Follow the leader – the UK’s ill-advised piracy on the high seas

By: Hossein Askari

TEHRAN, Jul. 24 (MNA) – The United Kingdom should recognize what has become its position in the world – an important nation with an imperialistic history but now a much-diminished global power.

Blindly following the United States into hazardous waters could have dangerous results: America might not reward subservience or could change course in its own self-interest. While following George Bush into Iraq is now widely conceded in the UK as having been ill-advised, British leaders seem to have forgotten the consequences of that disastrous decision.

On July 4, UK forces seized an Iranian supertanker, Grace I, off the coast of Gibraltar. At first, the reason for the seizure in news reports was that London was responding to a request from the United States because the tanker was carrying oil to the Syrian refinery of Banias in violation of UN sanctions. This report was quickly ‘corrected’ by Jeremy Hunt, the UK Foreign Minister. The official word was that the Iranian vessel had been seized yes because the oil was destined for Syria, but which was in violation of EU (not UN) sanctions on Syria. Iran objected vehemently to this seizure and clearly retaliated by seizing a British tanker, the Steno Impero, on July 19 in the Persian Gulf. Then Jeffrey Hunt went on the warpath and threatened Iran with “serious consequences” if Iran does not release the tanker, rhetoric further inflamed by the British defense minister branding the seizure “a hostile act.”

Three things stand out for us — the UK in fact seized the Iranian tanker at the request of the US, Mr. Hunt has made matters worse by his rhetoric and the UK and the US are now boxed in without a face-saving exit. Let me explain.

The premise that the oil was destined for Syria is a tough claim that cannot be substantiated. How can the British Foreign Minister prove that the oil was so destined? Even if he had irrefutable proof, couldn’t Iran at some point has changed its mind and diverted the tanker?

If every country acted so, seizing goods because they may be destined to a sanctioned country, world commerce would become entangled and come to a standstill. If the initial media reports were to be believed, namely, that supplying oil to Syria is in violation of UN sanctions, who determined this? Leaving aside the claim of a UN sanctions violation, the British Foreign Minister is clearly reported as saying that the UK took this action because of the EU embargo on oil supplies to Syria. Who in the EU reached this conclusion and made the decision to seize the Iranian tanker? The lie becomes even worse when we note that the EU embargo on oil supplies to Syria applies to EU member states, namely, EU countries cannot supply Syria with oil. This rule does not apply to supplies from Iran or any other third country. Surely the British Foreign Minister must be familiar with EU resolutions seeing as the UK is still in the EU! Clearly, this seizure was not triggered by a violation of the EU but was most likely in response to a US request.

There is another perplexing aspect of this tanker seizure. Even if the EU or just simply the UK had imposed sanctions on the delivery of fuel from any country to Syria, would the seizure of a tanker be “legal” as claimed by a number of UK politicians and military personnel? If so, then any nation could sanction whoever they wished and seize tankers, or any other vessel, at will! This would be an unusual interpretation of legality and thus justification of piracy by the powerful.

But the Foreign Minister’s untruths have become magnified after his ill-advised rhetoric. The folks who run Iran’s IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) are not traditional military leaders and diplomats. They are intelligent and street smart and have an image to uphold in Iran and in the region. Mr. Hunt clearly has no understanding of their thinking and how they might react to provocation. As to be expected, Iran seized the British tanker, Steno Impero, in retaliation. But Mr. Hunt threatened Iran much as he might have done when Great Britain was an imperial power and ruled the waves. Again, with little comprehension of the IRGC and its leadership.

As a result, Mr. Hunt has now backed the UK into an even tighter box. What are the UK’s options? They could release the Iranian tanker and get the British tanker released. But this would hurt Britain’s global image. They could do nothing, again a stand that would not work well at home and would humiliate Great Britain at the hands of lesser power. Or they could join forces with the US, [P]GCC countries and Israel to bomb or possibly invade Iran, start a regional war and incur the wrath of most Iranians inside and outside of Iran and many other Muslims around the world for years to come.

The short and the long of this is that the seizure of the Iranian tanker was a monumental policy blunder. The UK is trying to divorce itself from its European partners but is in the process falling in line as a devoted follower, not partner, of a power whose influence has already crested. It now does not have a favorable strategy for an exit from its blunder. Future British foreign ministers would do well to better understand the thinking of Britain’s adversaries and how they might react, as well as the motives of their closest ally.

