Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress.

The Washington Post ran a story today titled, “Somalis Flee Famine along ‘road of death,’” which illustrates the perilous journey thousands of Somalis are making to escape the worst famine in a generation. While running this front page story in a major American media outlet is a significant step in the right direction, U.S. reporting on the crisis lags far behind the rest of the world, particularly that in the European Union. In particular, the Post’s story today omitted a crucial detail: U.S. law is preventing much needed aid to getting to famine-stricken areas in the Horn of Africa.

The crisis on the Horn — and in particular the parts of Somalia that are officially in famine –– is the result of the worst drought in at least a generation. But it has also been caused by the protracted conflict related to the 1991 collapse of Somalia’s ruthless Siad Barre regime. The ongoing violence is now perpetrated in large part by a brutal armed group, al-Shebaab, which was designated in 2008 as a terrorist group and has ties to al Qaeda. Al-Shebaab has wreaked havoc throughout Somalia and created one of the most challenging environments for aid groups to operate. They have regularly harassed and targeted relief groups and killed more than 40 western aid workers. In 2009, al-Shebaab also banned international aid agencies from operating. The group recently lifted this ban only to reverse course shortly thereafter while also claiming that the U.N. had exaggerated the severity of the crisis.

Al-Shebaab’s brutality shows little signs of abating. In order to save the millions of lives that hang in the balance, al-Shebaab needs to acknowledge the severity of the crisis, stop denying aid to dying people and allow aid groups to have unfettered access to those who need assistance.

But here’s where the other part of the story comes into play.

The United States has traditionally been one of the leading donors throughout the region, providing hundreds of millions of dollars of emergency aid on an annual basis to Somalia alone. Given the severity of the current crisis and likelihood of it worsening, the Obama administration also needs to take expedited steps to address the legal road blocks U.S.-funded relief groups are facing. If that doesn’t happen, they can’t get up and running again. As I noted on ThinkProgress last week, many U.S. funded humanitarian organizations are eager to return to Somalia and restart programs they’ve had to abandon. As for now, however, they are stuck in a catch-22. The restrictions against working in Somalia — whether the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) restrictions or Executive Order 13224 — remain firmly in place.

Members of Congress have started to express concern about these restrictions and have sent inquiries to the administration asking questions about how they can be swiftly addressed to help save lives. But the mainstream U.S. media also needs to look at the full scope of complexities associated with relief operations and do a better job of telling the whole story. Until these restrictions are either removed, or a waiver process is created, some of the most capable relief groups may be stuck waiting in the wings. And that means hundreds of thousands of people in need of assistance could be waiting for naught.

Earlier this year, GOP presidential primary candidate Herman Cain made headlines when he suggested that he would not appoint Muslims in his administration, telling a ThinkProgress reporter that doing so would advance Sharia law.

When ThinkProgress asked fellow candidate former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) about Cain’s comments in a blogger conference call today, Johnson rebuked Cain, saying that Muslims are just as qualified as candidates of any other faith. He also condemned the right wing’s rush to judgement after the Oslo terror attack:

THINKPROGRESS: I wanted to ask you sort of the way the right, a lot of pundits, Republicans, conservatives reacted to the terror attack in Oslo. There was a lot immediate reaction blaming Muslims, saying this was an act of Islamic terrorism, not really taking a hardline against Islamophobia. What I want to know is do you think that this general trend of Islamophobia on the right is really dangerous for conservatives. How would you respond to candidates like Herman Cain that have even said they wouldn’t appoint Muslims to presidential appointments?

JOHNSON: Well, not to criticize Cain but to criticize anybody who would say they would not appoint Muslims, that is in my opinion, in my opinion a qualified Muslim is as qualified as a qualified Christian, is as qualified as anyone who might seek that position or that appointment. That should not be consideration and, yeah, when Norway happened and everybody jumped to the conclusion that this had to be some act of terrorism as opposed to what appears to be a real bigotry toward immigration, wow! This is the situation. This is the reality, and we seem to jump to conclusions when the reality is just the opposite.

