be polit­i­cally dis­as­trous for the Poroshenko admin­is­tra­tion: No West­ern gov­ern­ment in its right mind would accept this, and it would be an enor­mous pro­pa­ganda gift for the Krem­lin. The Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment would be bet­ter served by pub­li­ciz­ing their deci­sions to turn ISIS vets back at the bor­der.”

The Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment should be aware that Islam­ic rad­i­cals fight against democ­racy,” says Var­vara Pakhomenko, an expert at the Inter­na­tional Cri­sis Group. “Today they unite with Ukrain­ian nation­al­ists against Rus­sians, tomor­row they will be fight­ing against lib­er­als.”

...
The Right Sec­tor bat­tal­ion that coop­er­ates with the Chechen mil­i­tants is a law unto itself, often out of con­trol, and tend­ing to incor­po­rate any­one it wants into its ranks. In July two peo­ple were killed and eight wound­ed in a gun and grenade bat­tle between police and Right Sec­tor mili­tia in west­ern Ukraine. On Mon­day, Right Sec­tor mil­i­tants trig­gered street bat­tles in the cen­ter of Kiev that left three police­men dead and over 130 wound­ed.

Yet the gov­ern­ment in Kiev has been con­sid­er­ing the trans­fer of the Right Sec­tor into a spe­cial unit of the SBU, Ukraine’s secu­rity ser­vice, which has made many peo­ple won­der whether the Chechen mili­tia will be join­ing the gov­ern­ment units as well. So far, nei­ther the Right Sec­tor bat­tal­ion nor the Chechen bat­tal­ion have been reg­is­tered with offi­cial forces.

21. The pro­gram con­cludes with Robert Par­ry’s obser­va­tions about the dan­gers of pro­mot­ing Sun­ni Islamist fight­ers in Syr­ia. With recent Russ­ian mil­i­tary moves into Syr­ia, we won­der if this is an attempt by the Krem­lin to neu­tral­ize Chechen fight­ers in both the Cau­ca­sus and Ukraine.

We note the use by the West and Sau­di Ara­bia of Sunni/Muslim Broth­er­hood com­bat­ants as proxy war­riors against Rus­sia and Russ­ian sup­port for Shi­ite regimes in Iran and Syr­ia as proxy defens­es against the West­’s com­bat­ants.

One should not mis­take the fact that the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic phi­los­o­phy is well regard­ed by the transna­tion­al cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty. IF ISIS or the Al Qae­da-affil­i­at­ed Al Nus­ra Front come to pow­er in Syr­ia, the flow of refugees will fur­ther desta­bi­lize Europe, giv­ing a boost the neo-fas­cist polit­i­cal par­ties that are mak­ing hay from anti-immi­grant sen­ti­ment. (We dis­cussed this dynam­ic in FTR #830 [59].)

“Mad­ness of Blockad­ing Syr­i­a’s Regime” by Robert Par­ry; Con­sor­tium News; 9/10/2015. [63]

Does the U.S. gov­ern­ment want the Islam­ic State and/or its fel­low-trav­el­ers in Al Qae­da to take over Syr­ia? As far as the State Depart­ment is con­cerned, that seems to be a risk worth tak­ing as it moves to cut off Russia’s sup­ply pipeline to the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment of Pres­i­dent Bashar al-Assad — even as Sun­ni ter­ror­ist groups expand their grip on Syr­i­an ter­ri­to­ry.

It appears that hard­lin­ers with­in the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion have placed the neo­con goal of “regime change” in Syr­ia ahead of the extra­or­di­nary dan­gers that could come from the black flag of Sun­ni ter­ror­ism raised over the cap­i­tal of Dam­as­cus. That would like­ly be accom­pa­nied by the Islam­ic State chop­ping off the heads of Chris­tians, Alaw­ites, Shi­ites and oth­er “heretics” and/or Al Qae­da hav­ing a major Mideast cap­i­tal from which to plot more attacks on the West.

