West Asia News and Discussions

[Singha]

syrian sunni's will soon learn "raise no more demons than you can lay down"

[Baikul]

^^ Au contraire, I warmly encourage them to raise all the demons they can. Ideally there should be intense 'green on green' violence every few years, if not permanently. I am waiting for the day that Saudi Arabia's export of the Islamic revolution really comes home to bite them in the a$$, right at home, spectacularly. Hopefully they make enemies in Syria angry enough to do that. Come on Bashar, are you a (halal) man or a (haraam) mouse?

[Philip]

The intense competition for global leadership of the "Arab Spring" between the Saudis for long held to be the "king of the coop" and the arriviste pretender to the throne,pinprick Qatar, is going to be the downfall of the oil-rich potentates.Instead of letting water and blood find their own levels,they are rushing headlong into nations where angels fear to tread.Long may their stupidity last!

[Johann]

The intense competition for global leadership of the "Arab Spring" between the Saudis for long held to be the "king of the coop" and the arriviste pretender to the throne,pinprick Qatar, is going to be the downfall of the oil-rich potentates.Instead of letting water and blood find their own levels,they are rushing headlong into nations where angels fear to tread.Long may their stupidity last!

Their downfall?!

Philip you don't get how these ruling families think at all. Absolute monarchy survives *almost entirely* in the Arab world, and overwhelmingly in the Gulf sheikhdoms. It is exactly the kind of behaviour you are referring to that has helped postpone real political change at home.

The Al-Saud family have a problem with *every* republican ideology that has traction in the Arab world, especially the ones that have control of any Middle Eastern state. That's why they supported the Brotherhood against the Nasserists and the Baathists in the 1950s and 60s, and now that the Brotherhood have come to power they support the Salafists against the Baathists and the Brotherhood. That's why they only resented the Shah, but were terrified of the Iranian Islamist revolution.

The promotion of sectarian hatred of non-Sunnis, and Islamist hatred of secularism are the ideological tools that allows the Saudi ruling family to mobilise ordinary Sunnis in other countries to act against Al-Saud's enemies.

Qatar's larger ability to affect the Saudis by supporting freer speech in the form of Al Jazeera and mass mobilisation republican politics the form of the Brotherhood is not something to count on. Between Saudi and Qatari spending Sunni Islamists on the whole still benefit, and it remains to be seen if the new Qatari leadership is as keen on taking the same risks as the two Hamads.

Still, the Gulf monarchies can either accept managed political change, or bury their heads in the sand until its too late. The same underlying factors that forced political change in other Arab societies are also at work in the Gulf states - the youth bulge, job creation, the problem of inequality and social mobility, and an increasingly connected population who expect to have their voices heard in government. Its not clear that these states can afford to indefinitely buy off unhappiness with cash handouts and a stern talking to from their grandparents.

[vishvak]

It is indeed strange how Saudis and Qataris are playing competitive jihadism in other nations! A country like Qatar seems to have no weight other than providing for competition however anti-aircraft MANPAD missiles are now given out by Qataris to the jihadi rebels. Talk about hunting in pairs, as if it makes hunting more legit. Even more interesting is how sophisticated arms go about in the jihadi wars through this route under some pretext or the other.

[abhishek_sharma]

In Iraq, the Bomb-Detecting Device That Didn't Work, Except to Make Money

[Lilo]

Europe's New 'Time Bomb' Is Ticking in Syria: Hundreds are joining the fight against Assad. Will they return as terrorists?

If i didnt know any better, it now looks like the West is using the Middle East as an enormous training ground for blooding the next crop of Jihadis.
The current sectarian chaos in Iraq as a logical outcome to the US invasion looks to be its real goal. Even a novice to geopolitics could have sensed the inevitability of that outcome back in 2003. Yet many were taken in by the peddling of the relatively benign "Oil angle" to the Iraqi invasion (involving in hindsight relatively large leaps of logic) and which now looks more like a conspiracy to cover a conspiracy.

The blow-back wont be directed to the West as it is being drummed up in the quoted article, rather it will be directed by the West as it always did towards its natural competitors - India,China,Russia including any other upstarts elsewhere in Africa, South America and South east Asia.

In a world being primed for chaos the States with the better institutions come out on the top.

US has perfected its counter terror apparatus during the past decade and in spite of the apparent show plots revealed from time to time (like the times square bomber, the underwear bomber or the boston bombers etc) the unassailability of the Western cities to a rouge Jihadi ("rogue" here implies a Jihadi whose network has not yet been penetrated by the West) is a demonstrated fact by the US. Rest of its partners may now wish to partake in the benefits of this long term project.

The chaos in Iraq,Syria,Libya,Egypt will produce hardened Jihadis by the thousands who will now unwittingly act as agents of West and will be forced to ply their trade in turd world countries like India, Indonesia etc by their principals. This will keep these nations weak and tottering and amenable to Western interests .
The Truant nations can expect IEDs to explode by the dozens and death toll in the hundreds. The intermittent carnage enacted in Mumbai is a good example for this.

Even Pakistani Taleban has entered the fray in Syria( i can almost imagine CIA saying somewhere to someone that "TTP apne hi dukaan hai"). Definitely IM recruits from the Indian expats in ME are currently in the Syrian theater getting trained in putting together IEDs, away from the oversight of our Intelligence agencies (we probably dont have enough penetration there as we have in Pakiland).

The silver lining is that we have some good company in our woes - Russia Iran combined most probably have the penetration and intelligence networks matching the West's in the Syrian/Iraqi theater. Even if its late we can pool our strengths with them - especially with Iran we should work to reverse the badblood generated from IAEA vote and toeing US line on Iranian Oil embargo.

On the mainland we must focus on Institutions and the quality of people manning them - NaMo if he comes to power must constitute some form of Indian Intelligence Service (IIS) under able hands and address the much depleted strength in our agencies. There is no dearth of talent in our country who can match the west in HUMInt even with its overarching technological advantage in SIGInt.

Apart from actively monitoring Indian origin/destination communications through google , blackberry etc (as we might be doing already) with servers physically located in India, govt should encourage and incentivise Indian alternatives to Google Search , Twitter , Yahoo mail as China does. This can be the only long term solution to get rid of the prying eyes of the West on our internet communications.

