Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri reiterated his call for jihad against the Syrian dictatorship in a message posted on the Internet yesterday. The conflict in Syria pits the Assad regime, Iran and Hezbollah against the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and the Arab states. Non-Islamist Syrians desiring genuine democracy, including the Christian minority, are caught in-between.

Zawahiri tells Muslims to support the uprising “with all that he can, with his life, money, opinion, as well as information.” The message comes after 25 were killed and 175 were wounded in two suicide bombings in Aleppo of security service buildings. The attacks are believed to have been directly ordered by Ayman al-Zawahiri and carried out by Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq.

He is especially concerned about how foreign powers will influence the Syrian opposition as it looks for outside help.

“Our people in Syria, don’t rely on the West or the United States or Arab governments and Turkey,” Zawahiri says.

His video was released on the same day that the Arab League asked the United Nations to send a peacekeeping force into Syria and agreed to “materially” support the opposition, likely paving the way for military assistance to the Free Syria Army that is fighting the regime’s forces.

The Muslim Brotherhood, unlike Al-Qaeda, is happy to accept foreign military intervention if it will lead to victory. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the top Brotherhood cleric, declared that it is permissible for Muslims to welcome U.N.-backed intervention in Syria if the Arab states are unable to stop the violence.

Al-Qaeda has had an on-again, off-again relationship with the Assad regime. Syria has imprisoned members of Al-Qaeda, as the terrorist group is ideologically committed to replacing the regime with Islamist rule. Assad has also helped Al-Qaeda when their interests have aligned, particularly in Iraq and Lebanon. Relations between Iraq and Syria hit the breaking point in 2009 when the Iraqis released evidence that the Assad regime was backing Al-Qaeda and other terrorists carrying out attacks in Iraq. The relationship has healed since then as Iranian influence over Iraq has grown.

The Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister says that terrorists are crossing the border into Syria and shipping arms to the opposition fighting Assad. The price of a Kalashnikov assault rifle has increased from $100-200 to $1000-$1500 because of the rise in demand, he claims. However, the Iraqi government is backing Assad and could just be trying to substantiate the dictatorship’s claims that it is only fighting “armed gangs” and terrorists.

Since coming to power in 2000, Bashar Assad’s strategy has been to portray his regime as the only thing stopping an Islamist takeover. Secular democratic voices are silenced while the jihadist rhetoric of Islamists is often allowed. The regime recently released a top Al-Qaeda prisoner, Abu Musab al-Suri, who used to lead the terrorist group’s operations in Europe. He oversaw the 2005 bombings in London and was involved in the 2004 bombings in Madrid.

The contest for the Republican presidential nomination has, yet again, taken a surprising turn. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum won the caucuses in Missouri and Minnesota yesterday and topped the night off with a come-from-behind surprise victory in Colorado.

Mitt Romney lost Missouri in 2008 and did not make a play for the caucus, which isn’t awarding any delegates. Newt Gingrich failed to make it onto the ballot, leaving Rick Santorum and Ron Paul to battle it out. Santorum prevailed, winning Missouri with 55% of the vote. Romney came in second with 25%. Ron Paul finished with 12%. This was not a surprising victory, as Santorum was leading in the polls there.

The media assumed that Romney would win Colorado and focused on Minnesota. Romney won the state by 19% in 2008, but the polls showed Santorum with a comfortable lead as the caucus took place. At the time of this article’s publication, Santorum was shown winning Minnesota with 45%. Ron Paul is in second with 27%, Romney has 17% and Gingrich has 11%. If these totals hold, this will mean that Santorum rose from a 2-point lead on February 4 in Public Policy Polling’s survey to a 9-point lead on February 6 and ultimately won by a whopping 18%.

The media thought Santorum’s landslide victory in Minnesota would be the story of the night, but they were wrong. Romney won Colorado in 2008 by 42%. The polls consistently showed him with double-digit leads. The last poll had him ahead by 10%. Amazingly, Santorum pulled off an upset and won a solid victory in Colorado. With 99% of districts reporting, Santorum had attained 40% of the vote, while Romney had 35%, Gingrich had 13% and Paul had 12%. This is a remarkable feat for a candidate who was dismissed as he languished in the low single digits for the majority of the campaign.

Santorum gave his victory speech after the results in Missouri and Minnesota were announced. He likely didn’t think he’d win Colorado at that point. Trumpeting his electability, Santorum proudly said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

He made the case that last night’s contests were the most reflective of what the general election campaign will look like. Mitt Romney was unable to overwhelm his opponents with immense finances and superior organization, Santorum argued. He made the point that President Obama’s organization and fundraising will outmatch his Republican opponent, and so Romney will not be able to count on those advantages to win. Santorum argued that the only way Obama could be beaten is if a sharp contrast is drawn and that he is the best candidate to do that.

Mitt Romney won a big victory in Florida’s primary yesterday, taking the state’s 50 delegates with 46% of the vote. There’s still a long road ahead, as Romney only has 87 of the 1,144 delegates needed to officially win the nomination. In their speeches following the primary results, the candidates indicate that the contest will take a more positive direction.

Romney did not mention any of his opponents by name in his victory speech. The only criticism he made was that the others did not have the experience in creating jobs that he has. His focus was completely on President Obama, sounding as if the general election campaign had already begun. He pledged to “end the Obama era and begin a new era of American prosperity.”

He said that President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” the country and that he be the one to bring true hope and change. One standout line in Romney’s speech was, “Hope is a new paycheck, not a faded word on an old bumper sticker.” A look at Romney’s financial advantage and the upcoming contests helps explain why Romney sounded so confident and is, once again, talking as if the nomination is his. “If you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not our destiny, then I am asking for your vote,” he said.

The Romney campaign has nearly 10 times the money that Newt Gingrich has with no debt. It is likely that Romney will score 7 victories in a row by the end of February, as political analyst Dick Morris pointed out. The next contest will be on February 4 when Nevada holds its caucus. Romney won the state in 2008 and has led in every poll taken there. Maine begins its week-long caucus that day also and polls show Romney leading. Romney won Maine in 2008. On February 4, the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota take place, both of which Romney won last time.

