Posts tagged ‘Saudi Arabia’

November 23, 2018

معارضون سعوديون يشكلون تكتل “متحالفون من أجل الحكم الرشيد” لتغيير رأس الهرم السعودي

by mkleit

 

شكل سعوديون معارضون حركة سياسية باسم تكتل “متحالفون من أجل الحكم الرشيد” تهدف الى اقصاء الملك سليمان ونجله ولي العهد عن الحكم، بحسب ما قاله عضو التكتل، معن الجربا.

وأصدر التكتل الجديد في أول بيان له وصلت نسخة منه الى وكالة يونيوز للاخبار يؤيد فيه تولى الأمير أحمد بن عبدالعزيز مقاليد الأمور لفترة انتقالية مدتها سنة ببيان دستوري إلى أن يقرر الشعب السعودي مصيره”، وعلل التكتل هذا الدعم بأن الأمير أحمد “حريص على إنقاذ الدولة وعازف عن الحكم، ولم يكن طرفا في الانتهاكات التي حدثت في العهود السابق”.

واعتبر “تكتل متحالفون من أجل الحكم الرشيد” أن ملك السعودية وولي عهد الأمير محمد بن سلمان غير مؤهلين “للحكم، ومنهجهما في إدارة الدولة يعرض المملكة ومقدساتها وشعبها ومواردها لأن تكون عرضة للاستباحة”.

والجربا هو أيضاً الأمين العام لحركة كرامة المعارضة في السعودية.

كما يطالب التكتل بإقالة الملك سلمان بن عبدالعزيز وابنه محمد من عن رأس الهرم السعودي، ويدعو لتولي الأمير أحمد بن عبدالعزيز مقاليد الأمور لفترة انتقالية مدتها سنة ببيان دستوري إلى أن يقرر الشعب السعودي مصيره، وعلل التكتل هذا الدعم بأن الأمير أحمد “حريص على إنقاذ الدولة وعازف عن الحكم، ولم يكن طرفا في الانتهاكات التي حدثت في العهود السابق”.

واعتبر “تكتل متحالفون من أجل الحكم الرشيد” أن ملك السعودية وولي عهد الأمير محمد بن سلمان غير مؤهلين “للحكم، ومنهجهما في إدارة الدولة يعرض المملكة ومقدساتها وشعبها ومواردها لأن تكون عرضة للاستباحة”.

وكان الأمير أحمد -وهو الأخ الشقيق لملك السعودية- عاد نهاية الشهر الماضي للسعودية، بعدما قضى شهورا في لندن، وجاءت عودته بعد حصوله على ضمانات من الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا بعد تعرض ولي العهد السعودي له.

ويعرف عن الأمير أحمد بن عبد العزيز معارضته لسياسات ابن أخيه، إذ رفض في عام 2017 -عندما كان عضوا بمجلس البيعة- تعيين محمد بن سلمان وليا للعهد، ولم يقدم له البيعة.

كما سبق أن انتقد الأمير أحمد في سبتمبر/أيلول الماضي بشكل علني الحرب في اليمن، محملا الملك وولي عهده تبعات هذه الحرب وليس لأسرة آل سعود.

وحسب البيان، فإن التكتل السعودي المعارض الجديد يضم ست حركات سياسية وسبعة مستقلين، وهي: حركة كرامة بزعامة معن الجربا، وحركة أحرار يام وهمدان بزعامة عبد الهادي اليامي، وحركة تحرير جزيرة العرب بزعامة دخيل بن ناصر القحطاني، وحركة التعبئة الوطنية وحركة ضباط الجزيرة العربية بزعامة مرزوق مشعان العتيبي، وحركة الحق والعدالة بزعامة مانع بن مهذل.

ويضم التكتل شخصيات مستقلة، وهي: هارون أمين أحمد، وعبد العزيز المؤيد، وخالد بن فرحان آل سعود، وأمين عبد الإله علي، وفيصل ناصر الرشيدان، وعلي العمار، وحسن الكناني.

وقد قال الجربا، أيضاً، أن للأمير أحمد “خبرة طويلة في الحكم وعلاقات جيدة داخل الأسرة ومع المجتمع الدولي،” مشيراً إلى أن “اصل المبادرة الانتقال السلمي من اجل تفادي الفوضى السياسية، مما سيؤثر على الشعب.”

وفي رده على سؤال إن كان موقف التكتل متناغم مع الموقف الامريكي المؤيد لتولي الامير احمد السلطة بدلاً عن الملك سلمان وابنه محمد، نفى الجربا وجود تناغماً أو إيعازاً من أمريكا للتكتل، مشيراً إلى ان مقترحهم مبنيّ على دراسات قاموا بها وملاحظات شخصية، موضحاً أنه قد “وجدنا ان الامير احمد هو افضل من يتولى الفترة الانتقالية بدون فوضى، ومن حسن الطالع ان المجتمع الدولي يفضل هذا المقترح، كما هو الحال عند الشعب والعائلة الحاكمة والمؤسسة العسكرية.”

وأضاف أن “المؤسسة الدينية في السعودية قد يكون لها موقف سلبي من المقترح،” نظراً لعدم قرب الأمير أحمد منهم.

وأوضح أن سياسات بن سلمان “نشأت حرب في اليمن وعلاقات سيئة كادت ان تصل الى حرب مع قطر، وعلاقات متوترة مع الكويت وسلطنة عمان.”

كما أضاف أن تهديدات بن سلمان للدول العربية المجاورة للمملكة السعودية “فتحت ابواب منطقة الخليج للقوات الخارجية وهذا ليس في صالحنا”، حيث أوضح أن الكويت وقطر طالبتا بوجود قاعدة عسكرية تركية على أراضيهما، بالإضافة الى زيادة عديد العساكر في القواعد البريطانية في بعض الدول الخليجية كسلطنة عمان وقطر.

كما أكد الجربا أن معارضتهم لسياسات بن سلمان تتضمن أيضاً تعاطيه السيء مع المال العام، وبالأخص بيعه للقضية الفلسطينية “وهذا امر اساسي نرفضه في المعارضة السعودية، القضية الفلسطينية خط أحمر.”

واعتبر أن أنصار الله حركة مقاومة وطنية لليمن، على عكس ما تتهمهم السلطات السعودية على أنهم جماعة إرهابية.

وأضاف أن المعارضة السعودية “تدعم الاخوة الحوثيين وكل المعارضين لنظام التبعية السابق،” أي الرئيسين السابقين عبدربه منصور هادي والراحل علي عبدالله صالح.

وتقود السعودية حرباً مع الإمارات، وبدعم امريكي وبريطاني، منذ آذار/ مارس 2015 على اليمن، والتي تسببت في وضع كارثي ومروع ومعاناة أكثر من 22.2 مليون شخص يحتاجون إلى مساعدات إنسانية عاجلة بما في ذلك 11 مليون طفل.

أما عن قطر، فأشار إلى أن حصار السعودية مع دول عربية أخرى لقطر هو قرار “غير حكيم” نظراً إلى أنه يستهدف الشعب القطري.

