Wednesday, March 17, 2021

TRADE-OFF LOOMING ON SYRIA AND YEMEN By Ghassan Kadi. 16 March 2021

 Ghassan Kadi’s analysis of Lavrov’s recent visit to the Gulf region and where this diplomacy could be heading.

http://thesaker.is/trade-off-looming-on-syria-and-yemen/

Trade-Off looming on Syria and Yemen:

14761 ViewsMarch 16, 2021 60 Comments

By Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

In the past few weeks much has happened in the area of diplomacy on the part of Russia. Russia is forging ahead after stepping up its presence in the Middle East in the past decade, taking a strong pro-active political role. Moscow during this period has been intent on consolidating its efforts in re-establishing itself as the key player in any political settlements in the Middle East. Ever since Kissinger in the late 1970’s pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of the USSR, striking a deal between Israel and Egypt, excluding the USSR and the rest of the Arab World, the political influence of Russia in the Middle East significantly waned until it came back with deciding force when Russia responded to the Syrian Government’s request for help in September 2015.

Lately, the economic crisis has deepened in Syria following the drastic Western sanctions. And specifically after the implementation of the Caesar’s Act, the Syrian currency took a huge tumble and the cost of living has soared to unprecedented levels. This left many cynics wondering and pondering what was Russia going to do in the face of the collapsed Syrian economy after having achieved an impressive military victory, taking its troops outside its former USSR borders for the first time and heralding the end of the single super power status of the USA.

To this effect, and on the diplomatic side, Russian FM Lavrov has recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE for talks pertaining to an array of issues. The agenda issues that transpired to the media include trade, the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, as well as issues of global and regional security, albeit vague in details as what ‘security issues’ mean.

It appears that in these meetings, discussions included the return of Syria to the Arab League and the cost of reconstruction of Syria after ten years of war, a bill touted to exceed $Bn200. Expectations have existed for some time that the Arab Gulf states will fork out a huge chunk of this cost. As mentioned above, the bottom line here is that Russia’s military success in its operation in Syria needs to be followed by political success. Partly, this is achieved within the Astana talks which include Turkey and Iran. However, the very same Arab States instrumental in the ‘War on Syria’ are also instrumental in facilitating the return of Syria to the Arab League, the reconstruction efforts in Syria and the easing of sanctions. The Gulf states have always reiterated that there will no return of Syria to the Arab League for as long as Iranian forces remain on the ground. The UAE seemed more open than Saudi Arabia to the prospects of Syria’s return to the Arab League and financing the reconstruction process.

But why would the Gulf States, the same states that spent tens of billions of dollars in order to destroy Syria, be suddenly now interested in the reversal of the process? This is a fair question to ask.

Quite unexpectantly, and almost immediately after the return of Lavrov to Moscow, a top delegation of Hezbollah, headed by Mohamad Raad, was invited to Moscow for talks. Apparently, the visit was cloaked in a veil of secrecy in Russia and was not at all covered in Western media, even though it made news in Arabic mainstream media. It would be politically naïve to imagine that Lavrov’s visit to the Gulf has no relation to this. All issues in the Middle East are related to each other, including the war in Yemen.

To put it succinctly, the UAE had already stepped away from the Yemen war. However, Saudi Arabia remains bogged down in this travesty and seven years on, must have come to the humiliating and painful realization that it is a war it cannot win. This is where Iran and Hezbollah can have leverage in any direct or indirect negotiations with the Saudis, and Russia is the only arbitrator who is able to communicate with all parties involved.

All parties in the Middle East are looking for face-saving tradeoffs; at least partial and interim ones. The Saudis in particular are tired and exhausted,

In an interview given to Sputnik Arabic, one not widely reported in other media, not even Sputnik English, Raad praised the cooperation between Hezbollah and Russia, stating that ‘the invitation we received aims to reopen the dialogue about the next phase after having reached the achievements that serve the interests of the people of the region in the recent past’ .

