Trump, Zarif and we Iranians

By Habib Ahmadzadeh

TEHRAN, Aug. 06 (MNA) – President Trump, in his latest Tweet, claims that “Iranians never won a war, but never lost a negotiation.” As a world citizen, and a veteran of Iran-Iraq war with firsthand experience of the bitterness of war, I have a couple of suggestions and responses for the president of the United States.

First, I would like to recommend to him, never use the word win and winning to describe any war.  Besides, American history is filled with bitter experiences of war and losing. There is no need to remind the president of the United States the result of American wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and even the engagement in Yemen. None of these horrifying experience and any other war for that matter has ever reached its goals. 
As a veteran and a peace activist, I would like to suggest to the president of the United States, that the first step in any combat is understanding the adversary. Sir, as an experienced Iranian war veteran, I strongly suggest you study the culture and history of an old civilization like Iran. Iranians, those you label as a “terrorist nation” are proud and pleased for not initiating a war in the past 250 years. We proudly have never invaded, intruded and oppressed any other nations, either in our neighborhood or even in response to revilers and foes. 

Nonetheless, there is a delicacy in the sophisticated culture of Iran that separates the ancient nation of Iran with you, Mr. President, and your hawkish #B_team. That is the view we each have toward war. War for us, is not an option; we never choose to go to war; we only respond to war. 

In 1915, amid the WWI, Rais Ali Delvary, a young man from along with his small group of men, from a tiny village near the Persian Gulf, defended the country from the British invaders. They stopped the intruders who ignored Iran’s neutrality during the War. Rais Ali’s slogan of the time stood with the nation to this very day. “We are in this war not to win over invaders’ capital and assets; we are in this war to save our capital and assets from loss.” That is how we define, losing, and winning in a war. Rais Ali and his people won that war, as his disciples did the same thing almost a century later and will do it again if they have to.

Mr. President, Iran has never initiated any war. Iran has never seized others’ resources, belongings, means, lives, and existence to gain wealth and benefit of its own. Iran, only and of course, vigorously has and will defend its belonging, resources, life, and identity. Iran has done that throughout its four thousand years of history and will do it again if it has to. Rais Ali and his team did it in 1915. People in my generation did it in 1980-88. When the whole world stood behind Sadam Husain and helped him throughout the eight years of war, Iranians stood firmly and defended their home. 

Under the world’s watch, Sadam Husain dropped bombs and used chemical weapons on civilians. In the end, he was not able to seize even an inch of our homeland. Iranians became one body and stood and defended their home and their families. 

To this day, Iranian, despite their differences, they are all proud of the eight years defending their home. Not sure if you agree, but losing so many precious lives is a significant loss and the nation still mourns for the precious lives lost during those eight years. However, we stood firm in defending our home and family. The country is proud and satisfied with the result, Iran is still Iran without losing an inch of its terrain. 

Mr. President, that is the difference in Iran’s view of loss and win in a war. In our lexicon, the one who starts a war is the only loser. The one who plans to steal happiness, life, and the being of others’ is the real loser.  

War is not our business, but negotiation and diplomacy are. War is not our purpose. Peace is our mission. Peace is our philosophy in life, and you are right, diplomacy is our art. 

Iran has proved its mastery in the art of diplomacy.

Diplomacy and winning, forbearance and contentment are inclinations that cannot be achieved by billions of dollars of weapons. The United States allies in the region; Bin-Salman and Bibi Natanhayou both can testify to that. Their loss to Iran with billions of dollars in arms sales are the testimony to that. 

Just be aware Mr. President, your friends the B team, desperately are pushing you into the same dilemma they have been dealing with in the past decades. Finally, the only conclusion they got to was tiding the hands of the master of diplomacy Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Interestingly, they must have learned their lesson by now that they might be able to knot the hands of chess players, but they cannot control their mind and moves. A chess player with tiding hands still can move the solders and the horses. And finally, last but not least, watch out not to playing checkers with chess-players.

US must end arms sales to Saddam's reincarnations: Zarif

TEHRAN, Jul. 17 (MNA) – Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called on the US to stop selling arms to 'Saddam's reincarnations' instead of complaining about Iran's defensive program.

"For 8 YEARS, [former Iraqi President] Saddam showered our cities with missiles & bombs provided by East & West. Meanwhile, NO ONE sold Iran any means of defense. We had no choice but building our own. Now they complain. Instead of skirting the issue, US must end arms sales to Saddam's reincarnations," wrote Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a tweet on Wednesday. 

He attached the following pictures to his tweet, which show the bombing of Iranian city Khorramshahr during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980s), and US-made bombs used by Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. 

Washington Post describes Saudi's bin Salman as new Saddam Hussein

TEHRAN, Jul. 09 (MNA) – An article by the Washington Post editor, Jackson Diehl, describes the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman as a new Saddam Hussein who, according to the writer, used to be supported by the US despite his well-documented crimes.

"Once upon a time, there was a brutal and reckless dictator of an oil-rich Arab country who, despite his well-documented excesses, was stroked and supported by the United States and other Western governments," wrote Jackson Diehl in an article published on Washington Post on Monday.

While Saddam Hussein's crimes were terrible, there was probably no alternative for holding the line against Iran, so he "concluded that, as long as he kept supplying oil and opposing Iran, he was free to butcher his opponents and bully his neighbors."

"The bet made on him by the United States and its allies directly led to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and from there to the “endless wars” in the Middle East that are now almost universally bemoaned by the West’s foreign policy establishment."

