Clear As Mud

Are you confused by what's going on in the Middle East? 

Let me explain:

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against the Islamic State. We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him. 

We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against IS. 

So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win. 

If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. 

And all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went to drive them out. 

Do you understand now?

By Aubrey Bailey,
Fleet, Hants.

Transcribed by: CZ

Egypt Becomes Battleground For Arab world

The Saudi monarchy has declared war on the Muslim Brotherhood, an immensely popular Sunni Islamic movement with branches and businesses throughout the world. Not only has the monarchy labeled the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but a photo chart of the major terrorist groups offered by the Saudi press gives the Brotherhood top billing. Not even al-Qaeda outshines the Brotherhood in the eyes of the Saudi regime. 

Perhaps the Saudi monarchy had little choice in the matter. The Muslim Brotherhood swept to power in Egypt and Tunisia following the 2011 Arab Spring revolutions, and the Saudi monarchy openly worried that its kingdom would be next. Such is the price of being rich, weak, and unwilling to test the support of the masses in elections or a free press. 

The Saudi monarchy's chosen battlefield for its war on the Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt. It is difficult to argue with its choice. The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, its Supreme Guides have all been Egyptian, and Egypt is the center of the Brotherhood's global operations. Branches of the Brotherhood are guided by General Secretaries from their respective regions, but key policy decisions flow from Egypt. 

The Saudis knew that attempts to destroy Brotherhood branches in the region would be futile as long as the Brotherhood leadership ruled from Egypt. Attacking Brotherhood branches would threaten the stability of Jordan, Kuwait and other Saudi allies with deeply entrenched Brotherhood movements. To crush the Brotherhood in Egypt, by contrast, would be to sever its head and soul. The battle would also transpire far from the Gulf and leave the Saudi monarchy, the self-proclaimed protector of Islam without blood on its hands. In fact, they could avoid fighting altogether by outsourcing the job to the Egyptian generals. 

It wasn't merely the popularity of the Brotherhood that alarmed the Saudi monarchy, but also the policies that the Brotherhood pursued upon being elected into office. The Brotherhood, or so it seemed to the monarchy, was intent on using the Egyptian government as a pulpit for spreading its seductive vision of pragmatic progressive Islam throughout the Arab world. 

This posed a direct threat to both the Saudi monarchy and to the extremist Wahhabi vision of Islamic purity upon which its claim to religious legitimacy rests. The security of the monarchy demanded Wahhabi dominance of the Sunni Islamic world. The more the seductive moderation and pragmatism of the Brotherhood spread, the weaker the Saudis would become. 

Particularly dangerous to Saudi control of the Sunni Islamic world were the Brotherhood's efforts to convert Al-Azhar, the oldest Islamic university in the world, to the Brotherhood's pragmatic and progressive vision of Islam. 

The Saudis controlled Mecca and Medina, the two holiest shrines in Islam, but the Brotherhood was on the verge of controlling Al-Azhar, the reigning authority on Sunni Islamic theology in the Muslim world. 

Qatar, to Saudi anguish, was joined by the government of Turkey in an effort to make Egypt the centerpiece of a Sunni Arab world ruled by a moderate and pragmatic vision of Islam capable of coexisting with the west to the benefit of both parties. Both Qatar and Turkey also viewed this new Islamic world as the foundation for reconciling the centuries old conflict between the Sunni and Shia. 

This was a dire threat to a Saudi monarchy locked in a bitter cold war with Shia Iran. It was equally a threat to Saudi Wahhabi doctrine that views the Shia as apostates. Egypt's Saudi financed opposition press responded on cue with frantic warnings that the Brotherhood was going to convert Egypt to Shi'ite Islam. 

Perhaps responding to Turkish influence, the Brotherhood pursued a remarkably democratic strategy in Egypt during its lone year in office. The press was free if irresponsible, demonstrations un-fettered, and all political groups, including the jihadists and extreme leftists, were allowed to establish political parties. Far worse, the Brotherhood threw down the gauntlet to the Saudis by calling for freedom and democracy throughout the region. 

Clearly, democracy had become the weapon of the Brotherhood for conquering the Arab world, and there was no weapon that the Saudis feared more. One fair election, if Egypt and Tunisia were any guide, and the Saudi monarchy would become a footnote in history. Brotherhood branches in Kuwait and Jordan picked up the call, throwing the two faux democracies into a state of confusion. 

... the Brotherhood's pragmatism offered the West an alternative to a Saudi Wahhabi doctrine condemned by Washington for breeding extremism and terror. 

The US and EU were also realizing that Islam was so deeply embedded in the Arab psyche that there could not be a stable government in the Arab world without Islamic representation, a topic treated at length in my book The Arab Psyche and American Frustrations. 

Like it or not, Brotherhood doctrine inclining toward the moderation of Turkish Lite was their best option. Not only had the Brotherhood placed the Saudi monarchy's Islamic legitimacy at risk, but it was also on the verge of weakening the monarchy's ties with the United States, its major patron. 

A counter-revolution supported by Saudi Arabia toppled the Brotherhood regime in Egypt, but did little to calm the monarchy's fears. To the contrary, the Brotherhood's resistance to the military coup in Egypt displayed a passion and organizational capacity that has thrown the country into chaos and casts severe doubts on the ability of Egypt's revived Mubarak regime to stay the course. This is all the more the case because various jihadist groups hostile to the Brotherhood have joined the fray by assassinating officers and establishing mini-caliphates in the Sinai and elsewhere. 

It is unlikely that the Saudi regime could survive in the face of a parallel uprising by domestic supporters of the Brotherhood and Wahhabi jihadists returning from Syria and elsewhere. The Saudis claim that there are some 600 returnees from Syria. The Kuwaitis place the figure at 20,000. Whatever the number of Brotherhood supporters and jihadists in the kingdom, the king's warnings of sedition and terrorism have become commonplace as the monarchy's fears mount. 

Putting their money where their fear is, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have pumped billions of dollars into Egypt with the hope that Egypt's latest military dictator will be able to crush the Brotherhood in its home base. Billions more are promised. 

If the Egyptian military can crush the Brotherhood, everything in the Saudi plan should fall in place. Egypt will be firmly established as the centerpiece of a Saudi-Israeli-Egyptian alliance designed to return the Arab world to the era of tyrants that reigned before the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011. 

Along the way, Egyptian authorities will promote stability in the region by severing the Brotherhood's lifelines to Hamas and stamping out jihadist and Brotherhood sanctuaries in Yemen, Libya and other areas within reach of Egypt's Saudi financed army. Democratic aspirations in the region will fade without inspiration from Egypt, and Saudi Wahhabi doctrine will find its way into Al-Azhar. 