Iran well respond by naming CENTCOM as terrorist organization: Askari

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN – Professor Hossein Askari, an expert on Saudi Arabia who also teaches international business at the George Washington University, believes that “Iran might well respond by naming the U.S. Central Command as a terrorist organization operating in the Persian Gulf and in the greater Middle East, the Navy Seals, the CIA and on and on.”

“To the Trump administration the word terror is fungible. If Saudi Arabia commits an act of indisputable terror, Washington is not quite sure who is behind that particular act of terror but though they say they don’t know who did it, they are sure it is Iran or some other ‘Islamists.’,” Hossein Askari, who served as special advisor to Saudi finance minister, tells the Tehran Times.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What is the U.S. basis for declaring the IRGC a terrorist organization? Do you agree with it?

A: The reason is unclear to me. I think it is because Netanyahu and Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) have an obsession with Iran and they see the IRGC as a potent force. That is the real reason. These two along with Kushner are hoping to engineer regime change in Iran by inciting a war that draws in the United States. I know it sounds farfetched but to me this is what’s behind all this.  

How they justify it in public is different. They argue that the IRGC is aligned with Hezbollah which they declare a terrorist entity say that the IRGC has killed American soldiers in Iraq. Yet when the U.S. or its allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, kill innocent people, they call it self-defense.

As an aside, I should point out that Trump was okay with the IRGC when he was doing business with IRGC’s associates, as reported in Vanity Fair. Now, managed by the triumvirate of Kushner, Netanyahu and MBS, Trump is taking impetuous steps, which could endanger the Middle East and the world.

Q: Do you consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization?

A: Absolutely not. They are a legitimate part of the Lebanese government. They have defended Lebanon against Israel. They provide social services for the poor and needy. Yes, they have defended Assad in Syria. I don’t personally like the Assad regime but they were invited into Syria by its legitimate government. Others engage in covert operations and kill innocent people, and not invited by a legitimate government, but they are not called terrorists. This is all a game of double standards and smoking mirrors.

Q: What about Saudi Arabia’s killing of Khashoggi in Turkey? Wasn’t this an act of terror?

A: Absolutely. But to the Trump administration the word terror is fungible. If Saudi Arabia commits an act of indisputable terror, Washington is not quite sure who is behind that particular act of terror but though they say they don’t know who did it, they are sure it is Iran or some other ‘Islamists.’ This is a charade. How can America get Muslim support around the world when it supports such horrific acts and rulers who torture and kill their own people and expect to be believed when it accuses the IRGC and by association Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah, possibly the most admired Muslim leader in the Muslim world?

Q: So if Khashoggi’s killing was an act of terror, is the U.S. a party to terror for protecting MBS and his murderous henchmen?

A: You mean guilt by association? To me the U.S. is rapidly losing all credibility in the Middle East. Yes, of course if the U.S. supports MBS and the Al-Sauds Washington must take some responsibility for their horrendous policies.

Q: Can Iran categorize many U.S. entities as sponsors of terror—uninvited covert operations, drone attacks, support of Saudi terrorist acts in Yemen and elsewhere and so on?

A: I believe that now that the U.S. has taken the step of naming the IRGC a terrorist outfit, then Iran can name many branches of the U.S. armed forces that conduct covert operations, drone attacks and kill innocent civilians as terrorist organizations and deal with them as the U.S. deals with the IRGC. Iran might well respond by naming the U.S. Central Command as a terrorist organization operating in the Persian Gulf and in the greater Middle East, the Navy Seals, the CIA and on and on.

Q: Can Iran attack U.S. entities it considers acting in terror?

A: If the U.S. adopts such a policy, then Iran has every right to do the same and reciprocate.

Q: Where was the U.S when Iran was invaded by Iraq? 

A: The U.S. said and did nothing when Saddam Hussain invaded Iran. The U.S. in fact made sure that the United Nations did nothing. Even worse, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia led the global effort to isolate Iran.

Q: Who supplied Iraq with internationally banned chemical weapons? Was this an act of terror?

