Caliphatism - Establishing the "Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth"

Is a Caliphate Coming to a Country Near You?

In my book Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance, in Chapter 2 I wrote:

In his short story, "The Metamorphosis," Franz Kafka described the transformation of a human into a vermin. He could also have written the plot for the mutation of the Christian nations into the coming new caliphate--one world under Islam--a world without borders. After all, Gregor Samsa found himself transformed into an insect one morning. Thus, Samsa lies in a room, examines his new physical state, and considers how he will be able to explain being late for work. Samsa does not waste any time thinking about why he has become an insect and how to escape the situation. Instead, there is only apathy, quiet resignation--the man accepts the undeniability of the surreal situation. He lies quietly with shallow breath--thinking, feeling, and acting as if he were unchanged.

There is not that much of a difference between the metamorphosis of a person into an insect and that of a group of states into a caliphate.

A similar fate is befalling the West--European countries and North America. They question nothing, they do nothing, and they observe their metamorphosis with little discernible recognition, much less appropriate agitation. Once the smoke clears from the stage and the new caliphate shows its true colors, they will catch sight of an ugly creature--and that creature will be themselves.

History clearly indicates that Islamic barbarism against Jews and Christians dates back to the seventh century.

With the Moral-Trade-Deficit of the West exhibited by the growth of the Radical-Center-Movement departing from the worldview of our Judeo-Christian heritage, a vacuum has been created for the creation of the caliphate. And so it is that the West morphing from dar-al-Harb to dar-al-Islam. A caliphate may be coming soon to a country near you.

Transnational Movements and the Creation of One World under Islam

Islam's ultimate goal is the creation of "one world without borders under Islamic rule," a totalitarian economic political theocracy based on Islamic law--Shariah law. The Islamic empire will not be limited to just the Spain-to-Indonesia region, for Islamists have a global vision that requires control over non-Muslim countries, also, and specifically the United States. Their universal ambitions certainly can be stopped, but first they must be understood and resisted. Only when the West, particularly the United States, realizes that the Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Qur'an--Shariah law--will it enter the final era of this war--the Final Jihad.

The issue being addressed: has there been or when will there be a penetration of the Western cultures and civilization that easily make takeover a fait accompli. The thesis is that the process is under way. What we need to fear is the dog that does not bark at night.

Establishing the Islamic "Kingdom of God on Earth"

In Chapter 5 of Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad I wrote: Islam is more than a religion; it is an economic and political movement set up following the Hijra from Mecca to Medina. Muhammad set up the Nation-State and made himself the first caliph. Islam, therefore, established the principle of a "kingdom of God on earth." This then required an army to defend the state.

The roles of a caliph are these: Spiritual leader of Muslims, the one who guides Muslims in new matters; Religious leader of the Muslims, the one who enforces Islamic law--Shariah; Political leader of Muslims, the one who conducts relations with other states and administers government; and Military leader of Muslims, the one who orders and conducts military affairs, in particular those regarding the conflict between dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We call this Nation-State the Ummah or Umma (the Muslim community or ideal state worldwide) and the Islamic "world without borders."

From an Islamic sense, in Islamic religious history, al-Hijra was the migration or emigration of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. It became Year 1 of the Muslim lunar calendar (AH). It was one of the great seminal events of Islamic history and paved the way for the conquest of Mecca by Muhammad and the final settlement of Islam in Arabia, from where it emerged to become a major world religion (ideology).

Ummah is the body of the Muslims, as one distinct and integrated community. The Ummah of Muhammad includes those who lived in the past, those who are alive now, and those who will live in the future. It can be subdivided into two groups: 1) Ummat ad-Da'wa--the nation that was called upon to believe in Allah Ta'ala and the Last Day, and 2) Ummat al-Isteajaba--the nation that responded to the call of Muhammad. Another name for this Ummah is Al-Ummat al-Islamiah (the Islamic Nation). Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala commanded the Ummat al-Isteajaba to hold together and not to disagree. The Last Day is where the apocalyptic teaching in Islam enters.