"And yet, 30 years later, those mandarins and the politicians they report to are blindly repeating the mistake. They are saying they abhor the blatant crimes of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, including the murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi and the torture and imprisonment of women seeking greater rights. They see his bombing campaign in Yemen as a war-crime-ridden disaster. Yet, at the summit of the Group of 20 in Osaka, Japan, a week ago, they cheerfully clustered around him. Not just President Trump but also prime ministers and presidents from the big European democracies. And not just them but also the leaders of India, South Korea and Japan, all of whom have received Mohammed bin Salman warmly in the past six months."

The reason for this warm welcome, the writer adds, is because MBS is allied with US and Israel against Iran. 

He then referred to the lonely five-month investigation of Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, into Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul last October, which called for "a halt to the closed Saudi trial of 11 lower-level operatives blamed for the murder, and for an independent investigation by U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, or the FBI. The report also called for sanctions to be imposed on Mohammed bin Salman and his foreign assets “until and unless evidence is provided and corroborated that he carries no responsibility for this execution.”

"The official silence that has greeted the report has been deafening," the writer adds.

During a visit to Washington last week, Callamard appeared undeterred. “Many governments have attempted to bury it and say, ‘Let’s move on,’ but that killing is not going to disappear,” she said during an appearance at the Brookings Institution. Trump notwithstanding, she is counting on justice to come from the United States. “I think this is the only place where political accountability is going to work,” she said during a meeting at The Post.

"...as long as Trump is president, Mohammed bin Salman is unlikely to face direct US sanction," the writer says.

"Like Saddam Hussein before him, Mohammed bin Salman has concluded that he is immune. Women he ordered tortured are still in prison. His planes are still bombing Yemen. And he is taking the first steps toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Because Western governments do not stop him now, they will have to do it later — when the cost is likely to be far higher."

The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio: Dangerous Lessons To Be Learned

by MELVIN GOODMAN

Photograph Source: Tasnim News Agency – CC BY 4.0

The bizarre decisions and events over a 48-hour period between the United States and Iran outlined the dangerous times that we are confronting and point to Donald Trump as the most dangerous aspect of all.  Iran is a problem for U.S. interests, but not a genuine threat.  The same cannot be said for Trump whose instability and unpredictability threaten not only the United States but the entire global community.  The fact that his key advisers—National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—are bellicose and even irrational worsens the situation.  The absence of a genuine national security process and the decline of U.S. diplomacy contributes to a situation that finds the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, without adult or even civilian supervision, playing an outsized role.

Ironically, pundits and politicians are ruing the current absence of the “adults in the room,” all general officers, who supplied a measure of stability for most of Trump’s first two years in the White House.  Generals Jim Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly brought some moderating influence to Trump’s risky and erratic behavior dealing with Syria, Russia, and the issue of immigration, respectively, during their time as secretary of defense, national security advisor, and chief of staff.

Instead of Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly, we have a troika of Bolton, Pompeo, and CIA director Gina Haspel who strongly advocated the use of military force.  This is particularly disconcerting in the case of Haspel, who does not head a policy organization and who should never be advocating policy.  Haspel should not have been confirmed as a CIA director in the first place because of her active role in conducting torture and abuse, running a notorious secret prison, and drafting the cable that ordered the destruction of the 92 torture tapes.  Pompeo, moreover, favors the return of torture as a means of “gathering vital intelligence.”

Trump has put in place a virtual “war cabinet.”  We have a situation that finds Secretary of State Pompeo thoroughly loyal to the president, and a CIA director thoroughly loyal to the secretary of state.  Instead of a national security process, we have three individuals who believe in the use of force and, in the case of Bolton, regime change.  The fact that “acting” directors are heading the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other departments and agencies of government help to create the current dysfunctional situation we find in both foreign and domestic policy.  The leadership void at the Pentagon is particularly disconcerting.

Of course, it was wrong from the outset to believe that any group of so-called “adults in the room” could form serious opposition to Trump’s potentially reckless behavior or that Trump himself would use any single individual to rein in his impulsive actions.  The mainstream media has been too careful and tentative in describing our current commander-in-chief who declared at a campaign rally in Iowa in 2015 that “I’ve had a lot of wars of my own.  I’m really good at war.  I love war….”  Yet, the media seems to accept at face value that Trump has “struck an unusually friendly tone toward Iran,” according to the Washington Post, or that Trump called off the strike after belatedly learning that there would be about 150 Iranian deaths in the wake of a U.S. strike, according to the New York Times.

The most incongruous aspect of Trump’s explanation of his reversal was that he stopped the plan at the last minute because “I didn’t think it was proportionate.”  The word “proportionate” stands out in view of Trump’s limited vocabulary, and the prominent place of “proportionality” in the lexicon of moral warfare.  This is from a man who rarely speaks in complete sentences, cannot tweet in polished paragraphs, and never uses sophisticated vocabulary.  In any event, twenty-four hours later, he was telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” that, if Iran resumed its nuclear program, it would face “obliteration not like you’ve ever seen before.”  Proportionate, of course.

In view of Trump’s record as a pathological liar, his lack of impulse control and even a moral compass, there must be reasonable speculation on his sudden and unexpected reversal regarding the use of force.  Presidents and politicians are human; they can change their positions or develop new ones.  But Trump does so at a dizzying pace.  Even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the leading Trump truckler in the Congress, once referred to the “Tuesday Trump” who agreed to a bipartisan immigration bill one day and became the “Friday Trump” when he walked away from the deal several days later.  Trump’s explanation of his decision making swerve must be dismissed out of hand.

