On Wednesday at least three more rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip in a continuation of sporadic violence that has left the region on edge after President Trump"s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel a week ago. Today"s attack brings the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since Trump"s announcement to eight (a few more have been launched but landed in Palestinian territory), which marks the largest number fired since Operation Protective Edge in 2014.
The Israeli military says it intercepted two of the missiles through its Iron Dome defense system, while a third fell without damage or casualties, though local media reported that a handful of Israelis were being treated for minor things like shock and a leg injury from fleeing a potential impact area.
Large explosions could be heard over southern Israel"s Negev region as the Iron Dome intercepts were successful, which were caught on cell phone video by stunned Israeli onlookers below the flight path.
BREAKING: Multiple rockets have just been fired from Hamas controlled Gaza into Israel. "Iron Dome" has reportedly intercepted as many as 6 of them. pic.twitter.com/eP3SIAw4kE
This is the second time this week that the Iron Dome system has been put into action after a similar number of rockets were launched from Gaza on Monday. Israel has continued to retaliate - early on Wednesday the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported a strike on a Hamas military compound in the southern Gaza Strip.
The IDF has repeatedly warned that it would hold Hamas directly responsible for all "hostile activity" and threats coming from Gaza - though Israeli airstrikes on the densely populated Gaza Strip have been notorious for causing mass civilian casualties among the Palestinian population, who often have nowhere to flee outside the confines of the relatively small strip of land that comprises Gaza territory.
This is the second time this week that the Iron Dome system has been put into action after a similar number of rockets were launched from Gaza on Monday. Israel has continued to retaliate - early on Wednesday the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported a strike on a Hamas military compound in the southern Gaza Strip.
The IDF has repeatedly warned that it would hold Hamas directly responsible for all "hostile activity" and threats coming from Gaza - though Israeli airstrikes on the densely populated Gaza Strip have been notorious for causing mass civilian casualties among the Palestinian population, who often have nowhere to flee outside the confines of the relatively small strip of land that comprises Gaza territory.
Map source: BBC
During Operation Protective Edge, for example, the United Nations reported that at least 2,104 Palestinians died, which included 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women. The 2014 Israeli Army incursion into Gaza lasted seven weeks, and 66 Israeli soldiers died during the operation, as well as seven civilians killed in Israel due to rocket fire from Gaza.
Though Hamas as well as outside regional groups like Hezbollah have called for a "third intifada" (or Palestinian uprising) in response to what Palestinian leadership has called Trump"s "declaration of war", various reports indicate that protests are losing momentum and now appear only sporadic after an aggressive Israeli crackdown.
At least two rioters have been killed during clashes with the Israeli army along the border of the Gaza strip on Friday. And of course, the media didn"t hesitate to blame their deaths on President Trump...
So, post #Trump"s announcement on #Jerusalem, we"ve had one anti-Semitic attack in the Netherlands, and a Palestinian has been shot dead near Gaza, with thousands injured. More of the same to come...
Disturbances and demonstrations broke out in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip on Friday after Hamas, the terrorist organization that until recently exercised unilateral conrol over the Gaza Strip, called for Palestinians to rise up in a third Intifada against the Israelis while also declaring Friday a "Day of Rage following Trump"s Wednesday decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and ordered the State Department to begin preparations to move the US embassy there. While most of Israel"s administrative services are based in West Jerusalem, most embassies and foreign diplomats are based in Tel Aviv.
While Trump"s decision sparked outrage among leaders of the Muslim world and even drew a rebuke from the UN Security Council, the president pointed out in a late-night tweet that every former US president since at least Bill Clinton has promised to recognize Jerusalem as the capital.
The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza reported that two people were killed and dozens injured in the clashes. One of those killed was Mohammad al-Masri, 30, who was fatally shot by the Israeli army east of Khan Younis in the enclave. The Washington Post reported that at least 35 people were injured in Gaza. The Palestinian Red Crescent reported that 245 people were injured in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The Israeli army said in a statement about the Gaza clashes that during “riots” by Palestinian protesters, “soldiers fired selectively towards two main instigators and hits were confirmed.”
Earlier, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said units stationed around the Old City of Jerusalem were "beefed up" with additional soldiers. However, he said there were no restrictions on Muslim worshipers entering to pray at the holy Haram al-Sharif compound, home of the renowned al-Aqsa Mosque.
Some scuffles broke out between demonstrators and border police near the Austrian hospice in Jerusalem’s Old City. In Gaza, tens of thousands of Palestinians demonstrated after the end of Friday prayers, and clashes broke out between hundreds of youths and Israeli forces along the border between the enclave and Israel.
Meanwhile, at the al-Alqsa Mosque compound, thousands of worshipers filed in for the midday Friday prayers without incident.
“We usually come on Fridays, but today has special meaning,” said Noor Shaheen, 24, as she left prayers. She said the fact that Israeli authorities had not put restrictions on who could come to prayers on Friday had eased tensions, adding that Palestinians in Jerusalem were weary of protests.
“We are tired,” she said. “It’s hard to make action without thinking of the reaction.”
Of course, not all Palestinians see Trump"s decision as a declaration of war against the Muslim world..
According to WaPo, Ahmed Aduelhawa, 60, said Palestinians in Jerusalem did not want to give Israel “an excuse to humiliate us” and that Trump’s declaration “doesn’t matter.” He said: “The future of Jerusalem isn’t in Trump’s hands, not in Abbas’s hands, not in Netanyahu’s hands, it’s in God’s hands."
Clashes were later reported in the West Bank cities of Bethlehem and Ramallah.
On Friday, the Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, staged military parades in which masked men wearing military uniforms carried rifles and shells.
The participants chanted slogans against the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, calling for a revolt against Israel to “liberate Jerusalem from occupation."
The United Nations Security Council is expected to meet Friday after eight countries on the 15-member body requested a briefing on the U.S. decision, which the Palestinians claim breaches U.N. resolutions and international law.
Meanwhile, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the US Embassy in neighboring Jordan holding placards reading “Decision Rejected” and “No to US arrogance.” Criticism continued to flow in from governments in the Middle East, Europe and beyond, as U.S. friends and adversaries alike voiced disapproval and alarm.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan predicted that the region would ignite in a “ring of fire,” while European leaders reiterated their opposition to the policy, and 86-year-old Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu declared, “God is weeping."
The leaders of Saudi Arabia also warned of the fallout from Trump"s decision.
US institutions in the region were also preparing for possible violent fallout. The State Department restricted travel for U.S. government employees in Jerusalem and the West Bank, warning U.S. citizens to avoid crowded areas. Of course, it"s still early evening in Israel...