The Medina Charter (Constitution)

Because all Muslims are required to look to Muhammad for guidance in establishing the "Islamic kingdom of God on earth," it is important for us to review the first constitution that he wrote in 622 C.E. In 2005 we were in the process of developing the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan. Major issues in developing these constitutions related to the role of the Shariah in establishing the law of the countries. The future of these countries depends on the role of Shariah. This is a critical time for the future of the world. The first Islamic state in Medina established the Medina Charter. Based on a social contract, it was constitutional in character. Today, Islamists are proposing that the world accept the principles of that contract to emulate Muhammad, based on the principles set forth in the Qur'an.

Before we acquiesce to the demands of the Islamists, it is imperative that we explore this contract and its implications.

In the constitution or Charter of Medina (Dustur al-Madinah) that Muhammad wrote, we read:

A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer...Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders...The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God. (Article 14)

This constitution led to death of many Jews and Christians. Is that the direction in which we want to proceed now?

Osama bin Laden Harks Back to the Events of 1924

It is important to understand the importance of the events of 1924 and immediately following.

The caliphs were "the Commanders of the Faithful" and the heirs of Muhammad who ruled the Dar al-Islam from the time of Muhammad's death until the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Who should be the caliph is the greatest dividing issue in Islam--the defining criteria of Sunnis and Shiites. This is the battle we witnessing today in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunnis. It is also the battle we are witnessing playing out in Lebanon with Hezbollah. In my article "Iran Reaches the Mediterranean", I comment that it is important to follow the events in Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt. The election in the Palestine Authority has resulted in the election of Hamas. In December 2005, the Egyptian electorate came out strongly for the Muslim Brotherhood, and not for the liberal elements. In Iraq, the post-Saddam electorate voted in a pro-Iranian Islamist as prime minister. In Lebanon, the voters celebrated the withdrawal of Syrian troops by voting Hezbollah into the government. Likewise, radical Islamic elements have prospered in elections in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

For Muslims, the apocalyptic nature surrounding the pronouncements needs to be understood. Similarly, Westerners need to understand the role of Islamic apocalyptic teaching to comprehend the actions of the Islamists.

The end of the Caliphate in 1924 may be the single most epochal event in modern Islam. Many Islamic fundamentalist groups--including al-Qaeda--have taken it as their goal to establish a new Caliphate. What would be the implications of such an event? And just who might this new caliph be?

President Bush is correct in his assessment:

"The Shia and Sunni extremists represent different faces of the same threat. They draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision of violent Islamic radicalism across the Middle East. They oppose the advance of freedom, and they want to gain control of weapons of mass destruction. If they succeed in undermining fragile democracies, like Iraq, and drive the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue their dangerous goals. Each strain of violent Islamic radicalism would be emboldened."

The Muslim Brotherhood – the Roots of Isalmist Struggle

As the world – the media and the administration focus their attention on the "War on Terror", al Qaeda and its poster boy Osama bin Laden, they do not understand the role that the Muslim Brotherhood played and is currently playing in the struggle to build the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth. Members and naÔve fellow travelers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, most of which do not subscribe to physical terrorist actions play a significant role with their positions of influence in the media, banking, legal, education, religion, politics and even major corporations. Muslim Brotherhood organizations span the globe and are present on many university campuses. Their goal is the same--to create a global totalitarian government operating under Shariah law. They are a no less a potent factor than the terrorists striking the world's infrastructure.

The Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance, of which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, makes up a key element of the Islamic Military Industrial Complex.

The intellectual father of all modern-day Muslim radicals, the Egyptian Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), decried the end of the caliphate because it separated "the state from religion in a country which was until recently the site of the Commander of the Faithful." Al-Banna characterized the end of the caliphate as part of a larger "Western invasion which was armed and equipped with all the destructive influences of money, wealth, prestige, ostentation, power and means of propaganda." Al-Banna founded the first modern radical Muslim organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The first Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928.

