THE DAILY DAESH D-DAY DILEMMA by Ghassan Kadi 2 August 2016

The Daily Daesh D-Day Dilemma By Ghassan Kadi 2 August 2016 In his latest article, Ghassan is analysing the minds of those involved in the escalating number of Daesh attacks, presenting how past and present Western policies have been ineffective. He ends the article with suggestions on how to turn the flow of events around.
http://thesaker.is/the-daily-daesh-d-day-dilemma/

The Daily Daesh D-Day Dilemma

16433 ViewsAugust 02, 2016 32 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

In the closing article of “The Daesh Chronicles”; The Prognosis, I raised the alarm about the high likelihood of Daesh attacks increasing in frequency and domain of activity. I even warned that they may become daily events that the West will one day have to contemplate.

In hindsight, I did not expect the escalation of those attacks to reach this threshold so soon, because daily attacks are already a reality in the West; especially Europe.

Western nations feel like they are fighting a ghost. Their massive armies and nuclear power have been designed to fight regular armies. And whilst they use those armies to stir up trouble and instigate unrest in different corners of the globe, they are totally useless and powerless when it comes to confronting home-grown terror. After all, the Nice attack proved that terror does not need a weapon of mass destruction, and not even a hand-held weapon, because if one has a criminal mind, he can turn a truck into a massive weapon.

And how did President Hollande respond? By dispatching France’s only aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle to the Middle East. French fighter jets have also bombed the Syrian town of Manbij killing more than a reported hundred innocent Syrian civilians and maiming hundreds others. As a matter of fact, some local sources put the number of casualties in the 300 hundred mark. This is not how to stop further acts of terror. This retaliation is revenge killing in its worst form. And of course, the hundred or so citizens of Manbij who perished are not news worthy. They did not make headlines in the West. And it is in retaliations like these that recruitments drives are lubricated and more terrorists will be generated; not exterminated.

But why France? Some ask, probably even Hollande himself asks this question. France has played a huge role in assisting the Islamist/Jihadists/Takfiris in Syria in their “struggle” to topple President Assad and establish a fundamentalist Muslim state. So why would those same militants reciprocate a French “favour”, as it were, with a seemingly endless wave of terror?

Many analysts and observers are pointing the finger at the refugees that France and other EU nations have taken in recently. And certainly, ultra-right wing EU politicians are riding on this band-wagon that suits their xenophobic anti-migration policies. However, in pointing the fingers at those recent migrants, analysts, observers, and right-wing politicians alike are ignoring the basic fact that some of the attackers, in fact most, are not recent migrants.

Salah Abdeslam, the main man behind the Paris November 2015 attacks, is a Belgian born French national of Moroccan descent. Mohamed Lahoueiej, the Nice attacker, had lived in France for a long time.

More significant perhaps is the fact that most of the perpetrators were not known to have a history that associates them with Daesh. Unlike Abdeslam, Lahoueiej was not known to the police as a potential terror threat, and as many in the EU would be blaming the security apparatus for allowing individuals “known to the Police” to roam free instead of detaining them pre-emptively, the identity of the perpetrators thus far reveal that even such draconian measures would not work effectively.

The above, among many other reasons, is why security personnel and experts in the West and the EU in general are feeling totally and utterly non-the-wiser in knowing how to deal with this situation and how to identify a potential killer.

Few anti-terror experts and analysts seem to realize that by focusing at individuals with history only, they are most likely not looking at the entire picture. And the reason they don’t know what to do is perhaps simply because they do not fully understand the Daesh mind and what fuels it.

Much has been said about the “quick radicalization” of Lahoueiej. The man has been known for womanizing, indulgence in alcohol and taking drugs and all sorts of activities that are not allowed in Islam. This is not quite what a Jihadist would normally be involved with. However, in trying to understand how would someone like Lahoueiej turn almost overnight from a lifestyle that is seen, from a Muslim perspective as being debauched, to become a person who was prepared to kill others (and himself) for “the cause” in the most heinous and criminal manner possible, many are unable to put two and two together. They therefore resort to find explanations in what does not meet the eye, including conspiracy theories. Many theories, some of which are very valid, were put forward to explain this rather strange phenomenon of overnight changeover. In simple reality, new converts to Daesh are perhaps much more dangerous than seasoned ones.

Daesh has only been around for two years or so, and there are no such members who can be described as old-timers or veterans. However, the “recent” Jihadi craze is in fact a few decades old, given different names in the past, but they are all the same monsters in different cloaks and guises. To this effect, an old “veteran Jihadist”, say one who is forty years old and over, one who has been an indoctrinated Jihadist for say ten years or so, whether under the banner of Daesh or any other banner, is one who has virtually outlived the test of succumbing to suicide bombing. Had he been the suiciding type, he would have done already. What stopped him?

In reality therefore, we should expect suicide killers to be younger Jihadists, and ones who have joined the “force” relatively more recently, say from a few days to perhaps a maximum of five years or so.

What makes recruits who have virtually just joined a few days ago or so more dangerous is related to many issues:

1. First of all, those of them who had a debauched past will feel very resentful for the environment that they see responsible for leading them in the “wrong” direction.

2. Secondly, they will hate their own past and feel a huge urge for following their distorted belief system.

3. Thirdly, they may feel worried that should they not die NOW as “believers”, they may later on fall victim to temptation and go back to the bad old ways of drinking and womanizing.

4. Last but not least, and most importantly perhaps, it is their belief that the best way for redemption is to die in battle fighting and killing as many infidels as possible. This form of “martyrdom” as they see it, assures forgiveness from all previous sins and guarantees entry to heaven “ bila hisab”, ie without judgement.

Jihadists believe that they are on a daily D-Day mission, the timing of which is a question of when; not what if. This is the essence of the dilemma.

In the final analysis however, terrorist Jihadi suicide bombers are not far different from addicts who prostitute themselves to support their habit. To stamp out drugs, government agencies need to focus on the so-called elusive “Mr. Big”. In the case of Jihadis, those in the position of Mr. Big are the recruiters, not the actual suiciders. The street workers do not operate alone.

And even though the infamous Lahoueiej used a truck as a weapon, and even though he proved that one does not need a weapon of mass destruction, and not even a pistol in order to be able to inflict mass casualties, he most certainly did not radicalize himself. Someone must have been in his ears and brain.

The French Prime Minister is now planning to ban foreign funding of mosques. This step will only be seen as a diplomatically-incorrect move and it will not stop terror. The Nice massacre did not need funding apart from the few Euros needed to hire a truck. Even if French or other western governments monitor the teachings inside mosques, this won’t solve the problem either. To begin with, it is only a low percentage of mosques who actually promote terror overtly. And if the preachers in those mosques are put under some form of surveillance, they will find secret places to meet with their “disciples”.