The only debate of the month will be held on February 22, giving Romney’s opponents an opportunity to stall his momentum. If they don’t, he will win the Michigan and Arizona primaries on February 28. Romney won the former in 2008 and lost the latter to McCain. The last poll in Arizona had Gingrich and Romney tied. Super Tuesday, the date when 10 states hold their caucuses and primaries, arrives on March 6.

Newt Gingrich came in second place in Florida with 32% of the vote, but didn’t win any delegates because it is a winner-takes-all contest. He claimed that the state had “made it clear” that the campaign had narrowed down to two people, with Romney as the “Massachusetts moderate” and him as the “conservative leader.” By making this statement, he was trying to compel supporters of Rick Santorum and Ron Paul to jump to his side. He repeatedly talked about winning by running a “positive” campaign and his relatively tepid criticism of Romney may be the result of a shift in strategy.

The Obama administration is redefining the War on Terrorism as a war on Al-Qaeda, with Vice President Biden going so far as to say that the “Taliban, per se, is not our enemy.” In June, Afghan President Hamid Karzai confirmed that the U.S. was negotiating with the Taliban, and talks have reportedly gone on since at least November 2010. Now, President Obama is even thinking about releasing five high-level Taliban leaders to Qatar from Guantanamo Bay, despite their direct ties with Al-Qaeda and the military’s warnings that they are likely to rejoin the violent jihad.

Marc Thiessen reviewed the biographies of the five Taliban leaders that the U.S. may set free. Mullah Mohammed Fazl was the chief of staff of the Taliban army and worked with Osama Bin Laden’s 055 Brigade. Abdul Haq Wasiq, the Taliban’s deputy intelligence minister, built alliances with terrorist groups and arranged for Al-Qaeda to train Taliban fighters. The governor of Herat Province, Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, was “directly associated” with Bin Laden, supervising an Al-Qaeda training camp and took part in Taliban dealings with Iran to jointly kill U.S. soldiers.

Mullah Norullah Noori, a former Taliban commander, was involved with senior members of Al-Qaeda and fought alongside the terrorist group. The Joint Task Force-Guantanamo describes him as a Taliban “hardliner.” Muhammad Nabi, a fundraiser for the Taliban, was part of an Al-Qaeda cell. The reason these five leaders are held is because the military believes they will go right back to what they were doing before their imprisonment. Yet, the Obama administration believes that releasing them will improve the chances that the negotiations with the Taliban will be successful.

There have been around six meetings between the U.S. and Taliban representatives in Germany and Doha, Qatar. Among those participating are Mullah Omar’s secretary and Ibrahim Haqqani, the brother of the leader of the Al-Qaeda-tied Haqqani Network. The U.S. was encouraged by the Taliban’s agreement to open up a political office in Qatar, where Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi is acting as a “mediator.” Qaradawi is a terrorism-supporting, anti-Semitic cleric and leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich went at in what Nate Silver called “probably the most important GOP debate” of the campaign. The focus was mainly on the charges the two frontrunners have made against each other but when it came to foreign policy, the audience cheered Romney’s defense of Israel and Rick Santorum’s denunciation of the Obama administration towards “militant socialists” in Latin America.

The polls out of Florida have fluctuated wildly over the past week. In the days after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory, polls had him ahead by 8 or 9 points. Now, Romney has an average lead of 5 points, with several polls having him winning by 7 or 8 points. The two frontrunners swapped positions in just four days. The primary will be held on Tuesday, January 31.

On foreign policy, Mitt Romney had the most applause when he was asked about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He ridiculed the Obama administration for “disrespecting” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for peace negotiations to be based on the 1967 borders and for criticizing Israel’s settlements in the West Bank while remaining silent as terrorist rockets fell on Israeli cities. He gave a passionate defense of Israel, saying that it is the Palestinians who are uninterested in a two-state solution. He argued that both Hamas and Fatah seek the destruction of Israel and that Palestinian children are taught with textbooks advocating the killing of Jews.

Newt Gingrich’s best moment on foreign policy was also about Israel. He defended his earlier statement that the Palestinians are an “invented” people, saying that before the 1970s, the Palestinians were just referred to as Arabs with Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or Lebanese nationalities. He said the Palestinian leadership is more interested in conflict than in improving the lives of the Palestinian people and uses the process as “war by another form.” The crowd loved it when he said that on his first day in office, he’d sign an executive order moving the embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Rick Santorum was enthusiastically applauded when spoke about the intercontinental alliance between Islamic extremists like Iran and the “militant socialists” in Latin America, specifically in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia that are “spreading like a cancer.” The source of that cancer, Santorum said, is the Castro regime. He said that President Obama had “sided with the leftists, sided with the Marxists” in Latin America against U.S. allies like Colombia and those in Honduras who tried to stop Manuel Zelaya, a Chavez ally, from forming a dictatorship.

Ron Paul repeatedly advocated using diplomacy and free trade as the best way of promoting security. He said that his rivals’ policies towards Cuba and Latin America would backfire and cause anti-Americanism because of their “bully attitude.” His most well-received foreign policy-related line was when he said that most of the American people “don’t see a jihadist under the bed every night.”

There were several clashes between the candidates in this debate. The biggest were between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Romney put him on the defensive over an ad that called him an “anti-immigrant,” which Florida Senator Marco Rubio defended him against. Romney said it was “repulsive,” that disagreements should be allowed to happen without “highly-charged epithets” and demanded an apology. Gingrich said that Romney would deport “grandmothers” who came to the U.S. illegally, which he denied.

The two frontrunners also battled over an ad accusing Gingrich of describing Spanish as the “language of the ghetto.” Wolf Blitzer asked Romney about it, who said he hadn’t seen the ad and was unsure if his campaign was behind it. He then asked Gingrich if that quote was accurate, to which he replied, “it’s taken totally out of context.” Romney responded, “Oh, well then he said it.” Later in the debate, Blitzer informed Romney that CNN confirmed that his campaign was running the ad, generating boos from the audience.

The following article presents one interpretation of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. For a counter-view written by Ben Shapiro, in favor of Newt Gingrich’s electability, click here. 