This is Raad’s first visit to Moscow since 2011. Of that visit, I am not trying to speculate in hindsight of the purpose of it and the achievements of it. Furthermore, Hezbollah has not ever been party to any international dis-engagement or peace negotiations in the past, except for ones relating to exchange of prisoners. The economic demise of Syria and Lebanon, as well as the Saudi-Yemeni impasse, may well have placed Hezbollah in a position of participating in peace-deals negotiations this time.

I am neither referring to peace deals with Israel here, nor any deal involving disarmament. Hezbollah will not be prepared to negotiate disarming itself under any political settlement either today or in the foreseeable future, and Moscow is totally aware of this.

According to my analysis, the deal that Moscow is most likely to suggest is a mutual withdrawal of Iran and Hezbollah from Syria on one hand, and an end of the Saudi war on Yemen. It is simple, Saudi Arabia to leave Yemen and Iran/Hezbollah to leave Syria. I believe that Lavrov has already secured the Saudi acceptance of those terms, terms that will not only end the war in Yemen, but also the return of Syria to the Arab League and a possible easing of the Western economic sanctions on Syria. Had Lavrov not secured the Saudi assurance, he would not have invited Hezbollah for talks.

A deal of this nature can potentially end the criminal human tragedy in Yemen in a manner that will portray the Saudis as the real losers in the war, and this is where they need a face-saving trade-off in Syria. In Syria, they will be perceived as winners by securing an Iranian/Hezbollah exit. But most importantly perhaps for the Saudis, this will put an end to a very costly and humiliating war in Yemen, one which is beginning to draw criticism from some quarters of the international community, including alleged talk of America considering placing arms deal embargos on Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if Iran and Hezbollah end their presence in Syria, many sanctions are likely to be lifted and the severe economic pressure in Syria will be eased. Such a deal will be a humanitarian win for Syria and Yemen, a strategic win for Saudi Arabia and Iran, and a diplomatic win for Russia.

What will be in it for Hezbollah will largely depend on what Lavrov has put on the table, and it seems obvious that it is Hezbollah that will need more convincing than Iran, and this is why the talks are now with Hezbollah; not with Iranian officials. Perhaps the deal already has the tacit approval of Iranian officials.

It goes without saying; Israel will be watching these developments with keen interest. Israel wants Iran and Hezbollah out of Syria. But the trade-off deal I am talking about is not one in which Israel is a direct party.

What is known at this stage is that a meeting has already taken place between the Hezbollah delegation and Russian officials. As I write this, I am not aware if other meetings are to follow and or whether or not the Hezbollah delegation is back in Lebanon.

Was the 2011 Moscow visit of Raad a prelude for Hezbollah to enter Syria? Will the 2021 visit be prelude for Hezbollah to leave Syria? We don’t know. We may never find out the actual detailed outcome of the mysterious-but-not-so-mysterious current Hezbollah visit. It may not even end up with a press release, but in the next coming days, we will find out if a Syria-Yemen trade-off is indeed looming.

 

 



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis? Ekaterina Blinova interviews Ghassan Kadi 10 March 2021

The 45 year long, slow demise of Lebanon reached a crescendo in 2020 when the currency almost totally collapsed and society and its institutions went into free-fall, eventuating in the past few weeks into some potentially serious developments. 
Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis? (sputniknews.com)

Could Lebanon Protests Lead to a 'Coup' & How Might NATO Capitalise on the Political Crisis?

Lebanon's Economy is in Free Fall

Maronite Patriarch: 'Do Not Remain Silent'

Lebanese Army Chief Criticises Gov't's Handling of the Crisis


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, March 7, 2021

The Cancel Culture Phenomenon: Kind of Hate Hush all Over the World By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi 1 March 2021

 Our thoughts on the insanity enveloping the Western world

http://thesaker.is/the-cancel-culture-phenomenon-kind-of-hate-hush-all-over-the-world/

The ‘Cancel Culture’ phenomenon: kind of hate-hush all over the world

15048 ViewsMarch 01, 2021 40 Comments

by Ghassan and Intibah Kadi for the Saker Blog

Who remembers the Herman’s Hermits and their 1967 song ‘There’s a Kind of Hush’? The hush the song speaks of is a hush of love, and it was a world of dreams in the sixties in the West, despite the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights protests in the USA and other global conflicts. The peace movements were strong and vibrant, and there was hope that the peace-loving youth will have their way and make a difference; because they genuinely believed in the slogan that ‘all you need is love’.

