The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

This ancient proverb descends from the Arab World and it could be what transpires as the current history of the Middle East is unfolding from the Persian streets of Tehran to the Arab alleyways of Palestine. A vast majority of world citizens define the major conflict in the Middle East as The Arab/Israeli conflict. This is the conflict that has waged through times of relative quietness and pounding war since 1948. Hundreds of thousands have died in this conflict, leaders have risen and fallen, peace initiatives signed and later violated , land has been lost and regained.

However, this conflict did not very heavily precede 1948 and it deserves to be compared to another conflict that spreads across the Middle East. This first blood spilt by this conflict was in the 7th century. This is the conflict that began after the death of Muhammad and at the beginning of Islam’s conquest, the split between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. This is the conflict, the war, the hatred that has caused blood shed for 14 centuries in the Middle East. An exact count of the lives that have been claimed by this age-old conflict may be impossible to find, but it is certain that more have died in the battle between Sunni and Shia than between Israelis and Palestinians.

The relevance right now in considering these conflicts is to attempt to see where the current events taking place are going to lead the region. Both conflicts remain much as they have since they started long ago. There does not seem to be a prospect of peace on the horizon for either, but should we be so bold as to ask if a third conflict could force battling sides to find a middle ground in the interest of survival. Iran has an impeccable talent for changing not only the political landscape of their region of the world, but of the entire world. They are superior at grabbing the headlines as they did in 1979 and as they have done repeatedly in the last several years.

Once again, they may cause a quake in the Middle East, but one that is not expected or anticipated. With the brutal force that Iran has exerted over elements of its population and its growing nuclear ambitions and possible threat, the Arab States to its west must be plunging their greatest minds into deep debate about what their future holds. There is not much love between many Arab nations and their distant Iranian neighbors, there is also not much love between the Arab nations and their Israeli neighbors. However, if not to long from now they will be sitting between a nuclear Iranian foe and nuclear Israeli foe then they may want to make an alliance with an enemy of an enemy. The debate lies in the question of where will nations like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States turn. Syria and a Shia-led Iraq will be likely allies of a nuclear Iran, and Lebanon seems to often to be at the behest of Hizballah.

Egypt and Jordan do have peace agreements with Israel and normal relations with Iran, but there is little depth in those relationships and they are fairly superficial. An alliance where there is a shared interest in the well being of each nation is what is being looked at here. In all fairness, the Arab States would have many grievances and much animosity to deal with before investing itself in an alliance with the Jewish State. However, when held in comparison to the Islamic Shia Republic of Iran and its unpredictable leadership, Israel may come out as the lesser of two evils in Arab eyes. As far as conventional and nuclear military force, Israel heavily out weighs Iran in fire power and technology. It is hard to imagine all this playing out in the near future without considering the United State’s position, but we would do well to evaluate how the Arab States may look at this situation from a regional stand point with two armed and able neighbors.

Saudi Arabia and its Sunni royal family has always stood strongly against Israel, and has become the de facto leader of the Arab World because of its wealth that is used through out the Arab world and its position as the guardian of Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia has been consistently out spoken against Iran's nuclear program and has several times warned that the nuclear program is not for peaceful purposes. The Saudis view Iran’s moves as a desires to challenge them as a regional leader and there is the age old issue of the whether it’s called the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. As Saudi Arabia evaluates Iran's intentions and just how far the Islamic Republic is willing to go to reach its aspirations of power and prestige, it may see the small Israeli nation as a nuclear ally against Iran. Saudis and the other Arab leaders may also take note that Israel has never used its nuclear capability, and Iran may seemed poised to use it as soon as possible with the past history of testing long range Shabab3 missiles. Israel may simply seem the saner partner in a nuclear conflict.

Battle lines between Sunni and Shia have lasted much longer than the battle lines of the West Bank and Gaza, and we have seen the brutality of this sectarian violence in recent events in Iraq. It seemed that while US military forces were still present in Iraq, the insurgents all but forgot fighting US troops and took up the ancient battle between Sunni and Shia. At the outbreak of the war the insurgents fought heavily against the coalition forces, but the hatred and history between religious sects in Iraq is deeply dividing and the animosity between them soon seemed to out weigh the animosity toward US military forces.