If you can’t get elected, you can’t govern. That’s why electability is a top concern of Republican primary voters, compelling even some of those who would prefer a Gingrich presidency to support Mitt Romney. Each candidate has his flaws and advantages against President Obama, but there are three big reasons why Romney is generally seen as the more electable one. The polls show that Romney is a much stronger candidate, Gingrich has significantly more baggage and Gingrich’s difficulties in leadership could jeopardize his campaign.

The polls have Romney performing better against Obama than Gingrich in every important state. First, look at some of the most Republican-friendly states won by Obama in 2008. Romney wins Missouri but Gingrich loses by 4. In Virginia, Obama loses to Romney by 2 but beats Gingrich by 5. In Florida, Obama leads Romney only 0.2% on average (the latest poll has him up by 2) but defeats Gingrich by 5.5. In North Carolina, Obama leads Romney by 1 and Gingrich by 6. In Ohio, Romney is behind by 5.5, while Gingrich is way behind by 13.5 percentage points.

Now look at some of the more difficult swing states, at least one of which will probably have to be won by the Republican nominee. Romney wins New Hampshire by 6.5 points while Gingrich loses by 10. In Pennsylvania, Obama defeats Romney by 2.3 and Gingrich by 9.5. In Iowa, Romney loses by 2.6 and Gingrich by 10. In Michigan, Obama wins by 2.7 against Romney and 5 against Gingrich. In Nevada, Obama beats Romney by 6.5 and Gingrich by 12. In Colorado, Romney loses by 2 and Gingrich loses by 8.

Viewers of the first Republican presidential debate in Florida saw a newly aggressive Mitt Romney who engaged in a lengthy exchange with Newt Gingrich.  The media will focus on the bickering over Gingrich’s alleged lobbying and tenure as speaker of the House, but the tough talk on overthrowing the communist regime of Cuba is what electrified the audience.

About 10% of the Florida primary voters are Cuban-Americans, prompting the moderator to ask Mitt Romney about his stance on the Castro regime and how he’d handle a potential refugee crisis if it were to fall. Romney was applauded, even though the audience was asked to be quiet, when he said he’d first “thank heavens that Castro has gone to his maker.” He sharply criticized President Obama’s softening of America’s policy towards Cuba and praised a democratic activist who died in Cuba while on a hunger strike.

Newt Gingrich was likewise applauded by following that up with saying, “I don’t think Fidel [Castro] is going to meet his maker. He’s going to another place.”  Gingrich then won the biggest reaction of the night when he said that he would not tolerate four more years of the Castro dictatorship and would support a “Cuban Spring” by supporting every democratic activist achieve regime change.

Rick Santorum spoke in similar terms and broadened the discussion. He warned of the anti-American alliance that has formed between Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Iran and the “jihadists.” He said that these enemies are elated to have a base only 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

Ron Paul was the lone exception to a policy of regime change towards Cuba. He said that it is not 1962 anymore and that the U.S. should diplomatically and economically engage the Cuban regime, comparing it to how relations have improved with Vietnam.

Iran’s threats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz also were discussed. Mitt Romney said that such an action would be an act of war and that the U.S. military should respond to reopen the route. He also said that the U.S. Navy is the smallest it has ever been since 1917 and that he would increase annual production of naval ships from 8 per year to 15.

Gingrich promised to decisively respond to Iran and mocked the Obama administration for canceling its planned missile defense exercises with Israel, saying it is “dangerous”  for Iran to believe that the U.S. is weak. Ron Paul said that the U.S. has committed an act of war against Iran by “blockading” the country and that an attack on the Strait of Hormuz would be “retaliation.”  He dismissed the possibility that Iran would actually close the Strait because of its reliance on oil exports.

Rick Santorum gave the toughest answer on Iran, adding that the U.S. should use military force if necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He equated the Iranian theocracy with Al-Qaeda and gave a long list of Iranian “acts of war,” including taking American citizens hostage, attacking ships and embassies, plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. on American soil and helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Newt Gingrich’s 13-point victory over Mitt Romney in South Carolina on Saturday topped off the wildest week in the Republican presidential race to date. Only four candidates remain. Three of them have won a contest. As Karl Rove said on Fox News after the results were announced, “we are in unchartered territory.” This campaign isn’t ending anytime soon and neither is its unpredictability.

Mitt Romney’s hopes of sealing the nomination early were dashed by Gingrich on Saturday. Most observers agreed, as did Gingrich, that this race was essentially over if Romney won, as polls through much of the week indicated he would. Gingrich surged at the end and won a surprisingly decisive victory with 40.4%. Romney came in second with 27.8%. Rick Santorum was in third place with 17% and Ron Paul came in last with 13%.

It is often noted that South Carolina has chosen the eventual winner of the Republican nomination each time since 1980. However, Karl Rove noted that the victor always won either Iowa or New Hampshire before South Carolina. There is no precedent for where the race stands today.

Newt Gingrich sounded like a general election candidate in his victory speech. With supporters chanting “Newt Can Win,” he said he could draw the sharpest contrast with President Obama and would base his campaign on American exceptionalism and bringing sweeping change to the federal government. He complimented each of his rivals. He said that Romney is hard-working, successful and did a great job overseeing the Olympics. He praised Rick Santorum for leading the charge against Iran and his social conservatism and fight for the manufacturing sector. Gingrich said that he “strongly supports” Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve, inflation and financial matters.

Mitt Romney was more aggressive in his concession speech. Trying to contrast himself with Gingrich, he said that the Republican Party cannot have a nominee who, like President Obama, never ran a business or a state. He spent a significant amount of time accusing Gingrich of criticizing capitalism. “Those who pick up the weapons of the left today will see them used against us tomorrow,”  Romney said.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul gave their typical addresses Saturday night. Santorum was much more aggressive in his appearance on Fox News right after his speech. He said that he embodies the best of Gingrich and Romney without their flaws, describing the former as an “erratic conservative” and the latter as a “Massachusetts moderate.” He said that he’s the most electable principled conservative and downplayed the South Carolina results. Santorum said that he “planted his flag” in Iowa and won and Romney and Gingrich did the same in New Hampshire and South Carolina. The real test will come when the fight is on “neutral”  ground, he argued.