In the end West intends to preserve its place as the promised land of milk and honey to all the demi yogis who manage to climb up the shit holes in their respective turd worlds. This image is its source of power and its perpetual goal is to retain this advantage. It will do anything to show that the rest of the world is Turd.



KS garu too hinted at this in walk the talk episode with Bekar Dupatta - the brain drain to the West i construe he felt was a necessary tribute to placate the West. I guess his bet was that West is overconfident in the superiority of its capitalist ideology and that ultimately dharmic peoples will realize and tell their kids and prevent from getting digested in the Western stomach by retaining our cultural outlook and act as a hedge against future misadventures of West in our homelands. But then this goes along with the strengthening of our homebase in some form against Western machinations as outlined previously.

[brihaspati]

Lilo ji,

On the mainland we must focus on Institutions and the quality of people manning them - NaMo if he comes to power must constitute some form of Indian Intelligence Service (IIS) under able hands and address the much depleted strength in our agencies. There is no dearth of talent in our country who can match the west in HUMInt even with its overarching technological advantage in SIGInt.

Apart from actively monitoring Indian origin/destination communications through google , blackberry etc (as we might be doing already) with servers physically located in India, govt should encourage and incentivise Indian alternatives to Google Search , Twitter , Yahoo mail as China does. This can be the only long term solution to get rid of the prying eyes of the West on our internet communications.

Tech is merely a weapon. It all depends on how you use it. Do you think the Indian state is prepared to use the tech and human resource in the same way that "west" does?

There is a fundamental difference between the two : that of agenda, mindset and doctrine. The west has held on to its agenda of global domination, continued imperialism, control over the "neighbourhood" to ensure "prosperity" and "safety" at home. It always wants to expand its power and reach around from homebase, and control the basic ingredients of sustaining that power - wherever that resource exists in the world. Both to use it themselves, as well as block it from being used by others.

The west uses the tech you refer to, to both control its own populations, as well as every other nation - as much as feasible. Indian state - in its current phase - was derived entirely from the previous colonial state and infrastructure, with no significant rupture in continuity in its organizational and human components. Therefore, more likely or possibility for elements of contact and continuity between the old and the new power - directly or indirectly, or perhaps a convergence of "interests" maintained under various pretexts of "common interests". Therefore, this state is more likely to use the tech

(1) to control Indian populations for its own internal political purposes
(2) to control Indian populations on behalf of or without-being-aware-of western interests

Until the very nature of the state changes that makes sure of having eliminated all possible entry-points of "western" or even "eastern" or "northern" elements into the state structure, intro of such surveillance is going to be used against Indians and not for them.

[chanakyaa]

Lilo ji, great insights. Understand this is not a new information for BRFites, but nice to read different interpretations.

[Austin]

Syria Weighs Its Tactics as Pillars of Its Economy Continue to Crumble

Two years of war have quintupled unemployment, reduced the Syrian currency to one-sixth of its prewar value, cost the public sector $15 billion in losses and damage to public buildings, slashed personal savings, and shrunk the economy 35 percent, according to government and United Nations officials.

The pillars of Syria’s economy have crumbled as the war has destroyed factories, disrupted agriculture, vaporized tourism and slashed oil revenues, with America and Europe imposing sanctions and rebels taking over oil fields.

Increasingly isolated in the face of a growing economic crisis that has reduced foreign currency reserves to about $2 billion to $5 billion from $18 billion, a government that long prided itself on its low national debt and relative self-sufficiency has now been forced to rely on new credit lines from its main remaining allies — Iran, Russia and China — to buy food and fuel.

The government has a $1 billion credit line with Iran, and borrows $500 million a month to import oil products delivered on Russian ships, a government consultant, Mudar Barakat, said in a recent interview in Beirut. Some analysts believe the government will need even more aid from those countries to keep paying government workers and a growing roster of security forces.

Now, some officials hope to push through measures to tighten state control of the economy, rolling back some of the modest economic liberalization and support for private business that President Bashar al-Assad introduced early on, in a departure from his party’s socialist roots.

“We’re thinking of going back to the way it was in the 1980s, when the government was buying the main necessities of daily life,” Mr. Barakat said. “We, as a government, must cover the daily needs of the people, no matter how much the cost is, and keep the prices low.”

Syria’s economic problems, in Mr. Barakat’s view, are rooted in the loosening of state control by reformers favored early in Mr. Assad’s tenure, who he said “vandalized” the economy “into this liberalized sort of chaos.”

A faction that includes Kadri Jamil, a Russian-educated, socialist former professor who was appointed deputy prime minister in charge of the economy in a shake-up last year, hopes Syria can weather the storm by raising wages, tightening price controls on subsidized goods like bread, cracking down on black-market currency traders and even ceasing government trade in dollars and euros.

The government, Mr. Barakat said, now signs new foreign trade deals only in the currencies of friendly countries to insulate itself from what it sees as an economic conspiracy orchestrated by its international enemies.

But such measures — met with ridicule and even defiance by some Syrian businesspeople — will provide at best short-term relief, economists say.

Even the free-flowing aid from Iran and other allies inspires little confidence among Syrians, said an economist in Damascus who asked not to be identified publicly as criticizing government policies, because it shows the government “has no means and depends on others to save it.”

A Damascus businessman derided the new policy of doing business in Iranian, Russian and Chinese currencies.

“These countries themselves do business in dollars and euros,” he said, adding: “Syria today is not Syria in the 1980s. It is easy to keep the door closed, but it is hard to close it after it has been open 13 years and people are used to breathing the fresh air.”

This month, the government banned food exports and announced a crackdown on black-market money traders. The value of the Syrian pound plunged to 330 to the dollar, down from 47 before the war.

On Wednesday, amid a flurry of panicked dealing, the Central Bank tried and failed to strong-arm traders into selling the Syrian pound at a higher, preset price. Dealers said Central Bank officials had offered to guarantee a tiny profit if they would sell the pound at a rate of 250.

The traders refused, several said. The government, they said, lacks the power to impose its will, in part because a few wealthy businessmen influence the dollar rate and corrupt officials profit from the trade.