And, as desta­bi­liz­ing as the cur­rent flow [64] of Mid­dle East refugees is to Europe, a vic­to­ry by the Islam­ic State or Al Qaeda’s Nus­ra Front would open the flood gates, send­ing mil­lions of des­per­ate peo­ple pour­ing out of Syr­ia and cre­at­ing a polit­i­cal as well as human­i­tar­i­an cri­sis. At that point, there also would be enor­mous pres­sure on Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma or his suc­ces­sor to mount a full-scale inva­sion of Syr­ia and attempt a bloody occu­pa­tion.

The human and finan­cial costs of this night­mare sce­nario are almost beyond com­pre­hen­sion. The Euro­pean Union – already strained by mass unem­ploy­ment in its south­ern tier — could crack apart, shat­ter­ing one of the pre­mier achieve­ments of the post-World War II era. The Unit­ed States also could under­go a final trans­for­ma­tion from a Repub­lic into a per­ma­nent-war­rior state.

Yet, Offi­cial Wash­ing­ton can’t seem to stop itself. Instead of work­ing with Rus­sia and Shi­ite-ruled Iran to help sta­bi­lize the political/military sit­u­a­tion in Syr­ia, the pun­dit class and the “tough-guy/­gal” politi­cians are unleash­ing tor­rents of insults toward the two coun­tries that would be the West’s nat­ur­al allies in any effort to pre­vent a Sun­ni ter­ror­ist takeover.

Beyond words, there has been action. Over the past week, the State Depart­ment has pres­sured Bul­gar­ia and Greece to bar Russ­ian trans­port flights head­ed to Syr­ia. The U.S. plan seems to be to block­ade the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment and starve it of out­side sup­plies, whether human­i­tar­i­an or mil­i­tary, all the bet­ter to force its col­lapse and open the Dam­as­cus city gates to the Islam­ic State and/or Al Qae­da.

In explain­ing its near­ly inex­plic­a­ble behav­ior, the State Depart­ment even has adopt­ed the sil­ly neo­con talk­ing point which blames Assad and now Rus­sia for cre­at­ing the Islam­ic State, though the blood­thirsty group actu­al­ly orig­i­nat­ed as “Al Qae­da in Iraq” in reac­tion to Pres­i­dent George W. Bush’s inva­sion of Iraq in 2003.

Then, backed by mon­ey and weapons from Sau­di Ara­bia, Qatar and oth­er U.S. “allies,” AQI moved into Syr­ia with the goal of oust­ing Assad’s rel­a­tive­ly sec­u­lar gov­ern­ment. AQI lat­er took the name Islam­ic State (also known by the acronyms ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). Yet, the State Department’s offi­cial posi­tion is that the Islam­ic State is Assad’s and Russia’s fault.

“What we’ve said is that their [the Rus­sians’] con­tin­ued sup­port to the Assad regime has actu­al­ly fos­tered the growth of ISIL inside Syr­ia and made the sit­u­a­tion worse,” State Depart­ment spokesman John Kir­by said [65] on Tues­day. “If they want to be help­ful against ISIL, the way to do it is to stop arm­ing and assist­ing and sup­port­ing Bashar al-Assad.”

Yet, the real­i­ty is that Assad’s mil­i­tary has been the prin­ci­pal bul­wark against both the Islam­ic State and the oth­er dom­i­nant Sun­ni rebel force, Al Qaeda’s affil­i­ate, the Nus­ra Front. So, by mov­ing to shut down Assad’s sup­ply line, the U.S. gov­ern­ment is, in effect, clear­ing the way for an Islam­ic State/Al Qae­da vic­to­ry since the U.S.-trained “mod­er­ate” rebels are large­ly a fic­tion, num­ber­ing in dou­ble dig­its, while the extrem­ists have tens of thou­sands of com­mit­ted fight­ers.

In oth­er words, if the U.S. strat­e­gy suc­ceeds in col­laps­ing Assad’s defens­es, there is real­ly noth­ing to stop the Sun­ni ter­ror­ists from seiz­ing Dam­as­cus and oth­er major cities. Then, U.S. airstrikes on those pop­u­la­tion cen­ters would sure­ly kill many civil­ians and fur­ther rad­i­cal­ize the Sun­nis. To oust the Islam­ic State and/or Al Qae­da would require a full-scale U.S. inva­sion, which might be inevitable but would almost cer­tain­ly fail, much as Bush’s Iraq occu­pa­tion did. . . .