وشدد على أن “وحدة المنطقة هي مطلب من مطالب الشعوب في المنطقة، كالوحدة الخليجية ووحدة المنطقة بشكل عام، عندما تأتي إدارة كإدارة محمد بن سلمان تقطع العلاقات مع كل الجوار كشنّ حرب على اليمن، الحصار على قطر، التوترات مع سلطنة عمان ومع الكويت.”

وأضاف “انظر الى شمال المنطقة، هناك توتر مع سوريا والعراق ولبنان، ومشاكل مع إيران وتركيا.”

وأوضح المعارض السعودي أن “إدارة بن سلمان لم تنجح في بناء علاقات جيدة مع دول الجوار مثل تركيا وإيران ومع الدول العربية والخليجية، فنحن نرى أن إعادة العلاقات مع كل هذه المكونات هي أحد مطالبنا ومساعينا.”

وأكد عضو تكتل “متحالفون من أجل الحكم الرشيد” السعودي المعارض أنه “ليس هناك نفوذ إيراني في المنطقة، لأنها كلمة يستغلها خصوم إيران لإيهام الشعوب بأن إيران خطراً عليهم. بل هناك علاقات لإيران في المنطقة لدعم حركات المقاومة وبالأخص فلسطين.”

وشدد على أن “الداعم الرئيسي لفلسطين هي الثورة الاسلامية في إيران، ومن يدير قضية فلسطين هم أهل السنة وداعمهم الرئيسي هي إيران، وهي لا تتردد في دعم حماس والجهاد الاسلامي والحركات التي ترفع السلاح بوجه اسرائيل.”

وأوضح أن “تركيا دولة سنية، فلماذا نعاديها؟ كانوا يخوفون الشعوب من إيران بسبب اتهامات نشر التشيّع وما شاكل… تركيا لديها مشروع مستقل عن مشروع أمريكا، لهذا يحاربوها، كما هو حال إيران.”

August 28, 2018

Ansar Allah Spokesman: Saudi Arabia wants a submissive entity not a free Yemen

by mkleit

 

Yemen’s Ansarullah spokesman Mohamed Abdel Salam said the political solution in Yemen is represented by the presence of consensual authority adding that the upcoming consultations on September 6 in Geneva must ensure a political solution presented by the presidency, the government and security arrangements as principles.

“Our vision for a political solution is to have a political authority that is consensual, such as presidency, by establishing a presidential council or finding a consensual personal, forming a government of national unity with all parties involved, and then arranging security and military matters,” he said in an exclusive interview with Unews Press Agency.

Abdel Salam further added that the other side only looks at the arms of the Yemeni Army and the Popular Committees ignoring other arms and stressed that there must be a political umbrella of the state’s authority, confirming that all heavy weapons must be at the state camps.

The spokesman pointed out that this is followed by humanitarian and economic arrangements, such as the treatment war remnants including reconstruction and compensation due to the war and the imposed siege that have caused disasters for the Yemeni people.

Abdel Salam denied the existence of any trust between the Yemeni forces and the Saudi-Led Coalition, stressing that Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi is not presented as a consensual person because he is “part of the problem in Yemen.”

“There is no trust between us and the Saudi-Led Coalition, so there must be a signed agreement and this was the problem with the Kuwait negotiations. They wanted an agreement signed by us, where as they only provide us with verbal promises.”

He explained that the solution is represented by a comprehensive agreement signed by all the parties with an international presence as well as public announcement and commitment by all.

Abdel Salam pointed out that “in the closed rooms, they ask (the government of the outgoing President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi) only for what matters to them, but in media they say that we do not commit and we are not looking for a solution.”

Speaking about the outgoing Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, Abdel Salam said that he became part of the problem and it is not logical to give him the confidence again to be president.

Abdel Salam said the weapon is a matter of strength for them and noted that the Saudi-Led Coalition will not allow them to have any political presence, adding that Saudi Arabia does not want a strong state in Yemen, but an entity of its own.

“The problem in Yemen is not in its weapons, because the Saudi-Led Coalition is entering arms into Yemen,”

He stressed that they believe that weapons must be in the hands of the state, wondering “who is this state?”

Abdel Salam pointed out that there are groups in the south that do not recognize the legitimacy of Mansur Hadi and do not accept him, and pointed out that there are weapons in the hands of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other groups, stressing that they do not accept that the issue of weapons to be limited only to them.

Speaking about the Saudi-Led Coalition, Abdel Salam said that “if we had been with the Saudi-Led Coalition alongside a state in Yemen that belongs to the House of Saud that has no arms and no force, they would have given us the best types of weapons, the issue is not in the arms, but in the cause you adhere to and weapons are used to achieve it.”

Abdel Salam stressed that the United Nations has a very limited role in Yemen because of the American-British political pressure, Saudi and the Emirati money, condemning the lack of accountability of the Saudi-Led Coalition for massacres against Yemenis.

“Saudi Arabia is arrogant and because it failed in the war, it has become reckless and is fleeing … The Saudi regime committed a massacre against children in a school bus in Dahyan market and said it was consistent with international law,”

He added that “Saudi Arabia’s political support protected it, as well as that of America and Britain, as in Syria, Trump announced a strike against Syria after accusing the latter of the alleged chemical strike case, a dubious issue. Chemical weapons were smuggled across the border, but Syria was bombed. ”

The spokesman further pointed that in Yemen, the massacre has been collectively condemned by the international community, but they were not been able to pass a commission of inquiry because the perpetrator is known.

“Saudi Arabia is carrying out its operations with American planes, ammunition and intelligence. It is only carrying out what it is being ordered to do, and America will not accept any investigation condemning it… Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the United States and Britain are working to protect Israel’s interests,” he said.

Speaking about the role of the United Nations, Abdel Salam said that the UN is playing a minor role, stressing that it will not diverge from the US and British positions as well as the Saudi and Emirati money.

August 27, 2018

المتحدث باسم أنصار الله: التحالف السعودي مع دولة في اليمن تابعة لآل سعود دون أن يكون فيها سلاح وقوة

by mkleit

 

نفى المتحدث باسم أنصار الله، محمد عبدالسلام، وجود أي ثقة بين القوى اليمنية والتحالف السعودي، وأكد على أن اسم عبدربه منصور هادي غير مطروح كشخصية توافقية لأنه “جزء من المشكلة في اليمن.”

وفي مقابلة خاصة مع وكالة يونيوز للأخبار، قال عبدالسلام أن “الثقة معدومة بيننا وبين التحالف السعودي، لذلك يجب ان يكون هناك اتفاق موقع، وهذه المشكلة التي كانت في مفاوضات الكويت، هو أنهم أرادوا اتفاق موقع من طرفنا ولكن هم يعطوننا فقط وعود شفهية.”

وأوضح أن “الحل هو أن يكون هناك اتفاق شامل يوقع عليه جميع الاطراف بحضور دولي وإشهار معلن ويلتزم به الجميع.”

وأشار إلى أنه “في الغرف المغلقة، يطلبون (حكومة الرئيس المنتهية ولايته عبدربه منصور هادي) فقط ما يخصهم، أما في الاعلام يقولون أننا لا نلتزم ولا نريد الحل.”