In more ways than one, the horse has already bolted. In more ways than one, sweet little can be done to undo what has already been done to the minds of the “suiciders-in-waiting”. This is a sad and horrific predicament that the whole world is now contemplating.

I do not profess to have the answers and ways to find a resolution. But the danger of recent recruits is something that anti-terror personnel should be aware of. It may help to urge citizens to report any change in behaviour of people they know. The change can include all aspects of demeanour, dress code, demanding the veiling up of women family members and even growing a beard. These are early tell-tale signs. They are not to be taken lightly.

Tough calls call for tough decisions, and the big onus here, as I said in the past, is on wise and knowledgeable Muslim clerics to push for reform within Islam and to utterly reject the Jihadi drive that feeds Daesh and similar organizations. The West has also a big role to play, not only because it has to, not only because Daesh is attacking the West almost on daily basis, not only because the West has Muslim citizens many of whom are Western born, but also because the West has a moral obligation to undo what it has done in creating the Jihadi drive which it initiated when the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

If the West found a gap in certain distorted Muslim doctrine and capitalized on them in order to gain some mileage without thinking too much ahead, it must now find a way to reverse what it had done.

Just like the West previously fostered violence, financed it, armed it and trained it, it must now work on educating Muslim youth. And just like the West has been successful in the past in finding and identifying radical Muslim preachers and mosque Imams who rounded up Muslim youth to pump their minds with hatred and violence, the West must now identify Muslim clerics who are capable of undoing this indoctrination. And, just like in the past radical clerics were successful in identifying individuals to push to go and fight in places like Syria, they must now be able to identify them once again, be able to look for early signs and ”symptoms”, but this time the objective will have to be to find a way to lure them into reform and rehabilitation schools; as virtually impossible as it may be.

The new wave of Muslim schools and sermons must be based on the understanding that the Quran does not call for murder, it does not open the gates of heaven for people who blow themselves up killing others.

As virtually impossible as this task may be, what other options does the West and the rest of the world have? What better option are there? After all, indoctrination cannot be stopped and reversed by guns.

This may not solve the problem entirely, not as swiftly as we all desire, but it may plant a new seed, one that has the potential to reduce the number of potential Jihadi terrorists and a new trend may gradually be inaugurated.

THE NEW MIDDLE EAST:EXIT AMERICA ENTER RUSSIA By Ghassan Kadi 18 July 2016

The New Middle East: Exit America Enter Russia

By Ghassan Kadi
18 July 2016

Ghassan makes a very interesting prediction in the wake of the coup attempt in Turkey.

http://thesaker.is/the-new-middle-east-exit-america-enter-russia/

https://russia-insider.com/en/ghassan-kadi

The New Middle East: Exit America Enter Russia

44726 ViewsJuly 18, 2016 44 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Is the genie finally out of the bottle?

A myriad of seemingly unrelated events and loose ends are converging in a manner that points in the direction of a huge win for Russian diplomacy in the Middle East, and we only need to connect the dots to see this scenario unfolding.

What dots, one might ask?

Henry Kissinger made it law for America to protect Israel. In his shuttle diplomacy trips in the lead up to the Camp David agreement, Kissinger has basically removed the USSR from the position of a superpower and a key partner on the negotiating table between Arabs and the Israelis and reduced its role to zilch. The ensuing dismantling of the USSR and the emergence of the so-called “New World Order” meant that Israel was to maintain its military superiority.

However, with the rise of Axis of Resistance in general and Hezbollah in particular, Israel’s technical military edge proved unable to provide Israel with any real security. As a matter of fact, it seems to have done just the opposite. Israel has never ever been under the kind of existential threat that it faces now, with an estimated hundred thousand Hezbollah missiles, if not more, poised to hit Israeli targets as far as Eilat.

And because America had been such a biased supporter of Israel for so long, it has lost its stature as a non-partisan arbitrator and mediator. In reality therefore, whilst America tried as hard as possible to enable Israel to impose its own peace, under its own terms, in practice, it has not been able to provide Israel with any peace under anyone’s terms.

Off to Syria.

Syria has been deadlocked in a war for more than five years. The Russian intervention that commenced in late September 2015 took the conflict, for the first time, into a direction in which the Syrian Government and its allies gained the clear upper hand.

Then, and in the height of the military operation, and seemingly just a tad before achieving and declaring victory, Russia suddenly declared a major pullout and eventually a ceasefire. Many questions were raised, and even the staunch and extremely savvy ally of Russia, Hezbollah chief Nasrallah himself has questioned publicly in a recent speech the rationale behind the Russian stand and asked: ”Who has benefited from the ceasefire?” Nasrallah was obviously referring to the fact that Al-Nusra Front and other groups have taken advantage of the ceasefire to bolster their positions and even to gain some territory in some regions.

In as much as the Russian intervention in its speed, accuracy and effectiveness has stunned the world, especially NATO, so did the pullback and ceasefire. Why did President Putin suddenly decide to scale down the military offensive, was a question that many analysts asked and tried to make speculations about.

Short-sighted analysts, especially those who love to hate Russia, found in this a golden opportunity to lash at Russia and accuse President Putin of backing off and letting Syria down. But would Putin truly back down after he had put his global political reputation on the line? Was he really expecting the Americans to come clean and work with him on identifying who is who on the ground? Would he back off after Russian lives were lost both in Syria and in the tragic jetliner crash in Sinai, and which was done in retaliation to Russia’s military action in Syria? Would Putin risk being seen in a negative way by his own people after he had risen to the level of a rescuer and hero? Last but not least, would Putin leave Turkey, and Erdogan specifically, “unpunished” after Turkey deliberately downed a Russian plane and killed its pilot?

The collective and individual answer to all of the above questions is a categorical NO. So why did Putin do it then? There seemed to be no clear answer; at least not for a while.

And of course, we cannot mention Turkey without allowing the train of events to stop at the Turkish station for a very thorough analysis.

In my analysis of the failure of “War On Syria”, which effectively began to take shape over the last two years or so, and especially after the emergence of Daesh, I had been reiterating that different elements of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” who were bundled together, united only by their hatred for Syria and her President, have realized that they were unable to have their collective dream materialized. They thus resorted to pursuing their own individual dreams and/or to implement some contingency plans. In that context, among other things, Daesh declared mutiny on its former allies and captured oil fields in order to be able to self-finance.