Alas, the love-hush seems now to be replaced with a hate-hush, and it is engulfing the world, particularly the West, with unprecedented anger and vile displays of demeanour, and this seems to be part of the ‘New Normal’ that some are pushing down our throats.

Not long ago, inspired by another song of the 1960’s, the article pondered where have all the flowers and peace movements gone. In such a short period since, discord and trouble has steeply risen to unprecedented levels, where we are witnessing now an ominous step forward into the abyss and a huge fall in the trajectory of humanity.

In comparison and as an example, when the Lebanese civil war erupted in 1975, it didn’t really come as a surprise to anyone as the specter of such calamity had always hung in the air and sat on the agendas of opposing political groups, as well as on the narrow minds of religious groups that held back unsettled sectarian scores for decades, even centuries.

In hindsight, it seems unfathomable as to how did the German people become so brainwashed and vulnerable to Nazi propaganda. They incrementally discarded all the humane values they had known before, replacing them with nationalist, exclusionist and supremacist values, eventually engaging, wittingly or unwittingly, in supporting or perpetrating injustices on minority groups including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, just to mention a few. Shockingly, when the civil war began in Lebanon, the Lebanese people actually saw a similar phenomenon happen right in front of their eyes. The world witnessed town turning against town, suburb against suburb, neighbour against neighbour, inflicting the most horrendous crimes of maiming, sniping, torturing and killing each other. The same happened again in Yugoslavia as it fell apart.

In more ways than one, latent hatred was expected to eventually manifest itself. If and when old sentiments are not dealt with and brought to closure, such an outcome of a build-up and explosion is to be expected.

But what we are witnessing today, in the West, is something quite different; a case where many people develop boiling, seething, foaming and frothing rage and hatred against others for no apparent reason or history at all.

In America at least, there are a number of actual issues that cause rage and dismay, such as unresolved racial tensions and injustices, perceptions of stolen elections, mishandling of the Corona Virus, the economy and so on. However, these issues are dealt with so vehemently, often with grave, unjust, illegal and disproportional measures, leaving many wondering if America is teetering on the brink of a civil war.

Most striking is the alarming phenomenon of other Western countries taking on board many of the divisive American-specific issues, all with the rage and social divisions that define America’s social status quo. People make ‘all or nothing’ stands and polarity on so many issues, reaching new frenetic levels each day. Even when a legitimate reason for anger exists, the expressions of these can be increasingly extreme and irrational and treated as a defining issue, one worthy of labelling, whether in America or elsewhere.

The authors observed that many people from all different sides of the political divide, within and outside the USA, when asked, are unable to rationally express the reason behind their extremely heated stands. Such a psychological situation can destroy the West; or what is left of it. Close friends, friends who have known and loved each other for decades accuse each other of the most heinous of ‘crimes’, attach labels to each other, just because they ask simple questions, trying to understand the rationale behind their feelings.

And feelings they are, because they are not well-conceived and fact-finding-based views, and their answers provided are merely emotionally based.

In the very near past, people and friends in particular, used to have deep political discussions with peers. They disagreed quite often, but such diverse views were discussed in a civil manner with the assumption that people had the right to have different views and opinions.

In the West today however, it seems that the ‘agree-to-disagree’ principle is no longer. The current rule is ‘you are either with me or against me’. Where have we heard this before? Instead of ‘me’ it was ‘us’?

Not only are we witnessing extreme and unwarranted actions between disagreeing individuals, we are also witnessing this on a collective level, one we often refer to as ‘thought-policing’. Its repercussions in recent times are rapidly morphing into what can only be described as torture ‘techniques’ such as the likes of ‘Cancel Culture’. This is exactly synonymous to the act of ‘banishment’ during the Spanish Inquisition days and the Witch-Hunt eras. Nothing much has changed, or perhaps things have gone full-circle.

In that time, ‘banishment’ meant that the banished ones lost their jobs, became socially isolated, prohibited from trading or buying goods, and quite often, this preceded being burnt alive at the stake. And, now it appears that ‘Cancel Culture’ means virtually the same thing. Whilst the victim may still be lucky enough to trade and buy commodities online, it still generally involves losing one’s job, stature, friends, memberships of associations, and facing humiliation and defamation among many other things. The only basic difference today is the absence of being put to death.

Prior to any banishment or ‘Cancel Culture’ being implemented, just like in the past where such people were branded as heretics, they are now given labels such as ‘denialists’ (disagreement with climate change theory), ‘anti-vaxxers’ (questioning the effectiveness and safety of COVID vaccines) and others. What is interesting here in all this madness, is that a person could be labelling another, only to end up themselves being labelled for something else. Someone who labels another as a ‘denialist’ may find him/herself branded as an ‘anti-vaxxer’.

What is most sinister perhaps is that, on one hand we see this violent, unexplainable, unwarranted irrational level of anger, but on the other hand, we see the West endorsing and accepting other irrational policies that can destroy it, but yet no one is batting an eyelid. Any keen observer can see that a whole myriad of changes have been imposed on the Western society, each of them alone can destroy the Western culture. Without much effort, we can see many such changes, but it suffices to mention the following:

  1. Political correctness that has gone way too far and continues to erode personal freedom of expression.
  2. The climate change debacle/hoax that elevated Greta to the level of becoming Time Magazine’s person of the year.
  3. The destruction of Western family values.
  4. The over-emphasis on LBGTI rights and all the changes imposed on the mainstream society, including such things as banning the use of words like mother and father.
  5. The COVID-thing; lockdowns, conflicting information, the vaccines that we know little about, the presence of nefarious people of influence like Fauci and Gates in decision-making.
  6. Confusing young school children with gender issues and almost encouraging them to become homosexual and/or transgender.
  7. The silence of the public regarding the censorship regulations of Facebook and Twitter.
  8. The silence of the public about the plans of the WEF’s ‘Great Reset”.
  9. The growing acceptance of thought policing and compliance to the state and media.
  10. The public indifference towards the groundless sanctions against Russia and their possible effect on global stability and peace.
  11. The public lack of knowledge and indifference about the support of their governments to Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
  12. The West losing its industrial base under the watchful eyes of Western Governments.
  13. The West suffering from a huge drop in number of students majoring in STEM subjects.
  14. The West suffering from a growing lack of desire of young adults to have children and raise families.
  15. Giving blanket and unconditional support to abortion, even in the absence of any medical, psychological and justifiable reasons, including late-term abortion, and considering it (ie abortion) as a human right.

When people in the West are asked, why do those who do not agree with the above or accept it say nothing? The response is invariably fear, fear of being targeted and being subjected to the ‘Cancel Culture’.

Coerced to endorse the revolution of anger and phantom ideology, Westerners, especially the youth, have been socially engineered to become the corner stones of ‘controlled opposition’, all the while, they seem to have been conditioned to ‘unsee’ the real issues that threaten their survival in the future.

Coming to the crunch question; with what appears as increasing irrationality and insanity all around, have people been recently, or maybe incrementally, subjected to systemic brainwashing that renders them into such a state of irrationality, anger, volatility and blindness? If that is the case, then how was this achieved?

This brings to mind the tactic of subliminal advertising, a technique developed as early as in the 1950’s in which a person is subjected unknowingly to an advertisement. It can be sound-based or visual. A visual one is based on techniques like inserting a single advertisement frame, say of a bag of popcorn, into a movie. Movies show motion by playing a series of still frames, around twenty per second. In a single frame it is not noticeable by the conscious mind, but is picked up by the subconscious, and in this example given, will create a stimulus to buy popcorn. There is much evidence of more sinister or politically motivated subliminal messages inserted into Hollywood movies. Legal questions arose around this technique.