Writing for the International Assessment and Strategy Center, on April 18, 2006, Douglas Farah in the article The Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood commented:

"The Brotherhood has played a central role in providing both the ideological and technical capacities for supporting terrorist finance on a global basis the Brotherhood has spread both the ideology of militant pan-Islamicism and became the spine upon which the funding operations for militant pan-Islamicism was built, taking funds largely generated from wealthy Gulf state elites and distributing them for terrorist education, recruitment and operations widelydispersed throughout the world, especially in areas where Muslims hoped to displace non-Muslim or secular governments."

"Almost every major Islamist group can trace its roots to the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by the Hassan al-Banna, a pan-Islamicist who opposed the secular tendencies in Islamic nations. Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Brotherhood. Hassan al-Turabi, who offered sanctuary in Sudan to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda allies, is a leader of the Brotherhood. He also sat on the boards of several of the most important Islamic financial institutions ""

In the article by Mohamad Bazzi writing for Newsday on October 10, 2001, he wrote: "By launching a "holy war" against the United States, Osama bin Laden would like a return to the glory days of the Muslim empire."

"In his videotaped statement broadcast around the world Sunday, bin Laden said the United States was finally tasting the kind of "humiliation and disgrace" that the Muslim community has felt "for more than 80 years."

"Experts say that by using such an exact figure, bin Laden was most likely referring to the end of the Caliphate, the religious and government authority that ruled the Muslim empire from the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 until 1924. The Caliphate has been an important symbol for many Islamic militants who want to replace secular governments or monarchies with states ruled by Islamic law."

"For bin Laden, the end of the Caliphate symbolizes a point at which the Islamic ummah, or community, became divided into nation-states. In its wake, a sense of worldwide Muslim unity gave way to Arab, Turkish and Persian nationalism. The Turkish nationalist Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate."

"Bin Laden and other Islamists see the demise of the Caliphate as paving the way for the downturn in the Islamic community and its subjection by western colonial powers," said Diaa Rashwan, a leading expert on Islamic militants and a senior researcher at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "In the Islamists' eyes, it was the moment when the ills of colonialism and nationalism joined together."

President George Bush Commenting on Islamist Recruiting

President Bush is correct in his assessment of the use of the Internet and the recruiting tactics:

"Al Qaeda continues to adapt in the face of our global campaign against them. Increasingly, al Qaeda is taking advantage of the Internet to disseminate propaganda, and to conduct "virtual recruitment" and "virtual training" of new terrorists. Al Qaeda's leaders no longer need to meet face-to-face with their operatives. They can find new suicide bombers, and facilitate new terrorist attacks, without ever laying eyes on those they're training, financing, or sending to strike us."

Al Qaeda Introduces Professional DVDs

In my article Axis of Appeasement – The Inconvenient Truth I addressed the approach being used by the Islamists: According to Susanne Koelbl writing on August 17 in Spiegel Online: Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at producing high-quality videos. DVDs depicting bloody beheadings are now available at markets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They're also on the Web.

That the Internet has become a communication platform for terrorists--as well as for their supporters and their adversaries--is nothing new. These days, though, a close monitoring of the Web reveals the increasing brutality of the international jihadist movement. The radicals' isolation and desperation is also on full display. The images, though, also document the vulnerability of Western armies in the remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Iraq, together with the challenges they face in dealing with the realities of the countries in which they operate.

Intelligence services believe that the Pakistani city of Quetta is home to what is probably the most professional media workshop of terror. The city, in the state of Beluchistan in the Pashtun border region, is considered a Taliban stronghold. And it plays host to al-Qaeda's propaganda headquarters, the "Foundation for Islamic Media Production," or "Al-Sahab."

The most important statements issued by the godfather of terror Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the head of al- Qaeda's Iraq division until he was killed in June, were edited and processed here. What began as an amateur operation producing poor-quality videos has since turned into a highly professional outfit.

Al-Qaeda Issues An "Invitation"

In February 2005, Jane's Defense Weekly wrote with concern about what it called "significant developments" in the composition of jihadist terror cells, including "an increase in the number of members who have 'joined' and were no longer 'recruited.'"