The candidates are now battling hard for Florida. There have been no polls released out of the state since the South Carolina primary took place, but Mitt Romney led by an average of 18.5% there as of this weekend. The contest after Florida is the Nevada caucus on February 4, where Romney is the heavy favorite. Two victories in a row would allow Romney to regain his footing after this weekend’s loss.

Yesterday was a huge night in the Republican presidential race. Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Newt Gingrich, whose ex-wife has given two scathing interviews. The result of the Iowa caucus changed, recognizing Rick Santorum as the winner. Gingrich is surging in the South Carolina polls and the final debate before Saturday’s primary was dynamic.

The importance of last night’s debate can be seen by looking at the polls. Gingrich’s numbers in South Carolina have climbed and it’s very hard to tell if he or Mitt Romney has the edge. The RealClearPolitics poll average has Romney with a slight lead, 32 to 31 points, but has Romney trending down and Gingrich trending up. Nate Silver’s latest poll analysis has Gingrich with a slight lead, 35 to 33 points. Silver believes Gingrich has a 62% chance of winning the primary. South Carolina has chosen the eventual Republican nominee every time since 1980.

Earlier this week, Romney got a boost when Jon Huntsman dropped out and endorsed him. Now, Gingrich has gotten a boost when Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed him. These two former candidates only had single-digit support in South Carolina but every point counts now. Interestingly, four recent polls with results favorable to Romney (IPSOS, Marist, Politico & CNN) show that even if all of Perry’s supporters go to Gingrich, Romney still wins. On the other hand, the recent polls that show Gingrich ahead (PPP, ARG, Rasmussen & Insider Advantage) indicate that, if Perry’s supporters back Gingrich, the former House speaker has a solid lead. At this time, the outcome of the primary is very uncertain and that’s why this debate was so fiery.

Political analyst Larry Sabato judged Gingrich to be the winner of the debate and gave him a grade of an A. Santorum was given an A-, Romney a B and Ron Paul got a C. Nate Silver, on the other hand, felt that Rick Santorum performed the best. His grades were an A- for Santorum, B+ for Gingrich, B- for Paul and C for Romney.

Newt Gingrich stole the show with the first question. The CNN moderator asked him about the allegations one of his ex-wives is making. He denied asking her for an open marriage and aggressively chastised the moderator, arguing that his decision to make that the first question shows that the media has a liberal bias. One can only grasp the intensity of the moment by viewing it, which can be done here.

His rivals were then asked if Gingrich’s marital history is a legitimate issue. Romney responded, “John, let’s get to the real issues. That’s all I’ve got to say.” Ron Paul responded similarly. Rick Santorum, awkwardly and with many stutters, said it is an issue that voters should look at but tried to appear non-judgmental by recognizing that “we are all fallen” and professing his Christian faith.

Mitt Romney’s most memorable moment is not favorable to him. The moderator mentioned how his father made political history by releasing a dozen years of income tax filings. When he asked Romney if he’d do the same, he nervously responded, “Maybe.” He was booed by some in the audience.

The Republican presidential candidates debated in South Carolina last night. Mitt Romney tried to secure his lead while the other contenders sought to chip away at it. Every Republican nominee since 1980 has won the South Carolina primary, making it widely viewed as the last chance to stop Romney’s momentum.

The debate audience seemed to favor Romney, though Newt Gingrich won the loudest applauses by far. A remarkable number of attendees supported Ron Paul, admiring his consistency, integrity and willingness to dramatically slash the budget and size of government. A few of his supporters frankly admitted that his national security views are flawed, but argued that the crisis at home is a greater threat than anything abroad. It is clear that, for better or for worse, libertarianism has become a significant force in the Republican Party.

The biggest applause of the night came when Juan Williams forcefully challenged Gingrich, accusing him of “belittling” people and asking him if he could see why some of his statements could be offensive to African-Americans. He pushed back, defending his position that schools should hire students to do work, claiming that one New York City janitor would cost the same as 30 or so students. He explained that it would make kids less likely to drop out, would teach work ethic and “money is a good thing if you are poor.” He vowed to continue to state “facts that are uncomfortable” and put forth similar ideas. The audience roared.

Mitt Romney’s most popular moment came on national security. He responded to a discussion of the raid that killed Bin Laden by saying, “They declared war on us. We go anywhere they are and kill them.” He was booed once when he said that he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which is controversial because it permits the military to indefinitely detain American citizens in the U.S. on suspicion based on associating with terrorists. Santorum responded that such American citizens should have the ability to bring their case to federal judges and the audience clapped.

Rick Santorum’s strongest moment was when he connected values to prosperity. He cited a 2009 Brookings Institution study that found that if you don’t have children outside of marriage, work and graduate high school, you are much more likely to succeed. The study, he said, showed that 77% of those who meet those criteria have above-average income. On the other hand, only 2% of those in poverty don’t fall into those categories.

The statement from Ron Paul that elicited the most positive reaction was when he argued he isn’t cutting defense spending because he doesn’t believe funding overseas military deployments qualify as “defense.” After mentioning the $1 billion price tag on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, he said, “You consider that defense, I consider that waste.” He won further applause when he said that the other candidates are inconsistent conservatives because they feel domestic spending is wrong but approve of overseas spending. He also was cheered when he said that he’d eliminate the income tax and the “inflation tax.”

Ron Paul, however, was also the most loudly booed. He defended his opposition to the raid that killed Bin Laden in Pakistan by saying the “more proper way” would have been to work with the Pakistanis so he was handed over like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He compared the raid to China bombing the U.S. because of a Chinese dissident living here. Gingrich responded that the analogy is “utterly irrational.”

Last year, it seemed like an Islamist super-bloc was forming in the Middle East. Secular regimes fell and others faced uprisings. Turkey grew closer to Iran and Syria. The Iranian regime produced an End Times documentary depicting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as the fulfillment of prophecy. Now, pro-Western governments remain unstable but the Islamists are turning their daggers on each other.