A: This was a truly shameful episode in U.S. and Western history. U.S. and Europeans facilitated the transfer of internationally outlawed chemical weapons to Saddam Hussain as the best way he could defend Iraq after the Iranians pushed his forces back. The number of Iranians gassed, with thousands killed and even more severely disabled and relegated to oxygen tanks, is a constant reminder of the hypocrisy in international rule of law and the pretensions of the sanctimonious Western powers.

Q: Who defended Iran?

A: The IRGC. It was the IRGC that kept Iran together in the face of foreign onslaught. They are an integral part of the Iranian armed forces. Iranians respect what they did during the war. If you call them terrorists, then the armies of the greater powers are super terrorists.

Q: How could all this affect the U.S. position and its future in the Middle East?

A: I think that the Trump administration has sowed the seeds for the expulsion of the U.S. from the Middle East by continuing to back illegitimate Muslim dictators and going all in with Israel to rob Arabs of their political and human rights and in turn their dignity. Everyone has a limit. Arabs will soon reach that limit if Netanyahu is reelected, if Israel continues with its declaration of sovereignty over the Golan Heights, if it annexes and declares sovereignty over the West Bank, takes over the Temple Mount and annexes the Haram esh-Sharif and the rest of the Al Aqsa compound. In this eventuality, the Muslim World, two billion strong, will turn its anger against Israel, the U.S. and against their rulers who serve Western interests. Needless to say, the U.S. is no longer seen as an honest broker in the Middle East.

Eventually Muslims will resist the oppression they face. There is the Prophetic saying that on the Day of Reckoning the oppressor, the oppressed, and the person(s) who stood by and observed the oppression will be called upon to answer: the oppressor for oppression, the oppressed for not resisting the oppression, and the bystander for not assisting the oppressed.

Q: Is there anything you would like to add?

A: Yes. It is indeed ironic that the Persian King, Cyrus the Great, saved the Jews from extinction, and now Netanyahu wants to do all he can to destroy the Persians. Mr. Netanyahu should put on his thinking cap and recall an evident fact. Iran or Persia will be where it is long after he has departed this world. He should study the tragedies that Jews have faced throughout their history and not initiate something that Jews may regret. He and Israel should be aware of the dangers of hubris.

We will see another ‘Arab Spring’ in the next five or so years: Askari

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN – Professor Hossein Askari, an expert on Saudi Arabia who also teaches international business at the George Washington University, believes that “we will see another ‘Arab Spring’ in the next five or so years and Arab regimes will change and the new leaders will not be as close as they are today to Washington.”

“Arab leaders –Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and others in the GCC—are spineless,” Hossein Askari, who served as special advisor to Saudi finance minister, tells the Tehran Times.

He adds that “All these leaders rely on U.S. military and intelligence support.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: U.S. President Donald Trump formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Israel-occupied Golan Heights. What was the reason behind this decision?

A: To support Netanyahu in his election bid. Netanyahu is indicted and needs much help. I think Trump did this also in support of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has become close to Netanyahu and has been working with him to fabricate a meaningless Middle East peace plan. If Netanyahu is not elected, Kushner could have a less receptive prime minister in Israel. 

Q: Why President select this time for this recognition?

A: Again, it is to boost Netanyahu’s election chances.

Q: What will the impact of this decision on the final permanent peace agreement?

A: This, coming on top of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, will make a permanent peace ever more difficult. More recently, the U.S. is also cutting aid to Palestinians. These are moves that the rest of the world does not support. It will isolate Israel even more. Trump does not understand any of this and frankly I don’t think he cares about peace and the Palestinians. It is sad that Jews are on the path of another tragedy. The U.S. should know better. The U.S. will not be accepted as an honest broker in any future peace negotiations. It has lost all credibility. 

Q: Will Palestinian agree with this decision?

A: No, of course not. But what can they do? Arab leaders –Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and others in the PGCC—are spineless. All these leaders rely on U.S. military and intelligence support. All they care about is to stay in power and they don’t much care about the plight of the Palestinians. But change will come when Arab regimes change and the U.S. loses its influence in the Middle East. This process is already under way.

Q: What is the impact of this decision on U.S. Arab countries relations?