The next day, currency exchange shops in the Damascus districts of Hariqa and Marjah were bustling. Customers clamored to change their savings into foreign currency — Saudi riyals, Emirati dirhams, anything — and traders shouted into phones, asking of the dollar, “How much is the green?”

Ammar, 35, a trader who gave only his first name for safety purposes, said the week’s events showed the government had no clearer plan for the economic crisis than it did for the political or military ones. “The government doesn’t understand the main problem or doesn’t want to understand,” he said. “Syrians no longer trust the Syrian pound.”

Last week’s currency crash deepened a steady decline that has helped send prices soaring even for basic foodstuffs and reduced most Syrians’ buying power to a fraction of prewar levels, making it hard even for once-well-off families to afford meat and fish.

The economic crisis threatens one of the government’s most crucial selling points. Syrians have long been envied in neighboring countries — even by the Lebanese, with far more political freedom — for the nation’s social safety net and affordable goods.

On paper, Syria still provides free education and medical care and heavily subsidized fuel and food staples. But scores of hospitals have been destroyed or damaged, medical supplies are scarce, and bread and diesel sell for many times the official price.

Yet in a polarized country, it is unclear if economic troubles will turn more citizens against the government, which blames foreign-backed terrorists and profiteering merchants and bakers, who, Mr. Barakat said, “are playing a very dirty role.”

“You could decide that you don’t want to support the regime,” said Jihad Yazigi, the editor of Syria Report, a Beirut-based economic journal. “But you can also blame the situation on other factors, like the sanctions and the opposition.”

And economists said the inflation was likely to harm the population more than it hampers the war effort. The fall of the pound means it costs the government less to pay salaries.

The government recently raised government salaries by 40 percent. But in real terms that does not cover the loss in buying power. And at the same time, the Damascus economist noted, the government raised the official price of diesel, adding to the inflationary cycle.

The government still manages to pay salaries across the country — even communicating by fax and messenger with rebel groups to arrange for them to rendezvous with trucks delivering cash, Mr. Barakat said. “The government employees come with the terrorists to pick them up,” he said.

The government has a harder time with subsidies, spending far more to make bread than it charges, Mr. Barakat said, while shops and bakeries take advantage of subsidized diesel and then sell bread at market prices. “Basically,” he said, “they are stealing the diesel.”

Residents and bakers in opposition areas say that the government favors loyalist areas with supplies and that they have to buy diesel on the black market.

Reporting was contributed by an employee of The New York Times from Damascus, Syria; Hala Droubi from Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Hania Mourtada and Hwaida Saad from Beirut; and Ben Hubbard from Cairo.

[Johann]

any better, it now looks like the West is using the Middle East as an enormous training ground for blooding the next crop of Jihadis.
The current sectarian chaos in Iraq as a logical outcome to the US invasion looks to be its real goal. Even a novice to geopolitics could have sensed the inevitability of that outcome back in 2003. Yet many were taken in by the peddling of the relatively benign "Oil angle" to the Iraqi invasion (involving in hindsight relatively large leaps of logic) and which now looks more like a conspiracy to cover a conspiracy.

This is kind of retroactive logic translates every outcome into a prior intention, which in turn implies some sort of masterly control of human destiny. If you actually saw the way that Western governments operate up close you couldn't believe this for a second.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in the face of professional opinion in the same way Brezhnev's politburo invaded Afghanistan in the face of Soviet professional opinion. The politicians in both cases were convinced they had the power to quickly set up friendly, stable governments and turn those countries into allies, remaking the geopolitics of the region and the world. They were both tragically wrong.

The Saudis certainly didn't want to see Saddam Hussein gone in 2003 - they helped convince Bush 41 not to overthrow him back in 1991, because they knew that the Shi'ites would come to power. Ever since 1979 they have depended on Sunni control in Iraq to act as a buffer against Iran. When they lost Iraq thanks to the Americans they reacted by massively pumping up anti-Shi'ite rhetoric and funding globally. If you think the Bush administration at the decision-making level actually thought through all of this, then you have no idea why there was such antagonism between the White House and State Department.

Similarly with Egypt, the Saudis were absolutely against the overthrow of Mubarak, in whom they had invested heavily, and who was becoming something of a monarchy himself. The Saudis have been unhappy with the Muslim Brotherhood ever since the 1990 Gulf War when they took an anti-Saudi position. On the other hand the Qataris have been happy to upset every applecart in the region. The Americans under Obama have essentially abandoned leadership in the region for fear of being sucked into more quagmires.

[habal]

Lilo saar, thus I scoff at people who say about Syria, 'what goes our father' ??

India needs interventionist policies in whole of Asia, especially Islamist Asia. The more that India shall intervene, the more the yanks and oiros shall feel helpless and thus the attempt to control levers of foreign policy through monetary control and internal upheavel/dissent.

[Lilo]

Lilo ji,

..Do you think the Indian state is prepared to use the tech and human resource in the same way that "west" does?

There is a fundamental difference between the two : that of agenda, mindset and doctrine. The west has held on to its agenda of global domination, continued imperialism, control over the "neighbourhood" to ensure "prosperity" and "safety" at home. It always wants to expand its power and reach around from homebase, and control the basic ingredients of sustaining that power - wherever that resource exists in the world. Both to use it themselves, as well as block it from being used by others.

The west uses the tech you refer to, to both control its own populations, as well as every other nation - as much as feasible. Indian state - in its current phase - was derived entirely from the previous colonial state and infrastructure, with no significant rupture in continuity in its organizational and human components. Therefore, more likely or possibility for elements of contact and continuity between the old and the new power - directly or indirectly, or perhaps a convergence of "interests" maintained under various pretexts of "common interests". Therefore, this state is more likely to use the tech

(1) to control Indian populations for its own internal political purposes
(2) to control Indian populations on behalf of or without-being-aware-of western interests

Until the very nature of the state changes that makes sure of having eliminated all possible entry-points of "western" or even "eastern" or "northern" elements into the state structure, intro of such surveillance is going to be used against Indians and not for them.

