It was Eli who first noticed Thomas Joscelyn’s piece on the Weekly Standard website Dec 27 in which he mocked Obama’s claim that Guantanamo was “probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations.”

In his post, entitled “Gitmo is Not Al Qaeda’s ‘Number One Recruitment Tool,’ Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), performed a quantitative analysis of key words that appeared in the “translations of 34 messages and interviews dlievered by top al Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, since January 2009.” Guantanamo, he found, was “mentioned in only 3 of the 34 messages. The other 31 messages contain no reference to Guantanamo.” Within those three messages, Guantanamo was mentioned a mere seven times, according to Joscelyn’s findings.

To show just how ignorant or misleading Obama was, Joscelyn naturally went on to compare that paltry total with the number of other key words used during the period:

“By way of comparison, all of the following keywords are mentioned far more frequently: Israel/Israeli/Israelis (98 mentions), Jew/Jews (129), Zionist(s) (94), Palestine/Palestinian (200), Gaza (131), and Crusader(s) (322). (Note: Zionist is often paired with Crusader in al Qaeda’s rhetoric.)

“Naturally, al Qaeda’s leaders also focus on the wars in Afghanistan (333 mentions) and Iraq (157). Pakistan (331), which is home to the jihadist hydra, is featured prominently, too. Al Qaeda has designs on each of these three nations and implores willing recruits to fight America and her allies there. Keywords related to other jihadist hotspots also feature more prominently than Gitmo, including Somalia (67 mentions), Yemen (18) and Chechnya (15).”

So compelling were Joscelyn’s little survey and conclusions that Karl Rove gleefully devoted his weekly column in the Wall Street Journal to it — “Gitmo Is Not A Recruiting Tool for Terrorists” on Dec 29. [It was published in the Dec 30 print edition.] Here’s his triumphant conclusion about Joscelyn’s findings:

[T]he president is wrong to assign such importance to Gitmo and, by implication, to suggest it would be a major setback to al Qaeda were he to close it, as he promised but failed to do by the end of his first year in office. Shuttering the facility would not take the wind out of terrorism, in part because it is not, and never has been, its ‘No. 1 recruitment tool.’

So, assuming that Joscelyn’s hypothesis and Rove’s assertion make sense — that there must be some correlation between key words used by al Qaeda leaders (in Afghanistan and Pakistan) in their public pronouncements and what they believe are the issues that are most likely to rally their intended audience behind them (and assuming that Joscelyn’s methodology for data collection and keyword analysis was sound), what can we conclude?

It seems we can safely say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen by al Qaeda leaders as their “number one recruitment tool.” Indeed, taken together, “Israel/Israelis,” “Jew/Jews,” “Zionist(s),” “Palestine/Palestinian,” and “Gaza” account were mentioned an astonishing 652 times in 34 messages: that’s virtually twice as many times as “Afghanistan” or “Pakistan” which, given their geographic proximity to the al Qaeda leaders who are sending these messages, is quite remarkable.

But let’s be more conservative. As Joscelyn noted, “Zionist” was often paired with Crusader in al Qaeda’s rhetoric” and thus may not have anything directly to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict per se. Similarly, “Jew/Jewish” is not necessarily relevant, either, so let’s delete those two keywords from the data set as well. Nonetheless, even if we confine our count to “Israel/Israelis,” “Palestine/Palestinian,” and “Gaza” — all of which are more likely to refer to the Israel-Palestinian conflict — we come up with 429 mentions, or some 25 percent more than runner-up “Afghanistan”!

Of course, this linkage between Islamist extremism and the Israel-Palestinian conflict is something that real scholars — and the military brass, most famously last March in testimony by Gen. David Petraeus when he was still CENTCOM chief — have long maintained. But it also a linkage that neo-conservatives, in particular, have repeatedly and strenuously denied. Take what Abe Foxman wrote in the Jerusalem Post shortly after Petraeus’ remark last spring as just one of a legion of examples: “The notion that al-Qaida’s hatred of America ….or the ongoing threat of extremist terrorist groups in the region is based on Israel’s announcement of building apartments [in East Jerusalem] is absurd on its face and smacks of scapegoating.”

