CAIRO – In an ironic twist of fate, the most conservative and anti-American of Egypt’s Islamist presidential candidates may be barred from running because his mother was a U.S. citizen. 

Hazem Abu Ismail is an extremely popular Salafist presidential candidate who has steamrolled the competition in an aggressive campaign that has blanketed Cairo with posters of his beaming and bearded round face.

But his campaign is now fighting for survival against the latest accusations that his deceased mother held U.S. citizenship. Egyptian law prohibits citizens whose parents hold (or held) dual citizenship from running for president.

Abu Ismail maintains his mother only had a green card. Egypt’s election commission announced Thursday that his mother was a U.S. citizen, however they have not officially disqualified him from the race yet. The New York Times also reported earlier this week that California public records and voting records prove she became a U.S. citizen. 

Anti-American Egyptian candidate may be tripped up by mother’s US ties

If Abu Ismail’s candidacy is disqualified, it could seriously shake-up the race that includes former regime officials and Islamists competing in the first presidential election since former President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. The election is set for the end of May.

---

A show of support
On Friday thousands of die-hard Abu Ismail supporters marched to Cairo’s Tahrir Square to defend their candidate against what they called lies and forgery. 

“U.S. intelligence said she was a U.S. citizen, but they are lying. So is the military. They are supporters of the old regime,” said Kamel Hussein, a 35-year-old Egyptian TV employee. Hussein, who is a supporter of Abu Ismail but not a Salafist, said his vote would go to liberal former Arab League chief Amr Moussa if Ismail is forced out. 

Cairo math teacher, Mostafa Aly, 28, believes the military and security forces have forged documents so that Abu Ismail, if elected, will not try them for attacks against demonstrators during and after the revolution, as he had promised. 

“The people who don’t want to be tried are behind this,” insisted Aly. 

Dr. Mohamed Farouk, a pediatrician and father of four, blamed the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the U.S. and the old guard for spreading false rumors about Abu Ismail. 

“The Muslim Brotherhood are afraid of him,” said Farouk. The Muslim Brotherhood, which recently put forward its own presidential candidate, stands to gain if he is disqualified because they could pick up some of his conservative Islamist votes. The Brotherhood already won nearly have of the seats in Parliament earlier this year.

Muslim Brotherhood shocks Egypt with presidential run

Farouk insisted others were plotting against Abu Ismail, too.

“I believe everything Ismail says. He is always speaking the truth. When they found 160,000 people supporting his candidacy, they became afraid. They are playing a game to prevent his presidency.”

Most supporters said they would stand by their candidate regardless. 

“If his mother was an Eskimo, I would still support him,” one young man interjected. 

A few threatened to come to Tahrir Square en masse if he is thrown out of the race.   

“This demonstration is a warning to the military government. If there is forgery of her citizenship, we will have a second revolution,” said Mohammed Khalil, a 23-year-old pharmacist. 

Others said their vote would go to the most liberal Islamist candidate, Abdel Munim Abdel Foutouh, a reform minded doctor who was expelled from the Brotherhood and who has been trying to appeal to both religious and secular Egyptians – rather than the official Brotherhood candidate.

Numbers matter
However, if Friday’s relatively small show of support is any indication, the Salafist’s foiled candidacy may pass quietly into the night.

While his stalwarts showed up, the number of people gathered was not overly impressive. The crowd appeared to be less than 5,000 people, which is small compared to the hundreds of thousands who have professed their support for him.

Many of the people gathered gave ‘the dog ate my homework’-type excuses for low attendance, such as the heat, fasting on a holy day and short notice.

But the absence of more supporters may prove significant.

ABOARD THE USS CAPE ST. GEORGE – More than 31,000 ships transit the Strait of Hormuz every year, traveling between the Persian Gulf and the North Arabian Sea. Among those are U.S. Navy warships, operating throughout the region to conduct exercises and to support the war in Afghanistan.

But don’t let the numbers fool you … while transiting the Strait is common, it is far from simple – especially as tensions with Iran continue to rise.

Since the Strait of Hormuz is only about 24 miles wide, the critical waterway is both contentious and dangerous to cross. Countries can claim up to 12 miles off their shores as their own territorial water – and since the strait is wedged between Iran and Oman, it is a particularly tricky zone.

Three U.S. Navy ships traveled through the strait together on Tuesday: the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the destroyer USS Sterett, and the guided-missile cruiser USS Cape St. George. NBC News was there and got a first-hand look at the careful, deliberate Navy maneuver.

---

The transit actually began inside the Persian Gulf, went through Oman’s territorial water, traveled through the so-called "knuckle" (the nickname for the narrowest part of the Strait which includes a sharp turn where Oman sticks out), and continued in to the Gulf of Oman and the North Arabian Sea. At a speed that ranges between 20 and 30 knots, the entire route took more than 10 hours to complete. 

Beyond the challenge of navigating the Strait, the recent escalation of rhetoric and increasingly tense relationship between the U.S. and Iran has brought even more concerns for the Navy as they operate in the area. Iran recently threatened to close the strait in retaliation for tighter Western sanctions.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy operates submarines and war ships throughout the Gulf, and they often send out small boats to harass U.S. Navy ships.

These Iranian boats, which the U.S. Navy calls FIACs, are just small motorboats with mounted machine guns. Despite the fact the U.S. warships literally dwarf these tiny boats, U.S. military officials worry that just one of these FIACs loaded with explosives could do significant damage to a U.S. aircraft carrier. The cruiser and the destroyer provide protection for the carrier – they are the muscle.

On board the USS Cape St. George, sailors manned their stations as early as 2 a.m. to prepare for the day of the transit. Gunners took up their positions around the ship. The Cape St. George also has a massive missile capability (cruise missiles,harpoons, and more), so it was prepared to strike at threats both in the air and on the seas, if necessary.

Around 7 a.m., one of the ship's helicopters took off from the Cape St. George to provide surveillance during the mission. The helicopter was loaded with half a dozen Hellfire missiles when it took off.

The USS Sterett took the lead, staying about 2,000 yards in front of the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln.  Tasked with protecting the carrier, the USS Cape St. George stayed about 2,000 yards behind the Lincoln, ready to react to any threats.

The first several hours were uneventful. The three ships passed several commercial cargo ships along the way. All the while U.S. helicopters flew ahead, warning the ships of any threats.

Just as the ships closed in on the most difficult part of the transit – the so-called knuckle – a U.S. Predator spotted an Iranian F-27.  Just minutes later, the Iranian surveillance plane flew along the starboard side of the ship. While this is fairly routine, as soon as the surveillance plane came in to sight, sailors all across the bridge grabbed binoculars and ran outside to catch a glimpse.

The F-27 flew right by the ships without any incident.

After the plane disappeared, an Iranian patrol boat appeared as just speck on the horizon.

A sailor on the bridge of the Cape St. George estimated the boat was at least five miles away. "It's heading right for the Abe," another sailor said, referring to the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Suddenly the bridge was buzzing with energy again. Some sailors held binoculars and studied the ship, while others picked up phones and radios.  U.S. helicopters headed toward the boat and radioed information about the craft. Suddenly, when the boat was just about two miles away from the U.S. ships, it changed course and headed away from the carrier.

Despite the fact the potential threat seemed to be over, the bridge continued to buzz and binoculars remained pointed in that direction for several minutes after the boat disappeared.

Aside from the occasional direction to change speed or check how far the Cape St. George was behind the Abe, the bridge quieted a bit. Minutes passed without incident.  A minute turned into an hour. The crew ate fruit and pop tarts Pop Tarts and drank coffee.

Then the radio crackled, a phone rang, and someone said that six or seven fast boats were heading right for the Abe.

The tiny boats were tough to see as they went speeding along the horizon, disappearing every few seconds when they found the bottom of a wave. In fact, the easiest way to keep track of the boats was to look for the U.S. helicopters overhead.

Several of the boats sped right in front of the Sterett.  One sailor said they cut less than 2,000 yards in front of the destroyer.  After they made it to the other side of the U.S. convoy, one of the boats, lagging behind, tried to cut in between the Sterett and the Abe.

That was a little too close for comfort, so a helicopter fired off a flare in the direction of the boat, causing it to turn off and away from the carrier.

The bridge was alive with excitement.  Were they Iranian boats?  Were they Revolutionary Guard?  Several minutes passed before the captain said they were likely smugglers and did not appear to be armed. But just about every sailor on the bridge was smiling at the excitement.

The transit was nearing the end and the crew seemed to take a collective deep breath.  About one hour later the ship’s Capt. Don Gabrielson, addressed the ship over the PA system, congratulating them for a job well done.

The sailors returned to their normal duties and began to prepare for their next mission, conducting flight operations over Afghanistan. They were scheduled to begin flights the very next day.

Despite the fact the transit was safe and somewhat uneventful, the sailors seemed pleased.

“I got to see fireworks!” one sailor said, referring to the flares and smiling wide.

  
PESHAWAR, Pakistan – The ring road in Peshawar is a rough ride: navigating certain stretches means dodging enormous potholes, steering clear of steep ditches and swerving to avoid the occasional brave soul who darts from one side of the road to the other.

Yet this has been, for the last decade, one of the main arteries on which convoys of trucks carrying supplies for U.S. and NATO forces have made their way into Afghanistan. Those ground lines of communication that run from Karachi's ports to two border crossings in Pakistan have been a fundamental part of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, as has the air line of communication.

When the U.S.-Pakistan alliance was tested once again in late November after a U.S. cross-border air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan reacted by shutting down the ground supply routes – a step they've taken before in protest to U.S. actions. The air lines of communication remain open.

But access to those crucial land routes has never been denied to the U.S. for this long, and the two accounts from the U.S. and the Pakistan military of the cross-border strike that prompted their closure are so starkly different that it's hard to see how they can be reconciled.

---

Even though the Americans have reduced their dependence on Pakistan's roads over the last few years by using alternative routes running through Russia and Central Asia, the cost of moving goods via air and on that northern route is much greater – reportedly six times more a month – than using Pakistan's routes.

It now costs about $104 million per month to send supplies through the longer northern route, according to Pentagon figures shown to the Associated Press. That is $87 million more than when the cargo was shipped through Pakistan.

Pakistan's government is conducting its own internal review of the alliance with the U.S., and officials here say no decision will be made about the supply lines until that review is complete and recommendations have been discussed by the government. Already, however, there are forces at work within Pakistan's religious and political parties to prevent the government from reopening those lines and re-engaging on the same level with the U.S.

Issue of nationalism
At a recent rally in Rawalpindi for the Pakistan Defense Council, made up of dozens of religious and political parties, leaders mentioned the NATO supply lines with the same fervor as they did deeply nationalistic issues such as divided Kashmir and the country’s nuclear weapons. The crowd of thousands cheered as speaker after speaker threatened that there could be countrywide protests should the government decide to reopen the supply lines.

"The NATO supply lines should not be restored at any cost," said Mohammad Abdullah Gul, chairman of the National Youth Conference and a member of the Pakistan Defense Council.

"Even if the government restores (them), we are not going to accept it. The people of Pakistan, we are going to mobilize. From Khyber to Karachi, they will be mobilized and they will stop the NATO supply lines," he said.

Retired Col. Nazir Ahmed is the spokesman for Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an organization which he describes as having a "purely Islamic platform."

He said that the NATO supply lines were "rightly" blocked, and should stay blocked "forever," unless the U.S. "comes to us on the basis of equality."

He was particularly outraged by the recent cross-border attack.

"After the aggression that the Americans committed on the Pakistan Army?  They slaughtered and killed so many Muslim soldiers," said Nazir. "Every country has the right to defend its borders and its ideology."

For this segment of the population – frustrated by what they see as a decade of subservience to American policy in a deeply unpopular war here – a decision to reopen the supply lines is tantamount to a decision to put U.S. interests ahead of Pakistan's.

That sentiment felt by a growing number of Pakistanis who think the relationship with the U.S. has not benefitted their own country will make it difficult for Pakistan's leaders to publicly re-engage with the U.S., and reopen the supply lines in the same manner and under the same conditions as before.

Both U.S. and Pakistani officials say they remain committed to their alliance. How the NATO supply routes will fit into that alliance, however, is yet to be seen.

 

Casting aside current tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. Navy on Friday rescued 13 Iranian seamen who were being held captive by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman.

A Navy helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, responding to a distress call from a merchant ship under attack by pirates, chased the pirates to their "mother ship," an Iranian-flagged dhow that had earlier been hijacked.

 

---

A heavily-armed counter-piracy team from the Navy destroyer USS Kidd met little resistance when they boarded the dhow where they found 15 armed pirates and the 13 Iranians who were being held hostage. The pirates were taken into custody. The Iranians were set free in their dhow.

 

The rescue occurred about 175 miles southeast of Muscat, Oman.

• STORY: Iran warns US carrier to stay out of Persian Gulf

It came less than two days after Iran threatened never to allow the USS John C. Stennis back to the Persian gulf following its departure last week for the Gulf of Oman and North Arabian Sea.

An Iranian surveillance plane last week video-recorded and photographed the vessel near the Strait of Hormuz, in a bid to cast its navy as having a powerful role in the region's waters.

• STORY: Iran tracks US aircraft carrier amid Strait of Hormuz tension

Iran has threatened to close the route in possible retaliation to new U.S. and European economic sanctions, a tactic the U.S. already has said it would not tolerate.

About one-sixth of the world's oil passes on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, and analysts have warned the price of Brent crude could temporarily jump to as high as $210 if the strait is closed.

U.S. officials have said the Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in nearby Bahrain, is prepared to defend the shipping route.

White House officials said Iran's threat showed Tehran was increasingly isolated internationally, faced economic problems from to sanctions and wants to divert attention from its deepening problems.

"It reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday.

• STORY: Iran oil standoff could mean higher gas prices

State news agency IRNA quoted Iranian army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying: "Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf.

"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," he said.

• STORY: UK warns Iran over oil threat

Britain's defense secretary warned Iran Thursday that any attempt to block the key global oil passageway the Strait of Hormuz would be illegal and unsuccessful — hinting at a robust international response.

During his  first visit to the Pentagon for talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Philip Hammond told the Atlantic Council in Washington that the presence of British and American naval ships in the Persian Gulf would ensure the route is kept open for trade.

More from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Report: Blast kills, wounds dozens in Syrian capital
• PhotoBlog: Chile wildfires kill 5 firefighters, 3 missing
• 18 years after racist slaying, fear still stalks London's streets
• Swiss activists call for end to conscription, abolition of army
• Eruption at snow-covered Mount Etna

  NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.

 

By Yara Borgal, NBC News

RAMALLAH, West Bank – The dusty miles of hillsides and olive groves, Arab villages, Jewish settlements and Israeli military checkpoints that make up the West Bank of the River Jordan are a world removed from the Vatican City. But one of the oddities of the Palestinians' latest efforts to build their own state is that the two might well end up on an equal diplomatic footing.

One likely outcome of the Palestinian plan to take their case to the United Nations next week would see them elevated to the status of  “non-member observer’’ – the same status held by the pope’s city state.

If they are lucky, it might be the best thing the Palestinians can achieve. 

---

Seeking a different status
Currently the Palestine Liberation Organization holds only “observer entity status” in the U.N.  If that status were to change to a full member, Palestinians would gain full voting rights at the U.N.

However, in order for the General Assembly to admit Palestine as a full member state, U.N. Security Council approval is needed. The U.S., which opposes the Palestinian request, has veto power and the State Department has made it clear the U.S. will use it.

“Washington has unfortunately declared that it’s going to veto our request,” said Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh, a senior Palestinian official and an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“We will try again. Israel was vetoed twice, Jordan was rejected more than once, Portugal was rejected five times, Japan was rejected six times and so on.  History has taught us that this issue is not a one shot; it’s a process.”

Option B
Another option for the Palestinian Authority is to by-pass the Security Council and the U.S. veto and take its statehood request directly to the General Assembly, where approval requires a two-thirds majority vote –129 out of 193 member countries.

According to Palestinian officials, 122 countries have already recognized Palestine, but they hope to gain the support of up to 150.

If the General Assembly approves the request, it would grant only limited U.N. recognition as a non-member observer state – so Palestinians would not have the right to vote.

However, it would allow the Palestinians to join dozens of U.N. bodies and conventions, including the International Criminal Court. That would give Palestinians the opportunity to file charges against Israel for alleged violations of international law – such as the continued settlement building.

‘A different mechanism’
The Palestinians have long aspired to establish an independent, sovereign state within the 1967 borders.

However, frustration from decades of on-and-off peace talks that have failed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has led the Palestinians, represented by the Palestinian Authority, to pursue new strategies.

Shtayyeh pointed out that it has been 18 years since the Oslo Accords, which were supposed to set the stage for a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “Unfortunately, almost two decades later, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is entrenched and Israel’s occupation has turned into de facto annexation,” he said.

“All that we are looking for is a new mechanism to end the conflict.  We are not going into violence, we are not going into armed struggle, we are not taking any unilateral steps. We are going to a multilateral forum that has 193 countries and we are asking this international community to speak loudly for a two state solution,” said Shtayyeh.

He added that the move isn’t meant as a challenge to America.

“We are saying to Washington and to the international community these peace talks have been ongoing for 20 years and they have not achieved their goal,” said Shtayyeh. “The goal is the same; we just simply need a different approach, a different mechanism.”

The Palestinians also argue that their U.N. plan fits with the deadline set by the Middle East Peace Quartet –  the E.U., U.S., Russia and U.N. – to reach a two-state solution by September 2011.

“Even President Obama was hoping to see Palestine admitted to the United Nations in his speech last September to the General Assembly, so everybody wants this to happen,” said Shtayyeh.

Strong opposition from Israel
Israel has made it clear that if the Palestinian request is passed, it will not change anything on the ground. The checkpoints, separation wall and settlements will still all be there. The creation of a Palestinian state on the basis of 1967 borders is something, they say, no Israeli government will accept because it threatens Israel’s security.

However, the Israelis view this step as far from being a meaningless gesture. They worry about the legality of their occupation and the settlements in the West Bank being put to the judgment of the International Criminal Court. In theory, it might lead to Israeli officials being dragged repeatedly before the International Criminal Court at the Hague – something they obviously don’t want.

The Israeli government, like the U.S., believes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state will set back the peace process. Peace, they insist, can only be achieved through talks.

Israel and the U.S. have urged the Palestinians to reconsider going to the U.N., warning of dire consequences.

Some Israeli right wing officials have called for the suspensions of the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, the cancellation of all previous agreements and the annexation of territory containing settlement blocs in the West Bank to the state of Israel.

The United States has threatened to stop all financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if they proceed with plans to ask the U.N. for recognition of an independent state.

Realizing what’s at stake, the Palestinians have stated that they still intend to submit an application for recognition of Palestinian statehood to the Security Council as a first step.