وفي معرض حديثه عن الرئيس اليمني المنتهية ولايته، عبد ربه منصور هادي، قال عبد السلام أنه “أصبح جزء من المشكلة، فهل من المنطقي أن يكون هذا الشخص الذي قاتل اليمنيين وجلب لهم هذا الشر والويلات أن نعطيه مجدداً هذه الثقة ان يكون رئيساً؟ نحن بحاجة أن نوجد شخص على قبول من كافة الاطراف وهم موجودون، أما أن تأتي السعودية لتفرض عليها عبد ربه منصور هادي فهذا لن يحصل.”

وشدد على أن “منصور هادي لن يستطيع ان يقدم لك الحقوق الذي كان جزء من انتهاكها.”

كما أكد المتحدث باسم أنصار الله، محمد عبدالسلام، أن “السلاح هو موضوع قوة لنا ولن يسمحوا (التحالف السعودي) لنا بأي حضور سياسي”، موضحاً أن السعودية لا تريد دولة قوية في اليمن، بل كيان تابع لها.

واوضح أن “المشكلة في اليمن ليست بالسلاح، لأن التحالف السعودي يدخل السلاح الى اليمن بشكل كبير.”

وقال أن أنصار الله “نؤمن ان السلاح يجب أن يكون بيد الدولة، ولكن من هي هذه الدولة؟ هل الدولة هي التي كانت تقاتلك لأربع سنوات وأدخلت المرتزقة والاجانب لاحتلال البلد؟ هذه ليست دولة.”

وتساءل المسؤول في أنصار الله: “هل قدموا نموذج إيجابي في الجنوب للدولة؟ هناك مجموعات في الجنوب لا تعترف بشرعية منصور هادي ولا تقبله وهناك سلاح بيد داعش والقاعدة وجماعات أخرى، فلا نقبل أن يُختزل موضوع السلاح فينا فقط.”

وشدد عبدالسلام على أن “السلاح هو موضوع قوة لنا ولن يسمحوا لنا بأي حضور سياسي،” مطالباً الطرف الآخر بـ”ناقش أسباب حصول العدوان وانتشار السلاح، ثم قم بإلغاء هذه الأسباب.”

وفي حديثه عن التحالف السعودي، قال عبدالسلام أن “التحالف السعودي مع دولة في اليمن تابعة لآل سعود، دون أن يكون فيها سلاح وقوة (…) لو كنا معهم، لأعطونا أفضل أنواع الأسلحة، فالمسألة ليست في السلاح، بل في القضية التي تتمسك بها والسلاح وسيلة لتحقيقها.”

وأكد المتحدث باسم أنصار الله أن الحل السياسي في اليمن يتمثل بوجودة سلطة توافقية وأن المشاورات القادمة في السادس من أيلول/ سبتمبر في جنيف “يجب ان تضمن حل سياسي يتمثل بالرئاسة والحكومة وبالترتيبات الامنية كمبادئ”.

وفي مقابلة خاصة مع وكالة يونيوز للأخبار، قال عبدالسلام أن “رؤيتنا للحل السياسي هو ان يكون هناك سلطة سياسية متوافق عليها كمؤسسة الرئاسة عبر إنشاء مجلس رئاسي او إيجاد شخصية توافقية، ثم تشكيل حكومة وحدة وطنية تشارك فيها كل الاطراف، ثم ترتيبات امور أمنية وعسكرية بعد انتشار السلاح بيد الجماعات الارهابية المختلفة.”

كما أضاف أن “الطرف الآخر لا ينظر الا لسلاح الجيش اليمني واللجان الشعبية، دون أن ينظر الى سلاح الآخرين، ويجب ان تكون هناك مظلة سياسية تحت سلطة الدولة. كل الاسلحة الثقيلة يجب ان تذهب الى معسكرات الدولة.”

“يتبع ذلك ترتيبات انسانية واقتصادية، متمثلة بمعالجة مخلفات الحرب كالاعمار والتعويضات لأن الحرب تسببت بكوارث بحق الشعب اليمني نتيجة الحصار الذي استمر سنوات،” كما قال عبدالسلام، مشدداً على أن “الحل السياسي يجب ان يضمن هذه الترتيبات.”

وفيما يخص المشاورات المزمع عقدها في السادس من أيلول/ سبتمبر القادم في مبنى الامم المتحدة في جنيف السويسرية، قال المتحدث باسم أنصار الله أن “مشاورات جنيف يجب ان تضمن حل سياسي يتمثل بالرئاسة والحكومة وبالترتيبات الامنية كمبادئ، لأن الامم المتحدة تقول أن التفاصيل يجب أن تذهب الى الحوار السياسي، فنحن لا نمانع ذلك شرط أن لا تُختزل كما حصل في مباحثات الكويت التي كانت شروطها امنية وعسكرية فقط دون أن تكون سياسية كتسليم السلاح والانسحاب دون أن يكون هناك غطاء للدولة.”

كما أشار إلى أنه سيكون هناك وفد وطني موحّد للذهاب الى تلك المشاورات، موضحاً أنه “ربما سيكون هناك بعد المشاورات جلسات للمفاوضات تؤدي الى التزامات مثل وقف التصعيد وفتح مطار صنعاء.”

وعلى صعيد متصل، قال المتحدث باسم أنصار الله، محمد عبدالسلام، أن الأمم المتحدة دورها محدود جداً في اليمن بسبب “الضغط السياسي الامريكي – البريطاني والمال السعودي والاماراتي”، مندداً بغياب محاسبة التحالف السعودي على المجازر التي يرتكبها بحق اليمنيين.

وفي مقابلة خاصة مع وكالة يونيوز للأخبار، أشار عبدالسلام إلى أن “السعودية متغطرسة ولأنها فشلت في الحرب أصبحت متهورة وتهرب الى الامام (…) فارتكب النظام السعودي مجزرة بحق أطفال في حافلة مدرسة في سوق ضحيان وقال أنها متوافقة مع القانون الدولي.”

وأضاف أن “الدعم السياسي للسعودية حماها، كذلك القادم من امريكا وبريطانيا. كما الحال ما حصل في سوريا، قام ترامب ليعلن ضربة ضد سوريا بعد اتهام الاخيرة بقضية الضربة الكيميائية المزعومة، وهي قضية ملتبسة. سوريا نكرت الموضوع واعتبرتها مؤامرة، وأكدت أن جماعات مسلحة لديها اسلحة كيميائية تم تهريبها عبر الحدود، ومع ذلك تم قصف سوريا.”

“اما في اليمن، تمت إدانة المجزرة بشكل جماعي في المجتمع الدولي، ولكن لم يتمكنوا من تمرير لجنة تحقيق لأنه معروف من هو الفاعل،” قال المسؤول في أنصار الله.

وفي حديثه عن المجازر التي ارتكبها التحالف السعودي في اليمن، ومن ضمنها مجزرة الصالة الكبرى وغيرها من مجازر، قال عبدالسلام أنه “لم يتم تشكيل أي لجنة تحقيق دولي، وهي مجازر قامت بها طائرات التحالف بدعم سياسي امريكي.”

وأضاف أن “السعودية تقوم بعملياتها بطائرات وذخائر واستخبارات امريكية، وهي تنفذ فقط ما تُأمر به، ولن تقبل أمريكا بأي تحقيق يدينها (…) كما أن السعودية والامارات وامريكا وبريطانيا يعملون على حماية مصالح اسرائيل.”