With the Muslim Brotherhood gone, the US and the EU will return to their traditional role of supporting tyrants and the Saudi monarchy will have returned the Middle East to the era of peaceful oppression. 

The question is can Saudi money convert a poverty-stricken dictatorship teetering between chaos and civil war into the foundation of its war against the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies should be able to buy the entire region. 

Thus far, all the Saudi monarchy has bought is civil war and chaos in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Pakistan. Egypt is following suit. Even Field Marshal Sisi, Egypt's latest pharaoh, yet uncrowned, warns that things will get worse before they get better, much worse. 

Monte Palmer is Professor Emeritus at Florida State University, a former Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut, and a senior fellow at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. His recent books include The Arab Psyche and American Frustrations, The Politics of the Middle East, Islamic Extremism(with Princess Palmer), Political Development: Dilemmas and Challenges, and Egypt and the Game of Terror (a novel). 

(Copyright 2014 Monte Palmer) 

Medina

With giant umbrella’s that open to protect the visitors from the scorching sun.

By Ali Asghari
Masjid Al-Nabawi
(The Prophet’s Mosque) 
Location: Medina, Saudi Arabia

Odd Couple: Israel, Saudi Arabia Negotiate Union Against Iran

A surprising alliance is forming in the Middle East - between Israel and Saudi Arabia, as reports say the countries are negotiating a union, against Iran. Despite sharing common rivals, there's no official diplomatic relations between the states, and the two clash when it comes to Saudi Arabia's support of the Palestinians. 

The Axis Of Evil: Israel and Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have joined Israel in an informal alliance that is backing Egypt’s de facto military government.

Despite the international consternation over the bloody repression of  protests on the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, Israeli officials have been quietly lobbying Western leaders to back the government, warning that military rule is the only alternative in Egypt.

Alongside Israel’s representatives, Saudi Arabia’s diplomats have also been seeking to persuade the US and the EU not to levy sanctions on Egypt.

The Saudis, along with their Gulf neighbours, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, have already promised around $12 billion of aid to Egypt, far more than the US provides.

Israel and Saudi Arabia, their regional alliance could prove a formidable axis in the future.

... in a rare public acknowledgment of the security ties between the countries, an adviser to Egypt’s caretaker president, Adli Mansour, said in a television interview that “it is natural for Israel to monitor events in a neighbouring country” and that such activity is necessary to prevent “spill-over” of the situation in Sinai and “is in the entire region’s interest”.

For more than three decades since the signing of the Camp David Accords, Israel and Egypt have been tacit allies against the radical axis in the region which today includes Iran, Syria and Hizbollah in Lebanon. 

As the revolution began stirring in January 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the Obama administration and other Western governments to continue backing President Hosni Mubarak.

Now that Mr Morsi is deposed, Israeli officials are quietly satisfied at the emergence of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as the de-facto leader of Egypt. “We know al-Sisi and we can do business with him,” said one senior Israeli security official.

Iran's Neighbors Wouldn't Join Nuke Arms Race

In a study published last week, two experts from the Department of War Studies at King's College in London argue that key regional players - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey - are unlikely to follow suit and develop their own nuclear arsenals.

Indeed, Christopher Hobbs and Matthew Moran argue that the Middle East itself offers evidence that "nuclear proliferation is not inevitable".

Israel remains the region's sole nuclear-armed power - albeit an undeclared one - more than four decades after it acquired nuclear weapons capability.

The flaw in the logic that "proliferation begets proliferation" is also demonstrated in North East Asia where North Korea's nuclear weapons have not provoked Japan or South Korea, countries with advanced civil nuclear programmes, to follow suit despite a long history of regional conflict.

Via: "The National"

The Syrian Intelligence War

A Tale of Two Security Headquarters

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes,

There is much more to the conflict in Syria than meets the eye. Syria is currently the scene of a cold war between the US, NATO, Israel, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on one side and Russia, China, Iran, and the Resistance Bloc on the other hand. Amidst the fighting between the Syrian government and anti-government forces, an intense intelligence war has also been taking place.
Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst (BND, Federal Intelligence Service), has been pointing its finger at Al-Qaeda for the bombings in Syria. This, however, has the effect of hiding and detracting the role that the intelligence services of the US and its allies have played. By crediting Al-Qaeda, the Bundes Nachrichtendienst is helping get Washington and its allies off the hook. Albeit Al-Qaeda is far more than just a US intelligence asset, the organization and label of Al-Qaeda is a catch-all term that is used to camouflage the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other affiliated intelligence services.

Syrian intellectuals and scientists have also been reportedly assassinated in Damascus. Like in Iraq and Iran, it is probably the work of Israel’s Mossad and part of Tel Aviv’s policy of crippling scientific and technological advancement in enemy states. Informed sources in Washington have already clarified that Israel is helping the Free Syrian Army and actively participating in the intelligence war against Syria. 

An unnamed US official has confirmed to David Ignatius that both the CIA and Mossad are involved in Syria. [1] In his own words: “Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile.” [2] A Qatari defector in Venezuela has also been reported to have divulged that the Qataris have been outsourced intelligence work against Syria by the CIA and Mossad.

The Bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters and its Crisis Unit in Damascus

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters in the northwest Damascene neighbourhood of Al-Rawda on July 18, 2012. Very little is actually known about what happened exactly. Moreover, Syrian television and media did not show scenes of the explosion as people have become accustomed to. This may be due to the security-based nature of the bombing location.

Key members of Syria’s security and military command structure, Dawoud Rajiha, Assef Shawkat, and Hassan Turkmani, were all killed on July 18. Rajiha was the Syrian defence minister, deputy prime minister, and deputy commander-in-chief of the Syrian Armed Forces. Assef Shawkat was the Syrian deputy defence minister and the husband of Bashar Al-Assad’s older sister Bushra. Hassan Turkmani was the Syrian assistant vice-president, head of Syria’s crisis management operations, and the army general that was formerly minister of defence from 2004 to 2009. Hisham Ikhtiyar (Bakhtiar/Bakhtyar), the chief of the Syrian National Security Bureau, who was also hurt by the bombing, would also die from the injuries he sustained two days later on July 20. These men all formed what was called the Crisis Unit.
The Killing of the Crisis Unit was executed by a Foreign Intelligence Service
Saudi sources have taken the opportunity to report that the Syrian officials were killed by Maher Al-Assad, the commander of the Syrian Republican Guard and President Al-Assad’s younger brother, because of a rift between them that saw the general’s supporting a political solution over a combative solution.  [3] Pakistani sources, claiming to be receiving direct reports from the perpetrators of the July 18 bombing, contradicted the report by saying Maher Al-Assad was also a target and wounded during the attack. [4] The Pakistani source published the following:

“Everyone came in time, but Maher Al-Assad did not show up. Two men responsible for the mission waited for some time and pressed the remote control button as the dreaded general took his seat,” the [Syrian Free Army] source said.