...Meaning there"s still plenty of time for more casualty reports before the day is over.
On Wednesday Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed during the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference that Israel has to “act now against Iran” in order to stop the Iranians from "establishing themselves in Syria,” according to the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post.
During the conference, the Israeli prime minister argued that world leaders should join Israel and the US in pressuring Iran to accept renegotiating the 2015 nuclear deal. Netanyahu even warned that Iran will have nuclear weapons “in a decade” once the nuclear deal is over. Netanyahu also accused Iran of supporting “terrorist organizations” as usual, and said that Lebanese Hezbollah, and Palestinian Hamas would “not last a day without Iran,” according to Jerusalem Post.
Netanyahu"s statements are clearly aimed at justifying the recent Israeli airstrikes in Syria. Israeli media claimed that the airstrikes destroyed an Iranian military base, and a missile shipment; however, these claims were not backed by any evidence. The statements also serve the current policy of Israel, which is aimed at holding Iran responsible for all crises in the Middle East - a policy which is coordinated with some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, according to many experts.
Due to these rising tensions and the past months of escalating events in various corners of the Middle East, it increasingly looks as if the world is on the brink of witnessing a new conflict over Lebanon. While the chances for escalation are high, the essential pre-conditions for a new, large-scale war in the region are still in the works.
Image source: Gulf Insider
To review, on November 22, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri temporarily suspended his resignation following a request by the country’s president Michel Aoun to reconsider the decision. Hariri originally announced his resignation in a televised speech from the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on November 4 - an event which sparked a new round of tensions between Saudi Arabia on one end and Lebanon with Hezbollah on the other.
Saudi Arabia accused Lebanon of “declaring war” on Riyadh by allowing Hezbollah “aggression” against the kingdom. Meanwhile, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accused Tehran of delivering missiles to Yemen’s Houthi forces for use against the kingdom, an act he described as “direct military aggression”.
And on November 19, an emergency meeting of the Arab League was held between Saudi Arabia and other Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, calling for a united front, to counter Iran and Hezbollah. In a declaration issued after the meeting, the Arab League accused Hezbollah of “supporting terrorism and extremist groups in Arab countries, with advanced weapons and ballistic missiles.” In turn, the Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah said that Hariri was held captive in Saudi Arabia because he had not returned to Lebanon as he promised. On November 22, Hariri arrived at the Lebanese capital, Beirut, and suspended his resignation. This marked a new phase of the political standoff between the sides.
Hariri is a compromise figure in the Lebanese politics. His appointment as the Lebanese prime minister was de-facto supported by Saudi Arabia, the United States and some influential groups in Lebanon. This move was aimed to serve the “interethnic dialogue” in Lebanon.
However, the recent developments in the Middle East, including the nearing end of the conflict in Syria and the growing influence and military capabilities of Hezbollah, have changed the political situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah units de-facto fulfill functions of the presidential guard. Lebanese special services and the special services of Hezbollah are deeply integrated. Hezbollah’s victories in Syria and humanitarian activities in Lebanon increased the movement’s popularity among people.
All these events have taken place amid the developing crisis in Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has launched a large-scale purge among the top officials, influential businesspersons and princes under the pretext of combating corruption. According to some experts, the move is aimed at consolidating the power of the crown prince and his father, King Salman. Theoretically, the kingdom is seeking to shift its vector of development and to become a more secular state. In 5-10 years, it could even abandon Wahhabism as the official ideology should rumors of reform efforts be true. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is involved in an unsuccessful conflict in Yemen and a diplomatic crisis with Qatar. This situation fuels tensions and a competition for resources among the Saudi clans. As a result, the Saudi regime and the Saudi state in general, are now, in a weak position.
Let’s look at the interests of all parties.
On the one hand, the appearance of a new active foreign enemy could consolidate the Saudi population and its elites. The war with Hezbollah would allow the kingdom to gain additional assurances from the United States. Furthermore, with Israel entering the conflict, the kingdom would significantly reduce the risks of losses in any direct military confrontation with Lebanon and Hezbollah.
On the other hand, Riyadh has a wide range of foreign and internal problems. Considering the current weakness of Riyadh, any push may lead to utter disaster and the further instability of the royal family.
In the case of the conflict in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will be involved in a military and diplomatic standoff on 3 fronts:
North – Hezbollah and Iran;
South – Yemen; and
East – Qatar.
The conflict will also force a dramatic growth of oil prices. According to various experts, $150 per barrel can be expected by the end of the first month of any potential future conflict, if it is to occur. Some may suppose that this scenario is beneficial for Saudi Arabia or clans that control Saudi Aramco, the largest oil exporter around the world. However, the expected guerrilla war, which will likely erupt in the Shia-populated, oil-rich part of the country, will level out the pros of this scenario. Additionally, there is always a chance, that the main combat actions will be moved to the Saudi territory.
Israel and the West, in general, are not interested in high oil prices. In turn, Russia and Iran, who will not be involved in the initial stages of the conflict, will receive an increase in revenue from this scenario. The problem is that Tehran and Moscow are not interested in this “big new war” as well. Such a conflict in the Middle East will pose a direct threat to their national security
Israel’s attitude is another issue. Tel Aviv believes that the growing influence of Hezbollah and Iran in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, is a critical challenge to its national security. The key issue is that Israeli military analysts understand that Hezbollah is now much more powerful than it was in 2006. Now, Hezbollah is a strong, experienced, military organization, tens of thousands troops strong, which has the needed forces and facilities to oppose a possible Israeli ground invasion in Lebanon.
Iran has also strengthened its positions in the region over the last ten years. It has reinforced its air defense with the Russian-made S-300 systems, strengthened its armed forces and got combat experience in Syria and other local conflicts. Tehran also strengthened its ideological positions among the Shia and even Sunni population which lives in the region.
Thus, Israel will decide to participate in a large-scale conflict in Lebanon only in the case of some extraordinary event. It is possible to assume that in the coming months, a large-scale war in Lebanon will not be initiated. Nonetheless, Israel will continue local acts of aggression conducting artillery and air strike on positions and infrastructure of Hezbollah in Syria and maybe in Lebanon. Israeli special forces will conduct operations aimed at eliminating top Hezbollah members and destroying the movement’s infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria. Saudi Arabia will likely support these Israeli actions. It is widely known that Riyadh would rather use a proxy and engage in clandestine warfare. This means that stability in the region will not come anytime soon.