But let’s go back to the logic behind Rove’s argument that if Gitmo were “the No. 1 recruitment toll” for al Qaeda, “then Al Qaeda leaders would emphasize it in their manifestos, statements and Internet postings, mentioning it early, frequently and at length.” Well, if that doesn’t apply to Gitmo, it seems to apply in spades to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, suggesting — again, using Rove’s logic — that resolving the conflict could “take the wind out of terrorism…”

Of course, Rove doesn’t go down the road, even if his logic points in that direction. Instead, he reverts to a tired neo-conservative mantra: “It is the combination of a fierce, unquenchable hatred for the U.S. and a profound sense of grievance against the modern world that helps Islamists to draw recruits,” he insists. Of course, the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may contribute importantly to that sense of grievance doesn’t occur to him, despite all of the evidence he recites from Jocelyn’s little study.

• The Weekly Standard: Stephen F. Hayes and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow Thomas Joscelyn write, in an article called “The Iran Connection”, that Undersecretary of State William Burns, in his Dec. 1 appearance before the House Foreign Affairs committee, “chose not to mention that the leaders of Iran have been fighting a stealth war against the United States, its soldiers, and its citizens.” Hayes and Joscelyn point back to the WikiLeaks cables alleging that Iran hosted Osama bin Laden’s son Ibrahim, and repeat the allegations that Iran has hosted senior al Qaeda terrorists “for years,” provided assistance to the Taliban and armed “violent extremists” in Iraq. They conclude, “Nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks, not only do we have abundant evidence that Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, supports al Qaeda. We also have evidence that Iran actively assists terrorists and insurgents targeting our soldiers and diplomats in two war zones.”

• Pajamas Media: Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) “Freedom Scholar” Michael Ledeen attempts to draw parallels between the current state of domestic politics in Tehran, particularly in light of the firing of Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki, and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. Ledeen concludes, “Don’t try to decipher the ‘meaning’ of any one of the melodramatic events in Iran today or tomorrow;  just remember that the leaders of the regime are fighting for survival, knowing that the Iranian people hate them, and suspecting each other of betrayal.”

• National Review Online: American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow Ali Alfoneh opines that expectations should be “subzero” for the P5+1 talks, continuing today in Geneva, since “the Iranian negotiators in Geneva represent the Ahmadinejad government and possibly Khamenei, therefore they cannot deliver what they may promise.” Alfoneh says the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and not the civilian leadership represented in the Geneva talks, is responsible for most aspects of the nuclear program and “has a vested interest in a low-intensity diplomatic crisis between the Islamic Republic and the United States, as it would pave the way for expansion of the IRGC’s power within the Islamic Republic.”

• The Weekly Standard: Senior Foundation for Defense of Democracies Fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht warns that negotiations with Iran “will never work.” “You cannot talk about Iran’s nuclear program without understanding it within a religious context,”writes Gerecht. “Secularism has transformed Western culture—or, as Ahmadinejad and Khamenei would say, has permanently debased it.” Gerecht predicts that when the P5+1 meet in Geneva, “If the Obama administration and the Europeans actually understood the opposing side, they would realize the sanctions now on the books are not nearly enough to make Khamenei blink.” In a subtle call for military action, Gerecht concludes “Islamic history is littered with defeated religious militants. But they were defeated. They didn’t arrive at a new understanding of their faith through diplomacy and negotiations.”

• FrumForum / National Post: David Frum writes an anti-linkage piece describing how Arab capitals don’t care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are instead consumed with Iran. “Governments in the region do not in fact care very much about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute,” he writes. “They are transfixed by Iran. They are terrorized by the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon.” He suggests the United States should follow their lead and drop the Israeli-Palestinian conflict altogether until the Palestinians are ready to acquiesce to many of Israel’s demands. On Iran, Frum is alarmed by the WikiLeaks revelations: “WikiLeaks confirms and underscores the intransigence and belligerence of Iran.” Frum adds that Iran is “even more dangerous” than most analysts thought.

• Weekly Standard: Stephen Hayes and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow Thomas Joscelyn (formerly of the Claremont Institute) write about the links between Al Qaeda and Iran in an article called “The Iran Connection” for the print edition of the Weekly Standard. The two combed through WikiLeaks revelations in order to showcase accusations by Arab leaders that Iran has been visited by relatives of Bin Laden and harbors Al Qaeda members and their families. The article also point to the alleged support of extremist groups and anti-U.S. fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. It notes that while the P5+1 talks will focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, “the United States is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program not just because of nuclear weapons, but because of what the Iranian leadership plans to do with them.” The authors conclude by invoking the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States: “Nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks, not only do we have abundant evidence that Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, supports al Qaeda. We also have evidence that Iran actively assists terrorists and insurgents targeting our soldiers and diplomats in two war zones.”