“Our men filmed the video from a safe distance which would be made public at an appropriate time,” he revealed to this correspondent [that is, Naveed Ahmad]. One of the two daredevils was an employee of the government and worked in the very office the device was planted while the other was an outsider, according to the [Syrian Free Army] source.

[…]

The [Free Syrian Army] sources said Maher had brought his best friend Ghassan Bilal to the meeting as well. Maher al-Assad, who was never seen in the funeral of the key security aides assassinated in the attack, was in fact severely injured and according to a source de-capacitated. [5]

What the Pakistani source discloses is unreliable for several reasons. One of them is that the credibility of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is extremely questionable. The Free Syrian Army has an undeniable track-record for shoddy propaganda and lying. Syria has also rejected claims about the Free Syrian Army’s involvement and the assertions that the bomb was remote controlled.

The Free Syrian Army was most probably bypassed by the US and its allies for this targeted attack. Instead of outsourcing the attack to the Free Syrian Army, the operation was probably directly conducted either by the intelligence agency of a NATO or GCC state or a consortium of intelligence agencies trying to topple the Syrian government.
A Damascene Operation Ajax
The attack on the Syrian National Security Headquarters in Al-Rawda was a carefully coordinated event that was synchronized with the assault on Damascus by the various armed groups operating under the umbrella and banner of the Free Syrian Army. It is clear that the US and its allies more or less used the same playbook of tactics in Damascus that were used in 2011 to topple the Jamahiriya government in Tripoli. Both are modern reincarnations of the infamous Operation Ajax, which was an intelligence operation launched in 1953 by the US and British governments to topple the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossageh in Iran. Washington and London installed a brutal and repressive dictatorship under Mohammed-Reza Shah in place of Dr. Mossadegh’s government and Iran was transformed from a constitutional monarchy into a de facto absolute monarchy.

The aim of the attack on high-ranking Syrian officials, especially important figures from the military and security apparatus that has been the backbone of the Syrian regime, was two-pronged. The attacks aim was to cripple Syria’s command structure with the objective of disorganizing resistance to anti-government forces and creating internal panic within the hierarchy of the Syrian government and military. This psychological blow was supposed to lead to fear, defections, and betrayal as anti-government forces attacked the gates of the Syrian capital.

The mainstream media, in terms of what scholar Edward Said called “image making” experts, also played a supportive role in the US-sponsored siege of Damascus. [7] Securing a monopoly over information and air waves has also been a part of the intelligence war and a goal of the US and its allies. This is why the signals of Syrian broadcasters have been banned from the Arab Satellite Communications Organization (Arabsat) and Nilesat satellite feeds. This is aimed at preventing Syria from countering the claims of the US and its allies and proxies. By the same token the US and the EU are also trying to cut and block Iranian stations, which are challenging the accounts of the mainstream media in NATO and GCC states. This is also the reason why the US and British media very decidedly condemned the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese medias in their news coverage of the Syrian crisis, which challenge the tide of misinformation from the declining networks of CNN, Fox News, France 24, and Al Jazeera. [8]

Like the original Operation Ajax in 1953, in which the state-run British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) took part, the mainstream media broadcasts from NATO and GCC states have been synchronized to shape the events on the ground. The media war intensified when the anti-government forces launched their attack of Damascus. The aim was to fuel panic and fear with the hope of getting the Syrian government and the Syrian military to scatter and lose hope instead of facing the anti-government forces. The ultimate objectives are to demoralize the Syrian population and to weaken the Syrian government’s domestic support.

The media outlets of NATO and GCC states insinuated that President Assad and his family fled Damascus to Lattakia and would seek asylum in the Russian Federation. [9] Again, the aims were to cause panic and both the governments in Syria and Russia rejected the false claims. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Assad was “not even thinking about” fleeing to Russia. [10] This was a repeat of British Foreign Secretary William Hague’s 2011 lie that Muammar Qaddafi had fled from Libya to Venezuela. [11] This behaviour also falls into line with British Prime Minister David Cameron’s false claim that Vladimir Putin had told him that President Assad had to step down. [12]
A New Saudi Intelligence Boss: Return of  Prince “Bandar Bush”
Shortly after the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters, a July 19 royal decree was enacted in Riyadh to replace Prince Muqrin (Mogren) bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud as the director-general of the external intelligence agency of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al-Istikhbarat Al-Amah (General Intelligence).

Since 2005, Prince Bandar has been the secretary-general of the Saudi Arabian National Security Council, but his new appointment has made heads turn and is being used to infer that Saudi Arabia has a far more aggressive foreign policy. What the appointment reflects is that Saudi Arabia is fully in the service of the US in its intelligence wars against Syria and Iran and that Washington’s men in  Riyadh have a firm grip over Saudi Arabia’s intelligence, security, and military apparatus. In the words of the Saudi pundit Jamal Khashoggi and the chief of the Bahrain-base Al-Arab network: “Bandar is quite aggressive, not at all like a typical cautious Saudi diplomat. If the aim is to bring Bashar down quick and fast, he will have a free hand to do what he thinks necessary.” [13]

Prince Bandar, the son of the deceased Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has been one of the central figures in creating Al-Qaeda and manipulating militant groups as geo-political tools for Washington since the Cold War. He was the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. He has been a key figure in the intelligence war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its allies and involved in exporting Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon in an attempt to help the Hariri family fight Hezbollah and the March 8 Alliance.

Because he was the Saudi ambassador to Washington, he became the key figure in Saudi-US relations and developed close ties to the Bush family, which earned him the name “Bandar Bush.” It has been reported that the relationship was so close that the US Secret Service was part of his security detail. Moreover, he has had a long history with Robert Gates, starting from when Gates was a member of the CIA and helping mobilize fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. [14]

In 2009, Bandar may have attempted to launch a silent coup in Saudi Arabia to impose his father, Crown Prince Sultan, as the new absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was not seen for several years and may have been in some form of confinement.  Things changed, however, in 2011 with the Arab Spring; Prince Bandar, Washington’s man, was seen in public again.