وفي معرض حديثه عن دور الامم المتحدة، قال عبدالسلام أن المنظمة الأممية “تلعب بهامش ضيق ولن تخرج من الموقفين الامريكي والبريطاني، والمال السعودي والاماراتي.”

وأعطى مثالا عن المبعوث الدولي السابق لليمن، اسماعيل ولد الشيخ أحمد، حيث وصفه بأنه “كان تابعا للنفوذ السعودي بشكل صريح، وكان يحركه سفير سعودي، وعندما انتهت ولايته أصبح وزيراً للخارجية لنظام يُحرك من قبل السعودية.”

وأكد على أن أنصار الله “لا نراهن على الامم المتحدة لأنها تتحرك فقط عندما يحصل احراج لها من الرأي العام الدولي”، وأعطى مثالا على ذلك قائلا: “لم تستطع الامم المتحدة أن تعطينا رحلة عودة الى صنعاء بعد أن حوصرنا في مسقط لثلاثة أشهر عقب انتهاء مفاوضات الكويت، وتمت إعادتنا بصفقة تبادل مع معتقلين للتحالف.”

August 23, 2018

For the Bahrainis, Bahrain was Never Independent

by mkleit

Bahrain is passing through what is called in the Arab state as “the week of independence”, where several celebrations occur there in memory of the departure of the British mandate on the 16th of August 1971, yet for the Bahrainis, independence isn’t solely about getting rid of the “White man”, especially with the on-going protests calling for regime change still taking place since 2011.

Bahrain is the smallest Arab state in the Middle East and North African region; it’s situated between the shores of Saudi Arabia and its rival Iran as an archipelago, an extremely strategic one considering its great oil resources that made this small monarchy influential on the world stage.

 

20161128022554_bahrainmap

Bahrain is the smallest Arab state, located in the Persian gulf between two Middle Eastern superpowers Iran and Saudi Arabia

 

 

Like their cousins to the West, the Saudis, the Bahraini monarchs are keen to impose stability to their regime and state, even if it means imprisoning opposition leaders and activists, prosecuting journalists and banning foreign media outlets from entering the country, or lobbying in international conferences and gatherings against their own people, and here the people are the ones who demand regime change.

On the 14th of February 2011, during the globally known “Arab Spring” uprisings, more than half of the 1.4 million Bahrainis took the streets to demand democratic and regime change, as well as socio-economic reforms that include giving just rights for the Shia majority in the country, which make up around 60% of the general dominant Muslim population there.

 

Infograph about Human Rights violations in Bahrain during the month of April 2018 (Arabic)

The Khalifa monarchy that’s ruling Bahrain nowadays has ascended the throne since 1783 during what was called the “Hakimmiyah” era of rule, where Ahmad bin Mohamad bin Khalifa took control of the oil-rich island. It was then transformed to an Emirate rule in 1971, and then a Kingdom in 2002; with all these years being ruled by solely one family, the Khalifas.

Though the current protests (that erupted in 2011) are not the first ones against the monarchy in Bahrain, yet they have taken the fight to a global stage, where several countries and international organizations have condemned the treatment of detainees and oppression of protests in Bahrain, that the opposition has been maintaining peaceful ones so far.

 

28512706

Banner lifted during protest in London against Bahraini authorities’ murder of activists

 

 

The authorities and security personnel, most of whom are non-Bahrainis, with the help of Saudi forces known as “Jazira Shield”, have been brutally detaining activists and journalists like Nabeel Rajab who denounced the Saudi-led war on Yemen on Twitter, imprisoning opposition leaders such as religious cleric Ali Salman, head of al Wifaq organization, which is a prominent opposition front, as well as imposing a siege on Diraz town for over a year after locals blocked the way in front of security forces who wanted to apprehend the Shia’s of Bahraini’s “Pope” Sheikh Issa Kassem.

The siege has rendered Diraz scarce of water supplies and food. It was missing from the world map after several internet blackouts to ban besieged citizens from communicating with the outside world. Above all that, the 81 years old leading Shia cleric’s health deteriorated due to several ailments, while the authorities turned a blind eye to his predicament.

 

28512707

Banner during protest in London against the prosecution of prominent Shia cleric Issa Kassem

 

After several negotiations and the interference of humanitarian parties and international players, Sheikh Kassem was moved to a hospital in London to receive treatment; yet his case was one of thousands of cases where the Bahraini authorities deny those who oppose it the needed medical attention, especially those who are imprisoned there.

One recent example is Hasan Moushayme’, a leading opposition activist in Bahrain in his 70’s, suffering from diabetes and other illnesses, and has been imprisoned for months without receiving proper medical treatment. His son, Ali, has been going through a hunger strike for the past three weeks, demanding proper medical treatment for his father and all of the detainees in Bahraini prisons.

 

 

28512702

Banner during a protest in Bahrain pleaing for the aid of prominent activist Hasan Moushayme’

 

Ali has been attacked by an unknown individual while sleeping during his sit-in in front of the Bahraini embassy in London, and has been witnessing several attempts to bar him from continuing his strike, that also demands granting the detainees their legal and humanitarian rights.

 

28512701

London-based Bahraini activist Ali Moushayme’ during his first days of hunger strike in front of Bahraini embassy in London, demanding medical care to his father and thousands of other prisoners in Bahraini detention centers

 

With all this going on, the UK has been granting “legitimacy” to all of Bahrain’s actions against its citizens proceeding in security training programs and opening a military base in the Arab island. The UK has not condemned the assaults on activists and journalists in Bahrain ever since the uprising erupted in 2011, but money and interest speak louder than human rights violations.

 

 

 

April 8, 2017

US Strike in Syria: Failed Strategic Attempt or Previously Planned Strike?

by mkleit

On Wednesday the 6th of April 2017, two days before the US strike on Syria, a Syrian opposition member called an Arab diplomat saying “America will conduct an attack on Shouairat airport (Homs).” The latter transferred the news to a Syrian diplomat that, in turn, transferred it early Thursday to the Syrian command.

This is what the Security Specialist Vadislav Sheurgen said, and added “The US informed Russia previously through diplomatic channels with its plans to target Syria, and in turn, Russia informed its Syrian counterpart to evacuate its soldiers and equipment.”

In return, other Russian officials confirmed that they knew nothing about the US strike before it happened, and Moscow described what happened as an “aggression on a sovereign state”, and it announced that it will enhance Syria’s aerial defenses and halting cooperation with the US that prevented aerial conflicts over Syria.

What are the background information before the happenings of Friday dawn?

The US airstrike came before any true and objective investigation was made for the claimed “Khan Shikhoun Chemical attack”. Moreover, it didn’t get any international accreditation from the UN’s security council nor the US Congress, which means president Donald Trump needed to hasten the strike.

 

The first vital question is “why this hastening”?

First of all, because the media outburst that was caused by the death of the children prepared the globe for that, exactly like what happened post-9/11 in 2001 (despite the slight difference). Trump must’ve taken the global emotional opportunity and present himself as a humanitarian hero. So in that case, there’s no need for an investigation, with the accusation ready and decision already made.