Obviously the issues of land and refugees would not be forgotten with regard to Israel and Palestine, but every time peace has been attempted it has failed. Perhaps the inability to build lasting peace is due to the attempt to solve all the issues before engaging in relations, maybe there needs to be some event that forces an alliance between the sides and allows the long-standing conflicts to be dealt with at a later date. This is probably more controversial and unlikely then many would care to consider, be but sometimes we need to think outside the box.

My Response to St. Matthews Church

This is a letter that I am sending to St. Matthews Church, they send out these "payer rugs" and flyers all over the country, if you are not familiar with them they have a webiste that might explain it if interested, www.aboutsaintmatthewschurches.com


It seems to me that many churches don’t consider the negative impact that their actions can have on pushing people further away from Jesus.

God’s will is not for everyone to be wealthy and all of our problems fixed. Many times our problems are our stepping stones to faith and learning to trust Jesus as we walk through them, not just having them miraculously fixed. You are much better off encouraging people to seek God’s own Son to help them by reading The Bible and learning about and accepting what Jesus did for them. Only to the true God can He step into our lies of sin and work on them. God cannot interact with sin that has not been dealt with by that person covering themselves with Jesus’ blood; therefore He can not answer prayers of someone who does not pray in Jesus name just because they have a rug. Encourage them to seek God, not just fixes to their problems.

I am not a Bible scholar, but I am familiar with much of Scripture and I am wondering where you are pulling much of this from. You seem to be deceiving people that this is some magic formula to get God’s help, how ridiculous and even more, how dangerous. You don’t even know who is getting this letter and rug, what kind of people that don’t know anything of the Messiah will think this piece of paper with Jesus picture has some Holy power and they can get some money or something from God despite never giving any bit of their life to God.

And what about the people that chose to believe that this will work and God will bless them? But nothing happens because it is not God’s will for this person’s life right now. (We are called to pray according to His will). Will they be pushed even further away from God and not believe He exist because He didn’t answer the prayer. When they should only be upset at your misleading and trickery.

The exact steps in your letter (i.e. both knees, place it in the Bible, the exact timing of everything) what an appalling disregard for the simplicity of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice to save us and change everything from the inside out. Instead of letting people know that it’s okay that they don’t have a Bible, you should encourage them to read it. Maybe provide some good versus to start with if it’s their first time. Perhaps you also should pick up your Bibles there at the Church and read them. People are much better seeking help from the Word of God that has existed from the beginning of time, than a 59 year old church.

All of this I say because if you and I are brothers then we are accountable to speak truth in love to each other for the sake of the Gospel.

A little bit about me...

I have been instilled with strong old-fashioned values by my parents. I was raised in a small farm town and I believe that the way they raised me has had an impact on my character and personality today. I am someone that takes my work seriously and I have a strong, determined work ethic. I was raised to be dependable and respectful of others and to help people when I can. I try to put others before myself and I hold true to promises and oaths that I have made. I am able to build relationships and find common ground with a wide variety of people; varying in hobbies, interest, religion, and ethnicity.

I have always done well in schooling and because of that I enjoy learning and I have an aptitude for retaining new information quickly and being versatile. I am a curious and analytical person; I take pleasure in finding the answers to how things work and learning the reasoning as to why things are the way they are. I can easily see myself being a life-long student in some sense. I never want to stop learning about this world we live in and the people that make it what it is. If I had the financial means, I would currently be enrolled in more university classes to strengthen and expand my education. I enjoy the academic setting and spending time in a culture of new ideas.

I have a leadership personality, though I do not always assert myself as a leader. When the situation arises where a leader is needed I am able to inspire others into action. My leadership abilities rely on my organized nature. I am able to work effectively at most things due to organizing and prioritizing my tasks. As a child I was also very clean and organized and I guess that has held on into adulthood to my benefit. I do not usually shy away from conflict, but I do attempt to find a resolution when I am involved in conflict. Making peace between other parties is something that I have had a knack for within my circle of influence. I prefer to resolve conflicts, if possible, before a ridge of resentment and animosity severs a relationship. I have strong convictions about my beliefs, which are centered on God, family, and country and I hold these convictions in high esteem. I stand up for the principles that I believe in, but I do not force others to share the same principles.