Bandar may also be a key figure in Saudi negotiations with Pakistan to purchase nuclear bombs. [15] United Press International writes:

“As Iran becomes more dangerous and the United States becomes more reluctant to engage in military missions overseas, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may find that renewed military and nuclear cooperation is the best way to secure their interests,” observed Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, former [Pentagon] policy advisers on South Asia and the Middle East. [16]

The picture that UPI depicts actually is misleading. If anyone is pushing the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons, it is Washington. The US has also been heavily arming the Saudi regime and the GCC for the same reasons. One dimension of the US strategy is clear: Washington aims to create multiple and ongoing contained conflicts in the Middle East to bleed the region and keep it immobilized. Like the Israelis, the US wants perpetual civil war in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and even Turkey. By being duped into burning its bridges with Syria, the Turkish government has laid the foundations for the destabilization of the Turkish republic. 

A Tale of Two Security Headquarters
Days after the appointment of Prince Bandar and the attack of the Syrian Crisis Unit an attack on General Intelligence’s Headquarters in Riyadh was reported by Yemen’s Al-Fajr Press and then widely quoted by the Iranian media. The blast is reported to have killed Banadar’s number two man, the deputy director-general of Saudi external intelligence, while he was entering the building. Rumours are also circulating that Bandar may have been hurt or killed. Saudi Arabia has remained silent over the issue.

The blast in Riyadh is no mere coincidence. It is a retaliatory response to the blast in the Syrian National Security Headquarters.  The chances that the Syrians executed the operation while all their energies are being spent on fighting against the US-directed siege on their country are marginal, but still possible. This is speculation, but it is most likely that one of Syria’s friends and allies retaliated against the Saudis for their involvement in the attack on the Crisis Unit in Damascus.

A remote-controlled bomb was also discovered in front of a Yemenese Intelligence building in Aden on July 22, 2012. [17] The event came shortly after a Yemenese intelligence officer died after a targeted attack in the province of Bayda. [18] What this means is a matter of speculation, but what is clear is that that the intelligence apparatus of Arab states are being targeted. There is a full-out intelligence war in the Middle East and there are probably cross-cutting alliances.

The Bush Jr. Administration’s “Redirection” Policy is Manifest under Obama

In Yemen, the national military has successfully been fractured and divided, which is exactly what Washington, DC and its NATO and GCC allies want to replicate in Syria. Regime change is not their only goal, the destruction and balkanization of the Syrian Arab Republic is. They want sectarianism and balkanization to take root in Syria and across the Middle East.  To paraphrase, when the so-called spiritual leaders of the Syrian Free Army and anti-government forces begin saying that “Israel and the Sunnis are allies against the Shias” or that “all Alawites must be exterminated,” it is clear that the end goal is to regionally divide and conquer the peoples of the Middle East by pitting them against one another. 

This is part of the Middle East policy that the Bush Jr. White House called the “redirection” in 2007: “The ‘redirection,’ as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.” [19] Robert Gates, Bandar’s old comrade, was brought into the Pentagon to oversee this “redirection” and retained by Barak Obama, who’s “A New Beginning” Speech in Cairo is an extension of this policy.  The New Yorker is worth quoting about what the “redirection” policy began to implement:  “[Washington] has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.” [20]

Regardless of the political position that one takes about President Assad and his government, what has to be emphasized is that the governments of the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are not involving themselves under the cover of the so-called “international community” on the basis of concern for the Syrian people and their well being. Because of them the words “protester” and “activist” have been hijacked by anti-government militias and foreign intelligence services. Humanitarianism and human rights are not the motive for US involvement. This is a fairy-tale for the naïve. Geo-political opportunism is at play and all the parties involved have blood on their hands at the expense of the Syrian people.

Via: "Global Research"

Who Will Rule The Middle East

The Arab Autumn: Palestine and The New Caliphate

By ISRAEL SHAMIR
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
Courtesy Of "CounterPunch"

Autumn in the Middle East hasn’t the melancholy connotations you attach to it in the West. For you, this is the season of dying; leaves change color and fall and birds fly south. For us, this is the jolly season of awakening after stupefying summer heat; grass hatches again on the burned-to-reddish-brown lawns and trees are heavy with ripe figs and pomegranates.

Arab Spring, as the wave of spectacular February risings was called, gave way to Arab Summer, that hot and meaningless season of vainly seeking shade or a cool dip under a mercilessly blazing sun. In Egypt, the military junta continued Mubarak’s policies; in Libya, armed gangs prowled the desert under the expensive parasol of the NATO Air Force; in Syria, mythic adventures of a Damascus Lesbian Blogger unfolded, penned and composed by a middle-aged American ex-intelligence agent from his Scottish retirement. Palestine was easily forgotten, and a neocon observer happily and hastily announced that “the Arab Spring has rendered the Palestinian issue irrelevant”.

Autumn came, and the summer haze dissipated. The first fruits sown in the spring budded forth: the Israeli Embassy fortress-on-the Nile was stormed, Turkey recalled last year’ s insult, and the Saudis threatened the US for the first time ever. Palestine is center stage again, and the UN application for Palestinian statehood of Mahmud Abbas is the centrepiece of the new mosaic. Now we can reassess the evidence and finally begin to understand what is actually happening in the Middle East: is it an authentic drive for liberalization and democracy, a credit card revolt, a carefully orchestrated plot? And where is it all leading to? Apparently our region is being re-formatted just like the hard drive on your computer, and at the end of this brief process, a long-forgotten Caliphate will rise again, as we shall further explain.

Why Palestinians Are Applying For UN Recognition 

Palestinians are tired of never-ending negotiations. They were promised speedy independence in long-gone 1993, the year Mandela got his Nobel Peace Prize and Jurassic Park was a box office hit. The Oslo Agreement between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin was expected to solve the whole problem very soon after a brief autonomy interlude. It didn’t work out: Arafat was poisoned, Rabin was shot, consequent Jewish governments played for time and intermittently massacred the impatient Palestinians. The negotiations went on, nevertheless. . . and on, and on …

The Palestinian people got tired of and lost faith in the negotiations long time ago: in the first free democratic elections in 2006 they voted against Fatah, the party of negotiations. Now, five years later, Mahmud Abbas and his Fatah party have also gotten tired of wasting their time, and fear the possibility of losing everything in the end. Abbas has lost a lot of face. His adversaries consider him an Israeli sock puppet sitting on Israeli bayonets. They say that he has no mandate to rule. He is worried that the next intifada wave will sweep him away like another Mubarak, and the Israelis would not — will not — save him. His only other option is to become irrelevant to the great new reformatting of the region. That is why he has made peace with Hamas and applied to the UN for recognition, whileatthesametimeordering anti-riot equipment — just in case!

