No man has possibly served the American Empire as much as Henry Kissinger did, and with all the literature, including screenplays, that have been written about him and his “shuttle diplomacy”, none probably described his biggest ever performance than Patrick Seale in his book “Asad”. After all, even though Kissinger is always remembered as the diplomat who has negotiated terms of settlement with the Vietcong, the Vietnam war was a fait accompli long before the negotiations took off, and if anything, his role was that of damage-control and face-saving; no more, no less.
Kissinger’s true, and perhaps only, major success story was his shuttle diplomacy that paved the way for the historic, albeit infamous, Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Before Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, a term and modus operandi he initiated, all indirect contacts between Arabs and Israelis were done via the UN and its multitude of organizations, and any would-be peace talks, were done via the USA and the USSR. Even the post Yom Kippur War peace deal that Kissinger himself was meant to broker between the Arabs and Israel, was also meant to involve the Soviets as equal partners to America in the negotiation process. But Kissinger managed to convince Sadat that he can negotiate a better deal for him directly with Israel, and without having to involve Egypt’s war time partner, Syria.
The rest is history, and since then, and technically until the 28th of September 2015, the Soviet/Russian presence in the Levant was reduced to a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. This statement is not to undermine the huge effect of more recent Russian UNSC vetoes since the “War on Syria” started between 2011 and 2015, but effectively, the Russian presence took a turn when Russia engaged itself militarily in attacking terror organizations on Syrian soil on the 28th of September 2015.
In between Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy triumph and the 28th of September 2015, emboldened by the New World Order single super power status, America reigned in the Levant single-handedly as the only power on the ground.
According to Kissinger’s achievements, some of which were put into American foreign policy law, ensuring the security of Israel became an American undertaking and all of the so-called peace negotiations, including those of Oslo, were only intended to ensure the security of Israel and to maintain the power balance grossly in its favour.
Driven by arrogance and self-grandeur, America did not foresee that it should have used the time it had at the top in order to twist the arm of Israel to coerce it to accept a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. And every time the Palestinians were prepared to let go of more rights, Israel demanded more privileges. Not only did this inadvertently lead to the formation of Hamas, but even the very pliable and malleable PLO remained unable to reach a peace agreement, despite the large number of huge concessions it gave the Israeli side.
America has had a golden opportunity and ample time to negotiate an Arab/Israeli peace deal. No peace deal at all would keep all parties fully satisfied; especially the hardliners on both sides. That said, with the right intentions, America could have brokered an agreement that pleased a workable majority on both sides of the divide. However, in dealing with the crisis, America did not give Palestinian rights in specific, and Arab/Muslim rights in general, any consideration at all.
This is why all peace talks that followed the era of Kissinger all the way till the end of the days of John Kerry have failed; they were predestined to either fail, or to coerce Palestinians and the rest of Arabs to accept the unacceptable.
At the height of their arrogance, the Americans and Israelis never ever thought that a time will come during which they will lose the upper hand. They never even considered that a time will come during which the balance of power they thought they have set in stone was going to shift, let alone change.
Later on, as the “War on Syria” was waged, the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” with all of its diverse elements and members; including the USA and Israel, were certain of an easy and prompt victory and the capitulation of the axis of resistance.
The irony is that despite failures to topple Assad, occupy Lebanon or even subdue the besieged and overwhelmed Gaza Strip, the American/Israeli arrogance remained steadfast in its efforts of self-destruction. Self-destruction, because without victories, without being able to enforce political settlements, and without any hopes or enforceable plans to twist events around to its advantage, the American/Israeli axis, make that the American/Israeli/Saudi axis, seemed to be steering itself from the leading role to that of irrelevance.
Whether the fruit of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” was the love-child of the petro-dollar or the other way around, is a matter akin to what comes first, the chicken or the egg. The two went hand-in-hand, and unabated for a few decades; but the momentum has been lost and the Camp David Agreement zenith cannot be repeated; even on a smaller scale.
But the petro-dollar is also losing its breath. The rise of the joint Russian-Chinese might in particular, and BRICS more generally, is certainly putting the noose around the neck of the Greenback. The American trade deficits compounded with the massive physical gold reserves that the Russians and Chinese in particular are accumulating will soon make the petro-dollar look like “Monopoly” money. Even Saudi Arabia, America’s partner in the petro-dollar fiasco, has recently showed interest in trading with China with gold-backed Yuan.
It is as if the house of cards is tumbling down as what underpins its foundations, one by one, is crumbling.
From the Arab side, Saudi Arabia and its GCC remain within the American camp, and increasingly less covertly, on the Israeli side. GCC state officials have had several meetings with Israeli counterparts over the years, and of late, GCC officials have been making statements declaring that Israel is not an enemy. It is as if they are conditioning Arabs to listen to this rhetoric, clearly with the ultimate objective of normalizing relationships with Israel; something that the Arab street continues to refuse to accept, even in Egypt and Jordan despite their peace treaties with Israel and exchange of diplomatic representation.
In every step of the way however, the American Empire is losing not only its grip on reality, but also that of stature. And in every step of the way, America is putting its regional allies in the Middle East in more tenuous and even embarrassing situations.
Even Erdogan, the great enemy of secular Syria and one who has promised to go into Damascus, triumphant, to pray in the great Omayyad Mosque after the fall Assad, a supposed American ally who continues to be, thus far, a NATO member, finds himself and his national interests closer to Russia than to America. The Turkish-American schism started when the Obama administration did not listen to Erdogan’s ultimatum to choose between supporting Turkey or the Kurds.
Enter the Trump factor.
For better or for worse, and leaving the rest of the world aside if we can, Trump is hastening the process of making America irrelevant in the Middle East.
By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, many reactions have followed.
Condemnations came from right across the globe, not only from the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Even EU leaders like the French President and German FM have had their say voicing their shock and disappointment.