An Arabic pamphlet circulating on Islamist Web sites at about the same time, titled "How can I become a member of al- Qaeda?" seems to confirm that the path to al-Qaeda & Co. is growing ever shorter. The pamphlet's response to its own question, according to a translation provided by the Washington based institute SITE, is as follows:

"Al-Qaida is no longer merely an organization fighting Jews and crusaders alone. Today the al-Qaeda issues an 'invitation' that asks all Muslims to rise up in support of God's religion. ... Whoever answers this call is seen as part of al-Qaeda, whether or not you wish this to happen. But if you are a true Muslim, you have no other choice but to heed this call."

"With this approach, al-Qaeda is attracting instant mujahedeen who like the London bus and subway bombers, essentially recruit themselves within a breathtakingly short amount of time. As a result, they are far more unpredictable and difficult to recognize than Afghanistan veterans."

The Emerging Shiite Crescent

As background for President Bush's speech In Their Own Words: What the Terrorists Believe, What They Hope to Accomplish, and How They Intend to Accomplish It, reference is made to comments by Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority " Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq " [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." We note the strategy for extending the caliphate from Iraq to neighboring countries. The strategy comes in direct conflict with emerging Shiite Crescent--thus the battle for control of Iraq.

In the speech President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror on September 7 he said:

This coalition includes two nations that used to sponsor terror, but now help us fight it -- the democratic nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, President Karzai's elected government is fighting our common enemies. In showing the courage he's showing, he's inspired millions across the region. In Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki's unity government is fighting al Qaeda and the enemies of Iraq's democracy. They're taking increasing responsibility for the security of their free country.

The fighting in Iraq has been difficult and it has been bloody, and some say that Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror. The terrorists disagree. Osama bin Laden has proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in Iraq. Al Qaeda leaders have declared that Baghdad will be the capital of the new caliphate that they wish to establish across the broader Middle East. It's hard to believe that extremists would make large journeys across dangerous borders to endure heavy fighting, and to blow themselves up on the streets of Baghdad for a so-called "diversion." The terrorists know that the outcome in the war on terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq -- and so to protect our own citizens, the free world must succeed in Iraq.

While in Baghdad on September 7, 2006, a Draft bill presented to Iraqi parliament on federal system for Shia, Sunni population as reported by the Islamic Republic News Service. "Iraqi parliament's largest Shia party on Thursday put forward a draft bill to establish federal system of government for both the Shia and Sunni population."

"The draft bill, read out in parliament, calls for setting up a separate autonomous states in Iraq for both the Shia and Sunni population."

"...special legislation and a referendum would be needed to establish federalism throughout the country which would entail creating an autonomous Shia government in the south."

This event followed the report on September 5 also from the Islamic Republic News Service: Senior Iraqi delegation heads for Tehran "A high-ranking Iraqi delegation headed by Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Berham Salih left here for Tehran Tuesday" "The visit is aimed at enhancing and consolidating relations between the two countries, the source further stated."

The aim of the legislation is altering the structure of the Iraqi state. The move shows Iran has found a way around its Shiite allies' inability to dominate Baghdad. Even so, a number of domestic and international factors mean Iran is not interested seeing the Iraqi state collapse.

By rearranging the provinces into autonomous federal zones along the lines of Iraq's northern Kurdistan region, the pro-Iranian Shia have found a way to consolidate their gains over power and the oil resources in the south. According to an article in Reuters on September 7, 2006 "Sunnis fear could break up the country and leave them with little access to its oil wealth."

Sunnis, concentrated in Iraq's resource-poor central and western provinces, are opposed to such a move, fearing it would seal their political doom by giving Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north control of much of Iraq's oil.

"Events such as the Iraqi Shiite move for federalism have made Iran's position in Iraq much clearer: Tehran is going for the gold, and it will not settle for an Iraq in which Iran's allies are merely the largest political group in a coalition government. Moving toward a federalist model at a time when the United States and Israel are not in a position to do much about its regional ambitions would allow Tehran to reap the benefits it craves in Iraq, but potential pitfalls remain."

Strategic Forecasting, Inc. commented on the events on September 6, 2006: "Negotiations over the proposed autonomy plan thus could put Iraq's future at risk and could be detrimental to Iran's security. Iran is playing a very dangerous game, one in which success could mean strategic influence in Iraq, while failure could mean regional war."