Unless he and his Fatah plan to cultivate an orchard and sell olive oil in retirement, they need to show some results, but the time – and the reformatting – make Abbas’ position precarious. Fatah belongs to the vaguely socialist nationalist Arab movement, that of Baath and Nasser, and this movement is dying. In Iraq it was destroyed by the US invasion; in Egypt, it was wasted by Mubarak’s policies; in Libya, it was bombed out of existence by NATO and in Syria it is being severely undermined. These Arab socialists have made too many compromises with the neoliberals, encouraged their new super-rich billionaires, taken too many bribes and have lost public support to a great degree. Like salt that has lost its savor, they have lost their meaning. They are suffering the fate of the US trade unions, the Mexican Institution Revolutionary Party and the European social democrats, while their inherent post-revolutionary inflexibility did not allow them to change.

Mahmud Abbas understands as well as anybody that the UN resolution will not give him a viable state, but he will regain some annoyance valuevis a vis the Israelis. He is very pro-American, his security forces are trained by the Americans, and he was hoping that his bid will be accepted. This would be a reasonable hope in light of Obama’s Cairo speech, and indeed Obama would like to play along. However, US Jews are too powerful and too proudly nationalist to give him some leeway. They prefer Netanyahu with his silly intransigence. The US political class has accepted this as a given, and Netanyahu was greeted by ovations that would make even Comrade Stalin or Colonel Qaddafi proud. The unexpected loss of Weiner’s seat in the Congress, and the fear of Jews derailing the President’s reelection, compelled the Obama administration to promise a veto in the UN Security Council.

It is a forced decision, but not a wise one, for the UnitingforPeace process allows an override of the US veto, and apparently this Doomsday weapon of international politics will be employed for the first time since the Korean war in 1950, this time against the US. In a way, by thus demonstrating its submissiveness, the US has disqualified itself from ruling in the Middle East.

Who Will Rule The Middle East? 

No one can rule (let alone reformat) the region after the defeat of Arab nationalism unless he enjoys popular support. People should like their political direction. And there is no better puller in the Middle East, from Athens to Cairo, than offering  fight to the Jewish invader. The reason is not some kind of prejudice or a mythical anti-Semitism, but rather, a pervasive love for the Holy Land, and its native inhabitants so terribly mistreated by the Zionists. Proverbs (30:22) explains: “Under [this] the earth trembles: a servant who becomes a king”; and an Israeli writer has argued that this applies to the Jews in his country. Used to serving other rulers, they have not developed sufficient charity, compassion and moderation, they mistreat the natives cruelly and unfairly, and as a result, they succeed only in uniting the Middle East in rejection of their enterprise.

The acid test for a ruler in the Middle East is his attitude towards the Holy Land . Our people are concerned with its fate more than they are concerned with elusive democracy and liberalism — more than they are interested in Facebook and Twitter. In February we wrote: this is the end of the Israeli-American order established by the Camp David Accords. Now we begin to see a new order coming.

Whoever wants to rule the region should think of Palestine. Moreover, demonstrating this is the prerequisite for a leadership bid. It was done by Turkey: After long wait, the Erdogan government made a few striking moves: it sent the Israeli ambassador  packing, it stopped military cooperation with and military purchases from Israel, and Erdogan promised to come in person to Gaza on board of his navy’s protective fleet. The results were impressive: upon his visit in Cairo, this heir to the Sultan was called “a new Saladin”, after the Sultan who defeated the Crusaders on the battlefield of Kurun al Hattin above the Sea of Galilee in 1187. He was treated by the people as a liberator and savior. If this was the reward for his words, what will be his reward for his deeds?

Egypt is ripe for a new revolution: Egyptians tore down the wall around the Israeli embassy and stormed the building. They expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling military junta for its lack of action and for its continuation of Mubarak’s policies sine Mubarak. Indeed the Egyptians have precious little to show for their February uprising and its thousand martyrs. General Tantawi had been chosen by Mubarak himself to become his successor years ago. The political regime has not changed, elections are being postponed, the Gaza blockade goes on, and even the killing of Egyptian soldiers by Israelis did not disrupt normalcy.

Turkey has the legitimacy to provide the new order, call it a Caliphate, for Caliphate is another name for the Ottoman Empire, the equivalent of the EC or of NAFTA. Istanbul (Constantinople) was the last seat of the Caliphate till WWI, and the natural capital of the Middle East since the fourth century. The end of violently secular Kemalism and the rise of the Islamic AKP has opened gates for Turkey’s bid for the resurrection of the Caliphate. Turkey is a natural leader, and in case Syria should fall apart, Turkey will be able to reintegrate it within the Caliphate.

Second Force 

But Turks are not the only claimants. A new force has arisen meanwhile in the Middle East. It is led by the Saudis and their close allies, including Qatar. They have plenty of money, and they have a most powerful media tool, al Jazeera. They are fervent Muslims, strictly anti-socialist, and they plan to reformat the region according to their tastes. They are the main beneficiaries of the NATO attack on Libya, and they have invested a lot of resources in the destabilization of Syria. Until recently, they remained almost invisible and did not show their hand. It is the issue of Palestine that brought them out into the light.

Prince Turki al Faisal wrote in the NY Times: Saudi Arabia will part with the US if it vetoes the Palestinian bid. This is not only done out of sympathy for the people of Palestine, but is also an apparent bid for regional supremacy. The Saudis are contesting for the crown of the Caliphate, no less — they want it for themselves. To this end, they have spent a lot of money over a long period of time; they destroyed Qaddafi and are undermining Assad. They have good working relations with the Turkish AKP; Erdogan and Gul are familiar with the Saudis, spent some time in their country and benefited from Saudi support. If the Saudis want to be top dogs, however, they are going to have to put more effort into Palestine.

Probably Turkey is the more realistic claimant: it is a big, prosperous, modern country; its orthodox Islam has a strong touch of Sufism (think of Rumi, the greatest Sufi poet and saint adored by the Turks). Saudis with their Protestant-Puritan branch of Islam (Salafist or Wahhabist) have less chance to succeed. Historically, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina were unable to keep the seat of Caliph to themselves; probably they will fail this time, too, unless they are willing to moderate their goals and play second fiddle to Turkey.