To “outsiders”, the reaction of Muslims and Palestinians may seem like an over-kill. Some cynics and critics are wondering about the significance of a tokenistic move by America vis-à-vis the bigger reality of occupation on the ground. Such voices are saying that Trump’s decision did not effectively change anything at all. Others may see the wave of rejection as an irrational Muslim upheaval that will eventually run out of steam. But the bottom line is that with Trump’s decision, America has moved itself further away from the few Arab and Muslim supporters it has left in the Middle East.
To say that this move has pushed America closer towards irrelevance would be an under-rated statement. By agreeing to relocate the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Donald Trump has sealed and dusted that deal that makes America totally irrelevant in the Middle East.
Even the Saudis, the staunch supporters of America and only vocal Arab supporters left, are too embarrassed to back Trump on his decision. So, in effect, with his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump has galvanized rivaling Muslim factions and groups into a united voice on the single issue of Jerusalem. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran will not openly disagree with each other on this issue. Erdogan pre-warned Trump and referred to Jerusalem as a “redline”. But so was supporting Kurds. How many breached redlines does Erdogan need before he re-evaluates Turkey’s strategic alliances and perhaps even leaves NATO?
Tokenistic as it may mean to some, Trump’s decision means that no Arab or Muslim leader can be seen supporting it without risking street riots and even revolutions.
On the bigger picture however, American irrelevance means that the few Arab states and organizations that remained in hope that one day, perhaps one day, America will be able to broker for them a proper and just peace deal with Israel, have lost hope; and most likely permanently.
This new phase means that the successes of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” are already a thing of the past; effectively as of now. Apart from the much smaller role Russia played in Georgia in 2008, with Russia actively on Syrian ground, having succeeded in her first real ever military venture outside its borders since the demise of the USSR, the wheel of fate has made a one hundred and eighty degree turn. To this effect, America has catapulted itself out of the position of sole power and dominance, and in doing so, it inadvertently invited Russia back in with open doors.
Kissinger is not turning in his grave yet. He is alive and “well” and watching the mess of what subsequent American shuttle diplomacy, which ironically tried to shape itself on his image, has created and what it has made out of his achievements; not only in as far as giving America the sole power in the Middle East region, but also in terms of what the reversal of his achievements is going to eventuate into when it comes to his obsession with ensuring the security of Israel.
By Ghassan Kadi23 November 2017It is almost impossible to stay up to date with all the developments and changes within the previously unchangeable Saudi Arabia. Here are some of my thoughts on the most prominent of those recent changes.
Mohamed Bin Salman’s (MBS) royal Saudi coup is still in the making and its stories of mystery and intrigue are unfolding.
Some recent articles written about this unprecedented Saudi development have focused on whether or not MBS was actually desirous of instigating reform within the kingdom of sand and capable of putting together the infrastructure that made such reform possible and how. Other more cynical articles have cast little doubt on his ability to create any change and classified him as yet another puppet of the legacy that his grandfather King Abdul Aziz, the founder of the Saudi dynasty, has forged with the West. In between the two extremes, many perhaps waited in anticipation to see what was to happen next in the now quick-changing kingdom that did not change at all in essence for nearly a hundred years.
To put recent developments into perspective, we must objectively look at MBS’s achievements and failures since his rise to prominence; with a special emphasis on the developments of the last few weeks.
MBS has failed to turn previous Saudi Government failed policy on Syria to his advantage by distancing his own legacy from it. If anything, the outcome of the Syrian opposition conference that was held in Riyadh was a farcical outcome of Saudi diplomacy. Not only did this conference coincide with the 20th of November 2017 Putin-Assad Sochi victory summit, but it is still “demanding” the removal of Syrian President Assad from power.
The arrogant and seemingly naive Saudis seem to be still under the illusion that they are able to dictate terms of settlement of the “War on Syria” despite the fact that they have put all of their efforts into winning it but have lost decisively. However, the more painful fact for them is that they lost without a single bargaining chip remaining for them to capitalize on.
Whilst MBS can be “excused” for not being able to find a face-saving way out of Syria, he has failed abysmally in the war that he orchestrated in Yemen, and as this war drags on, the international community is beginning to wake up to the atrocities and genocide that the Saudi-led coalition is inflicting upon Yemen, and no one can be held more accountable for this military failure and crime against humanity than MBS himself.
MBS also failed to contain the loss he “inherited” from the failures of previous Saudi policies in Lebanon and Iraq. If anything, his determination to remain steadfast with these has turned regional Saudi policies into a total joke.
So where did MBS score any success, if any at all?
In my previous related articles and herein, I have mentioned and reiterate that MBS is increasingly gaining popularity within the ranks of young and educated Saudi men and women of all ages and in general amongst the grass-roots of the population. Hence, in this venture, he is scoring two birds with a single stone. In rounding up more popular support, he is confiscating and freezing badly-needed cash under the pretext of corruption.
The estimates of the number of incarcerated Saudi princes and businessmen are not any less subject to a game of guess work than the funds involved in this kerfuffle. Ignoring how many men have been put under detention, the tally of funds confiscated and frozen is estimated at a minimum of USD 150 bn to a maximum of USD 800 bn.
Given that the total official Saudi savings reserve is in the tune of “only” USD 700 bn after decades of high financial times, even the low estimate of USD 150 bn is a huge sum by proportion and by any proportion of course. It is little surprise that MBS is trying to replenish into the coffers of the state such sums, and if he manages to do it, it would be to his credit.
Whilst on the subject of official Saudi savings, after many decades of huge petroleum exports and at elevated prices, the Saudi savings reserve figure should be in the vicinity of a few trillion dollars. But a huge proportion of Saudi petro-dollars has been squandered on royal funds, holidays yachts, prostitutes, drugs, bribes, theft, corruption at all levels, and on this account and this account only, MBS can be acknowledged for bringing corrupt individuals to account.
But whether or not MBS is able to stamp out corruption and/or whether or not he is guilty of the same charge, as his cousins and some others argue, how much command does he have over the affairs of the kingdom, and over the royal family he staged a coup against?
Inside, unconfirmed reports allege that whether or not MBS has any command on traditional local troops that he can rely on, he is not taking any second chances.
To elaborate, the reader ought to be reminded that the Al-Saud legacy built its reign of power (and terror) on Wahhabism and money. Wahhabism was used as the doctrine, and money was the catalyst for buying loyalty and support.
With MBS’s purge on the royals, no traditional royal supporter with known wealth is left feeling safe. How can they feel safe if they hear reports of news of princes like Al-Walid bin Talal not only being in custody, but also getting tortured and his assets frozen and sieged by the state?
Recent inside information that was later on published in various media, reports that MBS has been using Blackwater to do his dirty work.
If those reports are true, MBS has hired Blackwater to arrest, with orders to kill whoever resists arrest, Saudi princes and high-ranking businessmen, and to answer to no one but him. In retrospect, the fatal shooting of Prince Abdul Aziz, son of former King Fahed, was highly unlikely to have been done by a Saudi as this would attract a death sentence in the event of the coup failing.
It has even been reported that Blackwater personnel are driving around in tinted Saudi Police and security agency personnel vehicles in a manner that is totally unbeknown and hidden from the Saudi public. This cannot be corroborated any more than they can realistically be dismissed.
If true, such reports indicate that MBS’s coup is not over. They indicate that he is not taking any chances, but most practically, they indicate that he trusts no one; no one expect Blackwater.
Most importantly and significantly however, such news, if confirmed, indicates that MBS does not have a true hold on power. If such is the case, and seeing the ambition he has, there is more reason to believe that MBS is going to have no choice but to go with his cousins all the way to the wire and until he has destroyed them all and confiscated all of their assets.
After all, he needs their money to achieve his dreams and get his kingdom out of its financial mess. He needs to blame his failure on them. He needs to eliminate any possible claim they can make for the throne.
Almost overnight, MBS has changed Saudi Arabia from a kingdom of sand upon which Al Saud reigned with a solid foothold and strong base, to a kingdom of quick-sand upon which princes and power brokers no longer have a leg to stand on. They either have to pledge total and unconditional loyalty to MBS or fear persecution. On the other hand, if they do pledge that loyalty, and MBS’s coup fails as a result of a counter-coup, then they will risk being seen as enemies of the winners of the counter-coup. It is a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t situation.
Not any less perplexing than the dilemma of the princes is the dilemma of the lower tiers of power in Saudi Arabia; especially senior military officers and their subordinates. With its tribal mentality, Saudi Arabia has had several tiers of armed forces, some of whom are loyal to particular princes rather than to the state itself. Prince Mutaib for example, the son of former King Abdullah, was until the 4th of November, the Minister of the National Guard. The hierarchy within the National Guard are loyal to him personally, and now the big boss is in jail. MBS therefore has a few options; either to coerce those military officers to become loyal to him under the risk of them stabbing him in the back, or, to throw everyone in jail and bring his own people in. But, where would he bring his own people in from and who are they to begin with? After all, and despite all the great power he gave himself, he is Mr Johnny-come–lately and he hasn’t had the advantage of time to slowly build his own army. His practical alternative was based on pragmatism and securing his own safety, and to that effect, he cannot find a more faithful and better trained army than Blackwater. And even though Blackwater does not come cheap, but clearly to MBS the objectives he seeks justify the costs.
Some may argue that Blackwater can also be bought by counter coup leaders and even foreign governments. Whilst this is possible, MBS remains to have no better alternative. However, one would imagine that for a company like Blackwater, to guarantee its business success and continuity, it would have a strict code of conduct that stipulates that it will refrain from entering contractual agreements that can generate conflict of interest between its clients. After all, and irrespective of its criminal and underhanded mercenary modus operandi, who would hire it knowing beforehand that it is in the habit of breaking contracts and replacing them with ones with the adversaries? Whilst it is arguable as to whether or not any client of Blackwater can actually take legal action against it and win is another story because, without any doubt, Blackwater, inhumane and criminal as it is, cannot afford to see its reputation ruined.
To sum it up therefore, whilst MBS’s coup is still in the making and its final outcome remaining unclear, what is evident is that MBS does not have enough local Saudi power base that he can rely on in the upper echelons of power. Whilst his grass root popularity among the general population is on the rise, traditional power brokers can neither be supportive of him, seen to be supportive or seen to be against him. Either way, and even though some of them could potentially become strong and faithful proponents of MBS, at the moment any pledges of allegiance are highly risky for all involved.
In his reliance on Blackwater however, MBS is achieving a more guaranteed short term objective. However, this policy can backfire very violently; because it is allowing certain key Saudi power brokers to sit on the fence for a little longer until they see who is the final winner in all of this for them to eventually back.
THE SECOND SAUDI DYNASTY: MBS'S RESET BUTTON By Ghassan Kadi 11 November 2017
MBS pushed himself to the point of no return, all the while others like Bandar are lurking and waiting to pounce. Here’s Ghassan’s thoughts and speculations about this intriguing and fast-changing situation. http://thesaker.is/the-second-saudi-dynasty-mbss-reset-button/
Back in June 2011 when that article was written, Bandar Bin Sultan was clearly the head of the serpent and the architect of all attacks that were plotted and conjured up to destabilize Syria and turn her from the pivotal state of the axis of resistance to one that would kowtow to the so-called American-Israeli roadmap, but in reality, it is an American-Israeli-Saudi roadmap.
Even though Bandar’s wings have been clipped after the death of his then Crown Prince father and his failure in Syria, Bandar remains a potentially very powerful figure in Saudi Arabia. Potentially, because right now, he has been demoted to nothing, but should Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) take a tumble, what is left of the Saudi Royal family will have to decide who would be king. In such an event, the name of Bandar would definitely surface again. This was a possible scenario even before MBS took his gamble and imprisoned his cousins.
At 68 years of age, Bandar is down but not out, but for the wheel of fortune to turn his way again, he needs a miracle, and the fall of MBS could well be that miracle that Bandar hopes for.
Even if MBS now extorts all of the fortunes out of his detained cousins under the charge of corruption, the moment they get released, they will start planning how to topple him. And as they do, candidates will be proposed to replace him, and Bandar will undoubtedly top that list among a few others.
Furthermore, how can MBS trust army commanders and others who are now loyal to him? How can he guarantee that they won’t do the dirty on him and support the other royals when and if released in a royal family led coup against him?
In fact, with the many wives and children Saudi kings and princes have, the number of descendants of the founding King Abdul Aziz has swollen to over 10,000 in less than a century. With a male prince count of 5,000 or so, this is not only a messy situation that makes succession a nightmare, but a very expensive one as well given that they all receive very generous stipends, despite all the recent cuts and austerity measures that MBS has imposed on them.
MBS sees them as a liability, and he wants them to give back what they embezzled. But in reality, after he has achieved this, what can he do with them in a manner that will not backfire in his face?
Up until recently, the royal family members have split the spoils, and whilst some royals were ministers for example, others were chiefs of police, the royal guards, and less senior ones were kept happy and quiet by giving them powerful financial positions and appointing them as CEO’s. But MBS has put an end to this, and he has put all branches of the armed forces under his own personal command and even made himself the CEO of Aramco, the world’s richest oil company with assets estimated at USD 2 Tn.
It would be foolish to think that the aspiring and power-hungry MBS is not taking all contingencies seriously now, and given what he has thus far done already, there is no return for him. If anything, by taking his cousins as prisoners, giving “put it on the Ritz” a whole new meaning, his only way to end this saga in a manner that guarantees his continuity, even survival, is by totally disempowering his prisoners, and even to possibly assassinate them. With the killing of Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd whilst resisting arrest, and he is the son of a former king, as well as the alleged deliberate shooting down of a helicopter with a prince on board trying to escape, MBS has already demonstrated that royal blood can be forfeit.
Perhaps MBS is receiving his inspiration from the Albanian born Ottoman Mohamed Ali, who was Egypt’s Wali (governor) and how he rose to power in the late 18th Century. He invited all of his rivals to a conference, a whole three hundred of them, and had them all executed.
It has been reported that Bandar is included in the list of princes under arrest. Seemingly, he is being investigated on bribery charges over a weapons deal with the UK, but the underlying reason for imprisoning Bandar, if he is indeed in custody, would be his potential political danger to MBS.
As the events are developing very quickly, it is not clear as yet who are the key princes that MBS was not able to round up for the simple reason of being outside Saudi Arabia when the purge was effected. Though it is highly unlikely that there are many key royals who escaped the purge by being overseas, their “danger” to MBS, whoever they are, cannot be ignored.
Different reports vary in terms of revealing the exact number and names of princes and top notch businessmen under arrest. Initially, the total number of all detained was said to be 208, but informal reports are now saying that the real figure is much higher. Nothing has been reported about the Al-Rajhi family. The Al-Rajhis are bankers, they are the Rothschilds of Saudi Arabia with close ties to the royals and with some intermarriages. Are their key people arrested, at large, living in hiding or overseas? Or are they simply considered loyal MBS troops because of their Sudairy family link that is close to King Salman?
And if MBS counts on powerbrokers like the Al-Rajhis, he will need many others like them from the outside of the House of Saud, because any Al-Saud descendent can have a claim on the throne; one way of the other.
And what about the clerics? MBS made it clear that he wants to modernize Saudi Arabia and dismantle the Shariah Police among other things, but he is avoiding a confrontation with the clerics as some of them are very powerful and command huge popular support. He is trying to gain popularity from within the disgruntled Saudi youth who are sick and tired of the waste and lavish lifestyle of the royals, especially in tough economic times, and attacking the clerics will not help achieve this target. He much prefers to see them turn to be on his side, but he is using his treatment of his own cousins as a pretext to send a very powerful message to any cleric who wants to stand in his way.
If MBS intends to maintain the royal status quo of all the existing princes, in reality he will be leaving himself with the only choice of having to execute them all, and if he doesn’t, he will forever need to look over his shoulder and guard his back. His other option would be to strip them all from their royal status, push the reset button on the Al-Saud legacy, thereby starting a new bloodline based on himself and his offspring. To clinch this turnaround, he will need to ask his father King Salman to abdicate, thereby blocking even his own brothers, and ending any speculations about the bloodline.
With Hariri and Saudi Arabia a hot topic currently I thought I would go through and find some of the work Ghassan Kadi has done on this.
SOME OF THE ARTICLES ON HARIRI AND SAUDI ARABIA GHASSAN KADI WROTE SINCE 2011
At the time Ghassan wrote all these articles no one indigenous to Lebanon and Syria and writing regularly in the English language was talking about things the way he was.
Now these things are common place probably.
There are 30 articles here that I could find but many things were written by Ghassan in groups too.
Understand the bigger picture of Syria: history with an
agenda (Updated)
Ghassan Kadi’s Three Foundational Pieces on the War on Syria (from 2011), Introduced and Presented by Tony Seed.
““Many of you can see through the eyes of the media you chose to follow about
the crisis in Syria. Many of you believe the over-rated propaganda that
hundreds of channels or papers place out there meant to sway public opinion.
But to understand the truth of a situation, you must first study the history of
the situation. There lays the truth and lies in what is known as a media war.
Understanding how Syria rose, and what she is going through right now is the
most vital tool to fight with fact, not fiction.” | Three articles by GHASSAN
KADI*”
“Many of you can see through the eyes of the media you chose to follow about the crisis in Syria. Many of you believe the over-rated propaganda that hundreds of channels or papers place out there meant to sway public opinion. But to understand the truth of a situation, you must first study the history of the situation. There lays the truth and lies in what is known as a media war. Understanding how Syria rose, and what she is going through right now is the most vital tool to fight with fact, not fiction.” | Three articles by GHASSAN KADI*
Introduction
This is a series of articles published in English from June 2011, published on several pages and pro-Syrian publications and since then collected and published in the book An Epic of Integrity: The Chronicles of the War on Syria (June 2016). The articles were originally written in English to convey the true story of what is happening in Syria to the world. At the time, most Westerners and their media outlets were far from the facts. Arab activists were busy writing articles in Arabic, and the articles that we could write and publish were the first articles written and published by Arab activists in English.
The first three articles reproduced here are founding articles that explain the background of the war and how Syria’s enemies colluded and why they cooperated with each other. It is worth noting that they contain the following important points:
First: showing the weakening of the anti-Syrian coalition and its ideological fragmentation and the multiplicity of its objectives. This is a great indication that its disintegration and collapse was only a matter of time;
Second: Clarifying the objective of the plot and determining it by striking the resistance and ensuring Israel’s security; and
Third, when writing these articles, there were no terrorist organizations on the ground, but the articles had begun to warn about the future role of Sunni fundamentalism and to warn of its love for criminality and bloodshed before the emergence of that trend to the public and before the establishment of the Syrian Front of victory.
It is not surprising that different peoples and factions supported each other to fight Syria. Syria is the thorn in the U.S. drive for domination of the United States, the eyes of Israel, and the backward Wahhabi fundamentalist Islamic Gulf and the Lebanese right that is allied with with the U.S. and Israel. Nor is it surprising that Syria has attracted its supporters in the local, regional and international resistance, has overcome difficulties and is winning.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
All in all, the articles published in Ghassan Kadi’s book were written over a period of five years, and reflect the developments as they occurred since 2011. After publishing the book in the language of its original English writing, encouraging readers and their urgent request to translate the articles into Arabic, we decided to translate it and publish it in Arabic with a view not only as a war story, but also to the future. – Intibah Kadi
**Ghassan Kadi, a native of Beirut of Syrian origin, is an analyst of Middle East affairs and the author of An Epic of Integrity: The Chronicles of the War on Syria (June 2016).Visit Intibah and Ghassan Kadi’s website.
The anti-Syrian cocktail
Prince Bandar Bin Sultan is the son of the Saudi crown prince, but he seems to run his political life on the basis of having a state within a state. He is a rogue prince, but with a flavour that suits the American agenda.
Just like America supported the rise of Bin Laden back in the eighties because his rogue nature had an anti Soviet flavour, the USA is now supporting Prince Bandar because of his anti-Iranian flavour.
Bandar is in essence a Sunni fundamentalist from the Wahhabi sub-sect. His sworn enemies are the Shiites for no reason other than sectarian prejudice.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
He is terrified by the regional rise of Iran (Shiite state). Many moderates share those views, but Bandar is prepared to go to extremes in fighting the Iranian rise. He found a good ally in Saad Hariri of Lebanon. Saad Hariri accuses Syria of killing his father Rafik Hariri and is a sworn enemy of the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah.
Bandar and his ally Saad see more danger in Hezbollah and Iran than they see in Israel. Syria, being an ally of Iran, becomes then the natural enemy of Bandar and is already the personal enemy of Saad.
It is important to note that the stands of Bandar and Saad are not based on strategic political alliances and/or on principles. Rather, they are based on mere sectarian bias and fanaticism.
Saad in his turn, turns to his home-grown fanatics to do his dirty work. He has been personally responsible for funding and training two ultra fundamentalist Sunni groups in Lebanon; Fateh Al-Islam and the Salafists.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
(The United States designates Amin Al-Shihabi as a terrorist organization, but has yet to designated Fateh Al-Islam as a terrorist organization as other nations have done)
The former group (Fateh Al Islam) had to be quelled violently by the Lebanese Army in the Palestinian Al-Bared camp north of Tripoli (Lebanon’s second largest city). The battle was bitter and left the camp in total ruin. Thousands of Palestinian refugees had to be relocated. Ironically, that battle took place in 2007, at a time when the Lebanese government was headed by Fouad Seniora (a Saad Hariri man).
What is more ironic is that the USA supported the Lebanese Army to fight the very group it had helped establish. The Lebanese Army appealed to the US for assistance and America could not be seen in the international arena to refuse this but, at the same time, it was under the blessing of the USA that the Sunni fundamentalist alliance between Bandar Saad and Fateh Al Islam was forged.
Little is known about the fate of the Palestinian Shaker Al Absi, the leader of that group. All that is known about him is that he is on the “wanted” list and at large. However, Dai’i Al Islam Shahhal, the Tripoli-based leader of the Salafists is Lebanese and he gets the full support and cover from Saad Hariri.
The Salafists’ main agenda item is the destruction of Shiite Islam, but they are an Al-Qaeda type organization in every respect possible. Yet, they get the blessing of the USA via the tiered Saad Hariri / prince Bandar alliance.
As hard as it may be to believe, but the USA is in fact supporting a Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda type organization in Lebanon.
Why would the USA do this?, one may ask. The answer is very simple.
The USA ranks its enemies in reference to their threat to Israel; not to the USA itself. So while America’s biggest current enemy is Al-Qaeda, Israel’s biggest current enemy is Hezbollah.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
Hezbollah gets its arms from Iran via Syria. Syria and Hezbollah are the natural enemies of Sunni fundamentalists.
If weakening Syria and Hezbollah means having to forge an alliance with Al-Qaeda, then the USA will do it for as long as this serves Israel.
Whilst the USA is fighting against Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and NATO nations are losing young men and women in this war, the USA is in fact engaged in supporting a subsidiary of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon.
The Prince of Qatar is playing a big role in the anti-Syria alliance. Al-Jazeera (the prince’s pet newsagency) is fuelling the uprising in Syria.
Syria needs reform, and President Basshar embarked on the journey of reform soon after he took office. Admittedly, he did not manage to control the corrupt old guards. That said, Syria has flourished and became a haven of peace, security, and secularism.
Syria however has three groups of enemies. The Israeli American alliance is the natural enemy.
Within Syria, the fundamentalist Sunnis want to see an overthrow of the secular regime. Their slogans are to kill the Alawites (Shiite sub-sect to which president Assad belongs) and to evict the Christians to Lebanon. Those groups found a field day in the Arab uprising. Under the guise of a democratic movement, they are stirring up sectarian divisions and targeting Alawites.
Just outside the Syrian borders in Lebanon, there are many anti-Syrian Lebanese groups. It is as if the freaky USA/Al-Qaeda alliance is not weird enough, in Lebanon, the fundamentalist Sunnis (Salafists) found a good ally in the ultra rightwing Christian Lebanese fundamentalists (Lebanese Forces). What unites them is their hatred towards Syria.
If Assad falls, the USA/Israel alliance hopes to have him replaced by a fragmented and weakened Syria. This is a possibility, but that alliance fails to realize that some Syrians are now perhaps perplexed by what is happening, but once they realize the enormity of the conspiracy, they will unite under Basshar Assad or after his demise. They will not allow fragmentation.
The worst scenario for all involved, including the enemies of Syria, would be if the country falls under the rule of the Sunni fundamentalists. If this happens, Syria will suffer greatly in the short term. But the biggest loser in the short and long term, will be Israel.
Any one who cannot believe that such strange alliances can exist can go to Lebanon or Syria to find out the hard way. Any person or organization supporting the so-called Syrian revolution, believing that this would be tantamount to supporting freedom and democracy, should stop to have a second look. There is much more to this than meets the eye.
June 10, 2011
The anti-Syrian politics
In this closing chapter of the sequel of articles, it must be emphasized that the objective is not to defend Assad, but rather to explain some truths that are related to the recent history that led to this moment in time.
Some comments received reiterated that the focus must be on the future, but we study the past in order to be able to put the benefit of hindsight into practice.
In the not too distant past, Lebanon and Syria were fairly identical in most respects. Lebanon is the mountain region of the Syrian coast. Its state borders moved back and forth just like the borders of any other countries including super powers like France.
Historically, Lebanon housed a higher percentage of Christian population than Syria. Its mountainous terrain turned it into a refuge for Christians who feared religious persecution. Christianity however is not alien to Syria. In Maaloola and Sidnaya near Damascus, ancient Churches continue to make their prayers in Aramaic; the spoken language of Christ. Damascus itself houses the grave of John the Baptist inside its Grand Omayyad Mosque.
When the young Syrian and Lebanese states received their independence from France in the 40s, there was little difference between the countries. When the census was done earlier in 1932, some citizens were caught on the “wrong” side of the borders and families were split as half Lebanese and half Syrians. This included my family. Back then, no one seemed to care much.
The central bank for both states was the “Bank of Syria and Lebanon” and Lebanese currency had that name on its notes until the mid 1960s.
The 1950s were a tumultuous time for Syria. It was a period of political unrest and political assassinations. In 1958, Syria became a part of the United Arab Republic when it united with Egypt under Nasser as president. On the 28th of September 1960, a military coup ended the union with Egypt. That coup was followed by a series of coups and it became almost impossible to keep track of such developments until the Baath party finally took over by a military coup on the 8th of March 1963.
The Baathist coup was followed by more turmoil and inter-party rivalry which did not end until Hafez Al-Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970.
The turbulent 50’s continued into the 60’s where Syria experienced a very tough time. The political unrest resulted in an exodus of wealth and entrepreneurs. The natural recipient of that exodus was Lebanon. Even without the Syrian influx, Lebanon was having its golden age. The Lebanese civil unrest of the summer of 1958 was soon forgotten and Lebanon became known as Switzerland of the East.
President Hafez Al-Assad
The Syria that Hafez Al-Assad inherited was poor and corrupt. It had little infrastructure, under developed agriculture and industries, and to top it off, it was in a state of war with Israel.
What contributed more to the Syrian/Lebanese schism was that Syria had an autocratic political regime, and Lebanon was a tax haven that had a political system which was very close to a Western style democracy.
As Lebanon was getting richer and more open to the world, Syria was getting poorer and more closed up. Crossing the borders from Lebanon into Syria became similar to crossing the borders from San Diego USA to Tijuana Mexico.
Nation-building was paramount on Assad’s agenda. For this to happen, very strict austerity measures had to be put in place. And here is something that the West cannot understand. To put such austerity measures into action, a leader cannot be democratically elected. Democratically-elected leaders are not able to implement severe measures without losing the next elections. The continuity of strict nation-building projects demands either dictatorship or bipartisanism which is virtually impossible to find in a place where party politics dictate that any thing can be used as a political weapon.
By the mid 70’s, Lebanon’s golden age was coming to an end. The Western style democracy soon turned into anarchy, and the country succumbed into a long and bitter civil war that had a strong sectarian foundation.
In the 70’s, as Lebanon was breaking loose and as its people were adopting the law of militia groups, the Syrians were ruled by an iron fist that did not tolerate any sectarian divisions and any form of political freedom that would mimic the neighboring chaotic Lebanon.
The wheel of fate started to turn the other way, and this time, it was in the favour of Syria.
All the while Lebanese youths were going to get military training in sectarian militia camps and were fed with sectarian prejudice, Syrian youths were conscripted in the national secular army and given lessons in patriotism.
Whilst Lebanese militia groups were kidnapping, maiming, torturing and killing other Lebanese on sectarian grounds, it became illegal in Syria to even ask another citizen about his/her religion with a mandatory jail sentence in place.
The Lebanese citizen grew up believing that he/she can live his/her own way under his/her own law. The Syrian citizen grew up knowing that there is law and order and severe punishments would ensue if those laws are broken.
The Syrian regime gained its dictatorial notoriety by implementing very strict rules of law and order, and whilst the one-party rule meant a continued grab of power by the Baath Party, it also meant that Syria would not slump into a Lebanese-style multi-party anarchy.