<OT>
B ji ,
That is precisely the reason NaMo has to constitute a service anew - to decrease the influence of current crop of IPS afsars selected through decades of leftist doping enforced by JNU types in UPSC and other entry points. There is definitely a need for a large intake of capable minds to fight the very real threats waiting to explode in our midst. If the current entry points are bad , that doesnt imply that we have to stop recruiting (this was the mistake of the the previous NDA regime when the intake was deliberately throttled down ... put in simple terms... instead of curtailing the influence of UPSC and creating new entrypoints .. NDA backed away from the fight).
Actually i think even in IPS most would have eventually stopped drinking the koolaid of sicular left from their spring chicken days and would have woken up to the threats of Islamists and EvanJehadists they come across everyday on the ground - yet they continue to exhibit a pavlovian adherence to orders from the system contrary to the real facts continuously present in front of their eyes - this lot has to be freed from their fears and the impulse/shock has to come from the top along with the attendant empowerment of rightist discourse in the larger society as a whole.

Even something adhoc (extra constitutional like NAC or Planning Comission) in the security realm would be a good starting point. It can be later made permanent once the certainty of his dispensation, say for the full term or even in the next term becomes more likely.
Which ever way he does it, a complete overhaul of Intelligence setup is a necessity - else his govt can be perpetually kept offbalance and powerless by worsening security situation and he may even turn out to be more powerless than the current dispensation - held back by threats and blackmail from the subverters within and their directors outside .
<OT>

This is kind of retroactive logic translates every outcome into a prior intention, which in turn implies some sort of masterly control of human destiny. If you actually saw the way that Western governments operate up close you couldn't believe this for a second.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq in the face of professional opinion in the same way Brezhnev's politburo invaded Afghanistan in the face of Soviet professional opinion. The politicians in both cases were convinced they had the power to quickly set up friendly, stable governments and turn those countries into allies, remaking the geopolitics of the region and the world. They were both tragically wrong.

The Saudis certainly didn't want to see Saddam Hussein gone in 2003 - they helped convince Bush 41 not to overthrow him back in 1991, because they knew that the Shi'ites would come to power. Ever since 1979 they have depended on Sunni control in Iraq to act as a buffer against Iran. When they lost Iraq thanks to the Americans they reacted by massively pumping up anti-Shi'ite rhetoric and funding globally. If you think the Bush administration at the decision-making level actually thought through all of this, then you have no idea why there was such antagonism between the White House and State Department.

Similarly with Egypt, the Saudis were absolutely against the overthrow of Mubarak, in whom they had invested heavily, and who was becoming something of a monarchy himself. The Saudis have been unhappy with the Muslim Brotherhood ever since the 1990 Gulf War when they took an anti-Saudi position. On the other hand the Qataris have been happy to upset every applecart in the region. The Americans under Obama have essentially abandoned leadership in the region for fear of being sucked into more quagmires.

Johann ji,
I dont think at all that thats the case.

Its been a decade
Why did Bush and Blair launch the War ?

If really Bush wanted to prosecute some family feud with Saddam as was peddled in some circles he wouldnt have to wage a total war and completely destroy all those institutions which hold Iraq together - just dispatching Saddam through some usual means would have done the trick.

Was Blair really just a poodle who tagged along in what was essentially an american project ?
Back in 2003 i may be taken in by the above assertion that Briturds were just a poodle - but now i think that it could have been the Brits who could have conceived this project in the first place - they were the ex colonial masters of that dump and knowing the people would have actually guffawed if anyone seriously suggested that they were going to Iraq to instill democracy among its people. They have been long enough in that place to know by instinct that nothing apart from dictatorship will work to keep the middle east from imploding. Yet they invaded Iraq to "instill democracy" Why ?

The fog is too thick in anycase to decipher the myriad reasons in circulation leading to Iraq War 2. So one can always fall back on the simpler yet reasonably sound inquiry on the lines of "Cui Bono" and the "final state of play" achieved . We now have the benefit of hindsight of atleast a decade. This time is IMO sufficient - to begin to see whatever Bush was alluding when he said..

History will ultimately judge the decisions that were made for Iraq and I'm just not going to be around to see the final verdict...

Anyway if really 1 Trillion USD was spent in vain as was currently being alledged, Bush would have been dispatched off long back like when a mafia dispatches the banker who lost their money. Ergo the 1 Trillion figure is a Enron statistic to feed the gullible and whatever project Bush began by Iraqi invasion is still going on with the full backing of the West as a whole. Bush was just singled out and booted out for the Iraqi war when it was started with the full support and encouragement from the american deep state. The democrats seem to be prosecuting the same policy as Bush (with less dramatics than "shock and awe") but somehow the western media is completely tuned out to the similarities of what Bush has achieved in Iraq and Obama is achieving in the rest of the Middle east.

Re: Saudis Qataris - i think they are the weakest agents in the middle east and incomparision even Iranian mullahs have 100 times more power to resist Western diktats .

[Austin]

India Intervening in these countries with Islamist and Sectarian nature of population would just mean one thing more body bags of Indian soldiers with little geopolitical or strategic gains.

Another more frightening aspect would be the rise of Islamic Terrorism in India , We can hardly prevent the one from Pakistan dont want any headache of far higher magnitude.

We have learnt enough from IPKF intervention not to sent any troop abroad except under UN mandate.

[Lilo]

^^

Lilo saar, thus I scoff at people who say about Syria, 'what goes our father' ??

India needs interventionist policies in whole of Asia, especially Islamist Asia. The more that India shall intervene, the more the yanks and oiros shall feel helpless and thus the attempt to control levers of foreign policy through monetary control and internal upheavel/dissent.

Habal ji,
I too am never inclined to any explicit intervention as in military boots on the ground. But literally we should have a thousand ears to the ground in Syria and the rest of the middle east to keep track of Indian origin Jihadis who come to Syrian playground to play and learn.

[Surya]

We have learnt enough from IPKF intervention not to sent any troop abroad except under UN mandate.

that seems to be the lesson - what should have been learnt (and has been in some circles0 is that we should intervene when have unity across the spectrum to back an intervention

[brihaspati]

The islamic intervention is coming to India one way or the other, whether India intervenes in islamic neighbourhoods or not. If nothing is done, it will be passed off as organic, internal, and voluntary choice towards a more "egalitarian" theology and state. If something is done, or if "saffron" seems to come to power - that will be used to justify islamic intervention.