As John Hall, senior Washington correspondent of Media General News Service commented in the article Shiite Crescent arrives: "From the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, the Shiite Crescent was jumping last week. Triumphant anti-Israel leaders of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Iran's chest-thumping president, and the made-in-the-USA power structure of democratic Iraq were crowing that Israel had been beaten."

"King Abdullah of Jordan, a staunch U.S. ally in the region, saw it coming two years ago and coined the phrase "Shiite Crescent." His warning was largely directed at Sunni Muslim nations facing Iran, and his message didn't get much attention here. But the pieces of the young leader's prophecy are starting to drop into place."

"Abdullah's vision was the emergence of a new power center that would come to dominate the region. The Shiite Crescent comprised Iran's Shiite-dominated government, the new Shiite regime taking control after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Hezbollah-dominated Shiite "state within a state" in southern Lebanon."

"The cease-fire just declared following Hezbollah's brief war with Israel left southern Lebanon in ruins and destroyed much of Hezbollah's arms cache. But Hezbollah's leadership remains strong. And most Shiite Muslims, as well as the rest of the Arab world, are celebrating what they call a victory over Israel's much more powerful and modern army and air force."

"Iran's deep pockets could re supply Hezbollah with arms to keep attacking Israel unless a U.N. force being formed to move into southern Lebanon is more aggressive than others have been to stop the traffic through Syria."

"Hezbollah is vowing to resist any effort to disarm it."

As reported by Reuters on September 7, 2006 Al Jazeera airs audio of new Iraq al Qaeda leader: "Al Qaeda's new leader called on Muslims to unify ranks with insurgents in Iraq, according to an audio tape aired by Al Jazeera television on Thursday."

"Place your hands in our hands ... our enemy has unified his ranks, now is the time to unite," said the speaker, identified by Al Jazeera as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Geopolitical Implications of Breakup of Iraq

It is important to review briefly the history of the rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunni to understand the complexity of battles raging in Iraq. The Shiite-Sunni divide starts with early Islamic history with the killing of Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, the third Imam and grandson of the Prophet Muhammad at the Battle of Karbala in 680. For further study see: The Clash of Ideologies: The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds).

The anniversary of his death is called Ashoura, a day of mourning and religious observance for Shiite Muslims with some flagellating themselves. Shiites consider Hussain as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad and his death and commemoration is considered as a struggle against oppression. An excellent source for further study is: God's Rule - Government and Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought by Patricia Crone.

It was the dispute over succession in the seventh century and this death that ignited the chasm between the Sunni branch of Islam and the Shiites. The conflicts continued with the coming to power of the Umayyads [the first Islamic dynasty (661-750)] and the Abbasids [second of two great dynasties (750-1258) who came to power under the auspices of a Shiite movement].

Essentially the Shiites lost the battle for the political leadership of the Muslim world and became a dissident community. Two major empires replaced the Islamic caliphate; the Safavids in Iran who were Shiite [came to power in 1501] and the Ottomans in Turkey that controlled the Arab world and were Sunni. The Ottoma-Safavid rivalry became a surrogate for the Shiite-Sunni rivalry and the Ottomans lasted far longer. The Ottoman caliphate lasted until 1924.

Following World War I the Arab world rose to significance, the structure of power confirms the Sunni domination particularly in places like Bahrain, and Iraq, where the Shiite were the majority but the British gave the power to the Sunni ruling dynasty. The British policy confirmed sectarian attitudes and Arab nationalism was secular on the surface but it was sometimes clearly anti-Shiite. The book Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia by Janet Wallach provides an interesting insight into the events leading up to establishment of the boundaries of Iraq and the important role of oil from Iran had following WW 1.