Since no one inside his administration appears to have any influence over Trump, we need to look outside our own political arena and look elsewhere for someone who could have convinced Trump to walk away from the immediate gratification of the use of force. Are we to believe that a journeyman reporter, Tucker Carlson, from Trump’s network, FOX News, was responsible for the president’s volte-face? Sherlock Holmes once wrote that the “dog that didn’t bark is often the clue.” Well, we have heard nothing about the Russians in the context of this crisis, and perhaps we have a candidate (or agent of influence) in Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Russians in two previous crises over the past thirty years tried to convince the White House that the use of force in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf must be avoided.  Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev believed he had convinced Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait, but couldn’t convince President George H.W. Bush of delaying the use of force.  When the Russians were facing President Barack Obama’s possible use of force against Syria for crossing the “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons, Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov convinced Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to stand down.

Putin may be an unlikely candidate for such a mediating role, but there are reasons for him to try to do so.  The Russians, unlike the Americans, have access to the leadership in Tehran and the two sides have coordinated policy on occasions in Syria.  Putin himself would be placed in a weak position if the United States were to use military force against a nation that the Kremlin supports that also happens to share a border with former Soviet republics.  The Russians would have no clear military role in trying to defend Iran, and Putin would be personally embarrassed if the United States were to strike with impunity.  As far-fetched as all of this sounds, Russia would gain a feather in its cap if it were to play a mediating role in the Persian Gulf; it might even be the catalyst for resuming a diplomatic dialogue with the United States.

It has been lost in all of the noise of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, but one of the reasons why Putin close Trump over Hillary Clinton in the first place was the strong belief he could do business with Trump.  Putin’s animus toward Clinton has not been properly examined even if it can be easily documented.  One must remember that it was Clinton who drew parallels between Putin’s annexing of Crimea and Hitler’s claims of protecting German minorities when he invaded Central and Eastern Europe.  George F. Kennan was made persona non grata as ambassador in 1951 for comparing Stalin and Hitler. Kennan soon acknowledged that “it was a foolish thing for me to have said.” Hillary Clinton never understood the extent of her obnoxious comparison.

In any event, the entire international community now knows that Trump’s national security team is dysfunctional; that a president was making military decisions without relevant information; and that his administration is fundamentally divided between civilian “chicken hawks” and professional military moderates.

C’est la guerre.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent book is “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming “The Dangerous National Security State” (2020).” 

Zarif: Iranians don’t believe the West’s opposition to WMDs

Those who annihilate generations with bombs seek nuclear weapons: Zarif

TEHRAN – With an indirect reference to dropping of atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the U.S. in August 1945 in which more than 200,000 people were killed, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Tuesday that those kill “millions of people” are seeking to build nuclear weapons and not Iran.

Zarif made the remarks during a conference arranged to honor those martyred or wounded in the chemical attack on the Kurdish Iranian city of Sardasht by the Saddam Hussein’s regime on June 28, 1987.

Western companies provided materials to Iraq at the time for building chemical weapons. Saddam’s army also gassed the Kurdish people in northern Iraq.

Zarif said the Iranian people do not believe statements that the West is opposed to weapons of mass destruction.

“How can our people believe your opposition to weapons of mass destruction? While the Islamic Republic of Iran presented credible documents, not only you did not counter about the use of chemical arms by Saddam but also covered it up for years.” 

Zarif also referred to remarks by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei who told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a meeting in Tehran on June 13 that Iran does not build nuclear weapons not because of the U.S. opposition but because the Islamic Republic considers production and use of atomic weapons as haram (religiously forbidden).  

“As Leader of the Islamic Revolution has stated, your opposition would have no value for us if we sought to build nuclear weapons. We do not want that and we believe that those weapons are good for those who kill millions of people, and not 150 ones, in nuclear bombardments.

By “150 people” Zarif was referring to claims by Donald Trump who said the U.S. air force was “cocked and loaded” to attack three Iranian targets on Friday morning, but he called off the strike with 10 minutes to spare after being told that the airstrike might kill as many as 150 people.

“You talk about 150 people? Are you worried about 150 people while killing people with chemical weapons and annihilating generations with nuclear weapons?” Zarif asked. 

Zarif went on to say that Iran will never seek to produce nuclear weapons based on its strategic and religious views, noting such weapons are “against security and humanity”.

He added, “We make efforts to bring those who use chemical weapons to justice.” 

He noted that weapons of mass destruction are “symbol of brutality” that should be eradicated.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone on Thursday morning after it breached Iran’s airspace. The IRGC brought the drone down by firing a surface-to-air missile at it.

Who remember this guy?

This is the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam. He murdered tens of thousands of innocent Shia Muslims in Iraq of which the most famous was Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and his honored Sister, Amina Bint ul-Huda.

Ayatollah al-Sadr was a born genius in knowledge. When Kuwait wanted to establish Islamic Banking they contacted him. People of knowledge in the West mourned his murder. Saddam killed him with his own hand according to Saddam's Physician.

After the glorious victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the greedy West did everything to overthrow the Revolutionary government but failed. Their last resort was to push Saddam to invade Iran. They provided him with sophisticated weapons while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries funded his war machine.

What was the end of Saddam?

He outlived his usefulness to the Americans so they tricked him to invade Kuwait. The idiot invaded Kuwait and they formed a coalition against him. Saudi Arabia funded the war. They killed more than one million Iraqis and caught Saddam like a rat from a rat hole. They hanged him after killing his two sons.

Who has ever profited in serving the greedy European savages? Who? Please give me an example!

Continue to Rest In Hell, the Cursed Saddam!