It is onlee a matter of time. Hoping that India can save itself by either buying out the ME, or doing its careful tiptoe foxtrot to appease the mullah, and by not seeming to intervene in the very zones from which Paki or BD interventionist support comes into India - that is the Gulf Sunni power centres - affects in now way the ultimate agenda of the mullahcracy.

[Philip]

Saudi Arabia re-emerges as powerful Middle East player.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... layer.html

Saudi Arabia has re-emerged as the Middle East's most powerful influence-peddler, with its presence being felt in both Egypt and Syria, says Richard Spencer.

By Richard Spencer, Cairo

8:00PM

It may be the least revolutionary country in the world, but this week Saudi Arabia won the full support of the world's greatest insurrectionists.

Sayed Sami Hassan has been in Cairo's Tahrir Square since January 25, 2011, and in that time has seen off an American-backed dictator, a military junta, and an elected Muslim Brotherhood president. He is the sort of street rebel whom, at home, Saudi Arabia's autocracy most fears.

But this week he gave the absolute monarchs from across the Red Sea his absolute backing. "The Saudis are our brothers," he said, from his tent in Tahrir's continuous encampment.

"They are Muslims, they believe in God. President Morsi, now he was an agent of America and Qatar, but the Saudis are helping us."

The shifts of allegiance in the Middle East in the last three years have been as startling as the convulsions of the Arab Spring itself. But the latest has caught diplomats, analysts and, to the extent they notice the relationships their masters quietly foster, Egypt's ordinary people by surprise.
Related Articles

Qatar: new emir, new broom?
25 Jun 2013

Saudi Arabia, not long ago written off as a gerontocracy whose oil billions could not prevent it being outmanoeuvred by a host of rivals in the power struggles of the Middle East, has suddenly re-emerged as the region's most powerful influence-peddler.

It announced its backing for the military's swift disposal of President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government within two hours.

Then on Tuesday it opened its wallet, offering $5 billion in aid. Saudi Arabia's neighbour and ally, the United Arab Emirates, added $3 billion more, while Kuwait offered $4 billion. In his year in office, Mr Morsi's government was bailed out to the tune of $8 billion by Qatar - but its Gulf neighbours had beaten that easily in just a week.

There is no evidence that Saudi Arabia was involved in the plot, well-executed and clearly planned in advance though it was.

But the Egyptian defence minister, Gen Abdulfattah al-Sisi, clearly had an air of confidence in Egypt's future about him when he announced what had happened, despite inheriting an economic black hole, beset by power cuts, fuel shortages, and, it was later revealed, with just two months' supply of wheat remaining.

On Sunday Egypt's prosecutor signalled that there would be no let up against Mr Morsi, who remains in detention. It took the unusual step of announcing a criminal investigation against the the country's democratically elected leader on suspicion of spying, inciting violence and ruining the economy. Several other senior Brotherhood figures already face charges of inciting violence.

The Gulf monarchies are not just being altruistic. While Qatar has emerged in the last few years as the Arab world's most important, and certainly richest, backer of the Muslim Brotherhood, its Gulf neighbours regard the group's reformist, populist brand of political Islam with suspicion and, in the case of the UAE, loathing.

It was no coincidence that the UAE's money was handed over personally by Sheikh Hazza al-Nahyan, the UAE's national security adviser - this was something close to home, not a matter of charity or mere foreign affairs.

Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE were aghast that President Hosni Mubarak was forced to quit two years ago. They were particularly upset that President Barack Obama, who had originally offered what they regarded as a pragmatic view of the Muslim world in place of his predecessor's aggressive "democracy promotion", had not stood behind America's long-term Middle Eastern place-man.

Neither country has been reassured by what has happened since. Mr Morsi infuriated both by appearing to open the door to rapprochement with Iran, which they regard as the region's main source of trouble, while both feared Egypt would send support to Brotherhood cells in the Gulf. The UAE only last week convicted 69 people it said were allied to the Brotherhood for "plotting a coup".

"Saudi and the UAE were very unhappy with Morsi's government and its impact on the region," said Theodore Karasik, research director at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. "They took advantage of Morsi's failures to engineer this change of government and are seeking to shape policy according to their own vision."

He said there was no concrete evidence of prior negotiation between Egypt's military and either country. However, Ahmed Shafiq, Mr Mubarak's last prime minister who lost closely to Mr Morsi in last years' presidential election run-off, has been living in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, and acting as an adviser to its rulers.

Mr Shafiq predicted the coup before the military made its final, 48-hour ultimatum to Morsi. "No doubt, even though I've been sitting here [in Abu Dhabi] I've had a role in what's happening," he said.

Both Gen Sisi and Adly Mansour, the chief justice appointed as interim president by the generals, have old ties with Riyadh - Gen Sisi was once military attache there, while Mr Mansour spent seven years as an adviser to the Saudi ministry of commerce.

The sudden resurgence of Saudi influence is not only being felt in Egypt.

There was a far less-noticed coup in the hotel corridors of Istanbul last week, where the Syrian opposition plot and bicker, a process seemingly so irrelevant to the fighting in Aleppo and Homs that it largely passes unnoticed.

But the day before Saudi's money was sent to Egypt, it won another small battle when Ghassan Hitto, who was said to be close to Qatar and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, finally resigned as the interim prime minister of the Syrian National Coalition. Two days earlier, Saudi's man, Ahmad Assi Jarba, a tribal sheikh of more traditional bent, became its president.

Meanwhile, American liaison officers to the Syrian rebels, said to be aghast that Qatar-funded arms supplies are ending up in the hands of jihadists, are trying to work with the Saudis to persuade the "West-friendly" factions to take on the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra even before tackling the Assad regime.

Analysts attempting to decipher the opaque world of the Gulf's royal families say these moves are not just a sign of rising Saudi self-confidence, but a result of a change of leadership within Qatar itself.