In turn, Hezbollah still needs about one-and-a-half years to further strengthen its positions in Syria and to free additional forces, which could be used in other potential flash points. The movement will likely put an end to the separation of power in Lebanon. This would mean that Hezbollah and Lebanon would become synonymous. Hezbollah also needs time to expand its network in the Shia-populated part of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, as Hezbollah’s involvement in the Yemeni conflict deepens, the balance of power in the region may begin to shift, creating further setbacks of the Saudi-led coalition.
According to some estimates, Hezbollah will be ready for a new round of the “big game” in the Middle East in the spring of 2019. But let"s hope that such a massive regional war does not come.
Hamas leader Ismail Haniya has said the United States decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a “war declaration against Palestinians.” And Haniya has called for a new “Intifada”, or uprising because of it.
Haniya said in a speech in Gaza City on Thursday that President Donald Trump‘s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has “killed” the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”This decision has killed the peace process, has killed the Oslo [accord], has killed the settlement process,” he said. “The US decision is an aggression, a declaration of war on us, on the best Muslim and Christian shrines in the heart of Palestine, Jerusalem. We should work on launching an intifada in the face of the Zionist enemy,” Haniya said.
Hours after his speech, Palestinian protesters took to the streets of the occupied West Bank cities, including Ramallah, Hebron, and Nablus, as well as in the Gaza Strip, to violently vent their frustration at the decision. “Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem, is ours,” said Haniya. “We are here today at a critical point in the history of the Palestinian issue and the core of the issue is Jerusalem, a critical point in the history of the Arab and Muslim nations following the provocative decision, the unfair decision adopted by the US administration.”
Ignoring warnings from the international community Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the US formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and will begin the process of moving its embassy to the city. On Thursday, in response to Trump’s announcement, Mustafa Barghouti, the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, speaking to Al Jazeera from Ramallah, said that Trump was “joining Israel in the war crimes and in confirming the annexation of the occupied Palestinian Territories. I hope that the Palestinian Authority will not accept to meet with this American team anymore,” he said.
“Israel decided it wants everything. They want everything? Fine. We will also fight for everything,” he said. “We might be talking about a popular wide uprising but non-violent one, similar to the first intifada. That’s what we need. Israelis should see the Palestinian resistance everywhere.”
"Erdogan"s claims that "There is no Islamic terror" have left several Islamic terror organizations heart-broken. A press release from al-Qaeda"s press office read: "The prime minister"s remarks are very discouraging. We are doing our best!"" – Zaytung (satire website).
In 2010, Barack Obama referred to Turkey as a "great Muslim democracy". Obama should have seen that a democracy is a democracy -- without any religious prefix. He would see in later years the difference between a democracy and a Muslim democracy.
Turkey"s strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, may have exhibited all possible features of political Islam since he came to power fifteen years ago, but at least he has been bold and honest about his understanding of Islamism: There is no moderate Islam, he recently said again.
This comment does not mark any U-turn, or a radical deviation from his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s. The problem is that his Western "allies" have stubbornly preferred to turn a blind eye to his poster-child Islamism. Worse, they still do.
Several years ago, Erdogan"s ideological-self clearly stated that "Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails." In the same speech, his pragmatic-self -- the one that wanted to look pretty to a chorus of Western praise -- added that, "We are Muslims who have found a middle road". But which "middle road?"
In the several years that followed, Erdogan proudly exhibited another feature of Islamism in a make-believe assertion: Muslims never do wrong; if a Muslim does wrong then he is not Muslim.
In 2009, when Sudanese paramilitaries committed acts of genocide against the population of Darfur, and Sudan"s president, Omar al-Bashir, was guilty of the crimes for which he was indicted by the International Criminal Court, Erdogan simply said: "It is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide." Instead, he said, Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza are worse than anything that has taken place in Sudan. As he said that, victims in Sudan had already numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
In February, at a meeting in Ankara, Erdogan slammed German Chancellor Angela Merkel"s phrase "Islamist terror". He angrily said to his guest, "Islam means "peace," it can"t come with "terror"".
When Erdogan (then prime minister) famously claimed that "there is no Islamic terror" in 2010, the satire website Zaytung fabricated a story, the lead paragraph of which read: "Erdogan"s claims that "There is no Islamic terror" have left several Islamic terror organizations heart-broken. A press release from al-Qaeda"s press office read: "The prime minister"s remarks are very discouraging. We are doing our best!"".
In 2011, when Hamas" charter called for the annihilation of the State of Israel by means of violence, Erdogan claimed that "Hamas is not a terrorist organization." Instead, he said: "I don"t see Hamas as a terror organization. Hamas is a political party -- it emerged as a political party that appeared as a political party. It is a resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation".
In February, at a meeting in Ankara, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan slammed German Chancellor Angela Merkel"s phrase "Islamist terror". He angrily said to his guest, "Islam means "peace," it can"t come with "terror"". (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)
In a similar show of ideological wishful thinking, Erdogan has often come out in defense of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, despite international pressure against the movement, particularly from the United States, which has debated listing the group as a terrorist organization. Erdogan said he did not consider the Brotherhood one because "it is not an armed group, but is in actual fact an ideological organization".
The Obama administration sounded as if it were trying to deal with the Turkey it wished it had, instead of dealing with the Turkey it had.
In a 2010 interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera,Obama referred to Turkey as a "great Muslim democracy". Obama should have seen that a democracy is a democracy -- without any religious prefix. He would see in later years the difference between a democracy and a Muslim democracy.
But it took Obama many years to see that. In 2011, Tom Donilon, Obama"s former national security advisor, said that the U.S. president regarded Erdogan as "a man of principle, and also a man of action." In a 2012 Time interview, Obama named Erdogan as one of the five world leaders with whom he had the strongest bonds.
Seven years after Obama"s pathetic diagnosis about the kind of democracy Erdogan brought to an otherwise secular country, the Turkish president said that "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. There is only one Islam." Worse, he claimed that the term "moderate Islam" had been fabricated by the West in order to weaken Islam. From the Muslim democracy to the former U.S. president, with love...
The U.S. ambassador to Ankara from 2003 to 2005, Eric Edelman, said, "We basically have turned a blind eye to Erdogan"s drive towards an authoritarian, one-man system of rule in Turkey". The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic"s April 2016 issue:
"Early on, Obama saw Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, the president of Turkey, as the sort of moderate Muslim leader who would bridge the divide between East and West — but Obama now considers him a failure and an authoritarian..."
The Trump administration has two options: It can either deal with the Turkey it has or the Turkey it wished it had.
On Friday a senior US official told Reuters that US President Donald Trump may deliver a speech next Wednesday recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Some Middle East experts speculate that such a move will be a major blow to the US relations with Arab countries and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. No US president or any western leader have ever recognized Israel’s control over all of Jerusalem.