Second, Trump wanted to strike the Syrian airport after two hours from dinner with the Chinese president, to send a strong warning message to China, saying “if you don’t stop North Korea, our missiles and jets are ready to do the same thing that we did in Syria”. For the past weeks, POTUS has been sending warning after warning to North Korea, whom performed Ballistic missiles tests a while ago, and said that if “China doesn’t move, he will do so himself to stop North Korea… and all options are open”.

But the question here is: did Trump inform his Chinese guest about the strike? That’s unknown, but the Chinese reaction was bound by calling all sides of the conflict for negotiations and stressed on political solutions, denouncing usage of barred weaponry. This means that China didn’t have its usual reaction, such as its Russian counterpart, and did not denounce the strike that didn’t have the security council’s approval.

Third, the strike came one night after the failure of the security council to take a unified decision concerning the chemical attack issue. Trump wanted to say that he doesn’t give any importance to the international coalition, especially that he has been supported by several nations, especially Arab Gulf states, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel. Unlike when Bush invaded Iraq with the opposition of France.

Fourth, the repercussions that the US airstrike on Mosul made, which killed tens of civilians, started to receive international condemnation, even calls to open a serious international investigation.

The key question here is “did the strike happen by mistake or was there someone who needed in get Trump involved into other options?” but the hastening of the strike on Syria was aiming to divert attention from Mosul’s “massacre” and shed light over Syria.

Fifth, the US strike came in midst of investigations with the Trump administration concerning cooperation with Russians, and there were several pressures being made and accusations of spying by some of the people close to Trump.

Sixth, the US strike also came after a meeting between both Iran’s and Russia’s presidents, where the latter two signed several military agreements with their Chinese counterpart.

 

 

After this, Trump would have two options left:

He, either, continues the battle with regional forces (Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia) to put pressure on Iran, Hezbollah, and tries to halt Russia, or he goes to negotiations and mutual understanding, especially that his secretary of state, Rex Tellerson, will visit Moscow soon.

This US intervention in Syria is the first major military development since the Russian direct intervention, with means that the war in Syria has shifted from its local and regional players to its international ones.

Washington wants to set a foot directly in North or Eastern Syria, through political, military, and security methods, and it’s impossible that Trump will retreat from that, and Russia will never back-down from Syria because that would damage its role in the ME region, as well as cause a national security threat.

Keep in mind that days before the US strike, there was a blast in St. Petersburg’s metro station, the Russian opposition moved on the ground, and the Russian Ruble price went down. Iran also sees that its retreat from Syria will cause great damage on its security, politics, and coming elections.

November 6, 2016

Islam without Extremists

by mkleit

Once in a while the news are filled about a group of extremist Muslims who slaughter people and commit the most unthinkable crimes under the name of Islam. ISIS is a recent example.

 

leader-islam_53c1843c20577f17

 

If you ask such people that why they are committing such obvious wrong deeds and still consider it the command of the God, they would answer that they are trusting a Muslim scholar and that they receive the commands of the God through him. Based on this trust they consider the scholar’s commands equivalent to the God’s commands and blindly follow the scholar’s instructions to make the God happy.

But does not this method sound too similar to shirk, the exact opposite of Islam’s primary message, which is not following anybody except the God? How did this happen? How did that origin with the most clear message came to this obvious contradictory point?

 

maxresdefault-1

 

In the “Belief vs. Trust” article, we show that similarly to all modern religions, in the current understanding of Islam also believing in God is interpreted as trusting a religious package preached by the local religious scholars.

After analyzing the roots of such interpretation in all religions, the article shows that key element that legitimizes the incorporation of trusting scholars into islamic practice is considering Hadith as a pillar of Islam.

The current Islam which is mixed with Hadith has become so complicated that leaves an ordinary Muslim with no solution but seeking the advice of some Hadith experts (or scholars) about “what Islam says”. This blind obedience creates potential for extremism: if the religious scholar is extremist, the blind followers also apply the extremism in the name of religion.

 

isis-you-suck-billboard-620x412

 

Then in the “Islam without Hadith” article, we list the pros and cons of existence of Hadith in the current Islamic practice, and show that by eliminating Hadith not only we do not lose any of the core Islamic values but also we are given the chance to rediscover the Simple Islam, the religion which guides us to nothing but reasonable, beautiful deeds. In Simple Islam, which is free from the complexities of Hadith, there is no space for religious scholars to instruct their blind followers to such unbelievable crimes.

In the “Scope” article, we then revisit some of the controversial topics in Quran, such as slavery and women rights, and observe a Quran very different from what the scholars have been preaching for years.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q1: Those are bad scholars. But I am obeying good scholars!
A: Quran warns about blind obedience. Read Section D of Trust article.
Q2: Some extremists claim obeying no scholar and just following Quran!
A: They adopted a particular perverted interpretation of Quran stemmed from Hadith and backed by past scholars. They are essentially obeying those scholar’s viewpoint.
Q3: I read Quran myself. It says “kill the infidels”!
A: Taken out of context! Such verses are about a particular war with the criminals of Mecca. There were refereed to as “Kafir”, which means ungrateful, as they were ungrateful for the gift of the messenger. Quran uses the word “Kafir” sometimes even for Muslims. Mainstream translations offered by scholars however translate “Kafir” as “infidel” causing this confusion.
Q4: Extremists are using perverted Hadiths. There is a huge science of telling which Hadith is reliable. I am obeying good scholars who know this science well!
A: Extremists say the same about you. The bottom line is that both of you blindly obey, and both of you think that your scholar is the right one. Read trust article about blind obedience.
Q5: Why should I trust your article? are you a scholar?
A: Do not trust people. Read their arguments and decide by yourself
Q6: Without Hadith how could we know the details of rituals?
A: Section 4 of the article Islam without Hadith
Q7: Does not Quran itself tell us to follow Hadith?
A: No. Read here.
Q8: Ignoring Hadith is ignoring Muhammad (s.a.a.w.)?
A: No. Read Hadith-less Muhammad.
Q9: Can we understand Quran without Hadith?
A: Yes. Read Quran is understandable without Hadith
Q10: Did not Quran force conversion?
A: No. Islam in Quran means meeting the God with a heart filled with peace. What Muslims did along the history has nothing to do with what Quran describes.

August 31, 2016

الاقتصاد السياسي للطائفية في الخليج

by mkleit

معهد كارنيجي للشرق الأوسط

arab_gulf_states_english

يُواجه حكّام الخليج العربي حوافز تدفعهم إلى تطوير مصادر غير اقتصادية للشرعية، بهدف الحفاظ على الدعم الشعبي مع زيادة الإيرادات الشحيحة من الموارد. ومن خلال زرع بذور الريبة المجتمعية، وتسليط الضوء على التهديدات، والتأكيد على قدرتها على ضمان الأمن، يمكن للأنظمة تعزيز التأييد المحلي والحدّ من الضغوط التي تطالب الإصلاح بتكلفة أقلّ من توزيع إعانات الرعاية الاجتماعية. وتُظهر بيانات الدراسة المسحية من دول خليجية أربعة (البحرين والكويت وعُمان وقطر) أن في وسع الحكومات إرغام السكان على القبول بالجمود السياسي، حتى في الوقت الذي تتضاءل فيه الفوائد الاقتصادية التي يحصل عليها المواطنون.