When Erdogan looked at Daesh, he could see a double-edged sword. And irrespective of politics, Erdogan’s fundamentalist ideology is not very different from that of Daesh, and according to this doctrine, putting everything else aside, Daesh members are regarded as brethren. Furthermore, the fact that Daesh and the Kurds were in conflict was something that Erdogan could not ignore. Erdogan’s fear of the Kurdish factor is very high, and the fact that America was helping some Kurdish factions has angered Erdogan to an extreme. America cannot be a friend of Turkey and the Kurds at the same time, Erdogan has said on many occasions, both directly and indirectly.

At the same time, America was growing very frustrated with Erdogan, and in turn, played its own cat and mouse game within the Daesh-Kurdish-Turkish triangle; favouring any side at a time that was convenient and suitable for its agenda.

But for Erdogan, the issue was becoming very critical. Turkey is now under attack with a string of explosions going off here and there; some purportedly perpetrated by Kurds and others by Daesh. Not only has Erdogan’s gamble in Syria failed, but he has brought the conflict home; at least partially, and the economic boom and the “zero problems” policy that crowned his early years of power were all getting eroded by the quagmire that Erdogan found himself in.

To make it worse for Erdogan, after he downed Russia’s Su-24 in November 2015, he was expecting NATO’s support, but NATO’s response was clear and brief. He was told that he needed to sort out his own problems with Russia.

He tried to use the refugees as a trump card, but this could not go far enough. Apart from the few billion dollars he was given by the EU, which is in relative terms a petty bribe, Erdogan was unable to even clinch Turkey’s longtime aspiration of becoming an EU member.

Erdogan found himself cornered, abandoned, under attack, facing severe Russian sanctions and an economic slump. He needed an exit strategy; an exit from trouble and into a totally new era.

In the meantime, Israeli PM Netanyahu made an unprecedented number of trips to Moscow. Why? Many asked.

The dust has not even began to settle yet, but there are markers that indicate that we are about to see a huge shift in Middle Eastern politics, conflicts and alliances.

We are now hearing formal Turkish statements accusing the USA of plotting the recent failed coup attempt. Turkey has even imposed a lockdown on Incirlik airbase, a NATO airbase, in which America stock piles nuclear weapons, and has even cut off power supplies to the base. This is tantamount to declaring mutiny on NATO. When Erdogan said that the coup was a “gift from God” to cleanse the army, he might as well have also said that it was a gift from God for him to show his resentment to the USA.

We also hear of counter-rumours that Erdogan has staged the failed coup in order to cleanse the military from elements that are not loyal to him. Whilst this scenario cannot either be confirmed or discounted, Erdogan is not mincing either his words or his actions with his NATO boss the USA.

It is important to note here that in the last few weeks, Erdogan and Netanyahu made up, and furthermore, the Turkish-Russian relationship was normalized. Erdogan has been seen to be making a turn, and perhaps a U-turn in regard to his policies in Syria, but for what ends?

For anyone to make a decisive win in Syria, the city of Aleppo holds the key. Whoever takes full control of Aleppo will win the war. The Syrian-Russian coalition has the upper hand to win the battle of Aleppo, but at what civilian cost? The other way to win it is to bring Erdogan down to his knees; and this seems to be what has happened. If Erdogan seals Turkey’s borders, the terrorists will be doomed.

If we were to connect the above main dots, ignoring many other minor dots which do not need to be discussed individually, we can only see a Middle Eastern Russian-brokered masterplan coming to fruition.

What puts Russia in the position to be able to muster such a plan is the fact that Russia is highly respected and is on fairly good terms with all major players. After mending relationships with Turkey, Russia is now on very good terms not only with Turkey, but also with Syria, Israel and Iran. The foolhardy foreign American policies in the Middle East have turned America into a force that cannot be trusted even by its own allies.

Putin is adamant on fighting terrorism. Whether he is able to do this or not is another story, but strategically speaking, he knows well that the military fight against terrorism cannot be won, let alone properly conducted, if other players in the region are in a state of conflict.

According to this analysis, we are on the verge of seeing a Russian plan unfolding, a plan that will not only form a foundation for ending the “War On Syria”, but also one that will seek an Arab/Israeli settlement.

The plan will have to be based on a win-win situation for all parties involved. The Saudis (and Qataris) will be the only losers. They will probably be left out in the cold and hung to dry. No one really wants to or needs to appease them any longer. Their clout is shrinking, and so are their resources. If anything, the war on terror, if it takes form under a Russian umbrella, may need to confront Al-Saud’s sponsorship to the spread of religious radicalism.

The avalanche of events has started, and as the USA is being shown the exit door by its closest allies, Russia is coming in as the only power that has the ability of resolving long standing niggling issues and cleaning up America’s mess.

HIDDEN STRUGGLE: WHY KURDS 'MUST BE KEPT UNDER THE ROOF OF DAMASCUS' Interview with Ghassan Kadi by Ekaterina Binova 11 June 2016

Hidden Struggle: Why Kurds 'Must be Kept Under the Roof of Damascus'
Ekaterina Blinova Interviews Ghassan Kadi

11 June 2016

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160611/1041171075/syria-kurds-damascus-integrity.html

WESTERN EVANGELISM ENCROACHING ON SYRIAN ORTHODOXY By Ghassan Kadi 19 May 2016

WESTERN EVANGELISM ENCROACHING ON SYRIAN ORTHODOXY
By Ghassan Kadi  19 May 2016

http://thesaker.is/western-evangelism-encroaching-on-syrian-orthodoxy/
Western Evangelism Encroaching On Syrian Orthodoxy22213 ViewsMay 19, 2016 38 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

When you close the door in the face of an evil like Daesh, another will find a way in through the window, and if you close the window, it will find a way through the keyhole. Such is the nature of insidious evil.

Western evangelists are now pushing to get a foothold in Syria. They cloak themselves with disguises of support and friendship and use words that are hard to reject, let alone criticize. But for what ends do they really want to help Syria? And since when have ultra-right-wing friends of Israel been friends of Syria?

There is clear evidence that the Unification Church (aka Moonies) has already spent funds on recruits in the name of charity. Also, a Republican American Senator, ie from the party that gave the world George W Bush, a Senator who openly supported Ted Cruz’s failed presidency bid, and had made many comments about his interest in Syrian Christians only, has made a trip to Syria.

Cruz is nothing more than a new-born nutcase. As a matter of fact, his father, evangelist Rafael Cruz, proclaimed that Christ was going to appear in Ted’s body after he gets elected as president, but his great vision was Trumped away.

The pro-Israel and anti-Muslim policies of Trump and Cruz are not very different. Perhaps the only difference is that Trump is forthcoming.