However, a spokesperson with the White House National Security Council denied these claims and told Reuters that the White House has “nothing to announce”.
Israel flag with a view of old city Jerusalem and the Western wall. Image via South Front.
President Trump had promised during his presidential campaign in 2016 that he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Many experts doubted Trump’s promises back then and didn’t believe that a US president could take such a dangerous step. However many recent reports have claimed that the US president is close to announcing this historical decision.
Trump said on October 8 that he wanted to give a shot at achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians before moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since then, no real effort has been made by the US to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward.
“I want to give that a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem … If we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israel, I think it’ll lead to ultimately peace in the Middle East, which has to happen” Trump said during an interview on October 8 according to Reuters.
Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestinian Parliament described the possible US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “playing with fire”, according to Al-Jazeera. "Any American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will bring about the end of the Jerusalem issue. This issue is weighty and dealing with it is playing with fire." Erekat"s full statement said.
Hamas also stated that the move would lead to an “escalation” of the “Jerusalem intifada.” Indeed, the Palestinian side will likely halt all negotiations if Trump fulfills his promise to Israel, and a new uprising in the Western Bank and a military escalation in Gaza Strip is also a possible outcome.
The diplomatic and economic noose is tightening around Iraqi Kurdistan one day ahead of its historic independence referendum. On Sunday, the Iranian government announced closure of its airspace to northern Iraq"s Sulaimani and Erbil Airports, at the request of Iraqi authorities. The Baghdad government has repeatedly threatened military intervention in Iraq"s autonomous Kurdish region should the vote proceed on Monday, which Baghdad warns could provoke invasion by neighboring states. The United States too has warned that the non-binding referendum will be “particularly provocative and destabilizing” - this as Turkey musters tanks along its border with Iraqi Kurdistan.
On Sunday the Iranian Supreme Security Council announced through state media that, “At the request of the Iraqi central government, Iranian airspace has been closed on all flights that originate from Kurdistan Region.” The move comes after a month"s worth of warnings that Iran could close its borders to Iraqi Kurdistan should the independence vote proceed. Iranian government officials had previously warned that, “The republic of Iran has opened its legitimate border gates on the premise of the consent of the federal government of the Iraqi state. If such an event [referendum] happens, these border gates from the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran would lose its legitimacy."
Kurdistan referendum ballot book held by an employee from the Independent High Electoral Referendum Commission. Image source: AFP
Iran worries that an independent Kurdistan at its border would be a destabilizing force concerning Iran"s own sizable Kurdish minority. Iran also reportedly launched Revolutionary Guard led military drills in its northwest region bordering Iraqi Kurdistan on Sunday.
Likewise Turkey has for the past week amassed tanks and troops along its border with Iraq, while reportedly conducting "anti-terror operations" in Kurdish areas of the country. In a geographic sense Turkey would play a key economic lifeline for the completely landlocked Iraqi Kurdistan region. But Turkey"s Parliament voted Saturday to renew for one year a mandate authorizing military intervention across Iraq"s border should Turkey"s national security come under threat.
Over the weekend the Kurdish regional capital of Erbil saw tens of thousands of Kurds flood the streets demonstrating in support of an independent Kurdistan. However, protests against the planned referendum broke out in other areas of Iraq. Violence also began to hit the region as an IED killed four Iraqi Kurdish soldiers and injured over a dozen more in the province of Kirkuk, an area where the referendum is set to be held.
Arab parts of the country have voiced frustration that such a divisive move would come at a key moment in the fight against ISIS. The fact that Israel is the only outside country voicing official support for Kurdish independence is also deeply controversial.
Map source: International Iran Times
On Sept. 13 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stunned the region when he commented specifically of the referendum saying, "Israel supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state" (though he"s made similar statements starting in 2014). Netanyahu noted further that Israel still considers the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) a terrorist group.
Other current and former Israeli officials have made bolder and more detailed statements, however. The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Major General Yair Golan told a national security policy conference in Washington D.C. in early September that he believes establishing a Greater Kurdistan (a state that will include the Kurdish-populated territories of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey) in the Middle East could be a positive stabilizing force in the region. He also said that he personally does not be believe the PKK to be a terrorist organization.
Israel"s public stance provoked a quiet diplomatic war with Turkey, which Israel accuses of supporting Hamas. Turkey has for years accused Israel of forging a secretive vengeful alliance with the PKK due to Turkey"s pro-Palestine statehood position. But Israel has consistently pointed to what it perceives as Turkish hypocrisy in failing to designated Hamas a terror organization. Furthermore, Iranian state media has frequently equated an independent Kurdistan with Israeli plans to Balkanize the region as part of a "divide and rule" policy in the region.
But despite signs of looming destabilization ahead of Monday"s vote, it appears Kurdish authorities in Erbil are determined to see the referendum through, no matter the consequences.
Quoted by Bloomberg, Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani said in televised news conference that Iraq’s Kurds "reached conclusion that only through independence can we secure our future" and said he is ready to engage in "very long" talks with Iraq govt on borders, oil, gas, water after the vote. He also added that the Iraq, Kurdistan partnership failed after Baghdad violated the constitution.
Like in Germany, Barzani urged voters to head to polls and maintain a "peaceful process" while saying that Peshmerga forces will continue cooperation with Iraqi troops and the U.S.-led coalition in the "fight against terror."
Barzani also said that referendum is not a threat to Turkey’s national security, and added that he "doesn’t expect military confrontation with Iraq after referendum", a rather clear hint that military confrontation with Iraq after the expected vote to break away may be inevitable. To be sure, Iraq Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi said in televised speech that Kurdistan’s problems are "a result of corruption, mismanagement of public money" adding that a referendum would only exacerbate such issues.
Finally, addressing Iran"s closure of airspace, he said that it was Tehran’s decision.
The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media -- to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood -- is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell"s diseased society.
The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil -- of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.
Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.
Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling "deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient" -- or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, "Doublespeak."
This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.
To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes -- such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and "apostates" -- both have become totalitarian ideologies.
The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness -- and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas -- and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran -- use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.
The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media -- to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood -- is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell"s view of a diseased society.
These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press -- whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling -- is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.
"Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn"t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words "pro-life" changed to "anti-abortion," because the AP Stylebook instructs, "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice." It goes on, "Avoid abortionist," saying the term "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."
"Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. "People struggling to enter Europe" is favored over "migrant" or "refugee." While it"s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees."
To be sure, the AP Stylebook does not carry the same weight or authority as the Quranic texts on which radical Islamists base their jihadist actions and totalitarian aims. It does constitute, however, a cultural decree that has turned religious in its fervor. It gives a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual tyranny that has pervaded liberal Western thought and institutions.