A: For now, the U.S. will have to increase its support for Arab rulers with more intelligence sharing and covert operations as there may be fears of popular backlash against recent U.S. moves and Arab acquiescence to go along with anything that the U.S. concocts with Israel. For example, just see how vulnerable is MBS is to international isolation after the brutal murder of Khashoggi. Without U.S. support, he would be gone in a matter of a few months. So for now relations are tight but I believe this will change as we will see another ‘Arab Spring’ in the next five or so years and Arab regimes will change and the new leaders will not be as close as they are today to Washington.

Religion is not in conflict with IR theory: Prof.Askari

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN – Professor Hossein Askari, an expert on Saudi Arabia who also teaches international business at the George Washington University, believes that “I agree wholeheartedly that religion is not in conflict with international relations theory.”

 “Religious, sectarian, ethnic and tribal dimensions of international relations have become increasingly important and these dimensions have to be integrated into any universal theory,” Hossein Askari, who served as special advisor to Saudi finance minister, tells the Tehran Times.

He adds that “Introduction of religious and sectarian variables can explain many facets of international relations that traditional theories cannot.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: When did the religious issues become a matter of great significance in Theorizing of International Relations?

A: To the best of my knowledge, as I am an economist, the study of international relations as a separate field of study emerged after WWI. Theories of international relations emerged about two decades later. It all depends what you mean by a field of study. There are some who trace go as far back as Aristotle, Cicero, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rousseau or Kant. When did religion enter the field is tough to answer also. If you mean into formal theories, then we are talking in the last fifty or so years. There is an excellent edited volume (Religion and International Relations Theory) by Jack Snyder (2011) which answers your question more precisely. But to my mind, Rousseau, Kant, and Adam Smith were the precursors of all of this, especially Smith with his devotion to a theocentric world as in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There are some developments since WWII that have sort of brought religion more directly into international relations theory from the backdoor. For instance after the birth of Israel, books written on the Jewish lobby in the United States; the rise of religious extremism; the rise of sectarianism; and the Iranian Revolution.

Q: Some argue that if the theory of International Relations means a constitutive and critical theory, then bringing religion into International Relations is possible, but if the theory of International Relations is an explanatory-empirical theory, the theorizing religion in International Relations is not possible and, in fact, there is not theological positivism theory in International Relations. What is your opinion?

A: Again, as an economist, I look at these things from a different lens. In today’s world, nation-states no longer provide an unchallenged lens for assessing all dimensions of international relations. For me, tribalism and religious (and sectarian) divisions are becoming increasingly important and have to be incorporated into any meaningful theory. But please let me be clear, these divisions are becoming more important because rulers, politicians are using them to divide, get support and stay in power. For instance, the Al-Sauds use the Shia-Sunni dispute going back to the passing away of the Prophet Mohammad (sawa) to isolate and demonize their own Shia Muslims and by extension all Shia Muslims, to brainwash Sunnis that Shia are a threat and must be discriminated against in order to keep opportunities and wealth for the Sunni. This is not propagated only within Saudi Arabia but is at the heart of Al-Saud international relations policy in order to win international support for the Al-Saud in the Muslim World and beyond.

Q: Some scholars such as “Michael Allen Gillespie” in the book “The Theological Origins of Modernity” believe that modernity was not initially against religion, and in later years, as a result of social, cultural and political conditions, it has led to secularism. So Based on this conception, religion does not conflict with modernity, so can it be said that religion does not conflict with the International Relations theory stemming from modernity?

A: I agree that religion is not in conflict with modernity. It all depends on how the religion is perceived. Without dogma and if free debate and discussion is encouraged or at least tolerated. I agree wholeheartedly that religion is not in conflict with international relations theory. As I have just said, it is at the heart of Saudi international relations and as such, it is a reality that must be integrated into a widely applicable theory.

Q: Some argue that the current International Relations theory cannot explain some of the current phenomena of international relations and we need a religious theory of International Relations, especially with regard to religious issues. What is your opinion? In general, theorizing Religion in International Relations is feasible?

A: Clearly many actions of state and non-state actors cannot be explained within the confines of prevailing and prominent theories of international relations. Religious, sectarian, ethnic and tribal dimensions of international relations have become increasingly important. These dimensions have to be integrated into any universal theory.