From such a simple, unsophisticated technique, in the same decade, a secretive project on behaviour modification was undertaken named Project MKUltra, eventually becoming the subject of an American Senate Intelligence Hearing . Mind-control technology took off, reaching ever new heights (or lows?), not just enhancing business and socio-political agenda, but becoming a crucial component of warfare, even with special strategies for social media, to target the public and their perceptions, making them compliant or malleable and even activating them to the extent this discussion indicates. Intibah Kadi’s work on this is cited in the preceding link to an academic paper.

The question is where else, apart from media and social media, have such techniques been used? What kind of technology and to what extent and what ends has this been taken to? And has such systemic brainwashing that we suggest, been ramped up in these last few years when Trump was President of the USA? This is predicated on the suspicion of Trump acting at times as the ‘disruptor” of a particular set of the ‘establishment’, or ‘swamp’ as he named it, one that either rejected him or he alienated.

This also brings to mind an old movie in 1977 by the name of Telefon, a fiction based on a few people who on the surface appear to lead a normal life, but in reality, are a team of professional assassins designated to kill certain individuals upon receiving a vocal message they had been hypnotized to respond to like robots.

Have we actually reached such days of a ‘New Normal’ in terms of the evident, debased level of social discourse, labeling, shaming and damning? Ironically, ‘New Normal’ is a term we hear every day, courtesy of world leaders, various officials and, of course, from the head of the World Economic Forum. Or is it ironic? Will brainwashing and behaviour modification techniques go far beyond that of what we commonly understand and well into the realms of Artificial Intelligence and Electromagnetism? And in these new realms, what extent, if any, do these play a role in these shocking days of ‘Cancel Culture’, the suspension of critical thinking and general mob-rule behaviour permitted for some in the West in recent years?

But above all, did the Western mind deteriorate naturally as a result of attrition or did social engineering cause it to devolve in a manner that fires it up chasing red herrings all the while being totally blind to what really matters? Or has it been manipulated by a devious master plan that makes any science fiction movie look like a Batman Comic?




Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, February 27, 2021

Ekaterina Blinova interviews Ghassan Kadi and Sara Sherif. Is Biden's Khashoggi Report an Attempt to 'Blackmail' Crown Prince into Accepting Iran Nuclear Deal 27 February 2021

Historian and political analyst, Ekaterina Blinova, interviews Ghassan Kadi and Sara Sherif on current regional issues involving the Biden US regime.

SPUTNIK 27 February 2021

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202102261082200380-is-bidens-khashoggi-report-an-attempt-to-blackmail-crown-prince-into-accepting-iran-nuclear-deal/

Is Biden's Khashoggi Report an Attempt to 'Blackmail' Crown Prince Into Accepting Iran Nuclear Deal?

20:13 GMT 26.02.2021 (Updated: 13:12 GMT 06.08.2022)

© AP Photo / VAHID SALEMI
Subscribe
International
India
Africa

Ekaterina Blinova
All materialsWrite to the author
US President Joe Biden has been increasing the pressure on the Saudi kingdom and its royal family over human rights issues and the death of Jamal Khashoggi. On the 2020 campaign trail, Biden vowed to make Riyadh a "pariah" unless they changed their policies. Middle East experts discuss Washington's new strategy toward the kingdom.

On 26 February, the Biden administration released an intelligence report linking Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the 2018 murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The report alleges that the crown prince "approved" the assassination. Riyadh has rejected allegations that members of the royal family were aware of the plot.

Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and a reporter, was slain and dismembered in 2018 while inside of the Saudi embassy in the Turkish capital city of Istanbul. After a months-long investigation Saudi authorities charged eight individuals with the murder of the journalist: five were sentenced to 20 years in prison while three others received shorter prison terms. Commenting on the inquiry, Khashoggi's son Salah tweeted: "We affirm our confidence in the Saudi judiciary at all levels, that it has been fair to us and that justice has been achieved."