Cruz is as staunch as one can be in his support to Israel. He falls under the bigger umbrella description of a Christian Zionist. There are many such new-age “Churches” in the West. The “Chapel of the Holy Spirit and Performing Arts Ministries” and its associated churches for example, openly and overtly endorse the state of Israel, and organize annual visits for members. A prominent member associated with this network of Churches has also recently made a public visit to Syria. These are early warning signs yet text-book narrative of how missionaries creep into a community and get established.

Vicious and murderous as it is, Daesh is at least honest about its brutality. Daesh says it and does it as it believes it should be said and done. Daesh does not pretend to preach love, peace and fraternity, and on this count, we cannot accuse it of hypocrisy, cunning and deception.

But when people, individuals or groups, pretend to be friends of secular Syria when in reality they have an agenda that threatens her, then they can be as dangerous as Daesh, because they know how to hide and how to deceive.

I have had to deal with Western evangelists and their new-age Churches in the Levant for decades. I know what they instill into the minds of people in order to lure them. In fact, I had been approached by them for recruitment almost at the same time that I was approached by Islamist recruiters.

They are not much different from Daesh at all except in their attire, the manner in which they approach their would-be recruits, and most importantly perhaps, how they identify those who are vulnerable to their deception, and hence therefore brand them as recruitable.

Daesh promises would-be recruits the bounty of heaven. On the other hand, Western evangelists promise them the bounties of both earth and heaven.

During the civil war in Lebanon, the Lebanese Seventh Day Adventists, for example, were given the impression that they were protected by the USA, and that at the drop of a hat, if a single Adventist was harmed, the Mediterranean-based American Sixth Fleet would storm in to do what is needed to protect their community, with or without any need to ask for permission from the Lebanese Government. I have in fact heard this with my own ears, not once, but many times, because I lived close to their enclave and I knew many of their members.

And even though the Jehovah Witnesses, for example again, are in theory apolitical, in practice, their Levantine recruits live within this same false sense of Western-sponsored protection.

But this is not all. Those Churches offer jobs to the unemployable. They help members find housing, provide free education for their children, medical insurance, as well as other forms of financial security. They even canvass arranged marriages.

And where do you think those evangelists get their recruitment base mainly from? Any guess? Well, not from the Muslim community. Those who convert from Islam into any of those Christian cults are very few. They definitely do not get many recruits from the Catholics either, not only because of their strong affiliation to Rome, but also because Levantine Catholics, mainly Maronites, are fairly privileged, and in the case of Syria, Syrian Maronites seeking any demographic change or relocation, will probably seek refuge in Lebanon, and in Lebanon, they will be welcomed by the Maronite Church which would be happy to increase the numbers of the parishioners.

So where will the Levantine recruits of the Western evangelists come from then?

They will mainly come from one of the most ancient Churches in the world; the Syrian Orthodox Church.

As a matter of fact, all Lebanese and Syrians I know who have converted to any of those new-age cult Churches are, without any exceptions, originally from the Orthodox faith.

I am neither an Orthodox nor am I trying to defend Orthodoxy per se. What I am defending is the ancient Syrian culture, of which Orthodoxy is a prime back bone.

This narrative is based on historic facts that I learnt and experienced as I lived them in Lebanon, and I can see the potential for the same recurring in Syria.

Once Western evangelists set a foothold in Syria, if they are allowed to, they will play the same recruitment tricks, and unless stopped, Orthodoxy will be the biggest loser.

The same Western evangelists who have shed crocodile tears when the Syrian Aramaic town Maaloola fell under the rule of the Islamists, will attempt to destroy its infrastructure by swaying and snatching away the parishioners.

Once converts are created, they will be alienated from their community and their sense of national and regional belonging will be eroded. They will be instructed not to vote, not to donate blood, not to join the military, not to engage in political or religious activities, not to trust others, not to marry outside their faith, and above all, they will be told that should life get tough, they will be the first to get visas into the West.

The potential danger of alienating and radicalizing Syria’s Christians is not any less disastrous for Syria than radicalizing her Muslims. They both serve the same objectives of the same Empire, but in subtly different ways.

After all, when Syria rises victorious, and she will, what will underpin her victory is the religious plurality that she will be able to uphold and preserve. An integral part will be in preserving the ancient Syrian Orthodox Church. Destroy it and you will give Daesh an easier chance for resurgence, and a stronger opportunity for winning the next round in the future, if there will be another one.

The above-mentioned American Senator met with President Assad, but this meeting was misread by the supporters of the former. They regarded the meeting as an endorsement of anyone who “supports” Syria. There is more than meets the eyes here. Syrian officials, including the President, meet with all sorts of diplomats and officials all the time. They even meet with the ”opposition” in Geneva and Vienna. What some short-sighted observers are unable to comprehend is that unlike UN officials and “opposition” leaders that Syrian officials meet with as diplomacy stipulates, this particular Senator has camouflaged himself with the cloak of a supporter. He and his followers seem to think that they have been able to hide what is behind their masks, but the mask is not as opaque as they hope.

It would be wrong to say, for fairness, that all Western evangelists are wolves dressed up in sheep’s clothing. Perhaps those of them who “live on the hill” are, but most of the foot soldiers are delusional enough to believe that they are actually on a mission from God. Either way, they are equally harmful and the naïve nature of the latter group does not render them any less dangerous.

Considering that evangelists nowadays start their illustrious careers on social media, including blogs and Facebook groups, it becomes incumbent upon us, the electronic cyber-based army of secular Syria and the polycentric new world to be aware of them, identify them and stop them in their tracks early in the mark and before their efforts blossom.

This will be, at least for a while, the new direction of the defensive war against the intrusion of the Empire into the Levant.

At present, not even Hezbollah is making any warnings about Western evangelists. It is still very early days, but unless the alarm bells are raised now, they will be flooding in thousands. We have seen them do this in many war-ravaged countries before. In the not too distant past, Western evangelists from mainstream Western Churches flooded Vietnamese refugee camps and competed on recruiting them. The humanitarian aid they provided was conditional to conversion, and many of the refugees were turned into mobile billboard by “donating” to them T-shirts and sweaters bearing the name of Churches. The new-age churches are therefore not alone in their rabid recruitment drive. They have learned scavenging from more ancient institutions.

It would not take a stroke of genius to speculate that the recent visits of some Western evangelists to Syria have been watched and monitored by many similar-minded aspiring “heroes”. Unless stopped, they will come in droves. They will “invade” every evangelical space they can find enough holes to poke their noses in. Where they don’t find holes, they will use drills.