The Syrian Intelligence (Moukhabarat) became a very powerful organization. Styled like the KGB, it did not leave any chance for dissent.
In the late 70’s and early 80’s, the Syrian Moslem Brotherhood began to stir anti-Assad passion among the Sunnis. They regarded Assad (an Alawite) as an infidel. They ambushed and killed several top ranking Alawite military personnel and Syria was about to follow the foot steps of Lebanon in its civil war.
Assad crushed the revolt ruthlessly. In an unprecedented move, the Syrian army attacked the brotherhood in a mosque where the rebels thought they would be safe.
Those rebels were not peaceful democracy campaigners. They were an armed bunch of murderers with a fundamentalist Sunni agenda; similar to what is now known as Al-Qaeda.
One of the biggest challenges that Hafez Al-Assad had to confront was his home-grown corruption. His own brother, Rafaat Al-Assad, established a state within a state. He was a corrupt officer surrounded by a bunch of thugs and looters. Rafaat was exiled to France where he could not cause any trouble.
Assad managed to rid himself of many of the corrupt officers and officials but he never was able to do this fully. Corruption is a universal “disease’ and Syria is not immune.
Needless to say that the brutality of the Moukhabarat was invariably unjust and many innocent people were incarcerated some were allegedly never seen again.
Nevertheless, when Hafez Al-Assad died in 2000, Syria had been transformed. The country became a safe haven, a secular model, and a politically stable country with a growing economy and a good foundation of an infrastructure.
When Basshar Al-Assad took over the presidency, he fast tracked the process of reform. The tough austerity measures of his father’s era had already paid dividend and were eased. Imports were allowed to flow in as the economy was able to afford them. The Internet and Mobile phones became a part of Syrian life. The country prospered as private enterprise regained its position in the thriving economy. And last but not least, some political freedom was allowed. Parties such as the Lebanese-rooted Syrian National Socialist Party and the Communist Party, to name some, were given the freedom to operate. The political freedom that Basshar was not to tolerate was the one that had sectarian agendas and/or the one that would call for armed revolt.
Any person who denies that Basshar Al-Assad had embarked on the journey of reform from the day he took office is either ill-informed, or deliberately twisting the truth.
Ironically, the reforms that the West demands of Assad are already getting introduced one at a time. They cannot be rushed in simply because this is what the USA and France demand today.
If anything, France’s biggest promise to the peoples of Lebanon and Syria was to keep them segregated. General Gouraud made this very clear after his troops savagely massacred the outnumbered and ill-equipped Syrian army led by the gallant Youself Al Azmeh in Maysaloun in 1920. This same general is notoriously renowned for stepping his foot on the tomb of Salladin in Damascus saying “we have returned”. It was France which bombed Damascus and its famous Hamidiyye Souk. For the French FM Alain Juppe to make claims today that France cares about Syria and Syrian people is quite laughable.
Basshar’s biggest failing is that he did not do a house cleaning like his father did. Basshar is surrounded by a huge number of very good men and women working with him to serve Syria. However, there is a handful of bad apples around him that need to be plucked out. He knows well who they are and they should be on his priority list after restoring peace and order in Syria.
With his failings and short-comings, Basshar Al-Assad and the Assad legacy have created a prosperous and stable Syria, introduced many political and economic reforms, and domestically stood up against sectarianism and fundamentalism while on the regional arena stood up single-handedly against the American/Israeli plots. Last but not least, the legacy secured the defeat of Israel in Lebanon.
Basshar Al-Assad does not display any of the traits of a unpatriotic ruler who accumulates wealth and lives an opulent life like Mubarak or Bin Ali of Tunisia. Reports from people who know Assad consistently maintain that he is a humble man.
This is also evident in any of his official appearances. He has been able to holiday and move freely around Syria with his family without the need of protection and indeed live a very normal life. It is hard to believe that he is not distressed at what is happening to his country.
Even if one would stretch a very long bow and assume that Assad is indeed personally responsible for all of the recent bloodshed in Syria, any person with good knowledge of Syria would reiterate that any replacement of Assad will very highly likely lead to much more bloodshed. When this arguement was put forward by Mubarak it was indeed an act of scaremongering. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt did not have a violent past like its Syrian counterpart.
If Assad goes down, Sunni fundamentalism is likely to replace a balanced secular system, anarchy will replace stability, economic uncertainty will replace growth, and there is no guarantee at all that democracy will ensue.
There is no valid argument for replacing Assad. Those who are making this call are not offering any better alternatives. They are simply letting off steam and seeking vengeance. How can this be better for Syria or the rest of the world? Do the Arabs need a new Iraq? Does America need a new Afghanistan?
June 9, 2011
The anti-Syrian vendetta
The background of the Western stand behind so-called Syrian revolution is hard to understand without a proper understanding of the recent history of the region.
Luckily, we only need to go back to 1982, the year Israel invaded Lebanon and ousted the PLO from Lebanon.
Just prior to the 1982 invasion, Israel had secured its borders with both Egypt and Jordan with peace treaties. The uneasy quiet on the Syrian front was likely to stay that way. Syria is not capable to launch a major conventional attack on Israel. That status quo gave enough security to Israel. The only thorn in Israel’s backside was the presence of the PLO in Lebanon, and in South Lebanon to be more specific.
By ousting the PLO, Israel believed that Lebanon has become a subservient country and that it was going to be able to install a puppet regime, and why would it not believe so? The PLO was driven out, the Lebanese capital was under its control, and the pro-Israeli leader of the Lebanese Forces (Bashir Gemayel) was elected to be president of Lebanon.
When Gemayel was assassinated by a member of the Syrian National Social Party (a Lebanese political party that promotes the idea of Greater Syria), Israel lost a powerful ally and a power broker. Under the presidency of his brother Amin (who was elected a few days after the assassination of Bashir), the Lebanese government was coerced to enter peace talks with Israel. A peace agreement was reached on the 17th of May 1983 but Amin Gemayel did not ratify it. He was undoubtedly worried to pay for it with his blood.