Today Iran has the most powerful military force in the Gulf, independent of its potential for nuclear armaments, except for the U.S. At present most of countries in the Gulf are governed by Sunnis where in some cases the Shia are persecuted. The Shia of Iraq now pretty much run that country for the first time–even though they were a majority population since they converted to Shiism to counter the what they saw as the brutalities and oppression of the Ottoman Empire (caliphate) a long time ago. Following the recent war, the Shia in Lebanon want even more political representation. The same could be said for the Shia of Saudi Arabia (who live in the area that has the major oil fields in the northeast), the Shia of Bahrain (a majority of the population), and the Shia are also found in Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan and elsewhere. While the Shia are only 15 percent of the total population of Muslims in the world, they are on the ascendance due in large part to the change in power in Iraq. The regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and elsewhere are also under considerable heat. The success of Hezbollah in standing up to Israel in Lebanon has increased the temperature for their leaders, and in their streets. Also, the probability of a Hezbollah attack on U.S. interests was not particularly high before these events, it has been suggested that it is much higher now. It has been a long time since Hezbollah targeted the U.S. Now all bets may be off. It was Hezbollah that was behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans.

There may be an element of truth in the fact that the Shiites are looking to Tehran for guidance and leadership. It is not only a question of allegiance as much as it is of turning to an external political reference. It is also no longer a question of Shiites alone looking to Iran. Sunni and Christian Arabs are also gazing in that direction, on the whole, because they see an Iran that is assertive, that is strong and defiant of a world superpower and the West.

In the eyes of many Muslims and even non-Muslims, Iran is becoming the defender of the Arab cause and against the hegemony of the U.S. A lot of the Arabs look at Iran as more powerful and the Shiites even more. With a moral-deficit in the West, subscribing to the Judeo-Christian has no importance. Power and money take precedence. Iran is respected, Iran stands up to the West and they admire that stance. There does not seem to any leader of Sunni cause. The West only sees Osama bin Laden as representing the Sunni cause. These are the days of the Shiite rise to power. The balance of power may have been altered in the Muslim world.

If Iraq were to be divided up, or for that matter the Bill presented to Parliament on September 7 were to pass, the southern region would become Shiite--and the Iranians would dominate southern Iraq. This not only would give them control of the Basra oil fields, but also would theoretically open the road to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite insurgencies at all, Iran could move far down the western side of the Gulf without the presence of American forces. This would lead a possibility that the Iranians could seize control of the bulk of the entire region's oil reserves and control of the Straits of Hormuz. They could do the same thing if Iraq were to be united as an Iranian satellite, but that would be far more difficult to achieve and would require active U.S. cooperation in withdrawing. The Shiites chose the route to take the southern provinces, with the hope that the U.S. would not object to strongly.

To accomplish their goal, the Iranians will utilize the propaganda machine adequately supported by Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance to push for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Iranians are counting on the continuing violence to cause discontent with the situation in Iraq. The propaganda tool is to create a wedge between the American people and the government. This is obviously happening in the media. Ultimately, they are counting on the Americans to be sufficiently exhausted by their experience of Iraq to rationalize their withdrawal – leaving, as in Vietnam, a graceful interval for what follows.

The options for solving the issues arising in Iraq are not good. The Iranian hegemony over the Gulf and the Shiite Crescent would change the world balance of power. While U.S. and the West are focused on Osama bin Laden and the battles for withdrawal from Iraq, the Islamists are marching on and gaining political, legal, media propaganda and economic strength throughout the western world.

The battle for control of the crescent could be a defining moment in the rebuilding of the caliphate. The events occurring in this region could escalate out of control. It must be remembered that Iran is the key player in the Shiite Crescent. Iran is an observer and shortly will become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) joining with Russia and China. Also, it is important not to forget that Venezuela is friendly both with Iran and other members of the SCO. As noted above the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia (oil producing region) is dominated by Shiites. On September 7, The United States formally handed over control of Iraq's new military to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shiite government on Thursday just as rebels unleashed a fresh wave of deadly bomb attacks on Iraqi security forces. In spite of events occurring with coalescing of the Shiite Crescent, Washington has hailed the handover as a "gigantic" milestone toward withdrawing 155,000 U.S.-led foreign troops from Iraq.

Two powers -- the Shiites and Sunni are battling for control and attempting to establish the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth. Mahmood Ahmadinezhad has as his stated goal of causing events to occur that will bring about the apocalyptic end of the world. We must listen to what these leaders are saying. Each is attempting to establish the new caliphate.

