Monday, December 25, 2017

BANDAR'S GAMBLE By Ghassan Kadi 1 September 2013

By Ghassan Kadi
1 September 2013

Bandar is playing a very dangerous gamble and a game that has perhaps a few weeks to either succeed or go down and bring him down with it.

Let us forget about today’s politics for a while and wind back the clock thirty years, the time when the USA created Al Qaida and supported Bin Laden to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. At that time Bandar was instrumental in this creation of Al Qaida, then a US proxy and the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. That was all during the Saudi/Bin Laden honeymoon.

Whether or not the politics and the logistics of supporting Islamic fundamentalists is something that is transparent or fundamentalist by nature, there is little doubt that amongst the ranks of fundamentalists there are many individuals, let alone would-be leaders, who are prepared to pull rank and change alliances if and when they see a diversion from fundamentalist Islam and its agenda. This was what Bin Laden did later on with Al-Saud and he became a very staunch opponent of the Saudi royal family to the extent that back in the early 2000’s, there was a lot of upheaval in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was Al Qaeda-based. There was a huge uproar against the regime and the Saudi royal family. The Islamists were asking for reform and some radical ones were even asking for the removal of the royal family.

Love them or hate them, most Islamist fighters are indoctrinated, and they genuinely believe that they are following the commands of God.

Bandar understands well how the mind of fundamentalists operate, and with this knowledge, he set himself two targets; thwarting off the Al Qaeda danger within Saudi Arabia, and building an army of indoctrinated mercenaries. To do this, in the eyes of the Islamists, he had to become the new Osama Bin Laden.

I wasn’t an easy task for Bandar to assume this role, but he played it well, even appearing to be the anti-royal within the ranks of the royals. The removal of Bin Laden from the scene gave Bandar a golden opportunity, after all the Islamists needed a new surrogate financier. This is how he managed to round up Islamist support all the way Tunisia to Chechnya to Malaysia.

Love him or hate him, Bin Laden was a highly indoctrinated man. He had his principles that he lived by and died for. Although Bin Laden put his hands in the hands of the Americans in the early 80’s, his intention was to “use” them to fight the then common enemy, the USR.

On the other hand, Bandar’s rise to power cannot be seen without understanding his close alliances with the USA. Dubbed Bandar Bush, Bandar has close friendships with the Bushes and many neo-cons. His anti-Iran stance is also mirrored by that of his American friends.

Credit must be given to Bandar for being able thus far to find a way for an unholy alliance between arch-enemies; the USA and the Islamists. He has so far been able to promise both of them victory against a common enemy; Iran, setting aside the animosities they for each other.

This is a promise that Bandar wasn’t able to fulfil. He was hoping for an early victory in Syria; a victory that would have appeased both unlikely partners, and before cracks start appearing in this partnership.

As the clock ticks ever towards choosing between Al Qaida/Islamists and America, Bandar is more intense on serving his obsession and fear of Iran at any cost and irrespective of what means he uses.
Before too long, and as the forthcoming war on Syria unfolds and as Bandar’s support for America becomes more evident and, as the American intervention in Syria finds itself at more odds with having to support Islamists in Syria in order for them to choose between their own interests and saving Bandar’s face, Bandar is going to find himself in a very tight spot. He will find himself in a very difficult position trying to be able to continue to convince the indoctrinated Islamists that he is still their new Osama bin Laden.

Regardless of the outcome of the war in Syria, it is only a question of time before Bandar’s current allies, the USA and the Islamists find their interests at odds. The more America gets bogged down in Syria, and the longer the battle for Syria rages, the weaker the Bandar alliance will grow. As it is already, Obama finds himself in an embarrassing situation, to say the least, intending to fight along Al-Qaeda.

When Bandar eventually runs out of tricks to pull and finds himself having to choose between the Islamists and the USA, he will have to take off his Bin Laden cloak and choose the latter because the USA is his “real friend”. He treats the Islamists under his belt as tokens that he possesses, not realizing that the Americans despise his guts, do not consider him a friend, and only see him as a token as well. They regard him as the rich fool who hates their enemies, and they want to use him to do a lot of dirty work they are unable to do themselves.

When Bandar starts to overtly favour the USA against the Islamists, the hand that he once fed will turn around and strangle him. He will find himself unable to control the Islamists within Saudi Arabia who are very anti royal family and who are intent to bring his royal family down. This time around, the conflict between the house of Saud and the Islamists will be much more intense than those of a decade ago. The feud will be further fuelled by Bandar’s let down leaving the Islamists feeling that they have been deceived.

This will be a time of Bandar’s reckoning and for him to reap the fruit of the seed he has planted.

APPEAL TO MEMBERS; RUSSIA AND SYRIA. By Ghassan Kadi 16 November 2013

*Posted to the members of "The Syrian Revolution; The Untold Story" which was the first serious and large pro-Syria group which Intibah was an admin of along with Chris Assad and Hiba Kelanee/Syriana/Salaam Shaheen). By mid 2013 we had our first problems with nefarious agents, first the ones sowing doubt about Syria's allies and then thousands of trolls that eventually succeeded in overwhelming the Syrian-Levantine led movement and diverting it.
hassan Kadi
16 November 2013

There have been a lot of speculations recently about the role of Russia in the Levant, especially after the Syrian Chemical Weapons (CW) deal.