The UN Bid 

The US has some hard choices to make. Vetoing the Palestinian bid will become an empty gesture, but a vivid demonstration of the Americans’ bias. Europeans will not help them: they did not bomb Libya in order to pass the gains on to Zionists. The US administration can’t get out of the Jewish embrace.

Perhaps Israel will come to its senses and relax about the UN vote, as proposed by Kadima leader Tsipi Livni . Even if the Palestinian resolution should carry the day, Israel still has the most powerful army in the region and enjoys unqualified US support. Israelis can ignore the resolution as they have ignored hundreds of General Assembly resolutions, repeating Ben Gurion’s maxim: “Who cares what the Goyim say? What’s important is what the Jews do”. American-Arab philosopher Joseph Massad wrote that Israel will win anyway: if the Palestinians win their bid they will have a small Bantustan, if they fail, they will lose momentum.

Ali Abunima has listed many reasons against the bid. Indeed, the independence of PNA (Palestinian National Authority) is not the ideal. It will not solve the problems of refugees, of separation between the West Bank and Gaza, of discrimination within Israel proper. But don’t worry: Mahmud Abbas’ bid will not create an independent Palestine. It will get the Palestinian train out of impasse, it will wipe the snide smirk off Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s faces; it will undermine the US hold on the region. More importantly, it will support a new dynamic, extremely negative for Israel, even if this straw does not break the camel’s back. Anyway, the Palestinians can’t solve this problem themselves: elimination of the apartheid regime in Israel/Palestine will be effected by the future Caliphate, which is sure to enhance its legitimacy and popularity.

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net.

The Saudi Counter-Revolution

By Samer Araabi
Posted: August 23, 2011
Courtesy Of "Right-Web"

At the end of February 2011, it looked as though the old order was crumbling across the Arab world. Inspired by the self-immolation of a Tunisian street vendor, massive popular demonstrations ousted Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was not long to follow. Similar uprisings began to swell in Algeria, Jordan, Bahrain, and Yemen, and the anciens regimes appeared helpless against the rising tide of popular anger and nonviolent resistance.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, actively worked to encourage the forces of counter-revolution throughout the region. From Morocco to Bahrain, Saudi financing, support, and intelligence has sought to prevent political turmoil, reinforce existing dynasties, and crush nascent democratic movements before they could reach critical mass. This reactionary tide has been supported by some ideologues in Washington, who worry that Arab democratization would be detrimental to U.S. policy objectives.

Though allowing Saudi Arabia to stifle change and suffocate democratic aspirations within the region may appear to serve U.S. interests in the short term, it will certainly have blowback down the road. At a watershed political moment, the United States has failed to act in accordance with its stated principles, and as a result, popular anger towards Saudi Arabia’s counter-revolutionary campaigns is causing increasing numbers of Arabs to turn against the United States as well. The fallout from Washington’s support for the Arab counter-revolution could haunt U.S. policy for decades to come.

The Wrong Side Of History

The reaction of U.S. elites to the wave of Arab democratization has been lukewarm at best. While paying lip service to self-professed ideals of democracy and self-determination, government officials and policy analysts have expressed reservations about the long-term implications of Arab democracy to U.S. strategic interests.

Some pundits, like Daniel Pipes, the neoconservative director of the Middle East Forum, have worried about losing “our bastards” in the Middle East and the damage new regimes could do to themselves and their neighbors.[1] Others have been busy wringing their hands about volatility in energy markets, reduced access to oil and natural gas reserves, and the potential nationalization of corporate holdings.[2] There is little doubt, however, that one of the main strategic concerns is the potential damage that a new power dynamic could inflict on the two key U.S. regional allies: Israel and Saudi Arabia.[3]

Israeli fears have been apparent from the very beginning, which is not much of a surprise considering the anti-Zionist messages emanating from Egypt and Tunisia.[4] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was visibly distraught over the loss of a key regional ally in Hosni Mubarak, and Israeli entreaties have likely contributed to the lukewarm U.S. response to other uprisings.[5] However, Israel was helpless in stemming the tides of change in Egypt, and initially watched with trepidation as the unfriendly but reliable regime of Bashar Al-Assad has teetered on the brink of collapse.[6] Because of its limited regional reach, Israel has focused much of its energy on the halls of the U.S. Congress, counting on the faithful support of like-minded U.S. think tanks, journalists, and pundits.

The dirtier work of counter-revolutionary action, meanwhile, has fallen to the Saudi Arabian government.

Turning The Tides: Bahrain and The GCC Counter-Revolution

Nowhere has the outsized importance of Saudi interests been clearer than in the Obama administration’s response to the uprisings in the small island kingdom of Bahrain. Despite the apparently democratic, non-sectarian intentions of the protestors, both Riyadh and Washington were quick to play the sectarian card, inaccurately framing the conflict as one between Sunni and Shi’a, rather than between an entrenched regime and disillusioned citizenry.[7] As a result, the United States has significantly stepped back its support for Arab revolutions. “Not only is the U.S.—not to say the rest of the West—effectively deferring to Saudi policy, particularly in the Gulf, but it also appears to be hedging its bets against truly democratic change elsewhere in the region,” says Jim Lobe, Washington Bureau Chief of the Inter Press Service.

By rebranding the protestors as Iran-affiliated sectarian zealots, the Saudi-dominated Gulf Cooperation Council used a shared defense clause as a pretext to militarily assault the democratic movements.[8] On March 14, its Peninsula Shield Force moved thousands of troops into Bahrain in response to a rapidly-escalating protest movement. Despite assurances by Peninsula Shield force commander Mutlaq Bin Salem al-Azima that the military deployment intended to “bring goodness, peace, and love to Bahrain,” video footage and eye witness accounts detailed a grim scenario of mass arrests, beatings, and dozens of deaths.[9]

Though the Arab world, along with much of the international community, was visibly outraged at the invasion, Washington remained hesitant to interfere. At a press conference held during some of the worst violence against protestors, President Obama refused to openly condemn the Saudi offensive, stating instead that “each country is different, each country has its own traditions; America can't dictate how they run their societies.”[10]

A week later, a spokesperson for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen praised the Bahraini government “for the very measured way they have been handling the popular crisis here.”[11] Many Washington insiders applauded the decision to defend the Bahraini monarchy, secure the U.S. naval base, and guarantee stability for the Saudi regime. Michael Rubin, a self-professed “Arab democracy expert” at the American Enterprise Institute, argued that Obama must “preserve the monarchies,” offering only enough reform to guarantee “renewed stability and preservation of regimes that are essential to U.S. national security.”[12]

Regardless of whether Washington actively endorses Saudi Arabian objectives in Bahrain and elsewhere, there can be no doubt that U.S. support for the monarchy has been a cornerstone of Washington’s regional foreign policy. U.S. arms exports to Saudi Arabia have recently surpassed the level of weapons supplied to Israel, making Saudi Arabia the number one importer of U.S. weapons worldwide.[13]

Meanwhile, the GCC has begun to expand its reach to include other conservative Arab monarchies, entertaining the possibility of adding Jordan and Morocco to its membership list. Though Jordan and Morocco have historic ties with the Gulf, primarily through energy dependence and economic aid, the inclusion of non-Gulf states into the GCC is an unprecedented maneuver, leading the Economist to joke that the organization should be renamed the “Gulf Counter-Revolutionary Club.”[14]

Issandr Al-Amrani, proprietor of the popular blog The Arabist, succinctly explained the underlying motive as based in shared security concerns: “Some of the Gulf countries—notably Saudi Arabia—have an interest in not seeing any Arab monarchy evolve towards a real, democratic, constitutional monarchy.”[15]

Remarkably, scarcely a word of protest has emanated from Washington. Elliott Abrams, a neoconservative ideologue at the Council on Foreign Relations, admitted that “the Saudis have counseled (i.e., pressured) the kings of Morocco and Jordan to abandon their announced reform plans,” while arguing that “an enlarged and well financed GCC can provide real leadership to the Arab world,” stressing the need to “preserve royal roles” and “good relations with the United States, including in most cases close intelligence and military ties.”[16]

Yemen

The influence and power of the GCC can also be seen in Yemen, where the Saudis have assumed primary responsibility for mediating between the Yemeni public and their delegitimized dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh. The GCC plan—calling for immunity from prosecution for Saleh and a guaranteed majority for Saleh’s party in the future cabinet—was roundly rejected by the public, eliciting demonstrations and riots across Yemen.[17]

Once again, Washington turned a blind eye to popular demands, deferring to the GCC plan and moderating its own expectations to align with those of the Saudis.[18] Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) used the same rhetoric employed by beleaguered dictators across the Middle East to warn a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that Yemen constitutes a “jihadist nest” where the loss of strong leadership would inevitably embolden terrorist movements.[19] The Obama administration followed suit, strongly urging both the Yemeni government and the protestors to accept Saudi mediation.[20]

Even now, Saudi Arabia has continued to support Saleh during his convalescence in Riyadh, helping to plan and support his return to Yemen. Despite the fact that Yemeni opposition groups have formed their own transitional council, both Saudi Arabia and the United States have continued to insist on Saleh’s return, and many expect Yemen to descend back into chaos as a result.[21]

Tunisia and Egypt

Even the successful overthrows in Tunisia and Egypt are being directly influenced by Saudi Arabian politics. While Ben Ali lives comfortably in exile in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has stepped up as the largest creditor for both Tunisia and Egypt, providing $4 billion to Egypt alone in the form of soft loans, credit lines, bond purchases, and central bank deposits, more than double the amount pledged by the United States.[22] Such financial reliance will doubtless buy significant political influence, and high level Egyptian government officials have already met on numerous occasions with members of the ruling Al-Saud family. Concerns already abound that Saudi influence is negatively affecting the trial of Mubarak. After Saudi officials condemned Mubarak’s prosecution as a “humiliating spectacle,”[23] the trial has subsequently been pulled from television, and adjourned until the following month.

“Pro-Israel” U.S. organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are conveniently ignoring the pervasive Saudi influence on the post-revolutionary states. A recent report by David Schenker titled “Egypt’s Enduring Challenges: Shaping the Post-Mubarak Environment” devotes significant attention to “Concerns about Iran” and the importance of “Standing up to Hizballah,” but any discussion on Saudi Arabia is notably absent.[24]

For its own part, Washington has hedged its support for the burgeoning democracy in Egypt by channeling much if its funding directly to the military, and exerting influence to ensure that trusted military leaders maintain significant political power.[25] Such figures, such as Commander-in-chief Mohamed Tantawi, have been largely discredited by the Egyptians themselves,[26] and many have troublesome histories as puppets of the dictatorship. Their presence may keep the situation temporarily stable, but the long-term effects of externally supporting Mubarak’s legacy will almost certainly prove troublesome.

Libya

With Libya now under the control of rebel forces, it is useful to see the role that GCC money, arms, intelligence, and strategic support have played in propping up the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC). Keen to keep the anti-Qaddafi movement controlled by Gulf-friendly allies, the Saudis have actively worked to bestow legitimacy to factions led by ex-Justice Minister Mustapha Abdul-Jalil, and Saudi training and support has encouraged the creation of a surprisingly robust security apparatus for the state-to-be, complete with torture, indefinite detention, and acts of wanton violence again civilian populations.[27]

It did not take long for the security apparatus of the Libyan resistance to turn on itself. As Patrick Cockburn notes in the Independent, “This week TNC diplomats took over the Libyan embassies in London and Washington and are about to do so in Ottawa. In a masterpiece of mistiming, Britain recognized the rebel government on the day when some of its members were shooting their own commander-in-chief and burning his body.”[28]

The new leadership has also created a deeply concerning gender dynamic. Unlike the popular movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere, the Saudi-supported Libyan opposition is bereft of female representation. While women were instrumental in starting the protests, they now constitute less than 5 percent of the current opposition leadership.[29] As the popular blogger As’ad Abu-Khalil tellingly remarked, the “House of Saud serving as the mid-wife of change … will ensure that the newborn is a horrific monster.”[30]

History Repeating

The preservation of the Arab monarchies is a clear strategic benefit to Saudi Arabia, and the monarchs’ willingness to support militarist U.S. policies has earned them the support of many U.S. neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks. History, however, cannot be unmade, and the rising tide of resentment Arabs bear for their rulers is quickly translating into frustration toward the western powers that enable them.

Much as the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of Iranian Prime Minster Mohammed Mossadeq has colored Iranian relations with the United States for decades, so will our handling of the Arab Spring determine how the next generation of Arabs will choose to interact with the United States. Preliminary polling by the Pew Research Center shows that Egyptians’ approval rating of the United States remains below 20 percent, and most Egyptians view Washington as an obstacle to their liberation, rather than an advocate for it. [31] Even more disturbing is a recent poll conducted by IBOPE/Zogby International, that shows in post-revolutionary Egypt, support for the United States is at an all-time low of 5 percent. Similar trends are seen in in the newly-inducted GCC states of Jordan and Morocco.