#ElbinawiTweets

Khashoggi scandal: Insult to wisdom of the entire world

By M.A. Saki

The murder of Jamal Khashoggi has proven an extremely huge scandal for the tribal al-Saud family. Probably, worse than the savage murder was repeated denials of the act and contradictory explanations about it.

The barbaric act was committed by a country that comically claims it is fighting terrorism in the region. Its claim of war against terrorism is like its vehement denial that Khashoggi left the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Those officials in the West who saw Saudi Arabia as a stabilizing force in the region should now be ashamed of themselves.

 The murder of Khashoggi has been surely ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salam, also known as MBS. It is an insult to the wisdom of the entire people in the world that the killing had taken place without the knowledge of MBS.

In Saudi Arabia, which is being run by a tribal family, a crime of such a degree in a foreign country could not have happened without the order of the dictator at the top.

Such acts are trademark of dictatorial regimes, especially Saudi Arabia which is a truly exemplifies tyranny and barbarism.

The denial that MBS was unaware of the death is like the great lie that Khashoggi was killed in a “fist fight”.

The crown prince is another Saddam Hussein in the 21st century. The only difference between MBS and Saddam Hussein is that the crown prince is being backed more strongly by the West because he signs tremendously lucrative arms agreements with the West, particularly with Trump’s White House who has a greedy eye on Saudi oil money.

If Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and western Iran, MBS has starved the Yemenis and is killing their schoolchildren.

If the West does not come to its senses to withdraw support from the young, inexperienced and wild MBS it should pay a heavy cost in the not too-distant future.

Like Saddam who captured the tiny state of Kuwait in 1990, MBS is pursuing the policy by intimidating small neighbors into submission. The sudden siege of Qatar from land, sea and air in June 2017 is a concrete example.

MBS would have invaded Qatar to overthrow the ruling system if Doha had not signed a military pact with Turkey. As Trump has covetous eye on Saudi oil money, probably MBS is envious of Qatar’s gas riches.

The bullying by MBS has reached a degree that Kuwaitis are also feeling the ghost of another Saddam Hussein.

Lebanese researcher Ali Mourad has said Kuwaitis are seriously worried about being invaded. “Kuwaitis need a regional force like Turkey to deal with Saudi ill intentions. They are truly afraid of a Saudi invasion because of a hegemony crisis in the [common] oil fields, Kuwait’s ties with Qatar and the blank check Trump has issued to MBS,” Mourad told Al-Monitor. 

Being aware that Saudi Arabia is no match for Iran in terms of military power, MBS is seeking to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran.

In regard of these bitter facts if Trump and other leaders in the West do not stop backing MBS, whose country has been pumping extremism in the form of Salafism and Wahhabism to the world, the land of other small countries may be chopped off like Khashoggi’s body.

Binsalman Backbone of US Plots to Destabilize Iran

By: Abdel Bari Atwan

When US President Donald Trump accuses Iran of being behind most if not all terrorist attacks in the world; Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman openly vows to take his battle with Iran into Iranian territory; and Israel threatens to continue attacking Iranian military targets to prevent the country from establishing missile bases in Syria; then Saturday’s bloody attack on a military parade in Ahvaz in which 29 people were killed comes as no surprise.   Indeed, such an incident could have been expected earlier, and more such attacks, even bloodier, can be expected in future. The region stands on the threshold of an unprecedented terrorist war waged by intelligence agencies that will be destructive to all parties concerned.

Trump is imposing a suffocating economic blockade on Iran which is set to peak in November when its most important component, the ban on oil exports, becomes operative. Its principal objective is to wear down and destabilize the Iranian regime with the aim of ultimately overthrowing it by military force. Experience has taught us that American wars in our region do not come out of the blue, but are the culmination of strategies that entail years of preparation.

Trump well knows that economic sanctions alone cannot topple regimes. Otherwise the North Korean and Cuban regimes would have fallen years ago, not to mention the Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein and the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. Blockades that are not followed by military intervention tend to backfire. That is why planning began to create an ‘Arab Nato’ consisting of the six Gulf states plus Egypt, Jordan and Morocco in anticipation of such an intervention should it go ahead. Israel’s successive air and missile strikes inside Syria are one of its components.

Iran is a powerful state with a strategic project that it seeks to bolster with a national and regional military capacity. At its heart is a missile capability that can have a decisive effect on the ground and strip Western air superiority of its most potent weapon: the ability to terrorise and thereby impose early surrender on the other side.  Iran has gone from exporting the revolution to exporting missile capability and bolstering allied paramilitary groups, which have come to be seen as an ‘existential threat by most of its adversaries, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi heir apparent Muhammad Bin-Salman is Trump’s closest Arab ally and the mainstay of his strategy for undermining Iran’s security and stability from within. He would not have made the statements he did a year ago pledging to take the battle to the Iranian interior were he not aware of the US and Israel’s plan for changing the regime and its various stages. That was the first time in the history of the Saudi-Iranian rivalry that a Saudi official dared speak openly of intentions to foment rebellion among religious and ethnic minorities in Iran. Previously, Saudi rulers never publicly acknowledged or boasted about meddling in other countries’ affairs or waging war on them. What we have seen in Yemen we are set to witness in Iran.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard – which was targeted and humiliated in the Ahvaz attack at a time when it and its direct and indirect allies have been achieving victories in Iraq, Syria and Yemen – was accordingly quick to accuse a Saudi-backed Arab separatist group of being behind the incident. It vowed to retaliate, a threat reiterated by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rohani and other officials.

It was not by chance that Dr. Abdelkhaleq Abdallah, described as one of the closest aides of Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Zayed, wrote a tweet justifying the attack on the military parade in Ahvaz and insisting it was not an incident of terrorism. This was not a slip of the tongue. It was said at the express direction of his country’s leaders and their Saudi counterparts. Otherwise, the tweet would have been immediately erased as a way of disowning it, and the writer would have been thrown in jail. But that did not happen.

To elaborate, military matters are not a subject that Arab, and especially Gulf, tweeters can discuss freely. Every word is carefully considered and dictated with the aim of sending a specific message to one party or other. Dr. Abdallah is an political scientist, not a military spokesman for him declare that “taking the battle to the Iranian interior is a declared option and it will increase in the coming period” as though it were merely his personal assessment.

That being the case, we can be sure that we are now facing a war waged by intelligence agencies targeting Iran from within. It is based on recruiting some of the country’s Arab, Sunni, Azeri and Baluch minorities (the latter live mostly in southeastern Iran by the Pakistani and Afghan borders and are represented by the hardline Sunni Jundallah organization) as was done in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, resulting in the collapse of the communist regime of Muhammad Najibullah.

It is perhaps premature to say that this plan stands much chance of succeeding. The regime of the Islamic Revolution in Iran bears no comparison to the former communist government in Afghanistan, even if the US spearheaded the campaigns against both, with Saudi Arabia playing a key part in providing financial, military and sectarian/ideological backing. The differences between the two cases are very big, and the times, too, have changed.

Iran has more experience of ‘spook wars’ than Saudi Arabia and some of its Gulf allies (Kuwait, Qatar and Oman denounced the bloody attack on the military parade and describe it as terrorism). This experience has been enhanced ‘operationally’ through the direct involvement of Iranian intelligence offshoots in wars in three arenas – Syria, Iraq and Yemen – and especially against the Islamic State (IS) organisation, as well as indirectly in South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Saudi intelligence expertise has only been tested in practice in two countries, Syria and Yemen, and the achievements in both cases have been modest, given the results so far.

Iran has faced foreign meddling, internal revolts and externally-backed separatist movements for the past thirty years. But its regime has never once been threatened with collapse. It has become stronger and more resilient, scoring one military achievement after another.

Trump wants to involve Saudi Arabia, along with its Gulf allies and some of the Arab Sunnis, in a proxy ‘terrorist’ war in Iran. As well as draining it financially this could jeopardise its own domestic security, at a time when it needs stability due to the bumpy transition it is going through under King Salman. While there are tools the kingdom can employ at the US’ behest to destabilise Iran, there are also other tools and means that Iran can employ. One need only take a glance at what has been achieved by Iran’s revolutionary, political and military arms in Iraq and Syria, and further away in Yemen, which has been able to withstand what is perhaps the longest assault ever waged on the country.

The problem in our estimation does not lie in whether the attack on the military parade in Ahvaz is described as terrorist or not. It lies in the consequences that could ensue. We have begun entering a period of involvement in a secret war of terrorist attacks and counter-attacks, at a time when other countries are resorting to dialogue to resolve their differences – witness the leaders of North and South Korea negotiating an end to a 70-year war that almost turned nuclear.

The US is playing with fire with the clandestine and economic wars whose fuse it has lit in the region at Israel’s instigation. The irony is that it is the fingers of Saudi Arabia and maybe some other countries that are most likely to be burned, and perhaps, who knows, even incinerated.

May God save Islam from anti-democracy rulers!

In the Middle East, democracy should be what an oasis is to a desert.  But the irony is while Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, who is turning out to be the chief suspect in the killing journalist Jamal Khashoggi, holds the ‘Davos in the Desert’ economy summit with the aim of making his country the region’s next investment hub after Dubai, his country is digressing into a Jahiliyya kingdom.

In Islamic literature, the word ‘Jahiliyya’ refers to the ‘ignorant’ period that existed before Islam liberated the people and set them on a path to become the bright stars in the firmament of knowledge. During the Jahiliyya period, slavery and superstition were rampant; women were treated like chattel with no civic rights; and female infants were buried alive, for they were considered a humiliation.  Debauchery was widespread. Violence and revenge killings were part of life and it is said inter-tribal violence continued for decades over trivial matters such as the straying of one’s camel into a rival’s territory. 

Since slavery had been part of jahiliyya, if a state treats its people like slaves, denies them the freedom of speech, movement and assembly, the freedom to choose their rulers and oppresses women’s political and civil rights, it only promotes Jahiliyya.  Sadly, Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam, fits the description. Saudi Arabia’s claim that it is governed by Islamic Shariah, it appears, is only a charade.  Islam condemns lies and deception. But since Khashoggi was mercilessly murdered in Saudi Arabia’s Istanbul consulate on October 2, the Saudis have changed their narrations umpteen times before they admitted that he was killed during interrogation that went wrong. Yet, they have not provided answers as to what they did to Khashoggi’s body. 

On Wednesday, three weeks after Khashoggi was tortured, killed and dismembered, the Saudi media showed footage of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, the man accused of ordering the killing, shaking hands with Khashoggi’s son, Salah, a dual Saudi-US citizen. 

Behind this cold-hearted show of indifference is the bitter truth that Khashoggi’s family members in the kingdom are virtual prisoners. They are prevented from speaking out or leaving the country. 

Yesterday, the crown prince told the Riyadh investment forum that “those responsible will be held accountable... in the end justice will prevail.”
Can a government said to be run by Shariah law resort to intimidation, acts of cruelty and taking a life without a fair trial? If this is what Islam is, then God save Islam from Saudi rulers!
On January 9, 2013, Rizana Nafeek, a 24-year-old Sri Lankan woman, was beheaded in Saudi Arabia, for causing the death of an infant in her care while she was only a 17-year-old maid in a Saudi household. Plea after plea for mercy was rejected with the infant’s mother insisting that Rizana be put to death. She was beheaded. Eye for an eye and a life for a life: We were told this was Saudi law. On March 25, 1975, King Faisal was shot dead by his nephew. The prince was found guilty and beheaded publicly: We were told this was Saudi law which applied equally to all citizens.  But it is unlikely whether anyone will be found guilty and beheaded in the Khashoggi killing, though evidence is strong that Khashoggi was killed by a killer squad sent by a very powerful person.

It is no surprise that most Arab and Islamic leaders have chosen not to speak up for justice. Most of them are themselves autocrats -- and, by throwing their weight behind the Saudi rulers in the Khashoggi affair, they seem to endorse oppression, lies and deception so that they can continue to receive the millions of dollars the kingdom throws at them regularly. Some of them were present at this week’s Riyadh investment summit.

If democracy is considered the worst form of government, except for all the others, then monarchical rule is the worst of the worst and an insult to the collective dignity of the world’s 7.6 billion people in an era where attempts to erode not only the freedom of human beings but also animals are squarely condemned. But yet, rather than being criticised and ostracized for human rights violations, Middle Eastern monarchs and autocrats are hailed as great leaders and given red-carpet reception in blatant acts of political hypocrisy. The West’s inaction or ineffective action indicated that for Western countries, Saudi contracts are more important than human rights and democracy promotion. Are we living in an era of sham liberation and enlightenment? 

The bitter reality is the West thrives in Middle Eastern autocracy. Will the leaders of the United States, or for that matter any of the Western nation preaching democracy to the rest of the world, adopt a principled policy that they will not meet or share platforms with undemocratic rulers, until the Khashoggi killing is thoroughly investigated and those responsible are punished? 

In 2003, the then US President George W. Bush claimed he sent troops to Iraq to end Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship and bring democracy to that nation.  The question that remains unanswered is: Why did not he send troops to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries ruled by dictators? The US intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria has more to do with oil and geopolitics than any democracy promotion. 

What went wrong with the 2011 Arab Spring? It is alleged that the US supported the counter revolution in Egypt to overthrow the democratically elected post-Arab-Spring government and bring back an autocrat in Abdel Fateh al-Sisi.  Donald Trump will not even ask the Saudi royals to respect Saudi citizens’ expectations for democracy and freedom, though he describes the Saudi action as the worst cover-up in history and implicated the crown prince in the Khashoggi killing, saying “Well, the prince is running things over there... so if anybody were going to be, it would be him.”

Khashoggi fought for democracy. He believed Islam and democracy were compatible.  His mission was to bring democracy to freedom-starved people of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, where jails are filled with people who expressed their desire to have more freedom, and a say in the way the government is run. The Khashoggi affair won’t be the Magna Carta moment or the ‘no-tax-without-representation’ moment for the Saudis.

We won’t be surprised if an earthshattering political event is staged – for instance, a surprise US military attack on some nation or like Wednesday’s parcel bombs – to cause the disappearance of the Khashoggi killing from the political and media discourse.

In the World of American Politics, One Khashoggi Is Worth One Million Yemeni Lives

BY MICHAEL HOWARD

At this point we can only assume that the Turkish version of events regarding the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi is true. As always, I’m open to being proved wrong, and it’s certainly incumbent upon Ankara to release the audio evidence of which they claim to be in possession (though this, should it come out, will naturally be dismissed by the Saudis as fabricated or doctored), but the list of plausible alternative scenarios currently stands at zero. Khashoggi went into the Saudi consulate and was never seen again. If he had merely been kidnapped and jailed, we’d have heard from him by now. He would have appeared on Saudi state television and delivered some kind of scripted statement like Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri did last November. The House of Saud appears to prefer this time of year, autumn, for abductions and assassinations.

If Khashoggi was, in fact, whacked out by a Saudi hit squad—complete with torture and Goodfellas-style dismemberment—as the Turks maintain he was, then Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is even crazier than we thought. Since being named heir apparent by his senile father, King Salman, the crown prince has been on a mission to establish himself as the region’s chief thug. This is no small task, but MbS, as he’s blithely referred to, seems up to the challenge.

As Patrick Cockburn recently wrote, the crown prince’s list of failures, in so short a span of time, is impressive. His escalation of the war in Yemen has achieved nothing unless you count mass murder and mass famine as achievements. The Houthis are holding fast, and the country has been all but obliterated. Perhaps, though, the Saudis view Yemen’s destruction favorably. Like the US invasion of Vietnam, Saudi Arabia’s overarching goal in Yemen is to demonstrate to the region what happens when populations revolt against their oppressors. You want to upend the status quo and realize a degree of independence and self-government, you’d better be prepared to be pulverized. That’s the warning being issued by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

No sooner had bin Salman been appointed crown prince (June 2017) than the Saudi-led diplomatic and economic war on Qatar commenced. The express purpose of the surprise gambit was to punish Doha for its support for terrorism—pretty rich coming from the epicenter of Wahhabism, that diabolic interpretation of Islam upon which al-Qaeda and its numerous clones base their murderous ideologies. Of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, fifteen were Saudi nationals; none were Qatari.

Which is not to say that Qatar is innocent of the charge. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with the UAE, supported the same terrorist elements of the Syrian opposition. Hillary Clinton, in one of her $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs, confirmed this in 2013, asserting that Damascus and its allies were “being taken on by indigenous rebels but increasingly a collection of jihadists who are funded by the Saudis, funded by the Emiratis, funded by [Qatar] …” (Emphasis mine.) In a 2014email sent to John Podesta, Clinton wrote: “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Knowing this, Hillary publicly argued in favor of regime change in Syria. But I’m sick to death of writing about Hillary Clinton.

To call the support-for-terrorism pretext flimsy is generous. Preposterous is the better word. I can’t imagine that even casual observers were taken in by it, Donald Trump being a possible exception (he stupidly spoke in favor of the Saudi blockade, apparently unaware that his country maintains a critical military base in Qatar). Riyadh’s motivation was obvious: Qatar was being disciplined for its pragmatic relationship with Iran, with whom it shares the biggest natural gas field in the world. Also for Al Jazeera’s—Qatar’s state-funded media outlet— unflattering coverage of Saudi policies. What the crown prince was hoping to accomplish here is anyone’s guess. Did he think Doha would surrender its own strategic interests, renounce its cooperation with Tehran and meekly submit to his capricious will? Needless to say that didn’t happen. Qatar responded by reinstating full diplomatic relations with Iran, which, along with Turkey, increased exports to Qatar, diminishing the effect of the embargo.

A few months later, right around the time the crown prince launched his Stalinist purge of the royal family, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was detained on a visit to Saudi Arabia. Soon after, clearly reading from a text that had been prepared for him, he announced his resignation on Saudi state TV. In his statement he hit out at Hezbollah and Iran; he also claimed that an attempt on his life—presumably from Hezbollah or Iran—was imminent (Lebanese intelligence contested this). The charade was absolutely transparent. “The words [Hariri] read out,” Robert Fisk wrote at the time, “are entirely in line with the speeches of Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman and with the insane president of the United States who speaks of Iran with the same anger, as does the American defense secretary.”

Predictably, the bizarre incident had the effect of uniting the Lebanese people in support of their prime minister and, more importantly, their national sovereignty. Lebanese President Michel Aoun rejected Hariri’s “resignation” and demanded that he return to Lebanon, which he did a couple weeks later. On December 5, one month and one day after resigning, Hariri reassumed the office of prime minister. The crown prince’s stratagem had backfired in spectacular fashion. Meanwhile, Hariri, who strikes me as a bit of a wimp, refuses to speak about what exactly took place during that trip to Saudi Arabia, and is now reportedly taking the kingdom's side in the Khashoggi affair.

From said affair, we can take away a few things. First, I’m happy to see that the US and its allies have suddenly embraced due process, calling as they are for a thorough, independent investigation into the event so as to establish beyond a doubt what actually took place, at which point they can respond accordingly. I trust they will now apply the same evidentiary standards to, say, the next chemical weapons incident in Syria, or the next botched assassination of an ex-spy in Europe. Moreover, it’s good to know where we in the West draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior as regards official allies. Shelling hospitals and mosques and schools andschool buses and weddings and funerals is one thing—unfortunate casualties of war, worthy of a few hollow words of regret. Killing a Washington Post columnist, however, will not be brooked. Hence, the mass boycott of the upcoming business conference in Riyadh, and Trump’s talk of “severe punishment.” In the world of American politics, one Khashoggi is worth one million Yemeni lives.

Mohammed bin Salman ought to have understood this. That he didn’t tells us much about the man set to rule Saudi Arabia for the next four or five decades. Such hubris, such vanity, and he’s not even king yet! If I had his ear, I would advise the crown prince to exercise extreme caution moving forward. There’s hell to pay for stepping on Uncle Sam’s toes: once he sours on you, your days are numbered. Our old friend and ally Saddam Hussein can, or could, attest to that. I would also hand him a copy of King Lear as a cautionary tale, as the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia is a sparkling case of life imitating art.

MbS: Riding roughshod or playing a risky game of bluff poker?

by Dr James M Dorsey 

President Donald Trump meets with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, March 20, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

A stalemate in efforts to determine what happened to Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is threatening to escalate into a crisis that could usher in a new era in relations between the United States and some of its closest Arab allies as well as in the region’s energy politics.

In response to US President Donald J. Trump’s threat of “severe punishment” if Saudi Arabia is proven to have been responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance while visiting the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia is threatening to potentially upset the region’s energy and security architecture.

A tweet by Saudi Arabia’s Washington embassy thanking the United States for not jumping to conclusions did little to offset the words of an unnamed Saudi official quoted by the state-run news agency stressing the kingdom’s “total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether through economic sanctions, political pressure or repeating false accusations.”

The official was referring to the kingdom’s insistence that it was not responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and assertion that it is confronting a conspiracy by Qatar and/or Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“The kingdom also affirms that if it is (targeted by) any action, it will respond with greater action,” the official said noting that Saudi Arabia “plays an effective and vital role in the world economy.”

Turki Aldhakhil, a close associate of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and general manager of the kingdom’s state-controlled Al Arabiya news network, claimed in an online article that Saudi leaders were discussing 30 ways of responding to possible US sanctions.

They allegedly included allowing oil prices to rise up to US$ 200 per barrel, which according to Mr. Aldhakhil, would lead to “the death” of the US economy, pricing Saudi oil in Chinese yuan instead of dollars, an end to intelligence sharing, and a military alliance with Russia that would involve a Russian military base in the kingdom.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Aldhakhil was reflecting serious discussions among secretive Saudi leaders or whether his article was intended either as a scare tactic or a trial balloon. Mr. Aldakhil’s claim that a Saudi response to Western sanctions could entail a reconciliation with the kingdom’s arch enemy, Iran, would make his assertion seem more like geopolitical and economic bluff.

Meanwhile, in what appeared to be a coordinated response aimed at demonstrating that Saudi Arabia was not isolated, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt rushed to express solidarity with the kingdom. Like Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE have a track record of suppressing independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Ironically, Turkey may be the kingdom’s best friend in the Khashoggi crisis if its claims to have incontrovertible proof of what happened in the consulate prove to be true. Turkey has so far refrained from making that evidence public, giving Saudi Arabia the opportunity to come up with a credible explanation.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip “Erdogan wants to give Saudis an exit out of #Khashoggi case, hoping the Saudi king/crown prince will blame ‘rogue elements’ for the alleged murder, then throwing someone important under the bus. This would let Erdogan walk away looking good & prevent rupture in Turkey-Saudi ties,” tweeted Turkey scholar Soner Cagaptay.

The Saudi news agency report and Mr. Aldakhil’s article suggest that Prince Mohammed believes that Saudi Arabia either retains the clout to impose its will on much of the international community or believes that it rather than its Western critics would emerge on top from any bruising confrontation.

Prince Mohammed no doubt is reinforced in his belief by Mr. Trump’s reluctance to include an arms embargo in his concept of severe punishment. He may also feel that Western support for the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen and reluctance to credibly take the kingdom to task for its conduct of the war was an indication that he was free to do as he pleased.

Prince Mohammed may have been further strengthened in his belief by the initial course of events 28 years ago, the last time that the fate of a journalist was at the centre of a crisis between a Western power and an Arab country.

At the time, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, similar to Mr. Trump’s inclination, refused to impose economic sanctions after Iraqi president Saddam Hussein ordered the arrest, torture and execution of Farhad Barzoft, a young London-based Iranian journalist who reported for The Observer.

Since declassified British government documents disclosed that Mrs. Thatcher’s government did not want to jeopardize commercial relations despite its view of the Iraqi government as a “ruthless and disagreeable regime.”

The comparison between the Khashoggi crisis and the case of Mr. Barzoft goes beyond Western governments’ reluctance to jeopardize commercial relationships.

Mr Barzoft was executed months before Mr. Hussein’s military invaded Kuwait prompting US-led military action that forced his troops to withdraw from the Gulf state, crippling economic sanctions, and ultimately the 2003 Gulf War that, no matter how ill-advised, led to the Iraqi leader’s downfall and ultimate execution.

Prince Mohammed’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen, of which Mr. Khashoggi was critical in one of his last Washington Post columns, has tarnished the kingdom’s international prestige and sparked calls in the US Congress and European parliaments for an embargo on arms sales that have gained momentum with the disappearance of the Saudi journalist.

To be sure Saudi Arabia enjoys greater leverage than Iraq did in 1990. By the same token, 2018 is not 1973, the first and only time the kingdom ever wielded oil as a weapon against the United States. At the time, the US was dependent on Middle Eastern oil, today it is one of, if not the world’s largest producer.

More fundamentally, Prince Mohammed appears to show some of the traits Mr. Hussein put on display, including a seeming lack of understanding of the limits of power and best ways to wield it, a tendency towards impetuousness, a willingness to take risks and gamble without having a credible exit strategy, a refusal to tolerate any form of criticism, and a streak of ruthlessness.

“We’re discovering what this ‘new king’ is all about, and it’s getting worrisome. The dark side is getting darker,” said David Ottaway, a journalist and scholar who has covered Saudi Arabia for decades.

Mr. Hussein was public and transparent about Mr. Barzoft’s fate even if his assertion that the journalist was a spy lacked credibility and the journalist’s confession and trial were a mockery of justice.

Prince Mohammed flatly denies any involvement in the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi and appears to believe that he can bully himself out of the crisis in the absence of any evidence that the journalist left the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate of his own volition.

Mr. Hussein miscalculated with his invasion of Kuwait shortly after getting away with the killing of Mr. Barzoft.

Prince Mohammed too may well have miscalculated if the kingdom is proven to be responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance.

Mr. Hussein’s reputation and international goodwill was irreparably damaged by his execution of Mr. Barzoft and invasion of Kuwait.

Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance has dealt a body blow to Saudi Arabia’s prestige irrespective of whether the journalist emerges from the current crisis alive or dead.

King Salman and the kingdom appear for now to be rallying the wagons around the crown prince.

At the same time, the king has stepped into the fray publicly for the first time by phoning Turkish president Erdogan to reaffirm Saudi cooperation with an investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate.

It remains unclear whether that phone call will pave the way for Turkish investigators to enter the Istanbul consulate as well as the Saudi consul general’s home and whether they will be allowed to carry out forensics.

The longer the investigation into Mr. Khashoggi’s fate stalls, the more Saudi Arabia will come under pressure to put forth a credible explanation and the harder Western leaders will be pressed by public opinion and lawmakers to take credible action if Saudi Arabia is proven to be responsible.

A Saudi decision to act on its threats to rejigger its security arrangements and energy policy, even if overstated by Mr. Aldhakhil, in response to steps by Western nations to penalize the kingdom, could prove to have not only far-reaching international consequences but, in the final analysis, also equally momentous domestic ones.

“Looks like #Saudi royal family is coming together to protect the family business. Eventually there will be internal reckoning with what transpired. Not now. Now is the time to save the family reign,” tweeted Middle East scholar Randa Slim.

Said former US State Department and White House official Elliott Abrams: “Jamal Khashoggi lost control of his fate when he entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Mohammed bin Salman must act quickly to regain control of his own.”

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast.