Truth Zone: Sharia Definition—It’s about Islamic supremacism vs. National Security
Walid Phares on Why Trump Can Best Fight Sharia
Walid Phares is an advisor to the Trump campaign. He’s a brilliant analyst when it comes to Middle East politics, the War on Terror, militant Sharia.
I think we ought to change, by the way, no longer militant Islam. We need to go militant Sharia. We need to talk about Sharia law supremacism.
Every time we talk about Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism, we just say Sharia. Because nobody can deny that Sharia is those things.
Obama: There’s no terrorism in Islam. It’s a religion of peace.
Well, you can’t say that about Sharia, by definition.
Just a little communication idea on my part. Anyway, Walid Phares on Fox, happening now this morning, Jenna Lee said to him: “Why do you have confidence in Trump?”
I wanted you to hear the comments from the Washington Post reporter who doesn’t buy any of this, by the way, that Trump is on the verge of total collapse.
Walid Phares, Fox news analyst, Middle East and Sharia expert, Trump advisor
He’s looking at ways he thinks Trump can win this that he doesn’t think that anybody else is seeing. And that’s Walid Phares, who is a Trump advisor on the Middle East, militant Sharia and Jenny Lee said to him:
“Why do you have confidence in Donald Trump to think that he, unlike this current administration, would be able to handle these sort of relationships in the Middle East that are quite tenuous at best?”
PHARES: Because I heard him. I met him. We looked at maps. I heard what the partners are saying. He can mobilize public opinion. Remember, one of the problems that President Obama had, and even the last two years of the presidency of Mr. Bush, they could not mobilize any more of the American public to confront this threat. We have been demobilized. He can mobilize them. As long as he has the right direction and the right experts, of course, in the future, then he could do it better than others.
RUSH: This guy is not abandoning the campaign. This guy is not part of any intervention. He’s talking about how Trump can do it right in the Middle East. He’s talked to him. (imitating Phares) “I’ve heard him. I’ve met him. We’ve looked at the region. We’ve looked at maps. We’ve discussed strategy. I know the guy. But more importantly he can mobilize public opinion. We haven’t been able to get anything done because nobody’s even trying to motivate public opinion.” Whenever there is any effort to mobilize public opinion, anti-Sharia, guess what? The regime steps up and stops it.
November 17, 2015 11 o’clock on the Fox News Channel, Walid Phares guested.
He’s a Middle East expert. He’s an analyst for Fox News. He’s a professor at the National Defense University. And he was asked by cohost Jon Scott, “Walid, why can’t we take ’em out?” Meaning, ISIS. This is after Obama’s speech where everybody is scratching their heads incredulous over how noncommittal and unaffected by the attack on Friday night Obama appeared to be. “Walid, why can’t we take ISIS out?”
PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He’s getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he’s not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don’t want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won’t have access to them. That’s the bottom line of it.
RUSH: Shi’ite versus Sunni sectarian violence.
But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to.
And because of the sectarian violence in all of these places like Iraq and other countries within the Shi’a and Sunni battle — you throw in the Kurds in Iraq, who we should arm, by the way. But the point is, ISIS needs chaos. ISIS causes chaos. Iraq benefits from the chaos, or Iran benefits from the chaos. They do not want the Sunni areas to be liberated by the Sunni moderates. They do not want the sectarian violence solved.
Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoons
Obama runs around and talks about it as though he does, but he really doesn’t because the Iranians don’t. He’s actually aligned with the Iranians and, as Phares says here, the Syrian Regime, which is a puppet of Iran. And they are pressuring it. Now, if you’re saying, “Come on, Rush! That doesn’t make any sense.
Well, ask yourself why in the world did Obama single-handedly lift the sanctions on Iran, which provided them $150 billion that was frozen, for them to upgrade their civilian airline, to fund further terrorist activity?
“Why has Obama singularly been focused on making sure that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in 10 years or whatever?”
Obama siding with Shi’ite Iran and ISIS— not the moderate Sunnis, who are fighting against ISIS
The last little note in this story supports the theory of Walid Phares that Obama’s real strategy is to be more on the side of Shi’ite Iran rather than moderate Sunnis, like those in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS. In fact, the article mentions something simply dumbfounding at the bottom, and it’s this. Quote: “Mark Toner, State Department spokesman, said on Monday at a press briefing that US officials have also urged their Russian counterparts to talk with Assad’s government about no longer purchasing oil from the Islamic State.”
It’s exactly what Walid Phares said: Obama has strategized that his best alignment here is with Iran in this fight, and Iran is aligned with Syria, which we now know is aligned with ISIS.
Oil is fueling ISIS
So now we know why the US has not bombed the ISIS oil fields and refineries. We don’t want to tick off Putin and Iran. Let me further explain.
If Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, you would do what Trump is saying: You would bomb their oil fields. Their oil fields are their number one source of funding. (I use that term because liberals love it. “Funding” replaces “earning.” It implies policy. “Funding” means giving people money.) The bottom line is, ISIS has commandeered and taken over a number of oil fields in the region, and they are deriving most of their financial benefit from the sale of oil.
It’s what’s fueling them, so to speak.
But the strategy that Obama has implemented and therefore the American strategy in all of this is to side with Iran — and thus with Russia and Assad — over the moderate Sunnis in Iraq and Syria who are ostensibly fighting ISIS, supposedly our allies in fighting against ISIS. This one little tidbit — this throwaway comment from this Department of State secondary spokesman (impression), “Yeah, well, we’re trying to get Assad to stop buying oil…” Assad’s buying oil from ISIS while we are led to believe that Assad’s fighting ISIS?
And nobody’s taking the ISIS oil fields out because the Iranians obviously are supporting ISIS ’cause it’s in their benefit, all this chaos.