The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil -- of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.
As far back as 2003, the Middle East Forum reported on the findings of a study conducted by the American Textbook Council, an independent New York-based research organization, which stated:
"[Over the last decade], the coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved.... But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions."
Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals. The relationship between the two must be recognized for what it is: a marriage made in hell.
Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation
Improving the dangerously unstable U.S.-Russia relationship will be very difficult, but it is important for U.S. national security. Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation that could destroy American (and Russian) civilization as we know it. Short of that, Russia can do much more than it is today to damage U.S. interests and values without taking extreme risks. Accordingly, the United States should explore normalizing its interaction with Russia. Washington should do so without illusions, and from a position of strength.
Today, America and Russia are adversaries with different approaches to key international issues, different systems of government and, in many respects, different values. Each confronts domestic obstacles to efforts to establish better relations. These obstacles are particularly challenging in the United States, where Congress, the mainstream media and much of the American public view Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a vicious enemy akin to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, if not Hitler’s Germany. Unlike China, Russia has only limited economic interaction with America—and therefore few Americans see a practical positive side to contacts with Russia.
President Putin has much greater latitude in shaping his country’s foreign policy, including exploring a new beginning with Washington. Yet in a period of economic difficulty before Russia’s 2018 presidential election, Putin is loath to appear weak under foreign pressure.
At the same time, Washington and Moscow continually calculate how their relationship affects their close partners. Thus, for example, Russia cannot disregard how China and Iran might react if they perceive Russia as accommodating the United States on North Korea, Syria or other issues—especially if Moscow’s flexibility compromises their interests.
Yet failing to arrest the downward spiral in U.S.-Russia relations poses real dangers. The most dramatic, if least likely, is a direct military confrontation leading to uncontrollable escalation and potentially a global catastrophe. Many dismiss this risk, arguing that neither the United States nor Russia wants to commit suicide and would show restraint; however, the same assumption that the other side would pull back at the last moment contributed to World War I. The truth is that no one knows what might happen if U.S. and Russian warplanes started shooting at each another or if American cruise missiles hit Russian bases in Syria. Russia could retaliate asymmetrically, perhaps in eastern Ukraine, and fighting could escalate and spread in ways that trigger NATO’s Article Five guarantees. While the Obama administration may have considered nuclear weapons so terrible as to have little practical utility, Russian military doctrine explicitly describes tactical nuclear weapons as a viable option if Russia is under serious attack. Where would that lead?
Setting aside nuclear apocalypse, forswearing diplomacy with Moscow because it legitimizes an unsavory government and rewards bad behavior could prompt Russian officials to conclude that they have little left to lose and must weaken and confront what they would view as an unremittingly hostile America. Interfering in the 2016 election could pale by comparison to serious and sustained attacks on infrastructure, financial systems and other foundations of American society, all of which are highly vulnerable to cyberattack. Devastating U.S. retaliation would do little to help millions of affected Americans or to reassure those who escaped harm the first time. There is, likewise, a difference between failing to help the United States prevent proliferation in North Korea or elsewhere, as is the case today, and working actively to assist Pyongyang and other American foes to develop these capabilities. Moscow could arm and support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban too. If Russian leaders feel pushed into a corner, they could even consider a deal with ISIS or others whom they oppose today.
Finally, Russia could double down on its emerging alignment with China. Russia and China maintain strong mutual suspicions, and China is a much stronger country by most measures. Although both are interested in normal relations with the United States, and would be reluctant to go too far in ways that could lead to a serious conflict, they are fearful of and, indeed, irritated with Washington. They are drawing closer economically and militarily, and are increasingly coordinating their foreign policies. Moscow and Beijing are concerned over American-led encirclement and, specifically, expanding U.S. antimissile systems that threaten their retaliatory capabilities. At a minimum, the worse the U.S.-Russia relationship, the more a rising China can count on Russian support in any disagreement with the United States. Emboldening China in this fashion cannot be in the U.S. national interest.
To avoid these costs, any responsible U.S. government should want to normalize the relationship with Moscow. The objective should not be to become allies or friends, neither of which is possible or advisable. Instead, Washington should seek a narrow dialogue to avoid an unintended military confrontation, manage differences more effectively and, at times, work together where interests and priorities overlap.
Pursuing such an approach requires a clear explanation of the U.S. national interests at stake that Congress and the public can understand. It will also require sustained and disciplined attention from the president and a concerted effort to appoint and retain officials both committed to this approach and capable of executing it. Good chemistry between the two presidents is important, but it should be a tool, rather than a basis, of American policy.
The obstacles to seeking a new approach to Russia are so numerous and momentous that many may feel that even trying is not a good use of President Trump’s time, energy and limited political capital. Yet if it goes badly wrong, the U.S.-Russia relationship could end in nuclear conflict. It would be a travesty for America to do so much to avoid an imaginary mushroom cloud in Iraq and then to ignore far greater looming dangers in a collapsing relationship with Russia.
The first and most important task for any U.S. administration is to protect the survival and security of the American people. That is why no responsible administration could refuse to pursue a more stable relationship with Russia. It is why every new administration since the end of the Cold War has tried to do just that. No matter how futile these efforts may seem, the United States cannot afford to dismiss diplomacy with Moscow out of hand. Failing to try risks fueling a highly destructive self-fulfilling prophecy that could undermine U.S. national security, as well as America’s foreign-policy objectives around the globe.
Were terror attacks like this simply something that the British public would have to get used to, as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had suggested? What if the public did not want to get used to them?
That the UK authorities allowed the "Al-Quds Day" march to proceed through the streets of London and for Palestine Expo to assemble such an array of speakers just down the road from one of this year"s terror attacks, suggests that all that has happened this year in Britain is extremely very far from "enough".
So, rather than expecting resilience, the British people will have to be prepared to accept still more terror -- and doubtless more pointless platitudes to follow each attack -- as surely as they have followed all the attacks before.
On June 3, Britain underwent its third Islamist terror assault in just ten weeks. Following on from a suicide bombing at Manchester Arena and a car- and knife-attack in Westminster, the London Bridge attacks seemed as if they might finally tip Britain into recognising the full reality of Islamist terror.
The attackers that night on London Bridge behaved as such attackers have before, in France, Germany and Israel. They used a van to ram into pedestrians, and then leapt from the vehicle and began to stab passers-by at random. Chasing across London Bridge and into the popular Borough Market, eye-witnesses recorded that the three men, as they slit the throats of Londoners and tourists, shouted "This is for Allah."