To continue to ignore the democratic aspirations of millions, in the interests of misguided short-term strategies, is to doom U.S. efforts in the Middle East for decades to come. Undoing the damage caused by the “U.S.-Saudi Axis”[32] will require American policymakers to break with the Saudi regime, denounce its efforts to stifle democracy, and roundly criticize its draconian subjugation of its own population. Otherwise, Washington’s legitimacy can scarcely be said to be any higher than that of the regimes it continues to support.

Samer Araabi is a contributor to Right Web and Foreign Policy in Focus.

[1]Daniel Pipes, “Reflections on Hosni Mubarak’s Resignation,” DanielPipes.org, February 11, 2011, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/02/reflections-on-hosni-mubarak-resignation.

[2]James Smith, “US Ambassador on Oil Supplies, Arab Spring,” Susris Tube, March 11, 2011, http://susristube.com/2011/03/11/us-ambassador-on-oil-supplies-arab-spring/.

[3]Joseph Massad, “The Future of the Arab Uprisings,” Al Jazeera, May 18, 2011,http://aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151885013738898.html.

[4]“Egyptian protesters hold an anti-Israeli sign while waving Egyptian and Palestinian flags in the coastal city of Alexandria,” Oman Daily Observer, May 14, 2011, http://main.omanobserver.om/node/50989.

[5]Barak Ravid, “Netanyahu warns outcome of Egypt revolution could be like Iran's,” Haaretz, January 31, 2011, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-warns-outcome-of-egypt-revolution-could-be-like-iran-s-1.340411.

[6]Edmund Sanders, “Israel fears the alternative if Syria's Assad falls,” Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/world/la-fg-israel-syria-20110331.

[7i]David Byrd, “Bahraini Source Contradicts Government Version of Crackdown,”Voice of America, May 26, 2011, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Bahraini-Source-Contradicts-Government-Version-of-Crackdown-122662524.html.

[8]Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick, “Bahrain crackdown fueling tensions between Iran, Saudi Arabia,” Washington Post, April 22,http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bahrain-crackdown-fueling-tensions-between-iran-saudi-arabia/2011/04/21/AFVe6WPE_story.html.

[9]Muqbil al-Saeri, “A talk with Peninsula Shield force commander Mutlaq Bin Salem al-Azima,” Asharq AlAwsat, March 28, 2011,http://www.webcitation.org/5xYJcDTUV.

[10]Barack Obama, “Press Conference by the President,” February 15, 2011,http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/15/press-conference-president.

[11]Stephen Zunes, “America Blows It on Bahrain,” Foreign Policy in Focus,March 2, 2011, http://www.fpif.org/articles/america_blows_it_on_bahrain.

[12]Michael Rubin, “What To Do about Bahrain,” American Enterprise Institute,February 18, 2011, http://www.aei.org/article/103193.

[13]“Saudis Replace Israel as Top Importer of U.S. Arms,” World Tribune, July 7, 2011,http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_military0837_07_07.asp.

[14]“The Gulf Co-operation Council: A club fit for kings,” The Economist, May 19, 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18713680?story_id=18713680.

[15]Issandr El Amrani, “Some thoughts on GCC enlargement,” The Arabist, May 14, 2011, http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/5/14/some-thoughts-on-gcc-enlargement.html.

[16]Elliot Abrams, “The GCC: “Carefully Considered Reform” or Reactionary Politics?,” Council on Foreign Relations, May 12, 2011,http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/05/12/the-gcc-carefully-considered-reform-or-reactionary-politics/#more-1039.

[17]Christine Theodorou and Hakim Almasmari, “Witnesses: Thousands protest deal granting Yemeni president immunity,” CNN, April 24, 2011,http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/24/yemen.president.exit/index.html?hpt=T1.

[18]Howard LaFranchi,“Why Obama isn't pushing for Yemen president to go: Al Qaeda,” Christian Science Monitor, March 22, 2011,http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0322/Why-Obama-isn-t-pushing-for-Yemen-president-to-go-Al-Qaeda.

[19]Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, “Ros-Lehtinen Opening Statement from Yemen Hearing,”Council on Foreign Affairs, February 3, 2010,http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=1250.

[20]Associated Press, “US envoy in Yemen to push for power transfer”,  CBS News World, July 11, 2011,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/11/ap/world/main20078495.shtml.

[21]Kasinof, Laura, “Yemeni Opposition Leaders Form National Council,” The New York Times,  August 17, 2011,http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html.

[22]Una Galani, “Saudi $4 bln lifeline to Egypt won’t come for free,” Reuters, May 23, 2011, http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2011/05/23/saudi-4-bln-lifeline-to-egypt-wont-come-for-free/.

[23]News Africa, “Saudi Arabia official says Mubarak’s trial is a humiliating spectacle for everyone,” Newstime Africa, August 4, 2011,http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/21788.

[24]David Schenker, “Egypt’s Enduring Challenges: Shaping the Post-Mubarak Environment,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, April, 2011,http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus110.pdf.

[25]Jim Lobe, “Arab Spring Stalls as U.S. Defers to Saudi ‘Counter-revolution’,”Inter Press Service, April 23, 2011, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55365.

[26]Chick, Kristen, “Egypt's Army, once the darling of protesters, is now the subject of criticism,” Christian Science Monitor, April 8, 2011,http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0408/Egypt-s-Army-once-the-darling-of-protesters-is-now-the-subject-of-criticism.

[27]David Zucchino, “Libyan rebels appear to take leaf from Kadafi's playbook,”Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011,http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story.

[28]Cockburn, Patrick, “Libya's ragtag rebels are dubious allies,” The Independent,August 11, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-libyas-ragtag-rebels-are-dubious-allies-2335453.html.

[29]Kareem Fahim, “Libya Revolt Sidelines Women, Who Led It,” New York Times,May 19, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/africa/20benghazi.html.

[30]As’ad Abu-Khalil, “GCC leads the Yemen...REVOLUTION?” Angry Arab News Service, April 11, 2011, http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/04/gcc-leads-yemenrevolution.html.

[31]“Egyptians Embrace Revolt Leaders, Religious Parties and Military, As Well,”Pew Research Center Publications, April 25, 2011,http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1971/egypt-poll-democracy-elections-islam-military-muslim-brotherhood-April-6-movement-israel-obama.

[32]Joseph Massad, “The Future of the Arab Uprisings,” Al Jazeera, May 18, 2011, http://aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151885013738898.html.