I consider myself an active person who likes to be healthy and in good physical condition. I was involved in high school sports and recreationally in college. In the past year I have been determined at increasing my amount of exercise and taken up running, swimming, and biking. I feel that I am intellectually sharper when I am physically active and spending some time enjoying the outdoors. I like to change things up occasionally and mix a variety of activities in my day. Sometimes I burnout and hit a wall when I spend and excess amount of time focused on one thing. When there is the opportunity to work on a few things at a time, my mind stays fresh with new ideas.

While a small town, family-centered upbringing gave me the foundation to build on; I also tend to push the envelope in new experiences. I am an oddball among my family and friends. I do not have any family connections to the International field or the Middle East, but I am drawn to them and I am passionate with regard to them. I am an independent person most of the time and a self-motivator. While living abroad, I was responsible for arranging daily life and travel for my wife and I. From childhood I imagined that my life would be important and have a vast effect. I want to do something significant with my life and the talents I have been given.

The US Ends 2009 on Shaky Ground

Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab became a well known name in the final week of 2009, and there is much to talk about with regards to that botched attack. Members of the 9/11 Commission claimed that there principle recommendation to the US Government was to increase information sharing among US intelligence agencies, that was apparently ignored when it came to warning signs of Abdulmatallab.
Even with the events on Christmas Day, the more I learn about what took place on the final days of 2009 at a US base in Afghanistan the more I wonder what's next. Reports claim that al-Balawi was able to play Jordanian and US intelligence for fools even after being suspected of terrorist sympathies in Jordan. This hits me hard because Jordan is the country that I have spent the most time in besides the US. I have deep respect for the people of the CIA and the work that they do, and they suffered a sad loss in that attack. If it is true that al-Balawi was infiltrating the intelligence agencies from the beginning with an Al-Qaeda allegiance, then what information regarding personal or operations has he come across that was passed along to Al-Qaeda before his suicide attack? The ramifications of this could last much longer and have a more violent impact than the lives lost on the day of the attack.

What Could Have Been Iran...

Polling booths throughout cities and villages of Iran were crowded on June 12 for a closely- contested presidential election. The weeks preceding the election were covered extensively by news agencies across the United States and Europe. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was being challenged by a familiar name in Iranian politics, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. Much of the West was hopeful for a regime change in favor of Mr. Mousavi. To the surprise of very few people, Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government announced his victory shortly after polls had closed. Simultaneously, Mousavi was announcing that he had captured the majority of the votes. Many streets of Tehran were in chaos over the next week as Mousavi supporters and Mousavi himself claimed that voting irregularities had falsely given Ahmadinejad another presidential term. The issue has since been taken up by the Guardian Council and they have confirmed some irregularities, but they will not be sufficient to overturn the decision.

With all that has recently taken place inside Iran, there is much dreaming about what the country would have looked like under Mousavi’s presidency. Mousavi is not a hard-line conservative like his rival, and advocates a more free society in Iran. He has stated that the police and security forces managing the streets would be pulled back and held within the confines of the law. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed to have the backing of the Iranian youth, an overwhelmingly high percentage of the population, and he appeared to have the unofficial support of the Western nations.

While the Iranian citizens that chose Mousavi as their candidate may have received what they wanted if he won, the watching West may have been disappointed with his policies. Despite his reformist and moderate stance, Mousavi would have continued to tow the line in the majority of Iranian politics and foreign relations. Among the reasons for this are Mousavi’s personal statements about high interest policies and the intricacies of the Iranian system.

The former Prime Minister held office from 1981 until 1989 when the constitution was amended to remove the post of Prime Minister. He has made it known that he fully supports the Islamic Republic and the ideals of the Revolution. His rise during the early years of the Republic took place at the side of Ayatollah Khomeini, as Mousavi was a loyal follower. Although the relationship between Mousavi and Ayatollah Khamenei is one of conflict, it is not likely that Mousavi would challenge the Ayatollah or The Guardian Council on the Islamic nature of the law and society. Mousavi stated in an interview with Al-Jazeera that he disagreed with the phrase, “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” Yet, he was appointed to the leadership council of Hizballah when they were created and he does not recognize Israel. With regard to the issue of uranium enrichment, Mousavi has made it clear that no changes would take place during his presidency, under any circumstances. Mousavi’s track record of relations with Western nations is also not very impressive. He voiced his support for the seizure of American’s at the embassy in Tehran in 1979. At the time, he referred to the hostage taking as “the finalization and culmination of Iran realizing its identity during the Revolution.” While serving as Prime Minister, Mousavi severed diplomatic ties with Great Britain due to a British author, Salman Rushdie, whose novel in 1988 earned him a death threat from Iran, which Mousavi supported.