The division in the Islamist ranks is most clearly seen in Syria. The Iranian regime has deployed the Revolutionary Guards to help the Bashar Assad regime crush the uprising. Hezbollah and the Shiite-led Iraqi government are sticking by Assad’s side. On the other side are genuine secular democratic forces but also the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Qatar and Turkey. Turkey is demanding that Assad resign and is hosting the Free Syria Army, the rebel forces who are violently trying to overthrow him. The Emir of Qatar has just endorsed sending Arab military forces to Syria to stop the regime’s crackdown.

The Libyan government sent an Islamist militia leader to advise the Free Syria Army. There are reports that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has even dispatched fighters to Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is a direct participant in the uprising. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the Muslim Brotherhood’s top theologian and is based in Qatar, branded the Assad regime as “heretical.” Qaradawi even declared that it was permissible for a U.N.-led intervention to take place and says that Assad’s soldiers are religiously obligated to defect to the Free Syria Army. “If you want the welfare of your people and intend to go to paradise after death, please join the Free Army,” he preached.

This puts Hamas in an awkward position. The terrorist group belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is fighting Assad, but Hamas has long enjoyed the generous support of Assad and Iran. Hamas’ political bureau is based in Damascus. Hamas suppressed anti-Assad protests in the Gaza Strip but that was not enough to satisfy Iran, which demanded that pro-Assad rallies be staged.

In recent months, Hamas began moving staff out of Damascus and to Egypt, Gaza, Sudan, Jordan and Qatar, presumably in preparation to break relations with Assad. Iran threatened to end all support for Hamas if it left Syria, so Khaled Mashaal, the chief of the Damascus office, stayed along with a reduced staff. After a long silence, he endorsed Assad in late December, saying he had “supported the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people in every possible away.” Mashaal tried to tow a middle line by stating that he still supports democracy and “the rights of the peoples,” insinuating dissatisfaction with the regime’s oppression.

Hamas also reportedly fears Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Journalist Aaron Klein was told by “one of the most senior Hamas officials” that he privately hopes that Israel stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even if it means the use of military force. The leadership of Hamas is reportedly even debating not retaliating if Iran is attacked by Israel. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, however, remains in Iran’s back pocket.

There are indications that the Iranian-Syrian relationship is being tested. In September, Ahmadinejad surprisingly and hypocritically called on the Assad regime to end its crackdown, saying a “military solution is never the right solution.” He pressured the Syrian regime to undergo reforms in order to alleviate the crisis. At the same time, the Iranian regime reached out to a Syrian opposition group called the National Coordination Committee that is dead-set against foreign intervention. The group rejected Iran’s overtures. It appears as if Iran was pressuring Assad to cut a deal with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. In late October, Ahmadinejad tried to convince the Muslim Brotherhood to support Assad in exchange for having its representatives appointed to four high-level positions. Iran was turned down.

An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed yesterday in an attack similar to those carried out on other scientists. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan is the fifth scientist to mysteriously die. The killing is the latest in a long list of apparent covert operations in recent months to stall Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Iran describes Roshan as the “deputy in charge of commerce” at its Natanz enrichment facility and immediately blamed “the Zionist regime” for his death. Two individuals attached and detonated a magnetic bomb to his car in Tehran outside of Allameh Tabatai University, killing him and his bodyguard. Roshan was a lecturer at the university.

At Natanz, Roshan was in charge of procuring equipment. The fact that he had a bodyguard shows he had an important role. His death comes just one day after the Israeli military’s chief of staff said that 2012 is a “critical year” for Iran and referred to “events that happen unnaturally.” Indeed, the past few months has seen a huge rise in “accidents” and other “unnatural” events affecting Iran’s nuclear program and the regime’s pillars of strength.

On December 22, the Iranian regime claimed that its oil depot in Abadan was hit with a rocket. It is located in the Arab-populated Khuzestan Province, so it may have been launched by locals that often clash with the regime. The attack came just two weeks after Iran announced that it would spend $800 million to increase its gasoline output by 12,500 barrels per day by February.

The covert operations aren’t just aimed at nuclear sites and their staff. The Washington Post says that there has been a “fivefold increase in explosions at refineries and gas pipelines since 2010.” There were three explosions at gas pipelines in 2009. In 2010, it was 17. In February, three gas pipelines near Qom were hit with explosions. In April, another three explosions in the same area happened. In July, a pipeline to Turkey was struck, and three more pipelines suffered blasts within the first two weeks of August.

On December 15, Israel carried out a secret air strike on a convoy in Sudan headed to Hamas. It was carrying weapons from Iran. At least six Land Cruiser jeeps were destroyed and four were killed. There was reportedly another strike in Sudan in early December that destroyed at least one truck.

On December 11, a mysterious explosion happened at a steel plant in Yazd that almost no one reported on. The blast killed 7 people and wounded 12. Among the casualties were unidentified foreigners. The site has not been publicly tied to Iran’s nuclear program, so it indicates the perpetrators had access to classified information. Michael Ledeen wrote that the plant made the material for nose cones for ballistic missiles. Other reports said the steel can be used in making exhaust systems. A German news outlet reported in November that North Korea was providing Iran and Syria with maraging steel for centrifuges.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited his dear friend, Hugo Chavez, this week as his regime undertook another series of provocations. The Islamist and radical Marxist embraced, joined together by their ideologies’ common hostility to America. As Iran announces that it is enriching uranium at an underground facility designed for nuclear weapons production, it knows that Islamists aren’t its only allies.

Iran has been acting exceptionally aggressive lately, probably with the objective of causing oil prices to spike to counter the impact of international sanctions. President Obama approved sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, resulting in a 20% drop in the value of the rial against the dollar. It appears that the European Union, which buys 17% of Iran’s oil exports, will agree to an oil embargo on January 23 when its foreign ministers gather in Brussels. Japan is also preparing for an embargo. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, enemies of Iran, are being asked to help by increasing their exports.

Iran started 2012 off loudly. It threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if an oil embargo is enacted, carrying out a 10-day war game to prove its ability to make good on its threats. Iran announced that it produced and successfully tested its first domestically-produced nuclear fuel rod and then tested a new medium-range surface-to-air missile.

It carried out another round of challenges to the West this week. Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador to demonstrate Iran’s reach into Latin America through radical Marxist allies. Iran is looking to mine uranium from Venezuela and is reportedly constructing a medium-range missile base there. On Sunday, the U.S. expelled the Venezuelan consul general in Miami after undercover journalists recorded her entertaining a potential cyber terrorism plot against the U.S. The Iranian ambassador in Mexico was taped doing the same.

“Despite those arrogant people who do not wish us to be together, we will unite forever,” Ahmadinejad said as he stood next to Chavez. The two men repeatedly cracked jokes during their time together. Ahmadinejad said if they are building a nuclear bomb, then “the fuel of that bomb is love.”

Chavez pointed to a hill and said it “will open up and a big atomic bomb will come out.” He joked that Iran is helping a plant in Venezuela make an “atomic bicycle” and mockingly said Ahmadinejad is in “the axis of evil of Latin America.” Chavez defended Iran’s nuclear program and referred to their mutual enemies as “devils,” as he has in the past.

Ahmadinejad’s trip to Latin America coincides with several other actions meant to spit in the face of the West. Iran charged an American from Arizona named Amir Mirzaie Hekmati as a spy, which carries the penalty of death. He has 20 days to appeal the charge. Iran announced that its annual exercises simulating a battle over the Strait of Hormuz will happen in February. They are tellingly called “The Great Prophet.”

The Republican presidential candidates debated on Saturday night and Sunday morning in a last bid to influence the outcome of Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire. Romney emerged unscathed from the first event, but suffered a double-teaming from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the second as the two sought to chip at his double-digit lead in the state.

Suffolk University has Romney with 35% of the vote in New Hampshire, followed by Ron Paul (20%), Jon Huntsman (11%), Newt Gingrich (9%), Rick Santorum (8%) and Rick Perry with less than one percent. American Research Group likewise finds Romney with a huge lead at 40%, but differs on the rest. ARG has Huntsman in second (17%) followed by Paul (16%), Santorum (12%), Gingrich (8%) and Perry (1%). Romney is expected to win comfortably, but it is hard to predict how everyone else will perform. That made these two debates especially important for those vying to be the alternative to Romney.

Rick Santorum is now a top-tier candidate and performed like one, speaking powerfully and with an impressive amount of detail and facts. Arguably his best moment was when a moderator on Sunday asked him how he’d react if he had a son who told him that he was gay. Santorum replied, “I’d love him just as much as the second before he told me.”

On national security, Santorum reiterated that the Iranian regime’s ideology makes it different than the Soviet Union and that the U.S. should have long been supporting the Iranian people seeking to overthrow it. He said that the Iranian people “love America” because of how it stands up for freedom. He decried the Obama administration’s refusal to identify the enemy, specifically how it rid policy documents of the term, “radical Islam.”

Santorum went on the offensive against Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He said that the former had never passed any legislation and that his domestic agenda would never get through Congress, but he could implement his less popular foreign policy agenda. “All that Republicans like about him, he can’t accomplish and all the things that worry them, he will do on day one,” he said.

Santorum contrasted himself with Romney by saying that he ran on his principles in a 71% Democratic district and won, whereas Romney “ran to the left of Kennedy” and lost. He reacted to Romney’s boasting of his record as governor by asking him why he “bailed out” and didn’t run for re-election if he did so well. Santorum was hinting at Romney’s low approval rating in Massachusetts.

Newt Gingrich, as usual, spoke eloquently and with detail. He accused the media of having a double-standard by reporting on alleged Christian bigotry but not on anti-Christian bigotry, winning a huge applause. On national security, he warned that there would be an “industrial depression across the world in 48 hours”  if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz. He listed the various problems facing the U.S. in the Middle East, specifically the “decaying” of Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood electoral victories in Egypt and the uncertainty over who will lead Libya.

Gingrich called for a “fundamentally new strategy” based on the Cold War model to change the Middle East that would use soft power more than military force. He said that the solution for Afghanistan is found in Pakistan and Iran and that Iraq “will be fine” if the Iranian regime is overthrown. Gingrich said that a massive energy independence program is needed to stop the Saudi exporting of Wahhabism and that two-thirds of the money saved would go to paying off the deficit and one-third would be invested in infrastructure if he becomes president.

Gingrich clashed bitterly with Paul and Romney. On Saturday, Paul said that he still considers Gingrich to be a “chickenhawk” that avoided serving in Vietnam but is willing to send young men and women to die in wars. Gingrich replied that Paul has a “long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false” and that he was ineligible for the draft.

Yesterday, Iraq was hit with another wave of bombings as sectarian strife continues to dramatically increase following the withdrawal of U.S. forces. At least 70 Shiites were killed, presumably by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Across the Middle East, tension and bloodshed between the region’s various communities is increasing, prompting Turkey to warn of a new Cold War.

Three of the explosions took place in Sadr City, the Shiite stronghold in Baghdad of Moqatada al-Sadr. Another two explosions happened in Kadhimiyah district and near Nasiriyah, targeting Shiites celebrating the holiday of Arbaeen by traveling to Karbala. On December 22, 60 Iraqis were killed in terrorist attacks in Baghdad.

The attacks come as the Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is locked in an intense political struggle with his Sunni rivals. Al-Maliki issued an arrest warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, accusing him of being involved in terrorism. He also called for the sacking of Deputy Prime Minister Saleh el-Mutlaq, another Sunni, after he accused al-Maliki of acting like a dictator worse than Saddam Hussein. Al-Hashimi is now avoiding arrest in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The al-Iraqiya bloc, led by secular Shiite Iyad Allawi, is allied with the Sunnis and is boycotting parliament. Al-Maliki is threatening to replace its representatives in the parliament. Some of al-Maliki’s opponents are calling for his replacement. Moqtada al-Sadr’s bloc, which supports al-Maliki, wants parliament to be dissolved and new elections to be held.