The ruler there, Sheikh Hamad al-Thani, one of the world's richest men, recently handed over power to his son, Crown Prince Tamim. Although he himself stressed his age, it was seen locally as less of a sign that Qatar was about to become a North Europe-style "bicycling monarchy" and more that conservative local clan leaders were unhappy with his international image as a sponsor of political Islam.

Crown Prince Tamim, a 33-year-old educated at British public schools and less at ease with the fierce rhetoric of Brotherhood clerics, is said to have withdrawn support from his father's clients. According to one rumour he has even made Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's spiritual mentor and a long-time Qatar resident, persona non grata.

The gilded chandeliers of Gulf palaces are a long way from the painful changes afoot in Egypt and Syria, and certainly from their mass street protests. But it is an irony that leaders of Tamarod, or "Rebellion", the Egyptian youth protest movement that brought millions to the streets on June 30 to call for Mr Morsi to go, now find themselves allied to Saudi Arabia, where such demonstrations would have been snuffed out months before.

"Stability in Egypt and a successful transition are in the interests of all Arab countries, including the Gulf," said Mohammed Abdulaziz, one of Tamarod's three main leaders, words that could have come out of any general or prince's mouth.

He claimed that Egypt was still the "big sister" or natural leader of the Arab world. "For sure, Egypt cannot just be a client state for anybody," he said.

At Sayed Hassan's Tahrir Square tent, an older man backed up his insistence that Egypt had not just replaced America and then Qatar, as sponsors of dictatorship with another - Saudi Arabia. "The Egyptian people will never be tricked again," said Ahmed Mahmoud, 60. Mr Hassan's response suggested his rhetoric outmatched his confidence. "Egyptian people" he said, "are deceived sometimes. Just not every time."

[Austin]

We have learnt enough from IPKF intervention not to sent any troop abroad except under UN mandate.

that seems to be the lesson - what should have been learnt (and has been in some circles0 is that we should intervene when have unity across the spectrum to back an intervention

The point is in India initial Back Up for external intervention across spectrum will degenerate into blame game when body count increases or for some reason a certain political party sees opposing it is more beneficial politically then supporting it.

So the idea that we will have broad national consensus across the spectrum to back military intervention wont last long as narrow political gains outweigh national gains or objective.

In the end only the ordinary Jawans will suffer and all we will end up with more body bags with Kirti Chakra etc to cover it up and thats the last thing I want to see after 2 decades of IS duties on Kashmir and NE .....I dont see any need to trade off our Jawans life coz all we end up doing each time is politicking it.

[Surya]

Austin - all you is true and is possible - and happens everywhere and is worse in our environment full of morons for politicians and regional politics

however there may be strategic reasons we absolutely have to intervene.

so if we do have to intervene it should be backed by a unified approach and explained as such.

[habal]

You defeat them there, they won't come here. Or they will come weaker.

More victories in Asia the anglo-sunni combine enjoy, the nearer they come to us. If you don't have them for lunch, they will have you for dinner.

[Austin]

Austin - all you is true and is possible - and happens everywhere and is worse in our environment full of morons for politicians and regional politics

however there may be strategic reasons we absolutely have to intervene.

so if we do have to intervene it should be backed by a unified approach and explained as such.

Its hard to envisage such things happening in India except in case if there is direct attack on us .... but remember Kargil even then some parties were up to their petty political tricks.

[Johann]

If really Bush wanted to prosecute some family feud with Saddam as was peddled in some circles he wouldnt have to wage a total war and completely destroy all those institutions which hold Iraq together - just dispatching Saddam through some usual means would have done the trick.

Hi Lilo,

It wasn't just a family feud. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) very clearly stated what US foreign policy goals would be under a neo-conservative administration from 1997 onwards. Regime change in Iraq was at the top of the list. You can read their 1998 letter to Bill Clinton here; http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Look at the list of signatories - most became senior officials under Bush 43, starting with Donald Rumsfeld.

Neoconservatives have a reading of history rooted in US dominance in WWII and after. The way they saw it Iraq could be conquered, pacified and rebuilt as a friendly ally in the way that Germany, Italy and Japan were. The result would be the pacification of the ME, just as Europe was pacified by the defeat of the Axis.

Why didn't this happen? Because the PNAC types weren't just ambitious like FDR and Truman, but arrogantly stupid and overly ideological. FDR and Truman listened to the professionals when it came to estimating the cost and difficulty of obtaining victory - the Neoconservative article of almost religious belief was that no force could resist US hard power and soft power - hubris in other words.

Secondly FDR and Truman as Democrats they committed to nation-building both at home and abroad, but the neoconservatives as Republicans had an ideological problem with nation-building - they refused to engage with the key element of success in the American Empire.

Ombaba in 2009, like Nixon in 1969 is engaged in a pragmatic fighting withdrawal from what they see as previous administrations mistaken ideological overcommitments.

Was Blair really just a poodle who tagged along in what was essentially an american project ?
Back in 2003 i may be taken in by the above assertion that Briturds were just a poodle - but now i think that it could have been the Brits who could have conceived this project in the first place - they were the ex colonial masters of that dump and knowing the people would have actually guffawed if anyone seriously suggested that they were going to Iraq to instill democracy among its people. They have been long enough in that place to know by instinct that nothing apart from dictatorship will work to keep the middle east from imploding. Yet they invaded Iraq to "instill democracy" Why ?

Blair was advised against committing the UK to the war by professional opinion in every branch of government. He chose to ignore them, which is why he is much more popular in America than the UK. Harold Wilson in comparison in the 1960s refused repeated US pressure from the Johnson administration to get involved in Vietnam.

Blair's calculations had little to do with Iraq, but rather his experience of dealing with the Clinton administration in the Kosovo War, where British commitment was successfully traded for influence on Balkans policy. For example General Mike Jackson as the British K-FOR commander refused US pressure to remove the Russians from Pristina airport. On the whole the violence in the Balkans has subsided, and its no longer an international flashpoint, while the UK exercised power and gained leverage at minimal cost despite professional concerns about the risks of the campaign. So from Blair's perspective it was a good model of partnership with the US.

