RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14818/islamist-terrorism-yemen

Recent tensions within the coalition between the Saudis and the Emiratis, over which faction they support in the Yemeni government, has added yet another political dimension to the country’s bitter civil war — one Islamist terrorists have been quick to exploit.

The Saudis and Emiratis are now trying to heal the rift by hosting a peace conference involving the rival factions, in Jeddah.

While the political uncertainty continues, however, al-Qaeda and ISIL are taking advantage of the political vacuum to reestablish their own operations in the country, a deeply worrying development that certainly does not bode well for UN-sponsored attempts to end the country’s long-running civil war between the government and the Iranian-backed Houthis.

So long as groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL are able to act with impunity in Yemen, the more remote are the prospects become of ending this dreadful conflict anytime soon.

As if war-torn Yemen did not have enough violence to contend with at present, the recent spate of terror attacks in its southern port points to the return of Islamist terror groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, which are still plying their deadly trade in the country.

In the latest wave of terror attacks last month, a suicide bombing in Aden has claimed the lives of three members of Yemen’s security forces while, in a separate attack, a senior Yemeni security official survived a roadside bomb attack against his convoy in the centre of the city.

Initially Yemeni security officials said the attack had been carried out by al-Qaeda, which has claimed responsibility for a number of recent attacks in government-controlled territory in the south of the country. In early August, for example, an al-Qaeda attack on a military base claimed the lives of 19 Yemeni soldiers.

In what is, however, a graphic illustration of the ease with which rival Islamist terror groups are now able to operate in this lawless country, it was ISIL, not al-Qaeda, that eventually claimed responsibility for last weekend’s attacks.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14811/brexit-saga-continues

The lack of concern for a ‘hard Brexit’ shown by both the voters and commentators during the referendum in 2016, was due to a few factors. Those who wanted out, the ‘Leavers’, were interested in only one thing — a clean break, whilst the ‘Remainers’ were so certain they would win the vote, they felt it unnecessary even to contemplate the ‘wrong’ result.

In 1973, when Britain joined the ‘European Economic Community’, as it was then known – there was no similar referendum on joining Europe. The people were simply never consulted.

After experiencing firsthand the broken promises and negative effects of an EU membership in which the British public had no say, it was an easy vote, when the referendum came around in 2016, to ‘Leave’. It was time to flee from an authoritarian system that had no direct elections, no transparency, no accountability, and no mechanism either for un-electing anyone or for leaving. It was, sort of, a Roach Motel: one can come in but not go out.

Alarm began at the introduction of the Euro currency in 2002, and the eradication of our partners’ domestic currencies: these moves magnified the true aim of the European Commission — to control, and make uniform, every aspect of our lives.

What we have learned in Great Britain from the ‘Remainers’, and the US as well, is: there are a multitude of ways to snub the result of a democratic vote.

Britain’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson was accused by his opponents of staging a ‘constitutional coup’ by suspending parliament to block MPs from preventing Britain from finally leaving the Europe Union on October 31.

The Labour party’s leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, chimed in — claiming that the new prime minister is behaving like a ‘tin pot dictator’ — thereby inflating the hysterical reaction to Johnson’s bid finally to push through the will of the people.

It has been three years since Britain held a referendum on whether or not to remain in the EU. There was never any talk of a ‘deal’. The vote was simply: leave or remain. The nitty gritty, should we vote to leave, could supposedly be worked out in the run-up to the departure date.

The lack of concern for a ‘hard Brexit’ shown by both the voters and commentators during the referendum in 2016, was due to a few factors. Those who wanted out, the ‘Leavers’, were interested in only one thing — a clean break, whilst the ‘Remainers’ were so certain they would win the vote, they felt it unnecessary even to contemplate the ‘wrong’ result.

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/insight/

For decades, the concept of a “Shiite Crescent” anchored by the radical Shiite supremacists in Iran and passing through Iraq, Syria, and Hezb’allah to the Mediterranean Sea has been understood. It would provide Iran not only with closer access to Israel, but also spread across the northern borders of two key Sunni adversaries — pro-American Jordan, and its most important enemy, Saudi Arabia, guardian of Mecca and Medina. It would further split off Sunni Turkey (a historic foe) from the other Sunni Middle East states.

The Crescent is, for Iran, a single battlefront and the Islamic Republic has spent decades successfully undermining and wrecking each subsidiary member.

Iraq is hardly a functional country. But as a staging ground for Iranian militias and weapons depots headed west, Iraq is a prize. Syria is largely a dead zone. But as a launching pad for Iranian military bases and attacks on Israel, Syria is a bonanza. Lebanon is a corrupt satrap of Syria and Iran, governed by a terror organization with a foreign legion and an international money/drug/weapons racket. But its very weakness and its border with Israel make Lebanon invaluable.

Each member of this “gang of four” maintains a state of war with Israel and threatens it on a regular basis. Israel’s attacks on weapons centers Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are not an escalation of a fragile situation — they are a defensive response to a  high-tech military buildup orchestrated by Iran across the region.

Israel has the support of the United States for its defensive actions. But until now, U.S. foreign and defense policy have actually made things worse for Israel and others in the region by empowering Iran – and even now, when the administration is aware of its malign nature, and has reimposed economic sanctions on Tehran, it needs a strategy against Iranian gains on the ground.