It looked, however, like it was a question of time before Lebanon and Israel signed a peace agreement.
The Multi-National Force commanders meet to discuss mutual problems of peacekeeping and defence, left to right: BGen Franco Angioni, Italy; Col James M. Mead, United States; BGen Michel Datin, France; and LtCol. John C. Cochrane, Great Britain.
During that period, the Syrian influence on Lebanese politics was reduced to almost nothing despite the continued presence of Syrian forces in the part of Lebanon that remained outside Israel’s control. The presence of Israeli forces in virtually half of Lebanon together with the later presence of American/French/Italian peace-keeping forces in Beirut, not to mention the muscle power of the US sixth fleet and its pride USS New Jersey was more than overwhelming. The very thought of resistance was unfathomable.
The situation was very desperate and virtually hopeless. How could Lebanon, the small fragmented country, rise up and defeat the many enemies within and without?
And then, from the ashes rose the Lebanese Resistance. With the support and strategic genius and tenacity of Hafez Al-Assad, the Lebanese Resistance was able to score a multitude of painful blows to the Western alliance.
To make a long story short, this culminated in an unprecedented defeat of Israel. For the first time since its infamous inception, Israel had to retreat from Lebanon. Never before had Israel given up Arab land without trading it for something of value. Israel called its retreat a strategic withdrawal. It was in fact a very humiliating defeat. This defeat of Israel was the biggest victory of Syria and Lebanon and the crown jewel of Hafez Al-Assad’s political career and greatest achievement. He lived enough to see this victory and passed away a few weeks later.
Israel’s gamble in Lebanon failed abysmally. The PLO was replaced by a much more potent and much better organized Hezbollah, and Syria was back in Lebanon in greater force.
It was probably at that time that Israel and the USA decided to escalate their plots against Syria. The young and little-experienced Basshar Al-Assad was seen as an easier target than his seasoned father. Basshar was however not scared of reform like his father was. He opened up Syria to the world and made huge steps towards political and economic reform. No doubt, more needed to be done. Basshar needed to clean up his camp and get rid of some serious cronies. This however is not the topic of this article. That said, the West needs to realize that what it perceives as a perfect political system ie democracy, does not work everywhere; needless to say that America’s biggest allies and friends in the Middle East are dictators.
When Bush was elected, he had around him the infamous circle of Neo Conservatives. These were a group of pro-Zionist fanatics. Perle, Wolfewitz and Co had one thing and one thing only in mind; to use the tenure of Bush to buy an everlasting peace for Israel.
They had their eye on their strategic enemy; Syria. Attacking Syria however was a difficult concept to sell to the world. They had to come up with a smarter plan. They had to find an enemy that the world loves to hate. They found the perfect one and the perfect excuse.
September 11 gave the infamous Bush alliance a good excuse to justify escalating the rhetoric against Saddam. Furthermore, in Iraq, the alliance found a good lure for oil-thirsty hyenas. The Neo-Cons rounded up the fanatics and Cheney rounded up the scavengers. The war against Iraq became history.
Unlike what many people think. The invasion of Iraq was not about petrol. Petrol was only the lubricant. America invaded Iraq to protect Israel.
But how does invading Iraq protect Israel even though Iraq and Israel do not share any borders?
Destabilizing Iraq and removing the threat of Saddam’s scuds was seen as good enough, but there was much more on America’s mind.
America was planning to use Iraq as a stepping stone to attack Syria and Iran.
In fact, soon after Bush’s arrogant declaration that his mission in Iraq has been accomplished, America started to accuse Syria of trouble in the border region of Iraq; just as planned. America was trying to show the world that it could not control Iraq properly unless it controlled Syria. The same was planned for Iran.
In its arrogance, the USA believed that it was mighty enough to attack and occupy Iraq, Syria and Iran.
But just like Israel got bogged down in Lebanon a decade earlier, the USA soon realized that controlling Iraq was not a possibility. Instead of turning against Syria, the USA realized that it was already in a very deep mess that it is still trying to get out of.
Syria took over one million Iraqi refugees and in doing so, it inadvertently helped the resilience of Iraq. But even without this help, the USA and Israel became increasingly at disease with Syria and its growing strength in the area, especially that it signed a strategic alliance with Iran.
The Assad legacy has outsmarted the American Israeli alliance twice by then. Hezbollah has grown much stronger and its missiles reached deep into Israeli territory in 2006. Never more before did Israel and the USA want to see Assad fall.
Israel and the US are both aware that if Basshar Assad gets toppled he will most likely be replaced by Sunni fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, the USA has been sponsoring the Lebanese-based Sunni fundamentalists (Salafists) for some years. The USA and Israel are prepared to take this risk and much prefer an Al-Qaeda type regime in Syria to that of Assad.
At the end of the day, America will fight the Arab and Moslem worlds, create enemies for itself, send itself broke, bend over and backwards, just to support that illegitimate state of piracy that calls itself Israel.
The Western stand behind the uprising in Syria is not one that is aimed for reform as it alleges. America does not give a hoot about political freedom in Syria. America and Israel have a score to settle with the Assad legacy and they are capitalizing on the Arab revolt. Helped by their Saudi cronies, they are finding new recruits; the Prince of Qatar.
H.H. Sheikh Tameem Bin Hamad Al Thani, Crown Prince of Qatar (left) shaking hands with H.E. Amb. Alessandro Minuto Rizzo, Deputy Secretary General of NATO
The Prince of Qatar is another regional dictator who is a good friend of both the USA and Israel. He hosted on Qatari soil the headquarters for the alliance of the infamous invasion of Iraq.
Al-Jazeera, his pet newsagency is using all its influence to fuel violence in Syria. For the Qatari Prince to think that his country is immune to an uprising similar to that in Bahrain is laughable to say the least.
To America and Israel, this is the time to even up the scores with Basshar Al Assad. To Basshar, it is a great moment of reckoning.