A day later, British Prime Minister Theresa May made another appearance on the steps of Downing Street, to comment on the latest atrocity. In what appeared to have become a prime ministerial tradition, she stressed that the terrorists were following the "evil ideology of Islamist extremism", which she described as "a perversion of Islam". All this was no more than she had said after the Manchester and Westminster attacks, and almost exactly what her predecessor, David Cameron, had said from the same place after the slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London in 2013, as well as after the countless ISIS executions and atrocities in Syria in the months that followed.
Yet Prime Minister May"s speech did include one new element. She used her speech on June 4 to go slightly farther than she had previously done. There had been "far too much tolerance of extremism" in the UK, she said, before adding, "Enough is enough".
It was a strong statement, and seemed to sum up an increasingly disturbed public mood. Were attacks like this simply something that the British public would have to get used to, as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had suggested? What if the public did not want to get used to them? As with one of Tony Blair"s statements after the July 7, 2005 London transport attacks -- "The rules of the game are changing" -- Theresa May"s statement seemed full of promise. Perhaps it suggested that finally a British politician was going to get a grip on the problem.
Yet now that we are nearly two months on from her comments, it is worth noting that to date there are no signs that "enough" has been "enough".
Consider just two highly visible signs that what Britain has gone through this year has been, in fact, no wake-up call at all, and that instead, whatever might have been learned has been absorbed into the to-and-fro of political events, passing like any other transient news story.
Nearly two months on from British Prime Minister Theresa May"s comments, following the Westminster terror attack, that there is "far too much tolerance of extremism" in the UK and that "Enough is enough", it is worth noting that what Britain has gone through this year has been, in fact, no wake-up call at all, and that to date there are no signs that "enough" has been "enough". (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)
The first was an event that took place only a fortnight after Theresa May"s claim that something had changed in the UK. This was the annual "Al-Quds Day" march in London, organised by the badly misnamed Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). Apart from organising an annual "Islamophobe of the Year" award -- an award which two years ago they gave to the slaughtered staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo -- this Khomeinist group"s main public activity each year is an "Al Quds Day" in London. The day allows a range of anti-Semites and anti-Israel extremists to congregate in central London, wave Hezbollah flags and call for the destruction of the Jewish state, Israel.
As Hezbollah is a terrorist group, and any distinction between a "military" and "diplomatic" wing of the group exists solely in the minds of a few people in the British Foreign Office, waving the flag of Hezbollah in public is waving the flag of a terrorist group. If the rules of the game were indeed changing after the followers of a Hezbollah-like creed had slaughtered citizens on a bridge in London, then the promotion of a terrorist group in the same city only days later would not have gone ahead. Nor would the speeches from the "Al Quds Day" platform have been allowed to be completed without arrests being made. The speeches to the 1,000-strong crowd included the most lurid imaginable claims.
These included a speech by the chairman of the IHRC, Nazim Ali. Mr Ali used his time before the public to make a connection between the horrific fire in a tower-block in West London days before the march and the Jewish state. According to Mr Ali, the roughly 80 victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower "were murdered by Theresa May"s cronies, many of which are supporters of Zionist ideology." He went on:
"Let us not forget that some of the biggest corporations who were supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell, the Zionist supporters of the Tory party... It is the Zionists who give money to the Tory party, to kill people in high rise blocks... Careful, careful, careful of those rabbis who belong to the Board of Deputies [of British Jews], who have got blood on their hands."
Does Mrs. May regard this as "enough"?
The same question arises over another event, held in the very heart of Westminster only a couple of weeks later. On the weekend of July 8-9, the Queen Elizabeth II Centre (right opposite Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament) was host to a "Palestine Expo" event. This occasion was advertised as "the biggest social, cultural and entertainment event on Palestine to ever take place in Europe".
Speakers included Tariq Ramadan, the dauphin of the Muslim Brotherhood, who used his speech to try to minimise the violence of the terrorist group Hamas. Ramadan used his speech to pour scorn on the idea that the knife and vehicle attacks carried out by Hamas, and those people inspired by its Islamist message in the Middle East, have any connection at all to the knife and vehicle attacks such as the one which had recently claimed the lives of four people crossing Westminster Bridge, as well as that of a policeman at the gates of Parliament. The site of the slaughter was just opposite the conference centre in which Ramadan was speaking:
"As if al-Qaeda is exactly like Hamas and the Palestinian resistance. By saying that they are all terrorists, that"s exactly the game. And we are saying we condemn terrorism. But there is a legitimate resistance to your state terrorism."
Other speakers at the Palestine Expo event included the South African preacher Ebrahim Bham. Among his own previous gems is his claim from earlier this year regarding people who are not Muslims: "They are like animals! No, they are worse than animals!"
All of this took place in the weeks immediately after Theresa May said that "enough was enough." That the UK authorities allowed the Al-Quds march to proceed through the streets of London and for Palestine Expo to assemble such an array of speakers just down the road from one of this year"s terror attacks suggests that all that has happened this year in Britain is extremely far from "enough". So, rather than expecting resilience, the British people will have to be prepared to accept still more terror -- and doubtless more pointless platitudes to follow each attack -- as surely as they have followed all the attacks before.
Just over a month ago, we expressed amazement at just how sophisticated, efficient and pervasive the "Russian hacking" community had become after CNN reported - citing unnamed government officials of course - that they had managed to hack into a Qatari News Agency and post a "fake" news story all in an attempt to drive a wedge between the U.S., Qatar and some of it"s Gulf Arab neighbors, one which culminated - at least according to the CNN narrative - with the Qatari crisis in which an alliance of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia isolated and blockaded the nat gas rich nation.
The CNN headline made it quite clear: ignore the Arab conflict and please focus on the only thing that matters these days: Russia. Just in case it is somehow lost, we will have it here for posterity.
Think about that for a minute: set aside the logistics of the actual hacking event itself and consider just how good the Russians had to be to know exactly what news story needed to be planted inside the Qatari news agency to provoke an immediate severing of diplomatic ties by numerous Arab neighboring states: it truly was amazing how it all played out exactly the way the Russians planned. The conclusion: those wily "Russian hackers" are certainly not a bunch of amateurs, would come in useful as the Russian hacking narrative just refused to go away.
And while that may sound like a joke, at least to CNN it wasn"t. Here are the details, as they were previously reported by CNN:
The FBI recently sent a team of investigators to Doha to help the Qatari government investigate the alleged hacking incident, Qatari and US government officials say.
Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region.
The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections.
The Russian goal appears to be to cause rifts among the US and its allies. In recent months, suspected Russian cyber activities, including the use of fake news stories, have turned up amid elections in France, Germany and other countries.