• Commentary: Abe Greenwald writes on Commentary’s Contentions blog that the Obama administration’s “paralysis” in responding to North Korea’s recent artillery attack on South Korea “makes one thing clear: we cannot, for any reason, allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.” Greenwald warns that, “If guessing at Kim Jong-il’s motives makes fools of us all, just imagine trying to react to a nuclear theocratic thug-state perpetually sponsoring regional terror and frozen in a cold domestic revolution.” While Pyongyang might settle for talks or further aid, he argues Iran’s leaders seek only to destroy the United States and Israel.

• The Weekly Standard: Thomas Joscelyn blogs that WikiLeaks cables have shown a link between Iran and al-Qaeda. Citing a cable which summarizes a conversation with Saudia Arabia’s Prince Nayif bi Abdulaziz, Joscelyn points to Iran’s alleged hosting Osama bin Laden’s youngest son, Ibrahim bin Laden. Joscelyn rather looks into this and finds “There is little publicly-available information on him. However, U.S. intelligence officials contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say that he is quickly rising through al Qaeda’s ranks – just like his brothers.” He concludes, “The State Department’s September 2009 cable is just the latest U.S. government document released by WikiLeaks that connects Iran and al Qaeda.”

• National Review Online: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies president, Clifford May, writes that when being frisked at the airport it’s important to remember that “jihadi terrorists are the enemy” and thus responsible for our privacy invasions — and not the TSA. May segues into the warning that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has long been the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” and takes a swipe at Turkey. “Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been moving closer to Iran’s rulers even as they have unleashed waves of repression against Iranian dissenters,” he writes. May concludes, “For the traveling public, that means directing our anger not at the TSA but at the Islamist terrorists…who see[s] the airport as a field of battle in the great war of the 21st century.”

• The Washington Note: Steve Clemons says that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a conflict that matters, “…far beyond the Israeli and Palestinian populations and is a screaming, right now challenge.” As the United States remains committed to remaking Afghanistan and Iraq the urgency of resolving one of the region’s biggest historical grievances has never been higher. Clemons suggest that President Barack Obama, “sees the vital and obvious linkage between resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict over Palestine and any sensible strategy rolling back and/or containing Iran’s nuclear and regional hegemonic pretensions.”

• The Wall Street Journal: The WSJ editorial board says that the sanctions against Iran are beginning to work but additional sanctions are needed and the United States and Europe should offer more assistance to Iran’s democracy movement. The op-ed also suggests that Obama should invite dissident Iranian exiles to the Oval Office. Now, argues the authors, is not the time to drop sanctions in exchange for negotiations with Tehran. “The risk now is that the modest success of the sanctions will lure the Administration into dropping some of them in exchange for another round of temporizing and inevitably useless negotiations with Tehran,” they argue.

• The Weekly Standard: Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn call attention to documents in the Wikileaks dump which claim that Iran is supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The authors say that reports of Iranian activity in Afghanistan show Obama’s August 2^nd statement the United States and Iran have a “mutual interest” in fighting the Taliban to be a dangerous fantasy. Hayes and Joscelyn seem to willfully ignore previous passed-up opportunities for rapprochement with Iran.

• The New York Times: David Sanger reports that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made comments indicating that sanctions against Iran have had a greater economic impact than anticipated by Iran’s government.  The administration’s statements appeared aimed at bringing Tehran back to the negotiating table but, Sanger points out, “Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton defined with any precision what steps Iran’s leaders would need to take to build confidence that they were willing to negotiate.”

• The Huffington Post: David Bromwich makes the case that the post 9/11 United States has developed a dangerous trend of always being at war.  Obama, says Bromwich, is both withdrawing from Afghanistan more slowly than many would like and moving towards a military strike on Iran more slowly than many would prefer. “Will Iran become our third war of the moment? Sanctions which, Benjamin Netanyahu has said, should soon become ‘crippling sanctions,’ already have us in lockstep on that path,” says Bromwich. He warns that after the November midterm elections, “The Likud, in both Israel and America, may prove itself ready for action sooner than President Obama would like, just as the Tea Party picked up energy faster and harder than he looked for in the spring of 2009.” (Ali blogged on Bromwich’s article earlier today.)