One concern is that Moqtada al-Sadr will make good on his threat to reassemble his Mehdi Army militia, which would prompt the Sunnis to act in a similar fashion. The Iranian-backed cleric has threatened to target any American personnel remaining in Iraq this year, including contractors. In an interesting twist, he is criticizing another militia, Asaib al-Haq (League of the Righteous), accusing it of killing Iraqis and being an Iranian puppet. The group just agreed to give up violence and pursue its aims solely through political means.

Sectarian tension is increasing in Syria at the same as it is in Iraq. The Bashar Assad regime draws its top officials from the Allawite minority, generally estimated to be about 13% of the entire population. This minority is sticking by the regime, likely fearing that it will be massacred if it falls. The Christian minority, about 10% of the population, is doing the same. The failure of the Allawites to turn on the regime is enraging the rest of the population that supports the revolution. An opposition figure named Mamoun al-Homsi angrily stated on December 20, “If the Allawites do not renounce Bashar Assad, we will turn Syria into their graveyard.”

The city of Homs is experiencing tremendous sectarian violence. Last month, 36 bodies were found dumped along the border of the Sunni and Allawite areas of the city. Some of them were decapitated and appeared to have been tortured. Opposition activists are reporting a cycle of murders and kidnappings. On December 20, five Iranian “engineers and technicians” were kidnapped in Homs, as were two more the following day. It is widely reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are playing a direct role on the ground in fighting the uprising.

All eyes are on New Hampshire now as the Republican presidential candidates prepare for the state’s January 7^th primary. The state of the race has shaken up following the results in Iowa, with Rick Santorum emerging as the alternative to Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann dropping out of the race.

“Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside,” Bachmann said when she suspended her campaign Wednesday morning.

Though she won the Ames Straw Poll in August, she fell in the polls as Rick Perry entered the race and other contenders took their turns as the leading alternative to Romney. She came in sixth place in Iowa on Tuesday, beating only Jon Huntsman who has made New Hampshire his entire focus.

Rick Perry was expected to drop out as well when he reacted to the results in Iowa by announcing that he was headed back to Texas to “determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race.” His staff was surprised when he declared via Twitter on Wednesday that he was staying in and focusing on South Carolina’s primary on January 21. He then referred to Iowa as a “quirky place.”

The big question now is who Bachmann’s supporters will get behind. Her withdrawal from the race won’t affect the New Hampshire primary much, as the last poll had her with only 2% there. That is not true of South Carolina. The last InsiderAdvantage poll had her with 8% in South Carolina, putting her in third place there. The state is critical to Santorum, Gingrich and Perry, so the distribution of her support is an important factor.

The latest New Hampshire poll, taken from January 2-3, has Romney with a huge lead at 43%. Ron Paul is in second with 14%. There is a tight struggle for third place between Gingrich with 9%, Huntsman with 7% and Santorum with 6%. Rick Perry is at only 2%. Of these candidates, the primary is most important to Romney and Huntsman, the latter of which has based his entire campaign on New Hampshire. This poll was taken before the Iowa results came in, which will give a strong boost to Santorum. It is unclear if Romney has hit his ceiling in New Hampshire but if he hasn’t, his slight victory in Iowa and Wednesday’s endorsement from Senator John McCain could move his numbers even higher.

The Christian Action Network has sent 500 school superintendents a report showing that many textbooks are biased against Israel and the West while whitewashing radical Islam. The report, authored by Citizens for National Security, examines 200 quotes from 30 textbooks used in Florida.

“[Students] aren’t being taught about the theological motivations behind radical Islam,” said Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network.

“The impression students are given is that terrorists are misguided fighters against Western imperialism and aggression, who are only wrong in their approach. It was amazing how many times the word ‘Palestine’ was used, making it sound like Israel was built on top of a conquered country,” he said.

The report lists several quotes from textbooks teaching students that the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. foreign policy. For example, one book says, “What were the sources of Muslim anger?…bin Laden declared that the attacks were a response to the ‘humiliation and disgrace’ that have afflicted the Islamic world for over eighty years.”

Another teaches that Bin Laden was motivated by the “military presence of the sacred soil of the Arabian peninsula and its support for Israel’s hostility to Palestinian nationalism.” The ideology of radical Islam is not discussed. While Bin Laden’s statements about the West’s foreign policies are mentioned, quotes about his ideology are not. For example, Raymond Ibrahim in “The Al-Qaeda Reader” brings to light this quote from Osama Bin Laden:

“In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam.”

The texts also are also unfavorable to Israel. One textbook states, “Angered over the loss of their territory to Israel, some militant Palestinians responded with a policy of terrorist attacks.” In discussing the 1948 war, one textbook just says that “war soon broke out” without explaining that the Arabs invaded Israel with the objective of destroying it.

It then says, “By the end of the 1948 war, Israel controlled almost three fourths of Palestine, including land in the Negev Desert and half of Jerusalem. Jordan and Egypt divided the rest of Palestine between them.” Coupled together, it sounds if the war was one of conquest by Israel.

The report documents numerous instances where Islam is treated more favorably than Christianity. For example, one textbook states, “The Quran permitted fair, defensive war as jihad, or ‘struggle in the way of God,” and says that is how Islam expanded.  Another selected quote is that Jews and Christians “have historically enjoyed religious freedom in many Muslim societies.”

“[Islamic forces] rarely imposed their religion by force on the local population…By contrast, Christian monks motivated by missionary fervor, converted many of the peoples of central and eastern Europe,” is another textbook excerpt included in the report.

Some textbooks took a blatantly skeptical stance towards the historical accuracy of Judaism and Christianity.

Decision time has arrived for Iowa’s Republican voters. The polls generally show Mitt Romney in first, followed by Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, but there is room for an upset with 41% of voters saying they haven’t made up their minds. The field will likely be thinner tomorrow as at least one candidate will probably drop out after a disappointing showing.

Mitt Romney has a lead of just 1.3% in the RealClearPolitics poll average. Romney is predicting victory, but a first-place finish isn’t vital to his campaign. One of his aides explained, “Iowa is about eliminating Gingrich and Perry without us having to spend a lot of money to do so.” Apparently, Santorum and Paul aren’t viewed as real threats. Mitt Romney has a huge lead in New Hampshire and seems certain to win there. He is also ahead nationally.