As it turns out, it"s somewhat ironic that CNN accused Russia of spreading "fake news stories" that "have turned up amid elections in France, Germany and other countries" because, as CNN"s ideological twins over at the WaPo blasted moments ago, it wasn"t Russia at all (now that the hacking narrative has found a renewed vigor in the US, courtesy of the leaked Trump Jr. emails) but - wait for it - the UAE, i.e. not Russia. Compare the CNN headline above from June 6 with what the WaPo has just published:
Here is the "latest" official narrative, at least according to the "U.S. intelligence and other officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter" quoted by WaPo, who may or may not be the same ones who planted the original fake news at CNN:
The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan and its implementation. The officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done. The false reports said that the emir, among other things, had called Iran an “Islamic power” and praised Hamas.
But... wait: didn"t US intelligence agencies just one month ago say it was all Russia"s fault? Looks like it took just one month for the CIA to change its mind. We wonder if and when it will the same to its "conclusion" confirmed by 17 4 intelligence agencies that Russia also hacked the DNC and John Podesta (although we won"t be holding our breath for that particular narrative shift). Back to the WaPo:
The hacks and posting took place on May 24, shortly after President Trump completed a lengthy counterterrorism meeting with Persian Gulf leaders in neighboring Saudi Arabia and declared them unified. Citing the emir’s reported comments, the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt immediately banned all Qatari media. They then broke relations with Qatar and declared a trade and diplomatic boycott, sending the region into a political and diplomatic tailspin that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has warned could undermine U.S. counterterrorism efforts against the Islamic State.
Then again, this may be just another fishing expedition (or better yet, clickbait) by the WaPo. Naturally, the Emirates denied everything:
In a statement released in Washington by its ambassador, Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE said the Post story was “false.” “The UAE had no role whatsoever in the alleged hacking described in the article,” the statement said. “What is true is Qatar’s behavior. Funding, supporting, and enabling extremists from the Taliban to Hamas and Qadafi. Inciting violence, encouraging radicalization, and undermining the stability of its neighbors.”
Maybe he meant to say Saudi Arabia, but there"s just too many fake news in one place at this point to even keep track. Meanwhile, according to the WaPo even more subsequent hacks provided the detail needed to get to the bottom of the original hack:
The revelations come as emails purportedly hacked from Otaiba’s private account have circulated to journalists over the past several months. That hack has been claimed by an apparently pro-Qatari organization calling itself GlobalLeaks. Many of the emails highlight the UAE’s determination over the years to rally Washington thinkers and policymakers to its side on the issues at the center of its dispute with Qatar.
This confirms what we reported last month, when we said that Qatar - which has repeatedly charged that its sites were hacked, but has yet to release the results of its own investigation - accused the Arab states behind the embargo for also being behind the hack. Today"s WaPo report appears to confirm this:
Intelligence officials said their working theory since the Qatar hacks has been that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or some combination of those countries were involved. It remains unclear whether the others also participated in the plan.
Meanwhile, nobody is willing to say anything on the record, of course: "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the CIA. The FBI, which Qatar has said was helping in its investigation, also declined to comment." Which is understandable: they are all busy going through any and all Trump emails intercepted by the NSA, looking for a smoking gun.
CNN"s fake news aside, what the WaPo report confirms, assuming it is accurate of course, is that the Arab states engaged in a "false flag" operation against Qatar, to provide them the justification for escalating the confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar to its current crisis level, and potentially beyond: to war, considering Rex Tillerson"s attempts to mediate a resolution in his "shuttle diplomacy" tour in the Gulf over the past week proved to be a disaster.
That said, authenticity of the latest WaPo "report" is itself suspect. We look forward to another denial in several months which confirms what most likely actually happened: the NSA and CIA were those responsible for the Qatar "hacking", an event which has launched a destabilizing sequence of events in the middle east, and which according to many may culminate with war in the region, the ideal outcome for both the "Deep State" and the Military-Industrial/Neocon complex.
As for CNN, we are "confident" they will be issuing a retraction to their original "fake news" report any... minute... now...
Has Saudi Arabia"s brinkmanship and heavy-handed policies of intervention in the Middle East come back to haunt the desert kingdom?
After decades of playing the role of middle man between foreign states and establishing itself as a regional power, Saudi Arabia"s policies of meddling in the affairs of neighbor states and support for terror appear to have finally exacerbated issues in the country which could threaten to plunge it into chaos. Growing anger over attempted austerity cutbacks, economic issues due to the fluctuating price of oil and tell tale signs of royal disagreement over the successor to King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud mean that Saudi adventures abroad are preparing a perfect storm for civil conflict which could lead to further instability in the Middle East. The disruption comes as other states such as Iran and Turkey are positioning themselves as potential competitors to the de facto leader of the Arab world.
I. Saudi Arabia Is Experiencing Increasing Signs Of Instability
Saudi Arabia has experienced a number of issues which contribute to internal destabilization. In April 2017, Bloomberg reported that King Salman was forced to restore bonuses and allowances for state employees, reversing attempts to reform Saudi Arabia"s generous austerity programs. The Saudi government insisted that the move was due to "higher than expected revenue" despite the fact that observers were noting in March that Saudi Arabia"s foreign reserves were plunging as one third of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) of United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait have seen their credit ratings slashed and have increasingly disagreed on common foreign policy towards Iran.
The kingdom"s increasing financial problems are due in part to the falling price of oil. In January 2016, The Independent noted that the dropping value of oil would put Saudi Arabia"s man spending programs in jeopardy and that a third of 15 to 24-year-olds in the country are out of work. The Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering estimates that Saudi Arabia will experience a peak in its oil production by 2028, but this may be an incredible underestimation. The Middle East Eye has noted that experts in the United States who state that Saudi Arabia"s net oil exports began to decrease in 2006, continuing to drop annually by 1.4% each year from 2005 to 2015. Citigroup has estimated that the Kingdom may run out of oil to export entirely by 2030. The end of the Kingdom"s cash cow is likely to cause problems in a nation that The Atlantic has accused of running itself like a "sophisticated criminal enterprise."
II. Increasing Signs Of Internal Conflict In Saudi Arabia
There are a number of indications that Saudi Arabia"s royal family is also experiencing a significant amount of internal strife. King Salman has caused significant upheaval in the kingdom by taking the controversial step of totally overhauling Saudi Arabia"s line of succession and appointing his son, Mohammed bin Salman, as crown prince. The move is a dangerous one given that it has caused division in the royal family. Foreign Policy has noted that Saudi Arabia"s security forces are not under a single command authority, meaning that the military runs the risk of becoming fractured in the event of an internal conflict.