الأفكار الرئيسة

  • سنّت أنظمة الخليج قواعد انتخابية وتشريعية تضفي طابعاً مؤسسياً على الانقسامات القائمة على سياسة الهوية.
  • كثيراً ماتقتصر السرديات الوطنية الرسمية في الخليج على فئة معينة، بحيث تبرز الاختلافات بين المواطنين، ويتم تمييز بعض فئات السكان على الفئات الأخرى.
  • تعامل الأنظمة الخليجية المعارضة السلمية والاحتجاج على نحو متزايد باعتبارها تشكّل تهديدات حقيقية للأمن القومي، وليس على أنها تحدّيات سياسية عادية.
  • مارست بعض دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي سياسة خارجية حازمة ومغامرة، ساهمت في زعزعة الاستقرار الإقليمي وعزّزت النزعة الوطنية العسكرية.
  • تتزايد مشاعر عدم الأمان بسبب الوعود الحكومية بالقيام بعملية إعادة تنظيم اقتصادي جذرية، في مواجهة تراجع عائدات النفط والغاز.

النتائج

  •  يكشف تحليل بيانات الدراسة المسحية المستقاة من المنطقة عن أن المزيد من المواطنين الخليجيين ذوي التفكير الأمني، مستعدون للقبول بمستويات أقلّ من الأداء الاقتصادي من جانب الحكومة في مقابل توفير الاستقرار. إذ يمثّل توفير الدولة للأمن، بالنسبة إلى هؤلاء، بديلاً عن الفوائد المالية التي يتوقع المواطنون الحصول عليها في الدول الغنية بالنفط.
  • بهذه الطريقة، يمكن لحكومات دول الخليج الاستفادة من المخاوف الأمنية للمواطنين لشراء الدعم السياسي الشعبي بتكلفة أقلّ من تكلفة توزيع المنافع المادية.
  • وبالتالي، لدى أنظمة الخليج أسباب اقتصادية وسياسية لتلوين أو اصطناع التهديدات الداخلية والخارجية، بهدف تأجيج المخاوف الشعبية على الأمن وبالتالي خفض تكلفة زيادة الدعم السياسي
  •  حكّام الخليج غير قادرين في الغالب على إدارة التوترات الاجتماعية حين تنطلق، وقد انتهى الأمر ببعضهم إلى تأجيج المعارضة ذاتها التي رغبوا في قمعها. وهذه الاستراتيجية الخطرة تنطوي على مخاطر جدّية لرفاهية المواطنين ولبقاء الأنظمة على المدى البعيد.
March 25, 2016

Stop Wahhabist School to Fight Terrorism

by mkleit
ap_60095752573_custom-a31414021cfeb3c4f67550e5f9c759cbe8cd7fb2-s900-c85

Young man sitting in front of Brussels’ stock exchange building

 

Terrorist attacks in Europe has caused a two-way incitement between Europeans and Muslims, which is a result that terrorist group ISIL is trying to reach as they’ve said after the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the 7th of January 2015: “compel the Crusaders (Europeans) to actively destroy the garrison themselves… Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize… or they emigrate to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens”.

The latest attacks on the Belgian capitol Brussels left 35 dead and 270 injured when suicide bombers hit Zaventem airport and Maalbeek metro station on Tuesday morning. Recent reports from Belgian media showed that people involved in the terrorist attacks are Muslims and of Arab background.

Mostly, Europeans would blame the millions of Muslims in Europe (and a lot of them have done so) for being the cause of religious incitement, and by far that’s sort of right, since there’s a minority of Muslims whose taking a big part of inciting against the “Crusaders”.

194f8ecf2e3e74125b119bb7eb4a05fb715f643a

Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia hitting several nations

The Arab – Muslims whom are able to go to Europe and live there (aside of refugees and asylum seekers) can afford the living, where the biggest percentage comes from the GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Emirates). And the ideology that all of these countries share (except Oman and partially Kuwait) is Wahhabism or Salafism. This sect is considered to be the most fanatic, extremist, and inciting amongt all Muslim sects – consider them as the KKK or the Nazis of Islam. This ideology is also the root of many terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda (Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Afghanistan..) ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and Levant/ Syria and Iraq), Boko Haram (Nigeria), al Nusra Front (Jabhat al Nusra/ Syria), Ahrar al Sham (Syria), Jaysh al Islam (Syria), al Shabab(Somalia), Taliban (Afghanistan, Pakistan) etc…

One might think that abolishing ISIL, the most prominent terrorist group would save the world from terrorism, but no! Such an action wouldn’t do anything, because religious fanaticism is not bound by a group, it’s an idea, and ideas don’t die by bombs and bullets; ideas should be fought by ideas.

In their book, Global Terrorism and New Media, Philip Seib and Dana M. Janbek argue that terrorist groups are teaching younger generations (between 10 and 12 years old) their ideology through boot camps and schools that are in their area of control. This strategy elongates the group’s survival for a longer time. They would teach students how to be hate-filled fighters, as well as how much other sects and religious groups are “sinners and blasphemers”, most evidently the crusaders (Euro-Christians) and the Rawafids (Shiites Muslims, the second biggest sect in Islam). And among this, they would teach them that it’s okay to call them blasphemers and punish them for being from a different sect, where punishment varies from flogging to beheading and public execution.

06.05.23.CoreCurriculum-X.gif

These schools of thought are not solely found in areas of terrorist groups, but also in countries like Saudi Arabia. And they’re also expanding to European countries – under Saudi funding – such as France, Belgium, Germany, and Britain; since the mentioned countries have close relations with the Gulf state, as well as big Muslim communities.

When Europeans blame Muslims for this problem, they are partially correct, but they’re mistaken when they blame the refugees for causing the damage. Although some of the latter have took part in the battles in Syria, as many pictures show ex-fighters from extremist factions seeking refuge with the influx to Europe. But the problem is inside Europe itself, where it comes from these school and extremists Salafi-Wahhabi communities that are spreading fanaticism. Thus, they serve as a “shelter” and “sanctuary” for extremists coming from the MENA region and Asia, whether these countries are suffering from turmoil like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria, or countries that serve as a holder for this thought like Saudi Arabia.

afa841f3aa9d7de8ac28a6260f6a962c.jpg

The only way to protect the EU, is to do what Tunisia has been recently doing by their campaign “tomorrow is better”, where they are re-educating inmates imprisoned for terrorist act by extracting the extremist thought from their heads and planting patriotic and moderate-religious ideology. As for the schools, the government is keeping an eagle’s eye on academic curricula, so that they would not contain topics of incitement and fanaticism.

If such procedures are made, alongside other educational and security ones, not only in  Europe but also in the countries that are being vastly effected by extremist thoughts like Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and others, we would gradually defeat extremist thoughts and potential terrorism, because it’s not fair nor right to blame millions of people for the acts of a few.