In most instances, before they set up evangelizing schools, they will create a circle of trust for themselves in order to protect their backs and sway their supporters from seeing what is beneath their veil. Then, they proceed to forming charity groups.

In places like Syria now, there are thousands upon thousands of people who genuinely need charity. They are very vulnerable and they will accept charity from anyone, and they cannot be blamed. The evangelists will “use” their charitable camouflage and portray it as a reflection of their “inner goodness”; and thus capture the hearts of those who believe them.

What lurks underneath the Daesh mask reaches the hearts and minds of vulnerable Sunni Muslims only. Daesh capitalizes on their anger and radical views and intensifies them. But what is beyond the mask of Western evangelists capitalizes on general human goodness, and it sees all people as potential targets; without any exception.

Those seemingly benign and allegedly benevolent and charitable evangelists have a history of centuries of deception and experience in knowing how to find the weak spots in good people, how to capture them and how to entrap them.

As the gallant Syrian Army continues to fight along with the support of the most prominent anti-Empire global force, the force of Russia, the Cyber-warfare goes on and takes a different direction.

When the “War On Syria” started over five years ago, the information war was about exposing who was fighting who.

At that time, it was difficult, and almost impossible, to explain and prove that the West was supporting an Islamist Jihadi war against secular Syria when the world believed that the West was fighting those same Jihadists in Afghanistan.

A lot has changed since, and as the masks fell, one by one, even as old partners in the “Anti-Syrian Coalition” find themselves competing and fighting each other in pursuit of any scraps they can grasp, a new mask emerges, and it lurks unnoticed and wishes to remain unnoticed.

The new mask is devious and treacherous.

To unmask this mask will take more than just exposing the lies of the mainstream media (MSM) news.

In the past, the MSM lies were on the “other side” of the fence. This time, the new mask is within our ranks. It has found its way within us, and what it is hiding behind, has become a part-and-parcel of the cyber pro-Syria community we all created.

In their rise to infamy, Western evangelists, aka Christian Zionists, set precedents that give them impunity that elevates them to levels that are beyond reproach and criticism. Say one word to expose them and an army of supporters will jump in their defense, and we have seen this happen very recently. They will stop at nothing. They will change tactics, they will suddenly take turns of convenience, have ghost writers pitching in to make them suddenly look eloquent prolific writers, wise and alluring, and we have also seen this happen quite recently.

And who will be the army of the defenders of the evangelists?

They will come from different walks of life. Most of them will be genuine and honest believers in the deceivers. Many others will be decent people who will give anyone who supports them the moral benefit of the doubt. Then there are those who feel embarrassed for supporting the evangelical intruders and feel that they under an obligation to defend those intruders, who are getting exposed, in order to safeguard themselves. But there will also be those who have vested interests and personal scores to settle. Once again, we have seen evidence of all of the above quite recently.

To wrap this up, we must go back to the initial pertinent questions.

Since when have right-wing American “Christian” evangelists been interested in the victims of American foreign policies?

Since when have they been friends with Syria; Israel’s main archenemy?

Why do they lecture us about their alleged love for Syria without making a single comment about their stand on Israel?

Why do they express concern about Syria’s Christians without expressing any concern about the plight of Christian Palestinians?

How do they explain having members of Churches that are overtly supportive of Israel?

What do they have to hide?

The reality, they are solely and only Muslim-hating bigots; not any better than Daesh, and not any different, except in shallow skin-deep appearances. They want to capitalize on the anti-Daesh passion in order to push their own cultish bandwagon.

Furthermore,

Why are they and their supporters so infuriated because they are now getting exposed?

Why are they fabricating unsubstantiated stories?

Why are former “enemies”, half of whom do not even talk to each other, getting united in order to stifle the exposure?

As mentioned above, in this time and age, those weasels start their careers on social media, and it is on social media that we, the true soldiers for secular Syria, united, can put their careers to an end.

When we befriend them and support them, we are inadvertently giving them oxygen and inviting them into Syria.

Just like five years ago or so we had to look within our own ranks to sort the alleged supporters of Palestine from the enemies of Syria, we now need to weed out evangelists from true friends.

If genuine and unencumbered supporters of Syria see through the evangelist mask, unite in what makes them stand up against Western imperialism, in all of its forms, including religious imperialism, then no one can stop them.

The new challenge begins with recognizing that there is no difference at all between Western-sponsored “Muslim” military offensives and Western-sponsored “Christian” evangelical incursions.

Daesh is not any more Muslim than those Western evangelists are Christian.

This is perhaps the bottom line that ought to be cognized and discerned. And if Daesh decapitates, Western evangelism kills minds, stifles souls and enslaves whole communities. They literally see parishioners as sheep, but this is not what the “Good Shepherd” intended when He proclaimed that He was the way to the Truth.

ORIENTALISTS, GATEKEEPERS,EVANGELISTS AND SUBVERTERS OF THE SYRIA DEFENCE COMMUNITY By Intibah Kadi 12 May 2016

ORIENTALISTS, GATEKEEPERS, EVANGELISTS AND SUBVERTERS OF THE SYRIA DEFENCE COMMUNITY By Intibah Kadi 12 May 2016

My own article published on The Saker about a very sensitive subject but one that needs to be discussed and to be followed by a second related one by Ghassan Kadi https://thesaker.is/orientalists-gatekeepers-evangelists-and-subverters-of-the-syrian-defense-community/ Orientalists, Gatekeepers, Evangelists and Subverters of the Syrian Defense Community22290 ViewsMay 12, 2016 45 Comments

By Intibah Kadi

A curious phenomenon has gradually crept upon the English language social media community that defends Syria; a small but effective group of “orientalists” with their varied agendas, gatekeepers amongst them of all shapes and sizes and evangelizers and assorted nefarious subverters. Syrians, having never experienced working together with people from across the world, had no experience of the pro and cons of such activism. In general, Syrians have politely made excuses for colonialist or exceptionalist behaviour with statements such as “anyone who speaks up about Syria is our friend”. We may even say that the Syrian government has done this in its endeavour to welcome any promotion for the defence of Syria , no matter who it comes from.

How did this happen? Syrians had not experienced what Palestinians had in their decades long struggle which involved volunteer advocates, mainly from the West. Palestinians became quickly aware that they had to keep control and ownership of their struggle as some of their supporters suffered from an overwhelming need and sense of entitlement to speak for and on behalf of the Palestinian people to the point where some actually saw themselves as representing that struggle. Apparently Gandhi insisted to his great and life-long friend Charles Andrews that only Indians must be involved in their struggle, so, that awareness was there a long time ago.

Edward Said’s most famous and rather complex work ,“Orientalism”, published in 1978, explores the relationship between power, knowledge and colonialism. Some of his words echo in my mind when it comes to this subject of a people needing to preserve the integrity of and control over their struggle. It is claimed that Said was influenced by the Italian Marxist Gramsci’s notion of ‘hegemony’ in terms of understanding the influence of orientalist constructs and entrenchment in Western academia and even their reach of power over the Orient itself. In this context, Gramsci’s views on ‘hegemony’ refer to the victory of the dominant class’s promotion of their definition of reality and world view.

We are here talking about people in the West and in the case of this article, specifically of a section of Western activists. Hence, the various frameworks they present are seen in their paradigm as the norm, as logical, the given and the only set of frameworks to view the world through. Those who do not toe the line, and in this subject being discussed here, these are the actual “orientals” themselves; they are utterly marginalized even though is it their struggle, their story, their history and their culture. They can lose their voice because of the exceptionalists’ need to play the role for them and be their voice. These “orientalists” have a tremendous need to retell another culture’s experience. And, how dare in the case of Syria, for example, that there can exist eloquent, highly educated, brilliant and deeply knowledgeable Syrian analysts and activists who contradict the conclusions derived from the frameworks of the significant and only paradigm on this planet?

For as long as such a person toes the line, agrees with his Western allies, all goes well and, to a certain degree, there will be some support for this analyst or writer. But, the moment this “oriental” has the audacity to make conclusions or claims that fall well outside of those reached by the Western academics or analysts who use their Western paradigm frameworks, then it is time to silence, shut out and shut down this audacious “oriental” before their own inadequacies and failings are exposed.

All views, theories and assessments must fit neatly into these Western hemisphere frameworks, if not, then they must be ridiculed and shut down.

In the increasing phenomenon of Western activist involvement in causes far away from their lands, causes that have emerged principally due to the actions of the “masters of the universe”, they are coming into contact with people who they normally would not and, this is the case vice versa . The Western activists see themselves as in a position to to assist and support advocacy on situations involving underprivileged, disenfranchised or oppressed people. For the well-intentioned who are able to keep their ego in check and who have expunged as much of their socio-political biases and subconscious assumptions, they can be of immense assistance and value. However, for those who see a window of opportunity for personal advancement or some other agenda, then this is an ideal opportunity for them and this is where, in the case of Syria, generally experience of Syrians in recognizing this and making an informed assessment and decision about this is lacking or they are just too polite.

The more this problematic section of solidarists became involved in the struggles of others far away from their world, the more many became enmeshed and deluded in a world of fantasy, placing themselves as the centre piece of someone else’s struggle and ultimately disempowering those they were meant to support.

In the case of Palestine this became painfully obvious when many if not most activists from the West, not having the background to understand the history, cultural and intimate nuances of life in the region that only an Indigenous person can have, supported the disappointingly large section of Palestinians who took the sectarian path and supported the murderous Takfiris. Some took these little understood, adopted views on as if it were a new cause for their very own existence when, in fact, they were assisting those who were threatening the very existence of the only secular and truly independent nation in the Levant, Syria and the mother of Palestine.

The world in the Levant is so different in so many ways to life in the West and, no words can adequately reflect this. For a person from another culture far away, to meddle in areas of sensitivity in the region, believing they understand it all, they can, in fact, contribute to further violence, hatred or even genocide. For example, in the Levant, there is a term used to inflict extreme insult upon others; it is in fact the name of a particular ethnic culture. The same goes for those who do not understand that some of their words have contributed to fanning the flames of sectarianism in the region. Both examples have the potential to become giant bloodbaths, particularly the latter.

When we come to the works of Indigenous Levantines, from newspaper reports, analysis or interviews, these seem not to be regarded by any Western analysts as primary materials. And, when Indigenous Levantines endeavour to bring out to the Western world important news or analysis from key, important Arabic speaking analysts, they are not for one moment regarded as primary documents or even read by these described analysts. So in fact, in general, many of these non-Indigenous analysts tend to present their analysis based on secondary sources. I am not specifically referring to news reports here as many competent Syrians have been able to get news out in the English language. I am talking about analysis. So the point I am making here is that, when I really think back to the last five years of the War On Syria, indigenous insights from the Levant brought to the West in order to assist the supporters of Syria and the West in general to appreciate what is really going on from the perspective of the people actually in that area tends to be discounted or totally ignored by serious Western analysts and others. Those “orientalists” often are at total odds in their analysis to what the Levantine analysts state.

Even worse, despite countless instances when none of the Arabic language media in the region makes a single mention of some purported event published in the alternative media of the West, these reports gain enormous credibility amongst the Western supporters and even gain a life of their own. The fact that these “reports” are not even mentioned in the street or in the media of the country or region where it was supposed to have occurred, seems not to have the slightest impact on the this section of Western supporters. It is desired reading and it perhaps fits within their framework.

As for the story about why ISIS and such Takfiri groups were able to be created and prevail, the story from the Levant, from learned and informed understanding of the Quran and the history of Islam from an Indigenous person, is to be totally discounted and in fact ridiculed and insulted. The Western framework around this narrative is the one and only valid explanation.

I will share a very telling story with the reader which demonstrates a world of insight into the issues this article explores. This is an experience I encountered but I am sure many other Indigenous analysts may have even more amusing stories to share.

A startling report came out back in September 2013, in the Arabic language Al Manar, the official organ of Hezbollah, a stickler for accurate reports. It claimed that Russia had stopped two ballistic missiles heading for Syria. When I partook in promptly and urgently translating this report into English and sent it around the world I came across a problem with one of the alternative media sites in an English speaking country. The editor refused to publish it as he said the report was not verified as it had not been reported in the American site called “Information Clearing House” (ICH). Rather a chicken versus the egg argument! So a report from the mighty Hezbollah’s media site about an event that happened in its own area was not valid until the ICH said it was so. Besides the incredible arrogance, the logic in the Editor’s argument was missing.

Edward Said always warned about ‘orientalism’ and its proponents’ tremendous need to retell another culture’s experience and that it was even utilized by imperialism. Undoubtedly this includes conscious but mostly subconscious attitudes of colonialism and gate-keeping and ultimately results in the silencing of Indigenous voices that are “non-compliant” with the place and status these “orientalists” want to relegate them to!

This hijacking and subverting of Syrian control over the English speaking social media fight for Syria came to a head recently when a large section of the English speaking members of the social media movement, after one of the members had for months promoted one of her kind, Senator Dick Black, shared across the social media enthusiastic posts of the “hero” Senator. Senator Black was welcomed in Syria and indeed had a meeting with President Assad.

This is the background fundamentalist Christian Senator Black comes from; the Ted Cruz platform in the running up for preselection for the American Presidential race which included a proposed policy of only Christian Syrian refugees, not Muslims, being allowed into the USA; an overt and despicable sectarian stand.

Senator Black is a minor State Senator who curiously believes he has a role to play on the international arena. The Senator had been challenged over a year ago by an analyst whose insights on the misinterpretation of Islam and how that lent itself to driving the jihadist recruitment was given to a trusted acquaintance but immediately landed in the hands of the Senator. The Senator promptly used this information to achieve the exact opposite goals to the originator of the information and, clearly, this was used by the Senator to further his sectarian agenda. The result was a cleverly written article by the Senator, where that analyst saw his own words and concepts in print but with a very different message to the one he was trying to get across. Senator Black, in a subtle manner, stated that extremist Islam was a danger for Christianity and the Western civilization, making no mention of the danger it posed to everyone in the entire Middle East and indeed the whole world. Just like ISIS, the fundamentalist drive in the USA potentially poses a great danger. Such beliefs including other bizarre beliefs of Senator Black, goes against everything the State of Syria values and advocates.

“Cruz is avowedly as sectarian as you can get and so is Black”, to quote an American academic when contemplating on the meeting Black had with President Assad, … “nor does it benefit Syria to elevate a local state politician who is ridiculed in the US press for such bizarre extremist views on sexuality, birth control, etc. My god, what is [Black] doing even speaking about marital rape, let alone denying it. The guy is a nutcase and minor figure.”

And why do I focus on this matter of Senator Black? It is to demonstrate the extent that the Syrian fight for Syria on the English-speaking forum has been subverted. So who does Black truly represent? For those who understand Cruz and his kind intimately, they will be able to suggest some answers. Cruz is as rabidly pro-Israel as an American can be. Those from his camp who may be involved in defending Syria are only interested in the Christians of Syria. Some may even come from USA based churches that on one hand have members setting off to Israel for solidarity activities and other members who suddenly veer off and focus on Syria.

Had the Syrians been in control of their cause on the English-speaking social media forum, then the issues described above would never have occurred. Instead, due to politeness and extreme civility on the part of Syrians, their cause on the English-speaking social media, was incrementally eroded and overrun by evangelists, agents of all kinds of agenda, self-promoting individuals, agents who speak for Syrian fifth columnists and even agents of the CIA backed Unification Church.

The clique that gradually formed and overran the solidarity community all fraternise with each other, the whole lot of these nefarious characters, supposedly some being in total contradiction to each other’s values and politics, all the while co-opting vulnerable Syrians and attacking or freezing out the Syrians who expose them just by the virtue of what they write and say. The Arabic speaking Syria defence community on social media has never heard of these “famous” clique members or of Senator Black. This clique, formed their own cocoon, live in a fantasy and, unfortunately affected the English language social media fight for Syria.

The genuine, sincere, Western supporters of Syria are also generally sidelined as their modus operandi of empowerment of Syrians and helping from far behind acts as a mirror to the ego driven and profile seeking activists. The most hard working and effective supporters of Syria are those we never hear about, and we never know of their deeds or how their help empowered key Syrian figures to achieve certain tasks. Some of these quiet unsung heroes from the West may silently enter Syria at times, meet discreetly with key figures, listen carefully, keep their eyes and ears open and mouths closed and, with the expertise they may possess, help from behind the scenes without any recognition or fanfare.

MOHAMED BIN SALMAN:THE ACCIDENTAL SAUDI "KING". By Ghassan Kadi, 10 May 2016

http://thesaker.is/mohamed-bin-salman-the-accidental-saudi-king/

Mohamed Bin Salman: The accidental Saudi “King”

21516 ViewsMay 10, 2016 20 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

The thirty year old Saudi Prince, Mohamed, son of incumbent King Salman has risen to prominence by way of mere chance.

When I worked and lived in Riyadh back in 1979-1980, nearly every Saudi government office I ever walked into had at least one wall that featured the then four-tiered royal lineage.

Back then, Khaled was king, so his portrait was the main one, followed by the portraits of his half-brothers Fahed (the Crown Prince), Abdullah (the Deputy Crown Prince), and Sultan (the Second Deputy Crown Prince).

That was perhaps the golden age of Al-Saud, and in brandishing the photos they were giving two statements, one of national stability, and one of royal unity.

All of the celebrated four of this era were the direct sons of the founding father King Abdul Aziz. And because Abdul Aziz had many marriages and dozens of children, his 25 sons had a huge age gap. His eldest and successor Saud was born in 1902, whilst the current king, Salman was born in 1935.

It has always been a matter of time before a grandson of the founding father became king, but even during the golden age of the “fab four”, the question of deciding who would this lucky grandson be, was avoided. After all, with 25 sons, King Abdul Aziz has had hundreds of eligible grandsons.

The once mighty Prince Bandar was grooming himself to become the first grandson to assume the throne. After all, he was very well connected, very influential, and above all, the son of the prince (Sultan) who was meant to become king.

The fate of Bandar began to change when he lost the plot in Syria, and was totally decimated when his father died before assuming the throne and whilst King Abdullah was still alive.

Abdullah rushed and appointed his half-brother Nayef as Crown Prince, but Abdullah also managed to outlive Nayef.

By then, the last surviving direct male descendent of King Abdul Aziz was Salman, but by then also, Salman was 79 years old and already suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Soon after his inauguration in January 2015, Salman appointed the son of the previous Crown Prince Nayef as his Crown Prince, but he also appointed his little-known son, Mohamed ie Mohamed Bin Salman, aka MBS, as his Deputy Crown Prince. To the surprise and dismay of many, both domestically and internationally, he also gave him the position of Minister of Defense.

It is tipped that Salman is going to soon change his Will and appoint his son MBS as the Crown Prince instead of Mohamed Bin Nayef. In effect, MBS is already acting like he is the king. In a twist of fate, two, or three, what Bandar had been planning and plotting for has slipped in between his fingers, just like desert sands does, and seems destined to land on the hands of his cousin MBS.

As soon as the little known MBS suddenly became the de-facto king, he had embarked on a number of “projects” to make his mark.

He is infamously known for his war on Yemen. A closer look at this man however reveals more than what meets the eye, and much more than the tragic story of Yemen.

MBS was very studious in his youth, and he spent a great deal of his teenage years in the company of his father rubbing shoulders with senior princes and power brokers.