Listen to it:

By defending the rights of Muslims and refusing to scaremonger about the Islamic faith, Johnson is setting himself apart from much of the rest of his party’s field.

Because neoconservatives who advocate for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities also operate under the pretense of supporting democracy and human rights in Iran, they’re often forced to do logical jujitsu to defend the notion that an attack would not harm efforts of Iranians to affect these changes within their own societies.

Take, for example, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, who’s stated her preference for a U.S. attack, positing that a strike would actually help Iran’s opposition. She wrote that “an attack would serve as a tipping point rather than a rallying point.”

Or Reuel Marc Gerecht, a pundit with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and supposed Green Movement admirer, who advocated for an Israeli strike on Iran in the Weekly Standard and wrote:

Too much has been made in the West of the Iranian reflex to rally round the flag after an Israeli (or American) preventive strike… Neither the Israelis nor anyone else need fear for the Green Movement.

Now, a report from the leading international organization monitoring human rights in Iran offers a strong rebuttal to sophistic arguments that regular Iranians won’t be harmed or — more absurdly — stand to gain from a U.S. or Israeli military strike.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) released a report today where leading civil society activists in Iran stated that they strongly disagree with contentions like those made by Gerecht and Rubin.

For the report, ICHRI interviewed “35 of the most prominent members of Iranian civil society, a diverse array of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, writers, cultural leaders, student activists, academics and members of the political opposition” — voices that, because of Iran’s isolation and fears of repression, are rarely heard outside Iran. ICHRI sums up their views:

Repeatedly, the interviewees expressed concerns that an attack would (1) lead to further militarization of the state, exacerbating the human rights crisis in Iran and undermining Iranian civil society and the pro-democracy movement; and (2) strengthen the current regime by stoking nationalism and dividing the opposition, while undercutting the Iranian public’s goodwill toward the United States.

ICHRI quoted numerous Iranians contradicting neoconservatives like Rubin and Gerecht and their close allies (Lindsey Graham, the Project for a New American Century, and John Bolton). Iranian people’s reactions to these American hawks would be “terribly negative,” said human rights lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah. A playwright identified as Pedram Z. was more plainspoken: “Any foreign intervention would lead to unity and opposition to the United States.” Others still noted that an attack would stoke nationalism and work in the regime’s favor.

Many Iranian human rights and opposition leaders have already spoken out on these matters. Last year, human rights lawyer and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi told ThinkProgress that an attack would be “the worst option,” saying that she and other Iranians “will resist any military action.” Dissident journalist Akbar Ganji has said the U.S. should not even talk about the military option or regime change because such rhetoric would be “detrimental” to growing indigenous movements for democracy and human rights inside Iran.

Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik’s manifesto is littered with references and citations to key players in the American Islamophobia industry. Bloggers like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and terror “experts” like Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes and Walid Shoebat all appear to have played a role in influencing Breivik’s murderous rampage on Friday. But buried on page 762 of his 1,518-page manifesto is a list of sources Breivik recommended for “further study.” The list includes links to all ten parts of the Islamophobic documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West.

The documentary made headlines in the U.S. after the Clarion Fund — the film’s producer and distributor — staged a masssive distribution of the film as inserts in swing state newspapers in September 2008 before the presidential election. The distribution hinged on the giveaway of 28 million DVDs of the film, costing nearly $19 million, and Chicago businessman Barre Seid paid for it.

The distribution was widely interpreted as an attempt to mobilize anti-Muslim sentiments before the election and to scare voters into going to the polls. The messages contained in the film summarize some of the core beliefs of “counterjihad” bloggers and pundits. The documentary, bolstered by a stable of right wing talking heads, makes the case that:

Today, we find ourselves confronted by a new enemy, also engaged in a violent struggle to transform our world. As we sleep in the comfort of our homes, a new evil rises against us. A new menace is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western Civilization under the yoke of its values. That enemy is Radical Islam.

An abridged version of the film can be viewed here:

Obsession was widely promoted on right-wing and “counterjihad” blogs, and the documentary’s interviewees frequently appear as anti-Muslim panelists on cable news shows. Breivik’s manifesto cited seven of the film’s 17 interviewees: Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Caroline Glick, Salim Mansur, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, and Khaled Abu Toameh.

The Clarion Fund has since gone on to produce two additional films: The Third Jihad, which claims to outline a Muslim conspiracy to “weaken America from within;” and Iranium, offering a sinister portrayal of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as hellbent on unleashing nuclear weapons on Israel and the West. Iranium also makes the case for keeping “the military option” on the table as a means to delay or destroy Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions.

The right-wing and anti-Muslim pundits desperately trying to distance themselves from Breivik’s violence are claiming that they should not be held responsible if one disturbed individual misinterprets their message and engages in terrorism. But Obsession‘s message — which was repeated across the anti-Muslim punditry — is that Muslims are inspired to commit terrorism by a culture influenced by an Arab media and radical Imams. Now that the tables are turned, these same individuals are claiming no responsibility for seeming to influence the worst act of violence in Norway since World War II.

The Citizens for National Security (CFNS) came to Capitol Hill yesterday to give a congressional briefing on what they consider a dangerous threat facing America: Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a man with a history of fringe beliefs and Islamophobia, introduced and sponsored the CFNS presentation. Titled “Hometown Jihad on the USA,” the briefing was designed as an exposé on the Muslim Brotherhood, which CFNS said has been operating a four-phase plan since 1962 to “penetrate the United States and eventually erode its institutions, policies, and sense of self.”

At the event, which was led by CFNS’ Peter M. Leitner, the group announced they had compiled a list of more than 6,000 enemies of the state and 200 organizations that are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The organizations accused included prominent Muslim-American groups such as the Muslim Student Association and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Yet in light of the recent horrific terrorist attack in Norway allegedly by Anders Breivik, the salience of Islamophobic rhetoric is certainly concerning. After all, Brievik was heavily influenced by Islamophobes in America, hated the rising influence of Muslims and multiculturalism in the West, and thought his attack was a strike against jihad enablers. His manifesto also cited CFNS board member Daniel Pipes 11 times as a supporter of his ideology.

At the event, undergraduates from the CFNS-indicted Muslim Student Association at American University pressed Leitner, concerned about copy cat attacks and the connections between his organization’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and right-wing, anti-Islam terrorist attacks. Leitner’s response? There’s no connection, and if you don’t like my presentation, make your own:

QUESTIONER 1: Are you not worried that in wake of these attacks, there will be copycat crimes in the United States that put American lives at risk based on the kind of information and grandiose conspiracy theories that you are setting up today?

LEITNER: [...] The issue of whether or not is [Daniel] Pipes is guilty of somehow inciting, you know, this bizarre Norwegian farmer into an act of incredibly heinous and bizarre terrorism against innocent people because he reads his blogs and guzzles up the information, the answer is no, that’s an absurd claim–

QUESTIONER 1: [...] But he cited your information.

LEITNER: So what? He can cite the bible, he can cite the Koran, so what? He can cite anything he wants to…It doesn’t make any differences, it’s an insane mind, it doesn’t make any difference…

QUESTIONER 2: But if you cite the Muslim Brotherhood it’s different. You can cite all kinds of people, If you’re not Muslim, you’re acting alone. But if you’re Muslim Brotherhood and you’re Muslim, you’re part of this big scheme that you could not even explain.

LEITNER: Again, you know, I’m not gonna get into an irrational debate about this. We presented information based on the current analysis of the situation that exists. [...] If you don’t like it, write your own presentation and do your own presentation.

You can watch the video here:

–Sean Savett