A victory by Ron Paul is a distinct possibility. He is right on Romney’s heels in the polls and his non-Republican supporters can show up and declare themselves as members of the party just to support him. InsiderAdvantage has him statistically tied for first at 22.4% to Romney’s 22.7. That poll has Santorum in third at 18%, Gingrich at 16%, Perry at 9.6%, Bachmann at 5.8% and Huntsman at 1.8%. Public Policy Polling has Ron Paul with 20%, one ahead of Romney. A win in Iowa could give Paul momentum into New Hampshire, where most polls have him in a distant second place to Romney.

Rick Santorum is the latest candidate to surge, bringing a huge boost in fundraising and momentum after lingering in the single digits for the entire campaign. The polls consistently show him in third place, but one had him in second place at 17%, seven behind Romney and third ahead of Ron Paul. The aforementioned Public Policy Polling survey that shows Paul in first has Santorum in third, only one point behind Romney and two behind Paul, making it essentially a three-way tie.

Newt Gingrich’s massive leads in the polls have collapsed as every other presidential candidate took aim at him. About 45% of all television ads in Iowa became attack ads against Gingrich. He admits that he did not respond quickly or decisively enough against them. When asked whether he felt he was “Swift-Boated,” referring to a campaign that raised questions about Senator John Kerry’s military service in 2004, he said he felt “Romney-boated.”

Iran is flexing its muscles as the U.S. places new sanctions on its Central Bank. Before President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that included the measure, Iran began a 10-day exercise to showcase its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Iran later toned down its language but on Sunday, announced it tested its first domestically produced nuclear fuel rod and tested a new medium-range surface-to-air missile.

On Saturday, President Obama signed the NDAA that paves the way for sanctions on foreign businesses dealing with Iran’s Central Bank, potentially dealing a severe blow to the Iranian regime’s vital oil exports. The Iranian currency fell to a new low after it was signed even though it will be 60 days before any sanctions are officially placed and up to six months for the toughest sanctions to be enacted.

President Obama signaled that he would exempt some foreign businesses from punishment. He said that the legislation “would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations” so “should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as nonbinding.” This statement indicates that Obama might protect European, Russian or Chinese companies doing business with Iran if he feels sanctions will have negative diplomatic repercussions. Officials say that the sanctions will be implemented carefully in order to avoid damage to the world economy.

European countries are in talks with the U.S. right now about further sanctions and a possible oil embargo that could prove fatal to the regime. Sixty percent or more of the regime’s budget is derived from oil exports, about 18% of which goes to the European Union. The Iranian regime faces increasing political in-fighting, popular resentment, economic stress and strikes and protests by workers, including in the energy sector. The regime takes the threat of further sanctions seriously, so it threatened to close down the Strait of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil transits. Iran launched military exercises to practice such an operation for 10 days.

Iran’s language softened this weekend. The Revolutionary Guards’ website carried a statement from General Masoud Jazayeri that said, “Discourse about closing the Strait of Hormuz belongs to five years ago. Today’s debate in the Islamic Republic of Iran contains new layers and the time has not come to raise it.” The second sentence leaves open the possibility of an attack in the future. A political official named Ismail Kowsari, on the other hand, said, “If we feel that the enemies want to prevent our oil exports, definitely we will close the Strait of Hormuz.”

On December 21, the New York Times published an article by reporter Scott Shane titled “In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees Mortal Threat to U.S.” The article tried to subtlety discredit Gingrich and others talking about the Islamist agenda in the U.S., twice stating that “many scholars” feel the threat is being overblown and it is “roundly rejected” by most experts.

The Times opens up with some of Gingrich’s quotes, such as when he called Sharia a “mortal threat.”

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah,” Gingrich says.

Gingrich’s warning is then characterized as a “much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials.” Those warning about the Islamist threat within the U.S. are thus depicted as being part of a political fringe without credibility.

The article does quote anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, who says he appreciates Gingrich’s stance, but this is the minimal level of balance required to stop the piece from turning into an op-ed. The rest of the quotes downplay the threat and ridicule Gingrich for making it an issue. There is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood or any of the reasons why the issue of Islamism has gained traction.

“[It] takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University is quoted as saying. It ends with a quote from a former supporter of Gingrich’s, an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security, Mohamed Elibiary. Elibiary is at the center of a scandal. He is suspected of trying to leak sensitive law enforcement documents to the media to try to expose the so-called “Islamophobia” of Rick Perry. He calls Gingrich’s rhetoric “anti-Islam” and “propaganda for jihadists.”

The fact that many opponents of the Islamist agenda do not equate it with Islam or Muslims as a whole is not mentioned. Neither is the fact that the issue at hand is Sharia-based governance and not the non-threatening practice of Sharia in Muslims’ private lives.

Scott Shane was previously confronted by Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam and director of JihadWatch.org, over his reporting on the July 2011 massacre in Norway by Anders Breivik. Shane placed a heavy focus on Breivik’s use of Spencer’s material, implying that it inspired him into acts of violence. Spencer noted that Breivik was planning violence long before he even began writing about Islam.

In that article, titled “Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.,” there were no quotes defending Spencer and the other critics of Islam. The title immediately framed them as having an agenda against Muslims, instead of being critics of the state of their religion. The statement that was the closest to defending Spencer was from Marc Sageman, but even his quote attributed some responsibility to the anti-Islamists for Breikvik’s actions, saying that “they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged. This rhetoric is not cost-free.” The article sparked a back-and-forth between Shane and Spencer via email.

On September 2, the New York Times published an opinion piece titled “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America.” Its main argument was that the fight against Sharia Law is the modern-day manifestation of anti-Semitism and is fundamentally un-American, bigoted and dangerous. A pattern can be seen in the pages of the New York Times where the case against the Islamist agenda is misrepresented and vilified.

The evidence substantiating the anti-Islamists’ worries is plentiful, yet unmentioned in these articles. The trial of the Holy Land Foundation proved that the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the U.S. through powerful front organizations. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to “wage a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” A 2009 court ruling confirmed the links between Hamas and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, the lattermost of which owns at least one-quarter of the mosques in the U.S.