Mir Hossein Mousavi’s presidency would not have brought forth any drastic changes like the days of the Revolution. The current system would have remained fully intact under Khamenei, perhaps stronger than under Ahmadinejad’s constant annoyance to the ruling clerics. Perhaps the only impact that could have been felt in the West would have been some aftershocks of a mildly more free Iranian society.

Sacrificing America's Security

Today I heard Jesse Ventura make a comment today about all of the torture debate and water-boarding that's flying around the news lately. He very strongly opposes water-boarding and torture, and said that we should be above the type of people that use torture and that the United States is better than that, we are at a higher level than other countries.
I'm just wondering what the moral ethic or code is that people are using to claim that the US is above all other countries in our morality that we do not use advanced interrogations or torture against terrorist. I love my country, because it is my country, but I am under no perception that the US lives by some higher moral code than other countries. We are a culture of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll (and I'm not thrilled about that, I prefer the Christian principles we were built on). But, our country surpasses many others when it comes to greed, crime, hate, sexual promiscuity, drugs, divorce, gay marriage and the list goes on. This is the sad truth of what much of America has become. Taking these characteristics into consideration, we fall pretty far down the list as far as our morality and ethics compared to many countries. As the years go on, these flaws of our culture are growing and spreading.
We could take some initiative in our country to change some of these problems in order for our country to be at the level of morality that some believe us to be. Instead, some people would rather have us forsake our national security in order to save face. I would rather have our country restrict what is allowed on T.V. and make divorce and affairs more difficult, and allow children to pray in school and support churches. Instead, they want us to make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorism so we can claim to live by a higher standard.
Also, these terrorist have made their decision to spend their lives killing as many innocent (non-combatant) lives as possible. In my opinion they have forsaken any claim to be treated as decent human beings with any rights. Do what we need to gather the intell that we need and then be done with them. I would not expect any mercies given to me if I chose the life of a terrorist. They are also not American citizens, and why do we need to follow international law and Geneva Convention in how we deal with men that were associated with an attack that killed nearly 3000 US citizens, these were our people.

A New Conservative Angle on the DHS Report

I recently received an email calling for Christians to be up in arms about the new DHS report. I'm not going to go into much detail about the report, it is available on the web. What follows is my response to the email I received.

I just wanted to respond to this email real quick and throw my 2 cents on the table. I wasn't offended by this report when I first heard about it and I am still not offended after looking at ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) website. The reason that I'm not offended even though I am a christian conservative who is pro-life, is that I don't see where I fall into this report.

First off, this report is just a warning for law enforcement to be aware of a possibility. Which I think is very good, they should be aware of a possible threat no matter where it could come from. I think if the Bush admin would have put out a report like this after his second election pertaining to the extreme leftest, it would have been good, if they felt the threat was possible.

Second, the report says, as ACLJ quotes, that a right-wing extremist that could be dangerous is someone who is hate-orientated and opposed to the authority of the elected government. So you would need to meet that criteria first in order to be counted in this definition, most christian conservatives are not hate-orientated and opposed to the rightful ruling of government, so I don't believe they have anything to worry about under this report and I don't think that DHS has them in mind. I think this includes the type of people who blow up abortion clinics or attend rallies to raise support to overthrow the government. What the report then says is that someone that falls under the first criteria may come from a group that is extreme about a particular issue, such as abortion or immigration. Not everyone who has a strong belief against one these issues is to be considered a possible terrorist threat, it is the extreme, hate-orientates, over-throw the government type.

However, there is one thing that did (at first) bother me in this report, the mentioning of US war veterans. I thought it showed a lack of respect for our veterans and the sacrifices that they make. I know that some veterans come home and are unable to cope with life outside of war and can have breakdowns that are violent. When reading the report I did take note that the emphasis is not so much on the veterans themselves as it is on the desire of terrorist groups desire to exploit veterans and there training. Also, this report does list much historical support for the possible dangers they are concerned about. It seems that veterans that are upset about this report, could find it helpful to see this report has a helpful warning to them to be aware of domestic terror groups wanting to exploit them and their training.

This is just my opinion, as you shared yours. Maybe there is an underlying evilness that I'm not seeing, but I don't see this as threatening to me.