The issue has caused quite a bit of controversy ranging from supporters for the whole Russian intervention including that of the CW deal, to utter rejectionists who regard the deal as tantamount to Syrian surrender and a total Syrian sell-out to Russia.

In some instances, the differences escalated to a level that seems to be increasingly becoming divisive even amongst the ranks of the pro-Syrian camp. This can become a serious matter unless debated openly and rationally. At the moment, this issue seems to be ignored, perhaps in fear of creating divisions. The anti-Russian camp is perhaps feeling marginalized because those who do not support this view (who are by the way the majority) are not debating the matter. In an attempt to clear the air and bolstering solidarity, I suggest that we debate this matter and invite those who have different opinions to make their contributions.

Arabi Souri, is an outstanding member of this group whom I greatly cherish and respect. He has made many significant contributions in exposing the truth about Syria. Most of my thoughts and analyses go hand-in-hand with those of Arabi and I have learnt so much in the past from his input. However, on the issue of the role of Russia I vehemently disagree with his vision.

There is no doubt that Putin is an aspiring world leader and that he sees that Russia has interests in Syria, but to regard the current Russian role as an act of treachery against Syria is totally and utterly ill-founded and there is no evidence to support. In fact, if anything, the evidence points exactly in the other direction.

To be brief and straight to the point, I will outline in dot point the reasons that make me adopt the “pro-Russian” side (if I can refer to it as such):

a. Russia is regaining and restoring its global role. Its first stand was in Georgia back in 2009.

b. Russia made it clear in the UNSC time and time again that it will veto any anti-Syrian resolution, and it did.

c. Russia made clear to NATO that attacking Syria without a UNSC resolution is a red line that will not be tolerated.

d. Russia has never put boots on the ground in foreign nations, not even in Vietnam. Not helping Syria directly is a Russian tradition.

e. The US thought that Russia was bluffing and launched 2 missiles heralding an all-out attack on Syria in early September. Russia thwarted the attack and destroyed one of the missiles, and hacked into the other one and had it diverted.

f. The Syrian CW’s were already an ageing liability.

g. The purpose of weapons CW’s included is protection. Syria’s CW’s performed without having to be fired. They served their role to the highest expectation.

h. The CW deal was a face-saving exercise for the USA and an attempt to find a political resolution, Russia’s and Syria’s way. It was a deal that America was forced to accept, not the other way around. Never before did the USA huff and puff about attacking a country to back off later until Syria. This is the greatest joint Russian Syrian victory ever, and those who do not see it as it is do not have a proper vision of global politics.

i. Russia and Syria want to go to Geneva II when war on the ground is fait accompli. Even Kerry said to Lavrov recently what is the point in going to Geneva after the Syrian Army scores more victories.

j. If Putin is a con man as his adversaries describe him, Assad is not a fool, neither is Nasrallah.

k. For Russia to step up the global ladder, it needed and found strong regional allies. It support for Syria is because Syria proved to be strong.

l. On the other hand, the US allies proved to be weak and worthless and America found itself having to justify to its own people its support for Al-Qaeda.

m. Even without the 2-missiles saga, that is still largely denied, America was very reluctant to strike Syria. It is a nation that is already bankrupt and engaged in many expensive wars.

n. The Anti-Syrian alliance is breaking up. The Emir of Qatar abdicated and his powerful man Hamad had to go with him. Egypt is out of the grip of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar and Turkey. Turkey is witnessing internal turmoil and is having second thoughts about its involvement in Syria. The USA knows it cannot strike Syria. Israel is disappointed that the US is having talks with Iran. It is only Bandar who is still trying to pull a trick out of a hat and hope for a miracle that gives him some bargaining edge in Geneva II. None of this would have happened if the Syrian Army didn’t have enough time to deal with the situation on the ground. Had Russia not vetoed the UNSC resolutions against Syria, history would have taken another course.

o. The US and its allies are in a total loss in Syria. They have lost the ground battle, they are divided, and they have lost their initiative and long-term policy. They simply do not know which way to go.

Arabi, in a recent article, argued that all of the above is a façade and that it would be impossible to see Saudi Arabia standing on its own without America. I agree with the second part of this statement. Saudi Arabia cannot stand up on its own and America has no allies left in the region except Israel which will not go into an all-out war with Syria to please Bandar.

Syrian Girl Partisan goes in her anti-Russian rhetoric to the extent of attacking the wisdom and intelligence of President Assad. This is improper, demoralizing and harmful. Again, Syrian Girl has been a very active pro-Syrian activist and she too has played a big role in spreading the truth about Syria. However, her stand on Russia and on President Assad is quite vicious and needless.

My call to Arabi, Syrian Girl and their anti-Russian camp is to have a debate about this subject if they wish. Thus far, this issue has not been handled properly. As a matter of fact, there has recently been a public display of discord among members.

Just because they do not seem to understand the changes in the geo-political order of the world and the rise of Russia (and the BRICS axis in general), some anti-Russian advocates have made some comments about those who support Russia’s role in Syria and branded them as being irrational and naïve. This has been going on for some time and I was hoping it would simply fizzle away, but it only got worse.

This is inappropriate to say the least and should not continue. Any rational discussion is something that we should welcome on this group and any other group provided that it sticks to rationality and refraining from throwing insults and making personal attacks.

*screen shots of  the post are directly below for record keeping purpose but scroll further down for very interesting comments from members are pasted below. Some members, such as Arabi Sour's comments are no longer visible as that particular profile is deactivated.