Blair believed that committing the UK to the Bush administration's Iraq war would allow the UK to influence the Bush administration's larger Middle East policy, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This largely failed to materialise apart from a few symbolic gestures, while the economic and military costs were substantial, with little to show for it. This massively expensive error in judgement has permanently stained Blair's reputation in the UK, and much of the 'New Labour' movement he headed.

Re: Saudis Qataris - i think they are the weakest agents in the middle east and incomparision even Iranian mullahs have 100 times more power to resist Western diktats .

You can't even begin to compare the buying power of the Iranian mullahs to either the Saudi or Qatari royal families. Money makes the world go round, and they use their spending power very, very effectively on both their own populations, as well as other people all around the world. It is very, very hard to say no to people who are willing to double or triple whatever you can imagine. This isn't a simple matter of bribery that benefits individuals - its investments, contracts, direct hires on an absolutely enormous scale, all designed to bring about a convergence of economic interests with those whom they need.

[Pranav]

Saudi Arabia re-emerges as powerful Middle East player.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... layer.html

It is curious to see both the Saudis as well as Assad cheer Morsi's departure, at a time when Saudis are backing cannibals in Syria.

Clearly the dust has not settled as yet.

[Johann]

Saudi Arabia re-emerges as powerful Middle East player.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... layer.html

It is curious to see both the Saudis as well as Assad cheer Morsi's departure, at a time when Saudis are backing cannibals in Syria.

Clearly the dust has not settled as yet.

Its not that complicated.

Al-Sa'ud has a problem with a republican movement with transnational links like the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in a major Arab country like Egypt.

Saudi Arabia has a different problem with Syria's alliance with Iran which is both its most serious geopolitical rival, and a threat to the Al-Saud royal family's domestic legitimacy.

Al-Sa'ud *would* have a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood triumphing in Syria, but not Salafi groups, or a purely local Islamist flavoured government.

[Pranav]

MB should decide who it hates more - the Russia-Iran-Syria axis or the Saudi-US-Israel axis.

[Johann]

Hi Pranav,

I don't think the 'axes' are that coherent here - The Obama administration and the Saudis have had a very different positions on the MB in Egypt. If anything Iran and the US have more in common than they do with the Saudis on that issue.

The MB has survived for 85 years through multiple repressions by all sorts of parties by being pragmatic and nimble about its alliances. They've worked with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they've worked with the Americans, and they've worked with the Saudis. Hamas (the MB in Palestine) had no problem working with the secular Baathists of Syria, and were in fact headquartered in Damascus from 1994 until recently.

[Pranav]

Hi Pranav,

I don't think the 'axes' are that coherent here - The Obama administration and the Saudis have had a very different positions on the MB in Egypt. If anything Iran and the US have more in common than they do with the Saudis on that issue.

The MB has survived for 85 years through multiple repressions by all sorts of parties by being pragmatic and nimble about its alliances. They've worked with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they've worked with the Americans, and they've worked with the Saudis. Hamas (the MB in Palestine) had no problem working with the secular Baathists of Syria, and were in fact headquartered in Damascus from 1994 until recently.

The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) is very close to the US. In fact, the US and Saudis appear to be on the same page vis-a-vis the Army coup ... Here is the sequence of events before the coup, as per the NY Times -

CAIRO — As President Mohamed Morsi huddled in his guard’s quarters during his last hours as Egypt’s first elected leader, he received a call from an Arab foreign minister with a final offer to end a standoff with the country’s top generals, senior advisers with the president said.

The foreign minister said he was acting as an emissary of Washington, the advisers said, and he asked if Mr. Morsi would accept the appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet, one that would take over all legislative powers and replace his chosen provincial governors.

The aides said they already knew what Mr. Morsi’s answer would be. He had responded to a similar proposal by pointing at his neck. “This before that,” he had told his aides, repeating a vow to die before accepting what he considered a de facto coup and thus a crippling blow to Egyptian democracy.

His top foreign policy adviser, Essam el-Haddad, then left the room to call the United States ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, to say that Mr. Morsi refused. When he returned, he said he had spoken to Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, and that the military takeover was about to begin, senior aides said.

“Mother just told us that we will stop playing in one hour,” an aide texted an associate, playing on a sarcastic Egyptian expression for the country’s Western patron, “Mother America.”

The State Department had no comment Saturday on the details of the American role in Mr. Morsi’s final days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world ... ml?hp&_r=1&

It is also noteworthy that the US pointedly refused to ask for restoration of Morsi, they only asked for restoration of "a" democratic government.

So the events of Egypt do not suggest that there are differences within the US-Saudi-Israel axis.

It does appear that the Muslim Brotherhood has been a highly erratic and confused entity.

[Johann]

Pranav,

The Americans were in no position to prevent Morsi's removal after the largest demonstrations in human history, but its clear they are very afraid of Egypt turning into Algeria 1992-97.

However the Americans are pressing to make sure the Egyptian military does not launch a full scale suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood - they would like the MB to continue to be treated as a legitimate political party.

Just to make sure the Army knows they're serious about it Obama has ordered a review of US military aid to Egypt
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... gon-s.aspx

The Saudis have no problem with the Egyptian state going after them hammer and tongs.

Its an interesting role reversal historically speaking - back in 1954, when Nasser went after the Brotherhood after their partnership went sore the Saudis sheltered the Brothers as a counter-force to the new Arab nationalist revolutionary republicanism, while chaps from the CIA were helping Nasser write his speeches.

Lilo,

George Kennan was the architect of the US strategy of containment towards the Soviet Union and revolutionary communism back in the 1940s which guided the overall Cold War approach. Here is a quote from him in September 2002, warning against the Iraq war;

Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before ... In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.

Needless to say it was not taken seriously. Kennan had incidentally also warned against expanding the Vietnam war back in 1966.

[RoyG]

Pakistan sending hundreds of jihadis to syria. I had said before that it is in our interests to keep the Shia-Sunni conflict going.

[svinayak]

Lilo,

George Kennan was the architect of the US strategy of containment towards the Soviet Union and revolutionary communism back in the 1940s which guided the overall Cold War approach. Here is a quote from him in September 2002, warning against the Iraq war;

Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before ... In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.