Q: If theorizing Religion in International Relations is possible, can a religious theory in International Relations explain all the unresolved issues and problems? 

A: Nothing can explain ALL unresolved issues. But I believe that the introduction of religious and sectarian variables can explain many facets of international relations that traditional theories cannot. Just look at the international relations and policies of Muslim countries. Or those of the United States, Israel and non-state actors such as ISIS. Religious and sectarian divides are embedded in their policies.

Russia interfered in US elections to get Trump elected: Askari

TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (MNA) – Professor Hossein Askari, an expert on Saudi Arabia who also teaches international business at the George Washington University, believes that “Trump has had business dealings with the Russians for many years. They have helped him.

He is indebted to them and they have some compromising business information on him,” Hossein Askari, who served as special advisor to Saudi finance minister, tells the Tehran Times.

He adds that “They have interfered in the US elections to get him elected with the hope and expectation that they could control him to help Russian interests—to divide Americans, destroy US global leadership and fracture NATO.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Should we think of Russia collusion case as a mere political plot to destroy trump or is Russian interference in the 2016 US elections a fact?

We don’t have all the facts for a definitive answer. But here is what I think or my best guess. I think that Trump has had business dealings with the Russians for many years. They have helped him. He is indebted to them and they have some compromising business information on him. They have interfered in the US elections to get him elected with the hope and expectation that they could control him to help Russian interests—to divide Americans, destroy US global leadership and fracture NATO.

Robert Mueller is Republican. So his defiance against Trump might show that disaster is even beyond the imagination. What's your opinion on this?

Yes, Mueller is a Republican. But he is respected by Democrats as well as Republicans. His career has been exemplary. With this stature, it is hard for people to call him partisan. He is just a great public servant. No matter if he is investigating a Democrat or a Republican. I believe after all is said and done, one person will emerge as a hero—Mueller. He is dedicated, principled and truthful. Trump calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar, but ironically he is the biggest liar that I have ever seen in public office anywhere in the world.

In regard to leaked information to the media, could it be something more than a political interference to change the result of the election? Could it be a sign of a deep security infiltration?

No, I don’t think there is deep infiltration. But my guess is that Trump has disclosed US secrets to Russia. I believe that he acts in Russia’s interests but I think that the US agencies are not compromised. I say this because of the way Trump acted during the campaign and especially since he has been President.

If we are to accept the assumption that Russia infiltrated the US governance structures, what do you think is the origin of this interference?

Again, I don’t believe they have done this. But they have Trump protecting Russia’s interests and divulging important US secrets directly to Putin. The origin of this is Trump and his business dealings. Loans, money laundering and more.

Some experts believe that the relations of Trump's family members, especially Jared Kushner, with a big multinational Mafia is the origin of such a vast infiltration into different layers of the US political system and information structure.

I don’t agree with this. However, I do believe that Trump and Kushner worship money. Money is their God. So in this sense they will do anything for money. They will associate with anyone to get more money. But not a multinational Mafia.

A look into the US policies since 2016 shows how its position as a superpower has been undermined while at the same time, Russia has been strengthening its international position. What's your opinion on this matter?

I agree with this conclusion. The US has been indecisive. Its global reputation has been tarnished beyond short-term repair. It has not used its soft power well. Always the military and support for dictators. This has caused thousands of innocent deaths. The US is seen as racist and anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. A recent London Economist report rated the US as FLAWED democracy! How can the world respect a country that has a serial liar as its president, supports brutal dictators, sell arms that kill innocent civilians and imposes economic sanctions that hurt millions of innocent people while going soft on its adversary, Russia.

Less than one year, some western media revealed that some people in Kushner's inner circle (such as Senator Tom Cotton) had relations with Mossad and spied on the US senate intelligence committee. At the same time, some other media indicated Russian infiltration into Mossad and even their infiltration into Israel and the US security intelligence structures. Do you think that there is any relations with the Russia collusion case and other infiltration claims?

No, I don’t think that such a web, if it exists, was planned.

Interview by: Mohammad Ghaderi & Javad Heirannia

Trump’s ‘beautiful’ deals with Arabs to boomerang

By Hossein Askari

TEHRAN, Mar. 14 (MNA) – President Trump has said time and again that he would bring his deal-making talents, which he claims to be second to none, to his new job as President of the United States. As with everything else, Trump has spared nothing when it comes to detailing his approach to the Middle East. He has promised much. At the press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he went beyond a Palestinian-Israeli peace accord to predict “…a much bigger deal, a much more important deal, in a sense. It would take many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory.” He has promised to lead the fight with the support of the GCC to eradicate ISIL and all those he has labeled ‘Islamists.’ After a telephone conversation with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, a White House press release stated that the two leaders “discussed an invitation from the King for President Trump to lead a Middle East effort to defeat terrorism and to help build a new future.” President Trump has stated that he will create safe zones in Syria and Yemen and he will get the Persian Gulf countries of the GCC to pay for it. He then went on to insult them by adding “because they have nothing but money.” He has promised to defend Saudi Arabia against Iran if the Saudis pay for it. “Well, I would want to help Saudi Arabia. I would want to protect Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically. They were making, before the oil went down, now they’re making half, but they were making a billion dollars a day.” He added that such action against Iran would depend “on what the deal is.” He has put Iran on notice and told Iranian leaders that they are playing with fire. And he has gone out of his way to demonize Islam and applaud al-Sisi, the most oppressive dictator in the Middle East. Is this a coherent strategy? Will it succeed?

His contradictory rants about the region assumes that Middle Easterners and Muslims are all stupid, have no day-to-day memories of what has been said, have no pride or dignity and that they are only looking to the White House for orders for what to do next! To make the point, let’s focus on just a few connected pronouncements. President Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which include real estate projects in Saudi Arabia and a licensing and management contract for a golf course and luxury villas in the UAE (Dubai). If Trump is true to his past, we assume that he wants to grow these interests while President and even more so when he is out of office. So what has he been saying about these relations? He apparently likes Saudis: “Saudi Arabia—and I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me.” “They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.” He is prepared to defend them (and we assume defend his business interests especially in the future if he ‘saves’ them while he is president). “They [Iran] are looking to go into Saudi Arabia…They want the oil, they want the money …they want a lot of other things…That’s phase one—to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don’t survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? That’s ultimately what’s going to happen.” In fact, President Trump has offered to defend Saudi Arabia in any regional conflict. “Well, I would want to help Saudi Arabia…I would want to protect Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us
economically. They were making, before the oil went down ... they were making $1 billion a day.” President Trump’s position is crystal clear. Saudi Arabia cannot defend itself but can pay the US for its defense. America will defend you as long as you pay. It all depends on the “deal.” Don’t worry, Saudi friends; we won’t even gently mention your shortcomings that confront many American values. No human rights issues. No religious freedom issues. No matter what crimes you support in Bahrain, crimes that most classify as crimes against humanity. No matter how many civilians you kill in Yemen. No matter how much you support extremists and terrorists who pose an existential threat to many societies and countries, including ours. Just pay and we will be there. Trump’s approach to Saudi Arabia will further encourage Saudi branding of America as mercenary, a country with no principles but always available to the oppressor as long as they pay. It is precisely such an image that attracts terrorist recruits. President Trump’s love for Persian Gulf Arabs goes beyond Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He loves Kuwait too. In 2011, “If you look at these nations, they wouldn’t be there except for us, you take a look at Kuwait. I mean, we handed Kuwait back to the people that right now essentially own Kuwait, because it’s really ownership more than anything else…We handed it back… They never paid us [for ousting Saddam Hussein].” We should at least correct President Trump’s inaccuracy here—the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in fact overpaid the US for this operation! And we should add that after the liberation of Kuwait US companies received a number of lucrative contracts (in some cases, contracts that were signed even before the start of the war).

Yes, some [Persian] Gulf Arabs already looked at the US as a mercenary, but now the President is actually broadcasting that America has guns for hire. He has handed all those opposed to America many sound bites they can use for recruiting terrorists and he has eroded America’s appeal and credibility to the millions who live under oppression in the Middle East. The President has also embraced other Arab dictators outside the Persian Gulf. He has a special affection for the most oppressive dictator in the Middle East—President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt. Republican Presidential Nominee Trump met him in September at the time of the UN General Assembly. Trump advertised their ‘chemistry,’ and said, “I thought it was very productive. He’s a fantastic guy… I thought it was a great meeting. We met for a long time, actually. There was a good chemistry there. You know when you have good chemistry with people. There was a good feeling between us.” Trump has gone on to even applaud how al-Sisi executed the military coup that removed Egypt’s first civilian president from power, a bloody coup where more than a thousand protestors were killed. “He took control of Egypt. And he really took control of it.” Trump has expressed confidence and “strong support for Egypt’s war on terrorism, and how under a Trump administration, the United States of America will be a loyal friend, not simply an ally that Egypt can count on in the days and years ahead.” What’s more, the Trump administration is apparently considering a request made by President al-Sisi and King Salman of Saudi Arabia to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization simply because the Brotherhood wants the installation of democratic Muslim governments, something that al-Sisi and his Persian Gulf supporters fear. Most Muslims would not agree with this initiative and would interpret it as yet another indication of Islamophobiac policies. What does all this convey to the Middle East and to the broader Muslim World about US values and policies? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) is believed to have said that “Somoza [the Nicaraguan dictator] may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” Well, it would appear that nothing much has changed! US talk about freedom, democratic values and human rights are just that—talk. The negative fallouts of supporting America’s dictators mattered less 80 years ago. There was no ISIS, Al-Qaeda or similar terrorist organizations hell bent on kicking the US out of the Middle East and other Muslim countries. There was no internet and 24-hour instant news in the world. We live in a different world! These terrorist organizations have been born and nurtured because of oppressive and corrupt rule and economic and social stagnation in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. Terrorists have filled a vacuum to oppose Muslim dictators by promising a return to the past, a time when Muslim societies flourished. Unfortunately, most Muslims have not studied and discussed the meaning of the Quran to see how Islamic teachings apply in today’s world and don’t realize that extremists are opportunist charlatans who are using religion to replace one set of dictators with themselves, something that will drive Muslim communities further down the abyss.

The US and its allies have been caught in the Middle of this struggle simply because of their past and continuing selfish support of oppressive dictators while espousing freedom and human rights. Recently, this support has even turned into in-your-face praise for the likes of General al-Sisi. Victories on the battlefield in Mosul and elsewhere will not extinguish extremism and terrorism. Terrorists will continue their murderous rampage in other places and will get even more recruits with the passage of time. To defeat terrorism and extremism, the Muslim World needs peaceful reform. Peaceful reform begins with a timetable for Muslim dictators to relinquish power in favor of representative governance. In Islam, God’s greatest gift to humanity is freedom, something that no one can take away. Muslims countries must then establish the institutions that are the foundations of flourishing societies—institutions that are similar to those recommended by Adam Smith but with an even higher dose of justice and morality. This will take much time. The US can help and support such a peaceful reformation and transformation in the Muslim World in the context of Islam, or it can continue to selfishly support oppressors, denigrate Islam and face increasing terrorism and eventually be a partner to unimaginable violence.

Last tango in Riyadh

By: Hossein Askari

TEHRAN, 

In 2015, Salman bin Abdul-Aziz ascended the throne of Saudi Arabia. He wasted little time in turning his tribe’s long-held rule of succession, designed to maintain tribal harmony.

On its head, by nudging aside the Crown Prince and imposing a nephew as the new Crown Prince and making his 30-year old son Deputy Crown Prince and effective day-to-day ruler of the realm and ahead of hundreds of senior princes.

The young Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, now all of 31 years, wasted no time in essentially admitting much of what those outside the Al-Saud tribe have said for years: (i) the Saudi model of inefficient consumer and input subsidies, lavish military outlays, bloated public sector as employer of last resort and other wasteful expenditures is not sustainable, especially now, in the face of low oil prices and the accelerated global transition to non-carbon energy sources; (ii) bankruptcy looms in 10-15 years if they continue on this path; (iii) a thriving and productive private sector is needed to replace the over sized public sector and to provide good jobs for the rapidly growing labor force, which should include women; (iv) the public sector must be weaned from oil revenues, and increasingly, oil revenues need to be channeled into a super sovereign wealth fund to replace the oil capital in the ground that is being depleted and that is the birthright of all generations of Saudis; (v) transparency in policy making and its implementation must be initiated; (vi) taxation (possibly Value Added or a VAT system that taxes consumption) is needed to provide revenues for the government in place of oil revenues; (vii) most public assets, possibly including oil resources, must be privatized; and last, and most important of all, (viii) the country must develop institutions (a collection of rules, including the rule of law) that support the private sector, afford confidence, lower business transaction costs and encourage investment, both domestic and from abroad.