Unlike most Saudi princes of his generation, ie the generation of the grandsons of founding King Abdul Aziz, MBS does not seem to be interested in wild parties and debauched life. He is a hard worker and an advocate of hard work. And ever since his rise to power, rumour has it that he “raids” government departments at random to see if employees are working and if some are absent without a legitimate reason.

This attitude seems to make him popular among Saudi youth; especially those who are quite bluntly disgusted by their royals, their lifestyle, lavish spending and laziness.

On the economic front, MBS is trying to find ways to change the dependence of Saudi wealth on oil. For starters, he is planning to privatize Saudi Arabia’s oil company Aramco. Aramco is believed to be the world’s richest company with assets estimated anywhere between 1.5 and 10 trillion American Dollars. He wants to use the funds generated in the sale in building a diverse economy.

He is now trying to build economic and strategic alliances with countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan in order to have a stronger clout in the power brokerage of the Sunni world; and this is not to mention his strong ties with Erdogan.

There seems to be little doubt that MBS is a cut that is different from that of his peers, but this is not to say that he is a cut above the rest. Credit must be given to him however for thinking laterally; at least on the economic front.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, given his indoctrination, he is not only aware of the sliding stature of Saudi Arabia, but he is painfully watching the rise of Iran.

He has witnessed the fall of Bandar and saw his mistakes. He has learned from this that he cannot rely on America as an equal ally.

MBS obviously knows that the golden age of Al Saud is over. He knows that what seemed to be an endless wealth a few decades ago is coming to a sudden end, and sooner than anyone thought. He realizes that Saudi Arabia is no longer on America’s most favourite list. He is totally aware of the early signs of those reality checks, and he wants to do something about them.

Whether he is going to be successful or not, is another story.

Young age is not a predicament. By the time Alexander the Great ruled the old world, he was the same age as MBS now.

MBS may have the right vision, ideas and intentions, but does he have the substance that is capable of creating the changes he wishes for in Saudi Arabia?

In reality, MBS’s passion for change is yet to show its first achievement. Perhaps he needs more time to show his real mantle, but thus far, we have heard much and seen nothing. In reality also, he doesn’t have much time to start walking at least some of his talk. If his father wants to pass on the baton to him, he must do this very soon and before he loses his mental capacity and certainly before he suddenly dies. Saudis, both royals and otherwise, will need to see some MBS success stories before they endorse his promotion and accept his rise to power.

But such success stories are yet nowhere to be seen.

On the military and strategic fronts, MBS has called for the formation of a Muslim anti-terror front to be established and have its HQ in Riyadh. When that alliance was announced, many “member states” were taken by surprise because they found out about it when the rest of the world did. They were neither consulted nor asked. They were clumped into a list that MBS believed he had liberty to construct without the need for approval of his partners. This is exactly like declaring war on a nation in the name of a third nation.

One wonders; was this a show of strength and authority, or just one merely of juvenile immaturity? Or, was it an act of archetypal Saudi arrogance?

Regarding MBS’s Aramco sale venture, on the surface, it may seem like a great innovative idea. However, this undertaking is not as simple as it seems. Many economic analysts and pundits argue that this venture will never work in accordance with the expectations of its architect. When Aramco was set up, it was not meant to ever be put on the open market, and as such, its corporate structure imposes many complexities that will render its privatization a corporate impossibility. As a matter of fact, it seems that MBS expected to see would-be investors lining up in droves, instead, the proposal of privatizing Aramco has generated a very lukewarm global reaction

Furthermore, given that Saudi Arabia had always been tightlipped about the volume of its oil reserve, investors will be reluctant to invest in the unknown. After all, the estimate of what Aramco is worth, 1.5 -10 trillion dollars, is too huge a gap for investors to overlook, and they will be even more reluctant to believe new figures that may contradict with previous estimates.

And speaking of MBS’s ideas and ventures, we cannot but stop and go back to examine the war on Yemen. That war was given the name that major powers give to swift operations. In an attempt to reverberate America’s wars on Iraq, MBS named his war against Yemen operation “Decisive Storm”. It was meant to last a few weeks. Thirteen months later, and after inflicting upon Yemen a massive human tragedy that the world choses to ignore, militarily speaking, that operation is turning into a decisive joke, and the joke is on the Saudi military whose budget surpasses the Russian defense budget.

Now, let us give MBS some fairness again. Anyone who has been to Saudi Arabia and had to deal with Saudi people KNOWS that Saudi Arabia is a country like no other country. It is afflicted by very serious human and social disabilities.

Saudi Arabia is a country whose people, by-and-large, are obsessed with money, sex, food, and sloth; all more or less to the same extent. This is not to mention the obsession with alcohol, which is of course forbidden.

Those who know Saudi Arabia, feel that it will take a miracle for Saudi Arabia to change and “get real” in terms that are in par with other nations.

So even if MBS has the spirit, determination and substance of Alexander the Great, Saudis are neither the historical Macedonians nor today’s Russians.

When Russia was at her nadir during the Yeltsin era, the invincible Russian spirit was staying put waiting for the right leadership. When Putin stood up, Russians stood up with him. Anyone who knows Saudi Arabia and Saudis will tell you that this cannot and will not happen in Saudi Arabia, not in the foreseeable future.

MBS undoubtedly wants to be a reformer. He wants to lift Saudi Arabia up, but Saudis will need more than just a great leader in order for them to be able to partake in the real world. After all, after decades of wealth and stability, the nation of Saudi Arabia did not provide the world with a single achiever in any field of excellence. Not a single scientist, doctor, artist, musician, poet, not even an athlete, not in any field at all. Instead, the kingdom of sand has flooded the world with religious schools that teach and promote radicalism, hatred and violence, and MBS does not seem to have the substance to change this.

If anything, MBS wants to be a world Sunni patriarch, and to establish Saudi Arabia as the centre of the Sunni Muslim World at all levels, not only religiously, not only by housing Mecca, but also economically, culturally, militarily and industrially.

MBS is probably trying to carve for himself a position that is somehow in between Osama Bin Laden and Bandar Bin Sultan, with an eye on Erdogan as a model for success; even though Erdogan in this respect is his biggest rival for Sunni leadership.

With national stability and royal unity of the bygone “fab four” era in tatters, MBS is trying to portray himself, especially to Saudi youth, as a national reformist and saviour. But little does he realize that nation-builders need to perform.

But this is a two-way street. For him to perform, he needs not only leadership substance, but also popular support. The support he is receiving is a little more than well wishes, and the performance he is exhibiting, is little more than failed gambles.

“What conquest brings he home? What tributaries follow him to Rome?”