January 4, 2016

Situation in KSA after the Execution of Sheikh al Nimr

by mkleit

Source: unknown

protester-holds-picture-sheikh-nemer-al-nemer-during-rally-coastal-town-qatif-reuters

The situation is quite tense in KSA and in the region, due to the recent development in the political confrontation between Iran & KSA, due to the execution of the cleric Nimer Baqir Al Nimr, who was executed along with others 47 convicted with terrorism charges.

The Saudi authority announced cuts the diplomatic relationships with Iran and evicts Iranian diplomats from KSA within 48 Hours.

Mutable security implications expected in the short term in various locations, including the KSA eastern province, Bahrain and the Yemeni front.
1.    Armed confrontations between the Saudi police and Shiite militant groups in the eastern province.(with a very likely & possibilities of deterioration in the civil unrest condition in these areas).
2.    Armed confrontations between the Bahraini police and Shiite revolts groups in & around the Shiite villages. (Light firearms and improvised Explosive devises are expected to be used by the militant groups).
3.    Wide confrontations between police forces and protesters will be wetness along the areas& village with high Shiite population.
4.    Intensified confrontation between Saudi forces and Ansar Allah (Al Houthi) rabbles along the Saudi Yemeni borders.
5.    Also IS terrorist organization might get involved to benefit from the security & political tense situation by carrying out sectarian attacks against Shiite community to ignite sectarian conflict in the region.

 

October 11, 2015

How The US Uses (Takfiri) Extremists

by mkleit

Source

ScreenHunter_1549-Apr.-20-16.42

Many doubts, questions, and dilemmas have arisen concerning the contradicting conduct of the West while dealing with extremist movements. The West exploited these movements in Afghanistan during the late 1970’s, opposed them in the Arabian Peninsula in the nineties, and then launched war against them in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. However, in 2011, the West returned to taking advantage of these extremist groups and we are currently faced with a rather vague Western connection with Isis.

The reason behind the doubts and different points of view is that analyses are based on relatively rigid mental paradigms which fail to proceed in accordance with the flexibility and pragmatic segmentation of the cowboy mentality. On the other hand, the alignment of extremist groups in many instances with the West has induced powers which oppose these groups to accuse them of treacherous conduct.

This is accurate, but it is accomplished through the Western scheme of indirect control of these groups. This indirect control is due to the ideological and strategic disorder which extremist groups suffer from, and the disapproval which those in their infrastructure, supportive environment, and their mustering forces maintain toward any connection with the United States- let alone full alliance with America. This is what the inconstancies in relations from 1979 up until this day indicate.

Another factor which has spurned these doubts is the vehement self-defense which the “takfiris” display when they are accused of having connections with the United States or with any countries which adhere to America or revolve around it.

The examination of the course of this movement leads to a specific model which displays how the relation with Isis is controlled by Western powers with the United States at their head. This model is composed of three aspects:

1017178_501452883261086_558810

1) Commission 2) Steering 3) Restraint

Each one of these aspects forms a set of tools which The US select according to the time and condition they deem as most appropriate. They do not necessarily benefit from all of these aspects in a simultaneous manner.

1) Commission

This policy depends on assessing which geographical area is most suitable for the movement of extremist groups, but under the condition that these movements do not pose a threat on American interests and that they also provide a strategic advantage. This policy is fulfilled according to circumstances and through certain means which are chosen according to time and place. There are five essential means.

1) Ensuring geographical domains: Weakening a country’s control in the target region through commotions, political turmoil, political settlement, and national uprising – as was the case in Syria in 2011, and Mosul in 2014.

2) Securing logistical pathways: Ensuring roads for extremists to reach target regions whether these pathways are by land, sea, or air. They also provide visas and even means of transportation in order to reach the area of conflict. They used Egypt, Pakistan, and Yemen as transits during the war on Afghanistan in 1979, and Turkey and Jordan during the war on Syria in 2011

3) Allowing financial aid and armament: Giving approval to their allied powers which wish to support extremist groups with money and weapons whether directly or indirectly (through certain institutions and weapon dealers). Rationing and organizing financial aid is done according to the time which ensures the imposition of a strategic course upon extremist groups.

The United States might also resort to direct weapon provision in some cases of tactical exceptions, such as throwing weapons and equipment from the air to Isis fighters in Kobani more than five times, and presenting this act in the guise of “a mistake”.

4) Transport: Expelling extremists from the countries which are harmed by their presence or from countries which desire to take advantage of them.

5) Facilitating the work of preachers: Allowing extremist preachers to fulfill their activity of spreading extremist ideology and mobilizing “takfiris” in the areas of transference, at departure, and at arrival. Extremist preachers are also allowed to spread their views on satellite TV stations and through different media.

2) Steering

This policy is based upon exerting an effort in media, mobilization, and in the field of action in order to direct the strategic priority of extremist groups toward movement in a certain sphere only, to target a specific enemy, or even to change the strategic and tactical course at a certain stage. All of this is done according to circumstances, requirements, and capacity.

The United States is very active in this domain with the aid of its regional and international allies. It achieves its aim through nine principal means.

1) Specifying the “preferable enemy”: the US have created “stars” among the “takfiri” environment for their own purposes and interests. They shed light on commanders or convenient extremist factions through inserting them on the list of terrorism. They focus on them in the media and select them in a way in which their prominence on the political scene leads to regional and international political achievements. For example, at the beginning of the war on Iraq, Colin Powell proclaimed that the enemy of the United States was al-Zarqawi. The US media machine placed him under the spotlight in a way where he became a prominent figure on the scene, and the conflict considerably shifted to internal Iraqi strife.

This is what Israel did a few months ago when it imposed on Jabhat Nusra to assign certain commanders in charge of control of the positions along the Jolan Heights- under threat of military intervention.

2) Assassinating commanders: Targeting extremist leaders who pose a threat on American or Western national security, or leaders whose regional influence negatively affects the scheme of steering and exploiting. For example, assassinating Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-‘Awlaqi, and most Qaeda commanders in Yemen.

3) Arabian and International Media: Delivering ideological and provocative concepts which aggravate extremist groups and urge them to head to a certain target region to fight the side which America chooses.

4) Saudi Arabian clerics: The Saudi Arabian religious institution is performing a central role through issuing fatwas which declare jihad in a target region.

5) Security Breaches: Recruiting, sending “Islamized” Western men to fight, the role of Arabian secret services, imprisonment, and attracting a supportive environment which is discontent with the conduct of the extremists. Prisons play a central role in recruiting commanders and prominent figures whether in an explicit or indirect way.

6) Taking command of conflicts: Handling the crisis in the target region in a way which achieves the goals of the United States, and preserving the controllable and exploitable extremist power through suspicious operations and different means of steering.

7) Causing a suitable environment of strife: Creating a setting of conflict in which the mustering forces of the extremist groups are presented as the targets, the oppressed, and the infringed upon – as in the case of Afghanistan and Syria.

8) Dividing the “takfiri” factions: Creating conflicts, tactical clashes in the field of combat, and producing a multiple set of goals and priorities through different means in order to prevent the formation of a unified power- as in the case of the clash between Isis and Jabhat Nusra in Syria.