In 2015, The Independent spoke with a Saudi prince who revealed that eight of Salman"s 11 brothers were dissatisfied with his leadership and were contemplating removing him from office, replacing him with former Interior Minister Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz. NBC News revealed that the promotion of Salman"s son to the position of crown prince has also angered Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, who was previously in line for the throne and is known for his hardline stance towards Iran. On June 28th, 2017, the New York Times reported that Nayef had been barred from leaving Saudi Arabia and was confined to his palace in Jidda with his guards replaced by others loyal to Mohammed bin Salman.
Nayef rules over Saudi Arabia"s Eastern Region, which is described as one of the provinces most likely to rebel in the event of civil conflict due to the region"s large population of Shi"a Muslims. He is generally believed to be one of the leading advocates for the 2016 execution of Shi"a cleric Nimr al-Nimr, a move which caused serious anger amongst Iranians. Nayef"s family also has historic ties to insurgent groups used by Saudi Arabia as a foreign policy tool. His father, Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, served as Interior Minister and controlled Saudi Arabia"s internal intelligence services, police, special forces, drug enforcement agency and mujahideen forces.
King Salman has used the war in Yemen to counteract elite dissatisfaction by causing what the Washington Post describes as a surge in nationalist sentiment among citizens. The move also served as an attempt to take proactive steps against Iranian support for Yemeni Houthi rebels and prevent destabilization from the Arab Spring. But while intervention may have provided Saudi Arabia with short term benefits, it has also contributed to further fracturing of the Middle East and allowed neighbor states to take steps to replace Saudi Arabia as the region"s dominant power.
III. Geopolitical Changes Increase The Likelihood Of Conflict
It is not merely Yemen that causes the Saudis concern. Years of meddling now mean that the kingdom is increasingly conducting its foreign affairs with the goal of avoiding internal destabilization and balancing a regional house of cards. Wikileaks releases of diplomatic cables from Saudi Arabia"s Ministry of Foreign Affairs show that officials are committed to continuing to destroy the Syrian regime out of fear that Assad"s government might engage in reprisals for the destructive civil war there. Saudi Arabia has helped fuel the war through their support of Islamic terror groups. State Department cables released by Wikileaks show that Saudi Arabia is considered to be the most significant funder of Sunni terror groups internationally. But like foreign intervention, terrorism as a foreign policy tool serves as a means of directing destructive energy at best.
There have long been fears that the method could grow out of hand and create problems for the benefactors of terror. Saudi security forces have routinely had issues with infiltration by terror groups. In 2001, Stratfor noted the royal family"s growing concern over the increase in terror sympathizers amongst the military due to fears that some of the insurgent groups were not friendly towards the kingdom. Terror groups such as ISIS have in the past several years engaged in a number of attacks against Saudi targets, including suicide attacks which targeted the holy Islamic city of Medina and the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
Traditionally, power in the Middle East has been split between the Israeli and Saudi governments. This regional order may be starting to shift however, due to a combination of changing U.S. strategy and attempts by other Middle Eastern states to become more important players in the region. In March 2016, Julian Assange noted to the New Internationalist that U.S. strategists such as John Brennan increasingly viewed the Israeli-Saudi nexus as getting in the way of broader American strategic interests, especially in regards to Iran.
This political shift is now playing out with the current crisis in Qatar. Qatar has historically positioned itself as a diplomatic center in the Middle East, staying friendly with Iran and providing multiple insurgent groups such as the Taliban with a venue for negotiation. Emails from John Podesta reveal that Qatar has supported terror groups such as ISIS alongside Saudi Arabia, but does so with the intent of vying for influence with terror groups. Factions in Qatar have also leant support to Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Hamas and the Taliban. Additionally, Qatar"s Al-Jazeera outlet has also provoked Saudi Arabia by providing hard hitting coverage of previously unacknowledged issues in the Middle East (though critical coverage of Qatari politics has been off limits). NPR has also noted that Qatar openly competed with Saudi Arabia during the Arab Spring, when the two sides supported opposing factions in nations such as Egypt. The conflict with Qatar creates a very real risk that hostilities could spill into Saudi Arabia, given both sides" support of terror groups.
The recent flare up has also revealed the emergence of a new order in the Middle East: states which stand behind the old, Saudi-Israeli nexus and those who wish to redraw the balance of power. Saudi Arabia is supported by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen and the Maldives. Qatar has been supported by Saudi Arabia"s regional opponent Iran and Turkey. Turkey has been steadily increasing it"s role in the Middle East in recent years, and is seen by the United States as a suitable player to balance Saudi influence in nations like Pakistan. Turkey and Iran now are now actively posturing to challenge Saudi Arabia, as Turkey deploys troops to Qatar and Iran supports the small gulf state with food aid. Should the two states survive the destabilization of coups and terrorism, they are well positioned to benefit from any future reduction in Saudi influence.
IV. Dangers Of A Saudi Civil Conflict
A civil war or internal conflict in Saudi Arabia would quickly become international in nature. Defense contractors are being increasingly courted by Saudi cash as part of an effort to overhaul the military, part of which includes the recent $100 billion arms deal with the United States. Saudi Arabia has also increasingly used private military corporations such as Blackwater, which currently provides personnel to the Saudi-lead coalition in Yemen.
The specter of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East also raises concerns that weapons could fall into the wrong hands or be used indiscriminately. Julian Assange has repeated 2010 claims from the head of Al-Jazeera that Qatar is in possession of a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia itself also is suspected of possessing nuclear arms. In 2013, BBC News reported that Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons "on order" from Pakistan, whose nuclear program was bankrolled by the Saudis. In 2012, the Saudis also entered into an Atomic Collaboration Deal with China which projects that Riyadh will construct 16 nuclear reactors in the country by no later than 2030. Arab acquisitions of weapons of mass destruction have created concern among Israeli intelligence officials, who fear that the countries acquiring these weapons systems will not use them effectively.
Should the conflict with Qatar (or any of the multiple regions where Saudi Arabia has intervened) spiral out of control, the potential proliferation of nuclear arms systems pose a serious danger. International conflicts, regional interventions and terror operations all create the risk that these weapons, whether intentionally or inadvertently, might be used. A Saudi civil war also creates risk for the international community, as there would be widespread unrest should the holy cities of Mecca and Medina be damaged during a conflict.
Falling currency reserves, a dwindling supply of oil, conflict within the royal family and the ever present threat that terror networks will cause backlash for their benefactors all indicate that Saudi Arabia is on a crash course for a crisis. With the Qatari conflict continuing to heat up, the real questions should not be about the potential end of terrorism or the ethics of further weapons sales to Arab nations, but what the world hopes that the Middle East will look like once the dust clears.