Prince Mohammad embraced a report from the management-consulting firm of McKinsey and Company, entitled Vision 2030 (available on the internet), as his blueprint. While we agree with the report’s broad recommendations, there is a glaring omission in the report. How can the young prince put these recommendations into practice and build the institutions that must be at their foundation?

What are the major issues and hurdles when it comes to implementation?

Has the Al-Saud clan bought into Prince Mohammad’s rapid ascension or will they depose him when his father dies? To us the answer is clear, but we leave this to the reader’s imagination, without even a reference to Shakespeare.

Has the prince had sufficient dialogue with all the important constituencies to persuade them to buy into the plan? Namely, are the members of the Al-Saud clan including his own father, older cousins and even older brothers ready to abandon their obscene lifestyle and cut their access to the treasury? Are the Al-Sauds and their cronies ready to see their rent-seeking (corrupt) business activities ended by institutional reform that prohibits, monitors and punishes corruption? Are ordinary Saudi citizens, who may have been willing to trade their political rights for economic security likely to accept a world of no handouts, accompanied by taxation with a vague promise of jobs in the future? Will they accept a no handout and no subsidy approach when for 45 years or so others before them had it so good? Will they accept hardship while they watch the Al Sauds and their cronies enjoy the ill-gotten fortunes they have amassed? Will the pampered military accept the cutbacks? Again, we leave what are human reactions to the reader’s judgment.

At this point, an obvious comment is in order. It is always much easier to give handouts than to take them back, especially when it comes to handouts that have been doled out for a long time and are ingrained into the social fabric, which an entire citizenry have come to expect as their birthright.

As we have said, institutional reform must be at the foundation of Prince Mohammad’s vision. Can he establish institutions (essentially the rules of the economic game with the aim of reducing business transaction costs) that include a legal system that is fair and just, where all Saudis are equal before the law; with transparency in public decision-making; sound business regulations, their monitoring and enforcement; the protection of private property; contract enforcement; and a tax system that is accepted as fair and is universally enforced. We do not see even the beginning of such institution building.

If the above is considered in its totality, one thing should resonate. Namely, these initiatives and reforms are a pipe dream without accompanying political reform. Is the Al-Saud clan willing to consider political reforms that would strip them of their “inherited rights” for long-term survival? Are they willing to accept a timetable toward a constitutional monarchy, with representative governance? Again, we want the reader to decide but with a little reminder about the Al-Saud mindset. Al-Saud princes believe one fact in their heart of hearts—their father, grandfather, great grandfather or their great great grandfather, as the case may be, took over the land with about forty men, swords, knives and treachery, and Saudi Arabia is theirs—it is their “ranch.” Now the reader should decide if peaceful political reform is possible.

In short, we do not believe that Vision 2030 can be peacefully and effectively implemented. Instead, Saudi Arabia will implode. When it implodes, will the US and the UK come to the rescue of their Al-Saud clients? We believe not. The US and the others have made thousands of hollow speeches in support of human rights and representative governance, but they have continued to support their client as long as they buy arms and do their bidding. The West has shed crocodile tears for the death of civilians and the plight of refugees, yet it continues to sell Saudi Arabia bombs that kill and maim civilians in Yemen. The duplicity of Western powers is beyond the pale. Yet the day when they see the end at hand, they will extricate themselves rapidly as they have no stomach for another Middle Eastern civil war or conflict, especially now that oil matters less.

Prince Mohammad is to be applauded for at least acknowledging the sand that is the foundation of the Saudi system. Saudi Arabia will be wrenched apart. It does not afford sound and long-term business opportunities. Any publicly held company that commits a significant part of its capital to investing in the Al-Saud quicksand would surely deserve to be taken to court by its stockholders.

Hossein Askari is an Economist, Professor of Business and International Affairs at GW University, writer on Middle East Economies and Islamic economics-finance