Biden Administration Exerting Pressure on the House Saud

"By touting the release of the report, Joe Biden is flagging a big red sign to Mohammed bin Salman, a threat, even a blackmail attempt if you wish, in order to give him a clear message that Biden is intent on making a US policy change in the region, and that should MBS not cooperate, he will be named and shamed", says Ghassan Kadi, a Middle East expert and political analyst.

Ahead of the intelligence report's publication, US President Joe Biden and Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud held a phone conversation on 25 February discussing regional security, efforts to end the war in Yemen and "destabilising activities" by Iran in the Middle East.

Earlier, the White House signaled that it would return to "counterpart to counterpart" engagement, which meant that, unlike Donald Trump, Biden would communicate directly with the king, not with the crown prince.

Other aspects of US-Saudi cooperation have also undergone changes according to Axios. The Biden administration has declared the end of Washington's support for the Saudi-led coalition and its military operations in Yemen, and has nullified Trump's attempt to designate Yemen's Houthi political opposition movement as a terror organisation, while also putting the sale of cutting edge US weapons deal to the monarchy on hold.

Assessing the developments, the Guardian suggested on 17 February that Biden seeks to "sideline" the crown prince. The media outlet hinted at the possibility that Washington may go so far as to try to force Riyadh "to change the line of succession and demote" the crown prince. 

"Biden wants to send a double message to Saudi Arabia: on the one hand, he confirms the continuation of the relations between the two countries, the other hand it appears that the White House rejects the Saudi crown prince," suggested Sara Sherif, a political analyst and Israeli affairs journalist at Al Dostor newspaper.

Biden is unlikely to snub the crown prince, offered Kadi. Washington is additionally not interested in deepening the rift between the US and the kingdom, he added.

Saudi leadership and Crown Prince Mohammed appear to be interested in reducing tensions with the new US administration, according to reports. On 10 February, a Tel Aviv-based reporter for Axios, Barak Ravid, outlined a number of "signals" sent by Riyadh to Washington following Biden's inauguration.

·         Saudi women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul was released from prison;

·         Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan welcomed the appointment of Tim Lenderking, the new US envoy for Yemen;

·         Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad announced judicial reforms to "establish civil law in the country for the first time, in addition to Islamic law".

Two Messages to Iran: Yemen Policy & Strike on Syria

Washington's foreign policy changes concerning Yemen should be seen not as a way to demonstrate Biden's "discontent" with the crown prince but as a measure "to appease Iran and to demonstrate to the Iranians that Biden is serious about resuming talks" about the JCPOA nuclear deal, according to Kadi.

Sherif agrees: Biden's decision to remove the armed Houthi political opposition faction from the list of terrorist organizations is a "first goodwill to Iran before the start of the negotiations about the nuclear deal, and to finish the conflict which has been going on from 2015".

The Biden administration has made it clear that the president is interested in returning to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, Washington and Tehran still remain at odds as to who should make the first step. The Islamic republic insists that the White House must first lift all sanctions against the country. The Biden administration, however, is floating the idea of concluding a broader deal with Iran which could include the latter's ballistic missile programme.

"Any deal with Iran will not go smoothly unless America can get the acceptance of the Saudis (and Israel of course, but this is a separate issue)", Kadi suggests. "The Saudis will not accept any American policy change unless pressured, and Biden is basically demonstrating to the Iranians that he is prepared to go as far as working against the interests of Saudi Arabia."

While the Saudis believe that America is their ally, the Biden administration is using a stick-and-carrot approach toward the kingdom as a means of reaching its own objectives in the region, according to the political analyst.

At the same time, the Pentagon's 26 February strike against alleged Iranian-linked fighters in eastern Syria is a signal to Iran to reduce its influence in the Arab republic in exchange for the atomic deal, Kadi offerred. This is how the Biden administration is demonstrating to regional players that Obama-era hawks are ready to "recalibrate" US foreign policy in the Middle East, he believes.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)