The Life Blood of the Islamist

The lifeblood of the forces seeking to establish the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth is money. The West has done a fair job in identifying some of sources of funding for terror coming from non-profit organizations and the banking system. The removal of this funding, all be it critical, has not reduced the major flow of funding to the countries, which have the desire to remove the hegemony of the West and in particular, the U.S. The funding results largely from the need for oil from these countries--energy interdependence and need for these foreign governments to finance the budget and foreign trade deficits of the U.S.

The Axis of Appeasement - Revisited

However, nothing unites the parties more than the common goal of establishing a totalitarian one-world government that can bring down the West. This is what we are witnessing in the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. This may be what President Bush referred to in his comment:

"Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign " to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed " to serve " the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.""

As presented in a Financial Times Article US plays down al-Qaeda in list of terror threats by Caroline Daniel and Edward Alden in Washington: "The Bush administration yesterday defended its record in combating terrorism, and identified the principal terrorist threat facing the US as a "transnational movement of extremist organisations" that exploit Islam, rather than the al-Qaeda group."

The White House report, "Combating Terrorism", was an updated version of a 2003 strategy report. It made no mention of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, and said the US had made "substantial progress in degrading the al-Qaeda network, killing or capturing key lieutenants, eliminating safe havens and disrupting existing lines of support".

"The White House report was countered by an analysis from the Third Way, a think-tank, launched with senior Democrats, which looked at Mr Bush's national security record. "We set out to measure whether President Bush is making America safer. And the answer is no, based on our analysis."

Joining the course against President Bush and the "War on Terror" Reuters reported in the article: France rejects "war on terror", "Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking in parliament, expressed these views on global terrorism, while President Jacques Chirac backed France's claims to the international front rank with a fresh defense of his country's nuclear arsenal."

"Villepin noted Chirac's strong opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and said the Arab state had now sunk into violence and was feeding new regional crises."

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners."

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

The Axis of Appeasement has made its position clear for the progressives of the "The third Way." In an article on Hillary Rodham Clinton published on the discoverthenetwork.com September 6, 2006 written by David Horowitz and published by FrontPageMagazine.com on June 22, 2000, quoted below:

"The Third Way" is a familiar term from the lexicon of the left with a long and dishonorable pedigree in the catastrophes created by messianic socialists in the 20th Century. It is the most ornate panel in the tapestry of deception I described at the beginning of this essay.

In the 1930s, Nazis used "The Third Way" to characterize their own brand of national socialism as a equidistant between the "internationalist" socialism of the Soviet Union and the capitalism of the West. Trotskyists used "The Third Way" as a term to distinguish their own Marxism from Stalinism and capitalism. In the 1960s, New Leftists used "The Third Way" to define their politics as an independent socialism between the Soviet gulag and America's democracy.

But as the history of Nazism, Trotskyism and the New Left have shown, there is no "Third Way." There is the capitalist, democratic way based on private property and individual rights--a way that leads to liberty and universal opportunity. And there is the socialist way of group identities, group rights, a relentless expansion of the political state, restricted liberty and diminished opportunity. The Third Way is not a path to the future. It is just the suspension between these two destinations. It is a bad faith attempt on the part of people who are incapable of giving up their socialist schemes to escape the taint of their discredited past.

The Apocalyptic Teaching of Islam

The totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. Muslims across the world are drawn by the apocalyptic teachings of Islam with its slogan "Islam is the solution." That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria in 1992 to Turkey in 2002, to the Paris riots in 2005 to the actions of the Hezbollah and Hamas in recent weeks. Under Secretary Levey discussed Hezbollah's and Iran's financial institutions on September 8, 2006 at a 9/11-related event in Washington. "It is remarkable that Iran has a nine-digit line item in its budget to support Hizballah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations at the expense of investing in the future of its young people." He went on to comment: "While we can point to progress since 2001, there is no doubt that the world remains a dangerous place." Continuing: "The next steps may involve sacrifice, but I think that people are beginning to recognize that the costs we face now pale in comparison to those we might face in the future if Iran does not change course."