Needless to say it was not taken seriously. Kennan had incidentally also warned against expanding the Vietnam war back in 1966.

This is easy to answer. When they find that they might start a war with certain things on their mind, they found themselves fighting for entirely different things that they had never thought of before , this is due to being blind to the regional history, not taking into account the historical regional dynamics and cultural sensitivities. Deep regional history cannot be wished away. Similar things are being noticed in Af Pak

[Prem]

US had Woman Ambassador in Iraq in 90s, Now they have one in Egypt. US have one in India too but US woman ambassador in Muslim country have not been a good omen.

[devesh]

MB should decide who it hates more - the Russia-Iran-Syria axis or the Saudi-US-Israel axis.

will be immaterial to India who they hate more.

[Hari Seldon]

Bottomline its only the ME countries without much oil to speak of that are embroiled in strife. Bah. Who cares so long as the oil taps flow....

[Singha]

compared to where Egypt was under hosni mubarak, in what way is the situation better for the common man today? has economic growth and tourism been able to revive? is the rural farmer better off?

[Philip]

The Saudis are funding the Egyptians far more than the US and as of now hold more clout with the Egyptian junta than the US.Billions are flowing in from the Gulf "oily-garchs" into Egypt.For Egypt to go the Iranian way is the fear, that it might trigger off a domino effect in the Sunni shiekdoms.The crisis in Egypt has for the moment taken the ehat off Assad and co.,but he has had his eyebrows singed with Israel's daring strike,taking out his deadly Yakhnot (original version of Brahmos) missiles,allegedly by an Israeli sub.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... eTCHn9AbB0

Top Syrian Rebel: Israel Attacked Missiles With Submarine
A top Syrian rebel official on Monday said that the IDF had indeed attacked Latakia over the weekend, with a submarine attack
AAFont Size
By David Lev
First Publish: 7/15/2013, 4:27 PM

Israeli navy Dolphin-class submarine
Israeli navy Dolphin-class submarine
Flash 90

A top Syrian rebel official on Monday said that the IDF had indeed attacked Latakia over the weekend – not from the air, as had been reported, but from the sea. “Israel used a submarine to attack the missiles,” Mustafa Abd al-Karim told a Russian news station Monday.

According to weekend reports, Israeli forces on July 5 destroyed a cache of Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles as they were docked at the port of Latakia in Syria. Israel did not confirm or deny the report, first broadcast on CNN, and Syria initially denied that the attack had taken place at all, but Israeli television stations released satellite photos showing that the bombing had taken place.

CNN quoted several U.S. officials as saying that Israeli planes had bombed the missiles, and a report quoted in Ha'aretz said that Israeli fighter planes were seen in the skies of the Syrian city of Al-Haffah, located east of Latakia.

In the interview with Russya al-yum, an Arabic-language Russian satellite broadcaster, Al-Karim said that “the attack was carried out by an Israeli submarine. At least five missile batteries were destroyed.”

A separate report earlier Monday by another Russian satellite broadcaster, Russia Today, said that Israeli planes launched from an air base in Turkey bombed the missiles. Turkey denied the allegation, with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu saying that Turkey “would not be involved in such a strike, and anyone who says it was is just trying to harm Turkey's reputation.”

[Austin]

David Cameron accused of betraying Syrian rebels

Syria's top rebel commander has accused David Cameron of betrayal after the Prime Minister abandoned plans to arm the Syrian opposition.

[Lalmohan]

compared to where Egypt was under hosni mubarak, in what way is the situation better for the common man today? has economic growth and tourism been able to revive? is the rural farmer better off?

economic crises are deeper, roti-kapda-makan remain the pressing issues, tourism revenues have tanked - the MB have no solution to these problems - except more shariah

its not surprising that the people are revolting

[habal]

David Cameron accused of betraying Syrian rebels

Syria's top rebel commander has accused David Cameron of betrayal after the Prime Minister abandoned plans to arm the Syrian opposition.

they had openly started killing catholic priests who were neutral in conflict. Vatican & some moderate factions have put pressure on Obomber to cease arming Al-Nusra types for the moment. Now, the wait is for Al-Nusra, ISIL types to fight with other rebels and only after much attrition and depletion of ranks in Nusra will support start again. Anyways Israeli objective is achieved with a stalemate between rebels and Assad. Neither is powerful enough to take on Israel and they will prefer it this way unless they have suicidal tendencies.

The crisis in Egypt has for the moment taken the ehat off Assad and co.,but he has had his eyebrows singed with Israel's daring strike,taking out his deadly Yakhnot (original version of Brahmos) missiles,allegedly by an Israeli sub.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... eTCHn9AbB0

this strike on Latakia is not being confirmed by IDF and neither by SAA. Just some rebels have announced this to boost morale. The Russian Today channel has further put a spin on top of this apparent disinfo by claiming that Turkish airbase has been used for this alleged attack. Thus for first time an Islamic nation has allowed use of it's territory by Israel to attack a fellow muslim country. This is supposed to keep Erdogan dancing on unstable ground wrt to domestic opinion. CNN has reported that Erdogan is losing support from even his core rural support base.

[habal]

been thinking about Indian foreign policy through the West Asia prism, one of the major Indian policy failures has been a sheer lack of ability to cultivate and sustain a militia to extend and implement foreign policy objectives in neighbouring lands like the Taliban (Pakistan), Razakar (Pakistan) or Jabhat Al Nusra (Saudi Arabia), ISIL (Saudi Arabia), FSA (Qatar), or Al Qaeda (CIA), IRA (FSU), Hezbollah (Iran), LeT (Pakistan), Indian Mujahideen (Pakistan), North Eastern Groups (China), CPI-ML Maoists (EU). If the ability of a countries foreign policy and strength of ideology is to create and maintain militias in neighbouring countries and foreign lands then India has truly failed miserably. This is the reason why some countries are big players in international policy circles and we are nowhere.

Our lone attempt was with the LTTE but even that was successfully subverted by (CIA, EU) eventually. And this is a dismal track record. Making a militia is work of military intelligences but sustaining them for our objectives needs ideological support. And it is in latter where India has failed. This is also the major difference between India and neighbourhood rogue.