9) Strategic Theorization: Presenting comprehensive strategic plans which represent the interest of the extremist scheme in the targeted geographical range. The security services infiltrates the Salafist jihadi virtual world and make their own Salafist websites, and in some cases they have the advantage of recruiting few ideologue under the coercion or persuasive instrument in the secret jails, those ideologue are capable of making the paradigm shift when needed.

3) Restraint

Takfiri factions strive to maintain their own agendas – in spite of the great influence of the United States and its agents – in order to preserve their rank among their mustering forces and political authorities. Western powers need to restrain takfiri groups in order to prevent them from crossing strategic or military limits, and they fulfill this through force or control of their incomes.

Regulation is based on six essential means:
1) Direct Confrontation: Carrying out direct military operations to strike at the critical takfiri forces or those which pose a threat, as in the case of Afghanistan in 2001 for example.

2) Limiting financial aid and armament: Monitoring the flow of money and weapons; the amount, type, and timing. They also uphold the limits which prevent the takfiris from becoming a threat while allowing them to act in a way which benefits the United States, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

3) Geographical Restraint: When necessary, the military forces of the United States or its allies fire at the posts where takfiris pose a current or future threat, as the coalition forces did when Isis fighters entered Irbil.

4) Providing a Geographical Substitute: If takfiri groups increase in number or if it becomes hard to control them or their actions, a new battlefield is provided which forms a vent for emotional and military zeal. The most prominent example is allowing Isis forces to engage in fighting in Mosul.

5) Steering through the Media: Provocations in the media contribute to maintaining military and political zeal to achieve the intended and previously specified goal. Thus, it becomes difficult for the leaders of takfiri factions to turn around on the intermediate range.

6) Assassinating Commanders: This was explained among the aforementioned means of steering. The best example on resorting to this course of action during operations of restraint is the assassination of Al-Zarqawi when the United States became suspicious that he had pledged allegiance to Bin Laden and that he had restored the struggle against America as his main priority.

terrorist Abu Mes'ab al Zarqawi

terrorist Abu Mes’ab al Zarqawi

Exemplification

The usage of these means was fulfilled in different circumstances and course of events. In Afghanistan in 1979, the United States had previously designated the course of events. The National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, had formulated a plan to bring Islamists to Afghanistan, to lure the Soviets, and to trigger a long term exhaustive struggle between them.

The second example was after the eleventh of September when the United States resorted to means of restraint in the face of takfiri groups which had left Afghanistan in search of a range of movement. A clash of interests ensued and resulted in the war on Afghanistan in 2001 and the operation of complete security restraint in Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, the zeal of these takfiri groups was directed toward Iraq in 2003 under the banner of fighting America only to be steered toward internal strife.

After that, the great operation to engage in Syria commenced and it is still continuing. The takfiri factions had envisioned in their consciousness and political cognizance an old enterprise in that country. One of the results of this operation was the emergence of Isis whose military effort has been steered once again toward Iraq- in limited mutual interests which the United States has not allowed to cross their specified sphere. Now, Isis is heading toward targeting Saudi Arabia which induced the international coalition to strike it.

Art of the Possible

The United States, its allies, and its regional adherents have adopted this three dimensional policy. This is due to the deep hostility which Arabian and Islamic nations hold toward America, the inability of the US army to engage in the battlefield for military and economic reasons, and the steady growth of powers which oppose America and Israel. Thus, the need for substitute armies able to accomplish strategic and tactical missions arose.

The second reason is the difficulty in engaging in direct combat with takfiri groups which Bin Laden had been temporarily able to drive toward fighting the far enemy in the late nineties and the new millennium, and the need which arose after September eleventh to return these groups to their favorite ideology of targeting the near enemy and regional foes.

Thirdly, Western powers were most of the time in need for an excuse for military intervention. They were also in need of signing long-term agreements (in security, economics…) with the terrorist takfiris. This is why they enabled the takfiris to be present- in order to justify intervention as in the case of Iraq in 2003.

Fourth is the need of America and Western countries to import the takfiri individuals who are active on their soil and to get rid of them.

Regional allies have other concerns – the most important which is the need to vent the internal pressure which these takfiri movements of revolutionary quality pose, and to solve jurisprudential issues when dealing with takfiri groups which lessen their excommunicative speech against certain regimes when they find a suitable range of movement abroad.

On another level, Arabian and Islamic countries need to get rid of the organizational structures of the takfiris or to weaken them as much as possible through driving them toward areas of conflict and strategic ambushes, as Saudi Arabia did in 2003 when it imported its dilemma with Qaeda to Iraq and got rid of that great predicament. The final motive for countries which are involved in the strategy of indirect control has to do with the regional aspect- they make use of takfiri groups to accomplish political regional goals, as in the case of Syria since 2011.

The nature of the takfiri groups is the reason why they have a tendency to be under this strategy. They are hostile and excommunicate everyone, even one another. Thus, they are prone to be steered in any possible direction. Due to the intellectual and jurisprudential differences among takfiri groups, and the lack of a unified command and strategy, they have a tendency to be infiltrated and to be steered in different directions. They also suffer from great vulnerability in security and this has facilitated the endeavors to recruit agents and secret intelligence infiltration.

They are also faced with a major problem which is financial aid – they lack an independent Islamic country which provides them with the money they need. This is why they depend on countries which exclusively adhere to the United States such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Pakistan. On the other hand, due to the security and political pressure exerted on takfiri groups, they are usually in search of any available outlet- especially since their speech carries very ambitious goals in comparison with their ability and narrow range of movement.

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

ألعوبة السعودية في سوريا

Courses of Action and Achievements

The main cases in this strategy are Afghanistan 1979, Iraq 2003, and Syria 2011. These cases have been generally successful in accomplishing their main goal which is transformation as much as possible of the threat which takfiri movements pose into a chance, and to take advantage of their blood-thirsty and destructive nature for the benefit of strategic US enterprises. They were successful in Afghanistan which the Soviets left, and they were successful in kindling sectarian and ethnic turmoil in Iraq in 2003. Currently, the United States has benefitted from these takfiri groups in Syria through destroying a great deal of the infrastructure of that country which is central in the allegiance of resistance. Israel has benefitted in creating an obstructive line on the border of the Jolan Heights which is formed of the Jabhat Nusra forces. In Iraq today, Isis represents a case which we wait to discover its outcomes and strategic courses.

On the long term, this strategy has been successful in shifting the military effort of takfiri groups away from directly targeting the West. In Afghanistan, the enemy was the Soviet Union, and in the period after that the targeting of American interests commenced up until the eleventh of September. Steering and indirect control were successful in Iraq in making American interests a secondary priority for takfiri groups in opposition to the priority of targeting other regional powers. As for Syria, American interests became completely distant from takfiri attacks, and Isis has almost fully eliminated attempts to target American interests. The main concern has become the geographical region- to establish the state of Isis, expand it, and to preserve its lands.

The profound and structural results show that America has been able to prevent takfiris from being active in regions where they pose threats on American interests. As a result of wide American domination, takfiri groups have not been able to move in an effective way which has influential political results anymore. They are only able to do so when there is no opposition to US interests which means where the US are at an advantage due to their presence. Thus, these takfiri groups – in an objective way- have become a part of the American scheme. With time they have avoided all regions vital to the United States and are active in less crucial areas.

%d bloggers like this: