Minggu, 30 Maret 2014

MIDDLE EAST IN THE PERSPECTIVE... ??? ....TURKEY POLITICAL ROLE... WHOEVER THE MAN ON STAGE.. WILL BE FOR NATO AND SAUDI ARABIA GROUP...??>> THE SYRIA AND HEZBULLAH... WILL BE MORE STRONGER.. AND CONFIDENT...>>> ITS THE NEW ERA FOR THE STRONG RESISTANCE AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY SAUDI ARABIA-ISRAEL-NATO-USA.. IN THE MIDEAST.. CONFLICTS..??>> .... THE URGENT AND MAY BE SOMETHING QUESTION...OR BIG QUEST...?? THE SAUDI ARABIA IN THE FUTURE..?? AND WHAT THE BIG SECRET CONSPIRACY AMONGST USA - SAUDI ARABIA - ISRAEL AND TURKEY..?? AND HOW ABOUT EGYPT...??>> BIG..BIG.. QUESTION...??>> MIDDLE EAST... IS SO... INTERESTING... FOR THE FOREIGN POLICIES...??>> .... ISESCO further condemned the Israeli attempts to revoke Jordan's sovereignty over the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and its support for near daily break-ins by Zionist settlers and police raids. The organization also described Israel's measures against the al-Aqsa Mosque and its Muslim visitors as a flagrant violation of the international law. For its part, the United Nations has also expressed its deep concerns over the growing demolition of Palestinian homes in occupied al-Quds by the Israeli regime. MB/MB...>>> Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey's main opposition Republican People's Party,( CHP) addresses a crowd of supporters during an election rally in Ankara March 28, 2014. The leader of Turkish opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) insists that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is responsible for the continuing bloodshed in Syria. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of CHP, who has also been the leader of the main opposition in Turkey since 2010, lashed out at Turkish Prime Minister for the mishandling as well as escalating the ongoing crisis in Syria. ..>>> ...The opposition also accuses Erdogan and his party of exploiting the crisis in Syria for their own political interests. Erdogan Administration has been facilitating insurgent attacks on Syrian forces. According to reports aired by different news networks, Turkey, together with some US-backed Arab states, has supported the spread of unrest and terrorism in Syria since 2011...>> ??>> ...AKP polls predict that the party will win around 35 percent of the vote, significantly lower that its 2011 general election share, which was 50 percent. Other pollsters downplayed the effect of the campaigns against Erdogan on Turkish voters, and estimated that the AKP will retain at least 46 percent of the vote. On the other hand, many are wagering on a high turnout on election day. They say that if the turnout is more than 85 percent, then the winner will no doubt be Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. To be sure, some say that the leader of the CHP has managed to convince the Turkish people of his integrity, seriousness, and credibility, in contrast to the dozens of question marks now surrounding Erdogan’s character. ..>>> ...... Over 52.7 million Turkish voters are supposed to go the polls, which number 170,000 distributed across 81 Turkish states, to elect their mayors, local councils, and elected neighborhood officials. Twenty two political parties will participate, led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Turkey’s main opposition party, along with the Nationalist Movement Party and the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party. ..>>> ...The quarrel between Erdogan and Gulen has helped the CHP immensely. With the followers of the preacher fully mobilized, the party has been able to benefit from their formidable capabilities to gain more support among the electorate. Everyone realizes that the results of Sunday’s election will determine the future of Erdogan. If he loses the elections, he will lose everything, including his dream to enter the presidential palace in Çankaya Köşkü...>>> ...Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced Saturday that the resistance these days is stronger and more capable at all levels, adding that the resistance issue had always been a matter of controversy ...>>> ...“The resistance issue is holier and deeper than a tiny problem with any party or organization. Every offense against the resistance is an offense to everyone who represents the resistance not to a specific group, this will have consequences and will be unveiled in a few days,” the Secretary General said. “I want to announce today from this liberated area that the resistance today, as it was in July, is stronger and more capable at all levels. Israelis know very well that the resistance is not only strong, but stronger and more capable on the human, financial, and military levels. It is more ready for victory.”...>>> “Lebanon’s gold does not exist in the whole world, and with wood, the Lebanese had built coffins of Israeli soldiers, and will continue to exist for each occupier to this holy Land," he indicated. ..>>> ...The list of objectors to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the US elite class and other positions is long, and the significant point here is the sharp tone many critics have used against a supposed ally who has a "special relation" with the United States. Among these critics are former employees in the government who worked in previous Administrations, and some of them have ties with the Republican Party and have many criticisms towards the Obama Administration, like Kori Schake who occupied many positions in the Pentagon, National Security Council, and the Foreign Ministry, in addition to her strong participation in Republican candidate John Mc Cain's presidential campaign in 2008. Schake published her article in the Foreign Policy Magazine under the headline: Saudi Arabia's Unhappy. So What?..>>> ..Schake says: "But the Saudis' unhappiness is not proof that US policies are wrong. Obama administration policies are wrong, but not in the ways or for the reasons the Saudis excoriate them. And bringing US policies into alignment with Saudi Arabia is likely to create a Middle East even less in America's interests than the Obama administration's bungling has." Schake adds: "Saudi Arabia wants a very different Middle East than we do. The Saudis oppose democracy. They oppose freedom of the press. They oppose freedom of conscience and practice of faiths other than Islam. They oppose women's equality before the law. They oppose the idea that individuals have rights and loan them in limited ways and for limited purposes to governments." "Not only do the Saudis oppose these fundamental values of American society, but they have funded and armed some of the most virulent jihadists."...>> "The Saudis now want US complicity in supporting jihadists in Syria and the return to power of the deep state in Egypt (a model they would perpetuate throughout the region)." After the author tackles the options that Riyadh might take in its opposition to the Obama Administration and her estimation to the dangers that could result from these options, she offers an advice to the Obama Administration using the term "red line" which the president himself used, but this time against the Saudis, saying:.."And if there's one red line that President Obama has made credible, it's his willingness to abandon countries relying on American assistance."..>> .... For the past 70 years, the equation of protection in return for oil with fine prices was implemented. Even though these relations faced some disagreements and tensions, but these cases were not essential. According to Diplomat and former US Ambassador to Riyadh during the first Gulf war, Chas Freeman (1989-1992), who was also known for his strong ties with US foreign policy institutions, he said:"In the past, we've been able to rely on them (Saudis) at a minimum not to oppose US policy, and most often to support it..." However, these days this harmony no longer exists in the same form and it seems more shaky. Lately, loud complaints by significant Saudi officials were heard because the interests of the strong alliance between the two countries have become at stake. This urged US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to make an urgent visit to Riyadh in November where he met with King Abdullah, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Fayssal, and a number of Saudi officials; but it is doubtful that Kerry had succeeded in putting a limit to this deterioration in the relations between the two countries.>>... However, these days this harmony no longer exists in the same form and it seems more shaky. Lately, loud complaints by significant Saudi officials were heard because the interests of the strong alliance between the two countries have become at stake. This urged US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to make an urgent visit to Riyadh in November where he met with King Abdullah, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Fayssal, and a number of Saudi officials; but it is doubtful that Kerry had succeeded in putting a limit to this deterioration in the relations between the two countries. David Ignatius wrote in Washington Post about the crackup in the Saudi-US relations, considering that "it has been on this way for more than two years, like a slow-motion car wreck..." - this includes some exaggeration - however, US researchers go far beyond that as they consider that the state the relations between the two countries have reached is the result of a long path of mutual disappointment, which has started with the end of the cold war and included some harsh stops for both parts. "September 11" was one stop for the Americans, while the Iraq invasion in 2003 and its results - according to the Saudis - like the handover of power there by the George Bush Administration to the Shiite majority, was most likely the greatest strategic relapse for the kingdom in the past decades...>>>

Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Stronger, 

Gold will Always Remain Gold

Local Editor http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?
Sayyed Nasrallah
eid=143208&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan 
Nasrallah announced Saturday that the resistance 
these days is stronger and more capable at 
all levels, adding that the resistance issue had 
always been a matter of controversy.

In a televised speech at the launch of the Jabal Amel Culture and Literature 
forum in the Southern town of Ainatha, Sayyed Nasrallah said that there had 
always been “a big challenge named the Zionist scheme, and the challenge still 
exists, some are trying to ignore it or consider it non-existent, this is a great sin,” 
adding that the only choice that remains is the resistance.

“The resistance issue is holier and deeper than a tiny problem with any
 party or organization. Every offense against the resistance is an offense
 to everyone who represents the resistance not to a specific group, this 
will have consequences and will be unveiled in a few days,” the Secretary 
General said.

“I want to announce today from this liberated area that the resistance 
today, as it was in July, is stronger and more capable at all levels.
Israelis know very well that the resistance is not only strong, but stronger 
and more capable on the human, financial, and military levels. It is more ready
 for victory.”

Sayyed Nasrallah said that some people do not know that the resistance in
 Lebanon exists since 1948 “because they do not know what the resistance
 means. The Lebanese resistance existed since the first moment of the 
occupation and it gained its legitimacy since that moment.” “These people 
know nothing about what border villages witness, nor do they know about
 the Zionist violation to our land, sea and air.”

“The debate on the resistance choice had always been a matter of 
controversy. There had never been a concensus over the resistance, 
who's saying that is mistaken,” His eminence said.

Gold is gold

In response to President Michel Sleiman's stance on the army-people-
resistance equation which he dubbed "wooden equation", Sayyed Nasrallah
 said: “Gold will always remain gold. If gold was in front of us and 
someone said that it’s tin or wood it doesn’t mean that it has become so. 
Others descriptions of things do not change the reality of these things.”

“Lebanon’s gold does not exist in the whole world, and with wood,
 the Lebanese had built coffins of Israeli soldiers, and will continue to 
exist for each occupier to this holy Land," he indicated. 

The Problem with Hezbollah Political      

On the Syrian issue, Sayyed Nasrallah said the “problem with us in the
 Syrian issue is our political position and not our military intervention which
 came after the intervention of everyone. Since the first day we said we're
 not with this conflict nor with the overthrow of the regime or government.”


 crowd


“Since the beginning we talked about a political solution while the 
Arab regimes wanted to overthrow the regime,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
 “After three years the decisions of the Arab summit all talked about 
the same solution. It took them three years to say what should have 
been said since the first day,” he added.
      
The S.G. said the battle in Syria has reached this stage as a result 
of the size of the regional and international intervention to what is
 related to the resistance, its existence and identity. “We did not violate
 Syria's sovereignty, we rather intervened after receiving the Syrian 
cabinet's approval,” he stressed. 
     
“We went to Syria to defend the Holy shrine of Sayyeda Zainab (AS)
 which is respected and loved by all Muslims,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.
 “Today, the Turkish government discusses that there is a shrine to 
grandfather the greatest of the sons of Ottoman, who does not know 
his name lots of Muslims, and considers that it’s a Turkish right to 
intervene militarily in Syria to protect this shrine.”  
     
On the Takfiri threat, his eminence said some Lebanese have not 
realized yet that what is happening in Syria is a threat to the country.
 “If Takfiris were defeated in Syria, the Lebanese will be protected. 
If Takfiri terrorism won in Syria, we will all come to an end. Don't you 
see what's happening in Aleppo, Idlib, Raqqa, Deir Ez-Zour, in Falluja 
and Anbar?”

Presidential Elections On Time

Concerning the Lebanese presidential elections, Sayyed Nasrallah
 said: “We are more than anyone keen to have the presidential election
 held on time and as soon as possible in order to lay a basis for a future
 stage to hold a dialogue on defense strategy other things.”

“I call for the implementation of the presidential election away from 
 accusations, we are against excluding anybody, and today we have
 an opportunity to take a deep breath and not to wait for the situation
 in the region.”

Jabal Amel 

       
Hezbollah’s S.G. also talked about the ceremony and the symbolism
 of Jabal Amel which gave birth to many educated and respected 
scholars. “Some people wants us to isolate ourselves from the 
region's issues, however, Jabal Amel scholars and despite the poor
 situation had always been in support for the region's causes, not only
 in Syria, Palestine or Iraq but also in Libya.” “We inherit from these 
scholars this culture, mentality and conception,” he said.

Militer Suriah Rebut Dua Kota Dekat 

Perbatasan Lebanon





Militer Suriah berhasil merebut kembali kontrol dua kota dekat perbatasan
 dengan Lebanon, setelah pasukan pemerintah merebut kembali 
wilayah strategis Qalamoun.
 
"Angkatan darat dan angkatan bersenjata memulihkan... stabilitas dan 
keamanan kota Ras al-Maara dan Flita di Qalamoun ... setelah mengusir 
para teroris yang melarikan diri dan menghancurkan senjata mereka," demikian 
disebutkan kantor berita resmi Suriah SANA Sabtu (29/3).
 
Flita dan Ras Maara, terletak di wilayah barat Qalamoun, merupakan benteng 
terakhir bagi kelompok-kelompok teroris dukungan asing yang beroperasi di 
kawasan tersebut.
 
SANA lanjut mengutip sumber militer, yang berbicara secara anonim, dan 
mengatakan bahwa pasukan Suriah menewaskan dan melukai banyak militan 
Takfiri selama operasi di dua kota tersebut.
 
Sementara itu, pasukan Suriah melanjutkan operasi terhadap kelompok Takfiri 
di wilayah lain.
 
Pada hari Sabtu, militer Suriah membunuh banyak anasir teroris setelah 
 menyerang sarang mereka dan dan menghancurkan senjata-senjata mereka
 di kota pelabuhan Lattakia, utara Suriah.
 
Pasukan pemerintah Suriah juga melakukan operasi militer serupa di Homs,
 Aleppo dan Daraa, serta berhasil menimbulkan kerugian besar bagi teroris.
(IRIB Indonesia/MZ)
https://www.google.com/search?q=IMAGE+TERBARU+PETA+PERANG+SURIAH+MARET+
2014&client=firefox-a&hs=Ckq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=
u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=78A3U-LmA4yeiQe2h4GAAw&ved=0CF0QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=
554#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=WTAUtGMnOFUX9M%253A%3BmSqasDt11LPtXM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F
www.islamtimes.org%252Fimages%252Fdocs%252F000367%252Fn00367301-s.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.islamtimes.org%252Fvtpjufwvnuqe.zb.html%3B526%3B272


Erdogan blamed for Syria bloodshed by rival party

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey
Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey's main opposition Republican People's Party,( CHP) addresses a crowd of supporters during an election rally in Ankara March 28, 2014.
The leader of Turkish opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) insists that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is responsible for the continuing bloodshed in Syria.
Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of CHP, who has also been the leader of the main opposition in Turkey since 2010, lashed out at Turkish Prime Minister for the mishandling as well as escalating the ongoing crisis in Syria.
Kilicdaroglu also reprimanded Prime Minister for his support for the foreign-backed insurgents in waging war and violence against Syria, saying Erdogan is trying to concoct numerous pretexts to invade the neighboring Arab country .
Earlier, a leaked audio recording of Turkish officials discussing a plot to militarily intervene in Syria appeared on the YouTube site.
The controversial recording relates to a discussion of possible operations in Syria, which was apparently attended by Turkey's intelligence chief, its foreign minister and the deputy head of the armed forces.
Emine Tarhan, the vice spokesperson of CHP, also said Erdogan should be held accountable for the killings in Syria.
She added that she was expecting Erdogan to be tried in international criminal courts for his role in the bloodshed in the neighboring country .
The opposition also accuses Erdogan and his party of exploiting the crisis in Syria for their own political interests.
Erdogan Administration has been facilitating insurgent attacks on Syrian forces.  According to reports aired by different news networks, Turkey, together with some US-backed Arab states, has supported the spread of unrest and terrorism in Syria since 2011.
RA/MB
- See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1580315#sthash.L9a6UPts.dpuf
Sayyid Ali Khamenei: 
Iran Tak Akan Mundur Selangkahpun
 
Islam Times- http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcc11q1p2bqi08.5fa2.html
 
"Apakah penekanan pemerintahan Islam akan kemajuan berarti kecenderungan pemerintahan Islam kepada perang? Apakah pemerintahan Islam hendak menyulut masalah dengan semua bangsa dan negara di dunia? Dan inilah yang sering kali terdengar dari mulut najis anjing-anjing galak di kawasan ini, yakni Rezim Zionis Israel."
 
Sayyid Ali Khamenei
Sayyid Ali Khamenei

Rahbar atau Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam Ayatollah al-Udzma Sayyid Ali Khamenei Rabu (20/11) dalam pertemuan akbar dengan puluhan ribu komandan pasukan relawan Basij, menyebut Basij sebagai manifestasi dari kestabilan, kebanggaan dan wibawa pemerintahan Islam. Seraya menjelaskan beberapa kriteria dan modus-modus penipuan kubu arogansi global, khususnya Amerika Serikat (AS), yang tak bersedia tunduk kepada kebenaran, beliau menegaskan bahwa resistensi dan kekuatan bangsa adalah satu-satunya cara melawan musuh.

Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei menekankan kembali dukungannya kepada pemerintah dan para pejabat negara seraya menandaskan, "Dalam masalah nuklir, ada beberapa garis merah yang harus dijaga dan jangan pernah mundur walau sejengkal dalam membela hak-hak bangsa."

Menurut beliau, Basij adalah wujud nyata dari kebesaran bangsa Iran dan kumpulan tenaga-tenaga handal di dalam negeri. "Bagi para pendukung pemerintahan, revolusi Islam dan negara ini, Basij adalah kesatuan yang membanggakan, tumpuan harapan dan lembaga yang terpercaya, sementara bagi musuh-musuh pemerintahan Islam ini Basij merupakan lembaga yang menakutkan dan mengecewakan," tambah beliau.

Menyinggung peringatan Pekan Basij yang bertepatan dengan peringatan perjuangan Zainab al-Kubra (as), Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam mengatakan, "Perjuangan Zainab merupakan kelanjutan dari epik Asyura. Dengan kata lain, perjuangan Syd. Zainab (as) menghidupkan dan menjaga epik perjuangan Asyura."

Seraya menyinggung perjuangan Zainab al-Kubra (as) yang penuh dengan resistensi dan ketabahan saat menghadapi berbagai musibah yang kebesarannya hanya bisa disandingkan dengan kebesaran perjuangan Asyura, beliau menjelaskan khutbah-khutbah Zainab al-Kubra (as) yang tegas di depan warga Kufah, di depan Ibnu Ziyad dan di istana Yazid.

Rahbar menegaskan bahwa resistensi Zainab al-Kubra (as) telah membuahkan gerakan resistensi sepanjang sejarah dalam membela kebenaran. "Karena itu, teladan dan orientasi kita dalam gerakan ini adalah Zainab (as) dan tujuan yang harus dikejar adalah kemuliaan Islam dan masyarakat Islam serta kemuliaan insani," kata beliau.

Dalam pertemuan akbar ini, Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam menyinggung ungkapan ‘lunak tapi unggul\' yang beberapa waktu lalu beliau gunakan, seraya mengatakan, "Sebagian orang menyebut ungkapan ‘lunak tapi unggul\' sebagai langkah melepas prinsip dan cita-cita pemerintahan Islam. Atas dasar itu, sebagian musuh kita mengklaim bahwa pemerintahan Islam telah mundur dari prinsipnya. Padahal semua kesimpulan itu tidak benar dan satu pemahaman yang buruk."

Beliau menambahkan, "Sikap lunak yang unggul berarti bermain cantik dengan menggunakan berbagai cara untuk mencapai tujuan dan berbagai cita-cita yang didambakan oleh pemerintahan Islam."

Di antara cita-cita revolusi dan pemerintahan Islam yang disinggung Rahbar adalah kemajuan dan membangun peradaban Islam yang agung. Cita-cita ini merupakan gerakan bersama yang dilakukan secara bertahap.

Lebih lanjut beliau mempertanyakan, "Apakah penekanan pemerintahan Islam akan kemajuan berarti kecenderungan pemerintahan Islam kepada perang? Apakah pemerintahan Islam hendak menyulut masalah dengan semua bangsa dan negara di dunia? Dan inilah yang sering kali terdengar dari mulut najis anjing-anjing galak di kawasan ini, yakni Rezim Zionis Israel."

Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei menambahkan, "Apa yang diklaim musuh justeru berlawanan dengan pandangan dan perilaku Islam. Sebab, cita-cita pemerintahan Islam sebagaimana yang diajarkan oleh al-Qur\'an, Nabi Muhammad Saw dan para Imam Suci (as) adalah keadilan, kebajikan dan sikap baik terhadap semua bangsa."

Menurut beliau, bahaya sesungguhnya yang mengancam dunia adalah kekuatan jahat global termasuk rezim ilegal Zionis dan para pendukungnya.

Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam mengungkapkan bahwa pemerintahan Islam selalu mendambakan kasih sayang dan pengabdian kepada semua manusia serta memupuk hubungan persaudaraan dengan semua bangsa.

Ditambahkannya, pemerintahan Islam bahkan tidak bermusuhan sama sekali dengan rakyat Amerika, walaupun pemerintah AS bersikap arogan, memusuhi, keji dan menaruh dendam terhadap bangsa Iran.

"Yang berseberangan dengan pemerintahan Islam dan dilawan oleh pemerintahan Islam adalah arogansi," tegas beliau.

Lebih lanjut di depan puluhan ribu komandan Basij, Rahbar menjelaskan kriteria-kriteria arogansi dan maniferasinya di zaman ini. Seraya menyatakan bahwa arogansi atau istikbar adalah ungkapan yang ada dalam al-Qur\'an, beliau menegaskan, "Arogansi selalu ada sepanjang sejarah walaupun modus-modus dan caranya berbeda."

Dalam menghadapi arogansi beliau menekankan untuk bersikap dan bertindak secara logis dan cerdas serta terprogram, sama seperti menangani hal-hal yang lain. Salah satu langkah awal dalam melawan arogansi adalah dengan mengenalnya secara benar.

Mengenai kriteria kubu arogansi, Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei menyatakan bahwa salah satu kriteria utamanya adalah anggapan dirinya sebagai yang lebih unggul di atas yang lain. Ketika sebuah negara atau sistem hegemoni di kancah internasional menganggap dirinya sebagai yang utama, poros, dan di atas yang lain, maka yang akan muncul adalah percaturan global yang membahayakan. Di antara dampak-dampaknya adalah anggapan akan hak mengintervensi urusan negara-negara lain, memaksakan pandangan terhadap bangsa-bangsa lain, dan klaim sebagai penguasa dunia.

"Retorika yang digunakan para petinggi AS saat berbicara memperlihatkan bahwa mereka merasa memegang kendali atas nasib bangsa-bangsa lain dan merekalah yang memiliki dunia dan kawasan ini," kata beliau.

Dampak buruk lainnya dari sikap congkak itu adalah keengganan untuk menerima kebenaran. Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam menyebutkan salah satu contohnya yaitu sikap AS dan kubu arogansi yang tidak bersedia mengakui hak bangsa-bangsa lain. "Isu nuklir Iran adalah satu contoh jelas yang memperlihatkan penolakan kubu hegemoni untuk mengakui hak bangsa lain," tegas beliau.

Padahal, lanjut beliau, setiap manusia atau negara yang menggunakan logika akan tunduk dan menerima kata-kata yang benar. Lain halnya dengan kubu arogansi yang tidak pernah bersedia menerima kata-kata pihak lain yang benar dan jelas. Mereka hanya memikirkan upaya untuk menistakan hak bangsa lain.

Seraya menjelaskan bahwa kriteria lain dari arogansi adalah sikap yang menghalalkan segala bentuk kejahatan terhadap bangsa lain, Rahbar menandaskan, "Di mata kubu hegemoni, bangsa dan orang yang tak bersedia tunduk dan menyerah kepadanya, tidak ada harganya dan mereka bisa diperlakukan dengan cara seburuk apapun."

Menurut beliau, contoh dalam hal ini sangat banyak dan tak terbilang, diantaranya adalah kejahatan keji dan menjijikkan yang mereka lakukan terhadap warga pribumi benua Amerika, kejahatan Inggris terhadap warga pribumi Australia, dan perbudakan paksa orang-orang kulit hitam asal Afrika yang dilakukan oleh orang-orang Amerika. Contoh lain yang merupakan kejahatan di zaman ini adalah tindakan AS yang menjatuhkan bom atom di Jepang.

"Di dunia ini, bom atom hanya digunakan dua kali dan keduanya digunakan terhadap rakyat Jepang dan pelakunya adalah orang-orang Amerika. Meski sudah melakukan kejahatan ini, AS justeru tampil sebagai pihak yang merasa berhak mengambil keputusan dalam masalah nuklir," kata beliau.

Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei mengingatkan kembali pembantaian dan penyiksaan rakyat Vietnam, Irak, Pakistan dan Afghanistan oleh AS. "Penyiksaan keji yang terjadi di Guantanamo dan Abu Ghraib tak akan pernah terlupakan," ungkap beliau.

Untuk itu, beliau kembali menekankan keharusan mengenal kriteria kubu arogansi sebagai langkah awal dalam melakukan perlawanan yang arif dan cerdas. Beliau menambahkan kriteria lain kubu arogansi yaitu hipokritas dan kebohongan. Salah satu modus yang biasa digunakan adalah melakukan kejahatan dengan dikemas dalam bentuk pelayanan dan jasa.

Sebagai contohnya, kata beliau, untuk menjustifikasi kejahatan menjatuhkan bom atom di Jepang, para petinggi AS lewat media propagandanya menyatakan, jika 200 ribu orang tidak terbunuh akibat bom atom di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki, Perang Dunia II tak akan berakhir dan akan ada dua juta orang lagi yang terbunuh dalam perang. Karena itu, serangan bom atom ke Jepang pada hakikatnya adalah pengabdian AS kepada umat manusia!

Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam menjelaskan, "Klaim itu terus diulang-ulang padahal data-data yang ada menunjukkan bahwa beberapa bulan sebelum AS melakukan kejahatan besar itu di Jepang, Hitler yang merupakan salah satu penyulut PD II sudah bunuh diri, dan Mussolini pilar lainnya dalam PD II juga sudah ditangkap dalam sebuah serbuan, sementara Jepang sendiri sejak dua bulan sebelumnya sudah mengumumkan kesiapannya untuk menyerah."

Tujuan AS di balik kejahatan itu, kata beliau, adalah untuk mengujicoba senjata barunya, yaitu bom atom, di medan perang yang nyata. Dan itu dilakukan meski harus mengorbankan nyawa rakyat Hiroshima dan Nagasaki yang tak berdosa. Tapi sekarang, kejahatan itu dikemas dalam bentuk sebuah pengabdian kepada umat manusia.

Contoh lainnya adalah hipokritas sikap yang ditunjukkan AS dan kubu hegemoni dalam kasus senjata kimia Suriah. Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei mengatakan, "Para petinggi AS berulang kali mengaku bahwa penggunaan senjata kimia adalah garis merah bagi mereka. Tapi dulu ketika Saddam menggunakan senjata kimia untuk menyerang rakyat Iran, rezim AS bukan hanya tak menunjukkan penentangan bahkan menyuplai rezim Saddam dengan minimal 500 ton bahan kimia yang sangat berbahaya. Bahan itulah yang digunakan untuk membuat senjata kimia dan menyerang para pejuang Iran."

Contoh lain dari kejahatan AS adalah pembunuhan terhadap sekitar 300 penumpang dan awak pesawat komersial Iran dan bantuan intelijen AS kepada rezim Saddam di Irak.

Di bagian lain pembicaraannya, menyinggung konflik sepanjang sejarah antara kubu kebenaran dan kubu arogansi, Rahbar mengajukan pertanyaan mendasar tentang faktor yang memicu konspirasi dan permusuhan kubu arogansi terhadap Republik Islam Iran? Jawaban pertanyaan ini bisa dilihat dari sejarah terbentuknya revolusi Islam.

"Revolusi Islam rakyat Iran dan berdirinya pemerintahan yang diinginkan bangsa ini adalah gerakan protes dan penentangan terhadap arogansi dan kaki tangannya. Karena itu, kubu arogansi tak bisa menerima keberadaan pemerintahan Islam ini," kata beliau.

Hal itu pula, menurut beliau, yang membuat semua Presiden AS memusuhi Iran sejak kemenangan revolusi Islam dan melakukan berbagai konspirasi terhadap Iran, seperti kudeta, menyulut sentimen etnis, mendorong Saddam untuk menyerang Iran, membantu Saddam sepenuhnya, serta penerapan berbagai sanksi dan intimidasi.

Rahbar juga menyebut Presiden AS saat ini sebagai pihak yang ikut berperan dalam menyulut rangkaian kerusuhan dan fitnah pasca pemilu 2009 di Iran. Saat ini yang dijadikan oleh AS sebagai alat untuk menundukkan bangsa Iran adalah embargo. "Masalah mereka sebenarnya adalah karena mereka tidak mengenal bangsa ini juga iman dan kekompakannya, selain itu mereka juga tak pernah mau belajar dari kesalahan yang lalu," imbuh beliau.

Mengenai perundingan nuklir antara Republik Islam Iran dan enam negara (5+1), beliau menyatakan dukungannya kepada pemerintah dan para pejabat negara, dan ini merupakan satu kewajiban. Meski demikian beliau mengingatkan bahwa hak-hak bangsa Iran termasuk hak mengembangkan dan memanfaatkan teknologi nuklir untuk tujuan damai bukan masalah yang bisa ditawar. "Dalam membela hak bangsa, jangan sampai mundur meski hanya satu langkah," tegas beliau.

Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam menjelaskan sikapnya yang tidak mencampuri rincian proses perundingan yang ada. Tapi, ada beberapa garis merah yang harus dijaga. Beliau juga berpesan kepada tim perunding untuk tidak takut menghadapi tekanan dan intimidasi apapun.

Mengenai sanksi dan embargo yang dijatuhkan AS dan kubu arogansi terhadap Iran, beliau menegaskan, "Mereka keliru. Bangsa Iran tak akan pernah tunduk kepada siapapun hanya karena tekanan dan intimidasi."

Beliau menambahkan, "Dengan inayah dan taufik Ilahi, bangsa Iran akan berhasil menanggung semua tekanan ini dan akan mengubahnya menjadi peluang."

Ayatollah al-Udzma Khamenei menyebut sanksi AS terhadap Iran sebagai langkah yang sia-sia. Para petinggi AS juga menyadari bahwa sanksi ini tidak menghasilkan apapun. Karena itu, seiring dengan sanksi mereka juga sering mengumbar ancaman serangan militer, yang membuktikan bahwa sanksi tidak berguna sama sekali.

Beliau menambahkan, "Sebaiknya Presiden dan para petinggi AS memikirkan ekonomi mereka yang ambruk dan utang-utangnya supaya pemerintahan tidak terhenti selama dua pekan, bukan malah mengumbar ancaman militer terhadap bangsa Iran."

Rahbar menyebut bangsa Iran sebagai bangsa yang cinta damai dan menghargai bangsa-bangsa lain. Meski demikian, jika ada yang mencari gara-gara, bangsa ini siap melakukan tindakan yang tak terlupakan yang membuatnya menyesal.

Di akhir pembicaraannya, Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Islam menyatakan bahwa masa depan yang cerah menanti bangsa dan negara ini. Untuk itu beliau berpesan kepada para pemuda yang kelak akan memikul tugas yang berat ini supaya menempa diri dengan ketaatan beragama, ketaqwaan, kesusilaan, dan kebersihan jiwa yang diiringi dengan keilmuan, semangat, amanah, dan pengabdian kepada masyarakat. [IT/Onh/Ass/indonesian.khamenei.ir]
 

Update Suriah: Baiat dari Indonesia?

[UMMAT ISLAM INDONESIA HARUS SANGAT BER HATI2 DENGAN ISSUE JIHAD-KARENA SEBAGIAN DIGUNAKAN OLEH KEKUATAN ASING UNTUK MENGADU DOMBA UMMAT ISLAM-WASPADALAH]

http://dinasulaeman.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/update-suriah-baiat-dari-indonesia/#more-1919

 http://dinasulaeman.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1011441_10151793563878498_989807462_n.jpg
 
Di blog ini, saya jarang posting ulang tulisan orang lain. Tapi tulisan yang ini penting untuk diketahui para pemerhati konflik Timteng, khususnya Suriah. Meskipun saya sudah menulis  buku Prahara Suriah, namun perkembangan detil akhir-akhir ini memang agak terlewatkan oleh saya. Nah, di tulisan berikut ini ada penjelasannya dengan cukup detil. Angin “jihad” sudah melanda Indonesia rupanya. Semoga Tuhan melindungi NKRI.

Jihad Palsu Suriah Mengancam Indonesia

[sumber: www.liputanislam.com]
Di awal pemberontakan, kelompok pemberontak yang digawangi oleh FSA dan al-Nusra memiliki musuh yang sama, yaitu Pemerintah Suriah dan pendukungnya. Namun memasuki tahun ketiga, mereka mulai saling memerangi satu sama lain. Pertikaian ini ditutup rapat-rapat, dan saat diungkap oleh media independent atau media yang pro Assad, mereka pun membantah keras. Namun kini, para pendukung kelompok-kelompok jihadis sudah tidak ragu lagi untuk saling serang satu sama lain.
ISIS boneka buatan Iran dan Suriah?
Seperti yang dikabarkan oleh Koepas (media online); Dr. Abdul Aziz Al – Fauzan, seorang professor fiqh perbandingan di Arab Saudi, menegaskan bahwa organisasi Negara Islam di Irak dan Syam, yang dikenal sebagai ” Daish/ISIS ” , adalah boneka buatan intelijen Iran dan Suriah untuk menggugurkan Revolusi Suriah .
Artinya, ISIS adalah antek Syiah. Pernyataan dari Dr Abdul Aziz ini, melahirkan pertanyaan baru yaitu:
Di Suriah, ISIS memerangi Tentara Suriah. Apakah ini berarti Pemerintah Suriah sedang melakukan konspirasi dengan menciptakan ISIS lalu memerangi ISIS lewat Tentara Suriah?

Siapakah yang diperangi ISIS?
Menurut Shotussalam; “Subhanallah, ternyata selain melawan segitiga setan Syiah, Amerika, dan Yahudi di Iraq, Daulah Islam Iraq dan Syam juga pernah bertempur melawan orang-orang Khawarij.
Selama beberapa tahun lalu, terjadi pertempuran sengit Daulah melawan Khawarij dari hari kehari, oleh putra-putra Muhajirin dan Anshor yang terjadi di Provinsi Diyala, Iraq.
Pertempuran sengit di pimpin oleh salah satu komandan Daulah, dia termasuk seorang penuntut ilmu yang cerdas. Dialah Syaikh ‘Ukaasyah al Jazairy -semoga Allah menerimanya-.
Daulah Islam Iraq dan Syam berdiri sendiri di bumi dua aliran sungai Iraq berhadapan dengan gerombolan kekufuran dari segala macam bentuk. Aku bersumpah dengan nama Allah, ia pemilik garis pertama perlawanan (garda terdepan pertempuran) melawan Syiah Safawi, Salibis dan Yahudi di Timur Tengah.”
Jika benar bahwa ISIS adalah antek/ boneka Syiah, lalu bagaimana dengan ISIS di Iraq yang memerangi habis-habisan pemerintahan al-Maliki ?
Apakah Maliki seorang Sunni sehingga diperangi ISIS?
Jika Maliki seorang Syiah, apakah artinya bahwa antek Syiah memerangi Syiah?

Khawarij vs Khawarij?

Pernyataan diatas menyebutkan bahwa ISIS memerangi Khawarij walau tidak disebutkan dengan detail siapakah Khawarij yang diperangi ISIS. Sementara menurut Sunnahcare;
“Kalau Khawarij zaman dulu sangat takut berdusta karena berdusta adalah dosa besar dan pelaku dosa besar masuk neraka. Maka Khawarij zaman modern ISIS menjadikan kedustaan sebagai bagian agamanya. Jadi Khawarij ISIS adalah makhluk durhaka kepada bapaknya.
Khawarij zaman dahulu lebih gentlemen dari pada Khawarij zaman sekarang, dan hadis Khawarij zaman dahulu masih di ambil oleh ulama akan tetapi zaman sekarang mereka dan pengikutnya “PENDUSTA”.
Sunnah Care yang merupakan pendukung dari FSA dan al-Nusra menyatakan ISIS-lah Khawarij tersebut. Sehingga jika ISIS memerangi kaum Khawarij di Irak, artinya perang yang terjadi adalah Khawarij vs Khawarij.
Transformasi dari Mujahidin menjadi Kelompok Oposisi
Ada yang unik dari pemilihan kata yang digunakan oleh Voa-Islam dalam menggambarkan para pemberontak Suriah. Sebelumnya saat jihadis masih kompak, Voa- Islam tidak ragu untuk menyebut FSA sebagai mujahidin Suriah.
Namun seiring dengan pecahnya kubu mereka, kini Voa-Islam menyebut FSA dan al-Nusra sebagai ‘pejuang oposisi’. Voa-Islam juga mengakui bahwa pejuang oposisi ini memerangi ISIS.
Pejuang oposisi Suriah yang memerangi Negara Islam Irak dan Suriah Raya (ISIS) di bagian utara negara itu pada hari Rabu (15/1/2014) menewaskan seorang pemimpin kelompok tersebut di kota Saraqeb.”
“FSA memiliki puluhan ribu pasukan, tapi semua itu tak mereka gunakan untuk membebaskan Penjara Aleppo. Alih-alih melakuan hal itu, justru kekuatan sebesar itu mereka pakai guna menghancurkan ISIS…”
“Sebuah video diunggah di Youtube berdurasi 01:03 menayangkan pernyataan dari kelompok oposisi Suriah yang menamakan diri mereka Liwa Ahfad Muhammad, di bawah Ahfad al-Rasul dan Dewan Militer, di Der al-Zor.
Dalam video itu, Nampak lima personel berhadapan dengan kamera dan salah seorang yang mengaku sebagai komandan militer berbicara. Ia mengatakan bahwa mereka bersama Jabhah An-Nushrah dan FSA melawan Daulah Islam Irak dan Syam. Yang aneh lagi, ia menyebur Daulah Islam Irak dan Syam (ISIS) sebagai Thoghut.
Perlu diketahui bahwa waktu lalu ISIS telah merilis video yang menayangkan komandan Ahfad al-Rasul, Saddam al-Jamal, yang keluar dari kelompok itu dan membeberkan konspirasi mereka melawan ISIS, di mana para petinggi komandan kelompok itu bertemu dengan intelijen Turki dan Barat di Istanbul dalam merencanakan konspirasi tersebut. “
Mujahid asal Israel pun bertempur di Suriah
Menurut Voa-Islam:
“Seorang warga Israel yang berjihad di Suriah dilaporkan gugur saat bertempur di pihak oposisi, The Long War Journal melaporkan.Mueid Juma’a, 28, dilaporkan telah menjadi warga Israel pertama yang gugur di Suriah sejak awal perang saudara. Sekitar tiga pekan lalu Juma’a, yang berasal dari wilayah Wadi Ara yang didominasi warga Muslim Arab, berpergian bersama beberapa teman ke Suriah, di mana ia diyakini telah bertempur di pihak pasukan pejuang oposisi.”Pada hari Selasa (17/9/2013) keluarga menerima gambar tubuh dengan luka tembak yang mereka diidentifikasi sebagai putra mereka,” lapor Ynet News. Tidak jelas dengan kelompok apa Juma’a, yang dikatakan menjadi lebih shaleh, bergabung atau di mana dan kapan ia gugur.Menurut Ynet, setidaknya 10 warga Arab Israel diyakini telah bergabung dengan pejuang oposisi Suriah dalam perjuangan mereka melawan rezim Assad…”
Apakah Israel bukan musuh?
Ada satu hal yang mengherankan dari pernyataan para pendukung jihadis tersebut jika dicermati satu persatu di bumi Syam. ISIS vs FSA dan al-Nusra vs SAA, jika ditambahkan dengan Irak maka pertempuran yang terjadi adalah ISIS vs FSA dan al-Nusra vs SAA vs Tentara Irak vs Pejuang Sunni yang tidak berafiliasi dengan Al-Qaeda. Mengapa dari segala bentuk jihad yang mereka kobarkan di bumi Syam, tidak ada satupun jihadis yang terang-terangan menyatakan berjihad di Palestina yang telah dijajah puluhan tahun oleh Rezim Zionist Israel? Apakah Israel bukan musuh bagi mereka?
Jika para jihadis ini memiliki tujuan yang sama yaitu menegakkan syariat Islam, mengapa diantara para pengusung khilafah ini saling bunuh satu sama lain?
Jika mereka mencintai Palestina, mengapa para jihadis ini berperang dan mengacaukan negara justru yang merupakan musuh bebuyutan Israel?
Jika Suriah adalah sahabat Israel, lalu apakah artinya perang face to face antara Suriah vs Israel pada Perang Kemerdekaan, Perang Enam Hari, dan Perang Yom Kippur? Dan dukungan penuh Suriah pada Perang Lebanon I, hingga tidak adanya hubungan diplomatik antara Israel dan Suriah apakah hanya sekedar sandiwara?
*****
Baiat kepada ISIS, dari Indonesia

support-solidarity-for-ISIS 

Shotussalam mengabarkan; ”Di Jakarta, ratusan umat Islam Indonesia yang tergabung dalam Forum Aktifis Syariat Islam (FAKSI) menggelar multaqod da’awi mendukung Daulah Islamiyyah di Iraq dan Syam (ISIS) di masjid Fathullah Universitas Negeri Jakarta (UIN) pada Sabtu malam (08/02/14). Dengan semangat dan penuh euforia kemenangan mereka hadir dari ibu kota Jakarta dan sekitarnya untuk membacakan deklarasi dukungan kepada ISIS dan siap berbai’at kepada Amirul Mukminin ISIS, Syaikh Abu Bakar al-Baghadadi.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahiem
Segala puji bagi Allah Rabb semesta Alam, shalawat dan salam semoga tercurahkan kepada Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. wa ba’du.
Demi Allah, sungguh kami dan seluruh kaum muslimin berbahagia dengan Daulah Islam Iraq dan Syam (ISIS) yang insya Allah akan menjadi cikal bakal khilafah islamiyyah ‘ala minhaajin nubuwwah yang diharapkan oleh (kaum Muslimin, red.) di timur dan barat. Kami mengajak seluruh umat Islam untuk mendukung dan menolong Daulah ini beserta amirnya, Amirul Mu’minin Abu Bakar Al-Baghdadi Al-Qurosiy -semoga Allah menjaganya dan menolongnya-.
Dan kami para pemuda tauhid dan penolong Agama Allah di Jakarta-Indonesia, di bagian timur Islam, mendukung Daulah ini dan berharap menjadi tentaranya.
BAHKAN SEANDAINYA JIKA AMIR DAULAH ISLAM (ISIS) MEMINTA KAMI UNTUK BERBAI’AT KEPADANYA SEMENTARA KAMI BERADA DI NEGERI KAMI, NISCAYA KAMI SEGERA MEMBAI’ATNYA!!!
Semoga melalui tangan-tangan tentara Daulah Islam Allah membebaskan negeri-negeri Islam dari cengkeraman para thaghut dan bala tentaranya. Allahumma Aamiin..
Allahu Akbar!!!
Siapakah yang dimaksud dengan ‘Thogut’?
Menurut Voa Islam; “Mereka mengatur Indonesia dengan hukum jahiliyah dan membuang hukum Allah, maka mereka adalah Thaghut kafir yang menjerumuskan ummat Islam kepada kegelapan hidup (syirik, munkar, kekafiran) seperti diterangkan oleh Allah dalam firman-Nya :
وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَوْلِيَاؤُهُمُ الطَّاغُوتُ
‘Dan orang-orang kafir, para pemimpin mereka adalah thaghut….’ (Q.S Al-Baqarah : 257).
Thaghut-thaghut penguasa N.K.R.I menampakan diri sebagai muslim dengan mengamalkan sholat, shiyam, zakat, haji dan lain-lain agar ummat Islam bersedia menerimanya sebagai Ulil Amri yang ditaati, bahkan untuk tujuan ini thaghut-thaghut menyewa ulama-ulama suu’, ustadz-ustadz, mubaligh yang berakidah Murji’ah Ekstrim untuk meyakinkan ummat Islam bahwa mereka bukan Thaghut…”
“Oh Tuhan, akankah jihad palsu di Suriah akan segera sampai di Indonesia ?” (LiputanIslam/AF)

Catatan: perpecahan ini sudah saya prediksikan dalam tulisan saya Desember 2012, saat itu bahkan saya sudah mengungkap siapa sebenarnya kelompok oposisi Suriah. Bisa baca di sini: Terungkapnya Jati Diri Para Aktor Suriah.


EU report warns of Israeli bids against Aqsa Mosque

Israeli forces occupy al-Aqsa Mosque compound (file photo)
Israeli forces occupy al-Aqsa Mosque compound (file photo)
 
 
European diplomats in Israel have warned against attempts by the Tel Aviv regime to change the status quo at the al-Aqsa Mosque, insisting that such a move would trigger a widespread regional violence. 
 
 
The warning came in a Friday report by representatives of the European Union states in Ramallah and al-Quds (Jerusalem), further emphasizing that the holy Mosque is being exposed to real threats by the Israeli regime, which threatens to turn into the explosion of the Islamic and Arab worlds against the occupying entity.

The EU report further pointed to an unprecedented increase in Israeli settlement expansion efforts in the occupied al-Quds since it resumed last July amid the US-sponsored negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Tel Aviv regime.

The report also held the Israeli occupiers accountable for the deterioration of living and social conditions of Jerusalem’s Palestinian natives, who constitute 39 percent of the total population in the city.

In a related development, the ISESCO's archeology expert commission also called for essential efforts to raise the awareness of the Islamic and international public opinion on the dangers of Israel's illegal practices in the occupied al-Quds as well as its potential impacts on international and regional affairs.
In a statement broadcast on Friday by its information department, ISESCO called for organizing an international conference on Jerusalem this year to discuss the Israeli violations in the holy city and come up with strategies to contain such abuses.

ISESCO further condemned the Israeli attempts to revoke Jordan's sovereignty over the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and its support for near daily break-ins by Zionist settlers and police raids.

The organization also described Israel's measures against the al-Aqsa Mosque and its Muslim visitors as a flagrant violation of the international law.

For its part, the United Nations has also expressed its deep concerns over the growing demolition of Palestinian homes in occupied al-Quds by the Israeli regime.
MB/MB

Saudi-US Relations: 
"Storms of the Desert" (1/3)

Dr. Ahmad Malli
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=139721&frid=23&cid=23&fromval=1&seccatid=28

The Saudi foreign policy is mostly labeled with its dependence on "cautious silence" and by its nature, it tends to adopt mysteriousness and vagueness, as Saudi diplomacy  usually resorts to secrecy and avoiding confrontation, hence it is very close to equivocation and far from directness.

The Saudi leadership believes that this method is the safest in dealing with its direct regional surrounding which is occupied with conflicts and very far from stability. This is why it has always settled for opening the way for its long-term ally, the United States, to take the initiatives and follow up its agenda in the Middle East under Saudi agreement in most of the cases.

In fact, the Saudi-American relations were established during World War II, and on the 18th of February, 1943, US President Roosevelt announced that "defending Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States", while the US oil companies have paved the way for the establishment of these relations ten years before Roosevelt announced about them, when "Standard Oil of California" company gained the franchise for drilling for oil in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Followers of Washington-Riyadh relations agree on considering that the meeting between US President Roosevelt and Saudi King Abdul Aziz bin Saud on the cruiser "Quincy" during his return from Yalta Summit (February 1945) with Stalin and Churchill established the bases for a strategic deal based on guaranteeing the flow of Saudi oil to the United States and its allies in return for Washington's protection of the Saudi regime.

US and Saudi flagsFor the past 70 years, the equation of protection in return for oil with fine prices was implemented. 

Even though these relations faced some disagreements and tensions, but these cases were not essential. According to Diplomat and former US Ambassador to Riyadh during the first Gulf war, Chas Freeman (1989-1992), who was also known for his strong ties with US foreign policy institutions, he said:"In the past, we've been able to rely on them (Saudis) at a minimum not to oppose US policy, and most often to support it..."


However, these days this harmony no longer exists in the same form and it seems more shaky. Lately, loud complaints by significant Saudi officials were heard because the interests of the strong alliance between the two countries have become at stake. This urged US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to make an urgent visit to Riyadh in November where he met with King Abdullah, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Fayssal, and a number of Saudi officials; but it is doubtful that Kerry had succeeded in putting a limit to this deterioration in the relations between the two countries.

David Ignatius wrote in Washington Post about the crackup in the Saudi-US relations, considering that "it has been on this way for more than two years, like a slow-motion car wreck..." - this includes some exaggeration - however, US researchers go far beyond that as they consider that the state the relations between the two countries have reached is the result of a long path of mutual disappointment, which has started with the end of the cold war and included some harsh stops for both parts. "September 11" was one stop for the Americans, while the Iraq invasion in 2003 and its results - according to the Saudis - like the handover of power there by the George Bush Administration to the Shiite majority, was most likely the greatest strategic relapse for the kingdom in the past decades.

Undoubtedly, Riyadh was not pleased with the Bush Administration's adoption of the call for spreading democracy in the Middle East, as this tackles a sensitive issue for the Saudis. Yet, this call got wide US promotion specially after the "September 11", and by that aversion between the two allies started increasing.

On the regional clash in the east, Iran was the opponent which the Saudis tried to limit its power and put an end to its expansion in a region which they consider of direct closeness. In Lebanon, the Saudis supported "March 14" alliance to win the parliamentary elections for two consecutive times (2005 and 2009), and their prime concern was to suppress "Hezbollah", Iran's ally which took advantage of the Lebanese balances to win the right of "Veto" in the Lebanese government after Doha agreement. Later, "March 14" alliance found itself outside the government which was formed by Prime Minister Najib Miqati. In Iraq, despite all Saudi efforts, they failed to impose their choice of appointing Iyad Allawi as Prime Minister, even though his bloc in the Iraqi parliament was the biggest one. However, his opponent Nouri Al-Maliki, who is close to Tehran, is still in his position since the 2010 elections.

In the Palestinian field, King Abdullah sponsored "Mecca agreement" between "Fatah" and "Hamas", and one of the goals of this agreement was to keep "Hamas" away from Iranian influence. However, the agreement fell within months, after "Hamas" took over power in the Gaza Strip, which made it more attached to its relation with Iran.

All these attempts failed on the regional level. The Saudis have been facing failure since around eight years, while Iran was succeeding, according to US expert on Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, Gregory Gause.

Following the "Arab Spring" developments at the beginning of 2011 which changed the balance of power in the region, the Saudis did not hide their rage, and their focus was on Egypt more than Tunisia, for the fall of Moubarak was an irreparable loss for the Saudis who considered that his regime had a certain weight which they needed to balance power with the rising Iran.

The gap was expanding more between Riyadh and Obama Administration. The Saudis had serious reasons for their concern from this administration, as in their opinion, it miscalculated the dangers of the "Arab Spring" and its outcomes. Moreover, it does not take into consideration their (Saudi's) benefits when dealing with the developments. The Saudis can never imagine that the destiny of the Bahraini King "Al Khalifa" would be similar to that of Moubarak, because any possible political change in Bahrain would be a loss for Saudi Arabia in the face of Iran; not to mention its direct repercussions on the Shiites in the eastern part of the country who will revolt against Al Saud if the revolution in Bahrain succeeded.

Based on that, the Saudi leadership did not accept the modest US criticisms to the Bahraini authorities' oppression of the peaceful protests by the Shiite majority under Saudi support. The Saudis also felt frustrated from the stances of Obama Administration and found them to be an additional evidence that this administration did not take into consideration the particularity of Bahrain for Saudi Arabia due to its closeness, as it falls only 25 kilometers away from the eastern region.

Meanwhile, the post Moubarak era did not come out with any agreement between the Saudis and the US on Egypt. Instead, the two parts found themselves standing in two opposite locations to the extent that "Stratfor for Intelligence Studies" group put the variance between the two countries on the Egyptian crisis in the context of the Kingdom's deviation from the US policies and the historical track.

Riyadh was surprised with Obama Administration's support to the "Muslim Brotherhood" after the fall of Moubarak and considered it a great sin because of this group's threat to the Saudi Monarchy in case it reached power. This threat is on one hand due to the existence of some radical forces inside the kingdom that support the "Muslim Brotherhood", and on another hand because the "Muslim Brotherhood's" rule in Egypt is a challenge for the Saudis because they present Islam in a different form. On this point, former official at the National Security Council, Denis Ross considered that "Saudi Arabia has two major enemies in the region, they are: The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran".

Therefore, it wasn't surprising that Riyadh and its Gulf state allies stood firmly in support of the temporal Egyptian caretaker government, and when Washington cancelled the military maneuvers with Cairo after Mursi's ouster and cancelled its 1.3 million dollar military aid, the Saudis and their Gulf allies rushed to present a 12 times as much amount aid for Egypt.

Only in Syria, from all the "Arab Spring" countries, where the peaceful protests supported and approved by Riyadh. However, this contradicted with Saudi scholars' Fatwas which prohibited demonstrations and were widely promoted on Saudi media to delegitimize any public movements whether inside the kingdom or outside it, like Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, and Tunisia, under the claim that these demonstrations cause riot and sabotage public and private properties.

With the transformation of the peaceful protests in Syria to a military insurgence, the kingdom was in the lead of supporting this choice and adopted clearly the call to topple Assad's regime militarily.

It is not hard to know the secret behind the Saudi interest to work with all its power against the regime in Syria. The Saudi leadership had seen that the developments in the country were a historic opportunity to compensate for its consecutive losses during the past decade, specifically what it considered a strategic loss in Iraq for the benefit of Iran. Moreover, it saw that making a change in Syria would turn the regional equation, and Iran would then lose an important fulcrum which would affect its connection with "Hezbollah" in Lebanon and the resistance movements in Palestine. Additionally and most importantly in the Saudi calculations is that they will not be alone in confronting the Assad regime, but rather a number of regional and western countries, on top of which is the United States, will be on their side; not to mention that a Saudi lineup in such a confrontation would trigger the fanaticism of a large group inside Saudi Arabia which will stand by the Saudi ruling family under sectarian slogans: "Supporting the Sunni majority in Syria against the rule of the Alawi minority." This reached the extent that Sheikh Saleh Al-Luhaidan, former Head of the Supreme Judicial Council and the current Advisor at the Royal Bureau, announced (not to say issued a Fatwa) at the beginning of the Syrian protests that it is legitimate to kill third of the Syrian people (nearly eight million) to save the two thirds.

The Saudi leadership found in President Obama's threat against Assad regime over the nuclear attack on Damascus suburbs (last August) the perfect opportunity for a direct American military involvement to topple the regime in Syria. It put a lot of hope on the level President Obama could reach, and the Saudi frustration and bitterness was as far when the Americans and Russians reached an agreement that commits the Syrian regime to get rid of its nuclear arsenal.

Here is where the Saudi loss seemed double, as the nuclear agreement did not only form a lifeline for the Syrian regime from a US strike, but it also made it an international partner, as it was regarded as the local side which will supervise the implementation of the agreement after the grip was tightened around it in the previous phase of the conflict and it was abandoned by many western and regional countries who put President Bashar Al-Assad's withdrawal as the first condition for finding a solution for the Syrian crisis.

After announcing about reaching the Geneva agreement (November 24) on the Iranian nuclear file between P5+1 states and Iran, the Saudi frustration towards Obama Administration reached its utmost. This was not merely related to signing the agreement but to the way it was reached, as it was prepared under complete secrecy by launching side negotiations between the US envoys and their Iranian counterparts through several rounds that lasted eight months before finally signing the agreement in Geneva.

What might have also enraged the Saudi leadership and added to its bitterness was that it found itself like a betrayed husband, as the secret negotiation process between the Americans and the Iranians took place behind their backs. What was more infuriating was that the negotiations were held nearby, specifically in Oman. This country is considered their partner as it is a founding member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Despite that , neither the US ally nor the Gulf partner bothered to inform the Saudis about the negotiations, they were rather treated like all the other countries.  

Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
"Storms of the Desert:

 Why Does Saudi Get Angry with Washington? (2/3)

Dr. Ahmad Malli
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=141404&frid=23&cid=23&fromval=1&seccatid=28
 
A document leaked by "Wikileaks" quoted Hillary Clinton as saying that the Saudi Kingdom "remains a critical financial support base for terrorist groups" and that US officials are not pleased with the "Islamic model" the Saudis present and try to spread, as it is the country that is most responsible for the rise of Islamic radicalism, and it "used its oil wealth to export a violent version of Islam through its Wahhabi clerics."

... Throughout the past three months, the Saudi leadership seemed to have abandoned its "cautious silence" method and decided this time to publicly state its resentment of the Obama Administration's approach through statements by Saudi royals and surprising policy shifts as an only way to convince Washington to alter what Saudi royals see as an errant path, according to Simon Henderson author of "After King Abdullah: Succession in Saudi Arabia".

Saud Al-FaisalThe first indications to the new Saudi approach appeared in Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al-Faisal's refusal to give his speech at the UN General Assembly in the beginning of October. Two weeks later, Riyadh took a dramatic, unprecedented step in the history of the United Nations when it turned down its rotating seat at the Security Council (18 October). This stance was surprising to the diplomatic circles in New York, especially as Saudi officials have been waging for the past three years an intensive massing campaign to gain a seat at the Security Council, after having submitted a team of 12 diplomats to a one year long preparation course on performing this task in Columbia University.

Three days after the kingdom announced turning down its rotating seat in the Security Council, "Wall Street Journal" and  "Reuters" quoted European diplomats as saying that Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan warned of a "major shift" in Riyadh's relations with Washington in protest to its inaction on Syria. According to "Wall Street Journal" Prince Bandar was also quoted as saying that he would scale back cooperation with the CIA on training Syrian rebels and work with other allies including France and Jordan. Prince Bandar added that the kingdom's turn down of its rotating seat in the Security Council was a message to "the United States not the United Nations". The timing and way Prince Bandar bin Sultan sent his message to the Americans had several indications. Regarding the timing, the Saudi objection came on the eve of the expected meeting in Paris between US Secretary of State, John Kerry and his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud Al-Faisal (21 October). As for the way, it reflected the steady growth in relations between Saudi-France, as Prince Bandar bin Sultan chose the French Ambassador in Saudi Arabia (Bertrand Besancenot) to pass on his message. He invited him to spend the weekend (19-20 October) in Jeddah, then the latter returned to Riyadh, informed his European associates about the content of the meeting, and the remarks were leaked to "Reuters" and "Wall Street Journal" after that.

Turki Al-FaisalFor his part, Prince Turki Al-Faisal also participated in the Saudi campaign against Obama Administration, knowing that he was an ambassador of his country in Washington and was the Chief of Intelligence in Saudi Arabia for a long period (1979 - 2001). Al-Faisal chose to deliver his direct message from the American territories, whether by making a speech before the Arab-US Policymakers' annual conference (22 October) or by appearing on US media, specifically his long interview to "Washington Post" (4 November) in which he considered that Obama's policies towards Syria and Iran were wrong and disappointing and the only way to repair things was by finding a solution to the Palestinian cause and putting pressure on Iran which presents itself as a liberator of the Palestinians and Syrians.

These statements reflected the wide gap between Saudi officials and the Obama Administration. It is not just a limited disagreement over a certain detail in the US policy in the region. For the Saudis, it is more of a complete opposition over the whole policy, as Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal complained in the past about the George Bush Administration, saying in 2001 that "dealing with the United States makes a sane man go mad". What would he say today about the crisis taking place between Riyadh and Washington under the Obama Administration, and which surpassed the opposition that was taking place during the Bush era.

All indicators show that the basis of the relations between Washington and Riyadh is no longer the same, for there is a change in the scene which affected them. The scene after the cold war differed from how it was during it. Moreover, the United States presents itself as an international power producer, which minimizes its dependence on Saudi oil. Hence, the Unites States is not forced to keep this kind of relation which lasted decades with the kingdom, according to Christopher Davidson, author of "After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies".

Among the indicators which triggered Saudi concern and Fury was what happened during the reformation of the national security team during the second period for the Obama Administration, as no high-leveled figure was appointed to deal with the Saudis. This in itself reveals the retreat of the kingdom in the list of interests of the US foreign ministry and national security planners in this period for Obama.

There is an increasing conviction among the US decision-makers that their priorities differ from those of the Saudis', and that the benefits of the two countries no longer harmonize. For instance, if Washington had to choose between working on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and Saudi power, it's priority would undoubtedly be preventing the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Despite these furious Saudi criticisms, the Obama Administration has not issued any loud stances, and rather went for "diplomatic pacification" and containment of the Saudi anger by making them understand that the gap is not in expansion and sending them the message that the US benefits in the region come in the first position.

Even though the US official stance towards the kingdom was calm, some harsh non-official stances came out against the Saudis (journalists, Academics, experts in research centers, former employees in the American Administration...). It is not ruled out that the US official department is behind many of the indirect messages sent to Riyadh. Here, one could refer to the harsh editorial by Fareed Zakaria in the "Time" Magazine (11 November) under the headline: "The Saudis Are Mad: Tough!", and Zakaria is known for his strong ties with the US Department of State and he is the presenter of a weekly show on "CNN" which mostly tackles foreign affairs. The editorial begins with the subtitle "Why we shouldn't care that the world's most irresponsible country is displeased at the US". He added: "If there were a prize for Most Irresponsible Foreign Policy it would surely be awarded to Saudi Arabia... But whatever one thinks of the Obama Administration's handling of the region, surely the last measure of American foreign policy should be how it is received by the House of Saud!".

Zakaria stated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted in a leaked document by Wikileaks in December 2009 as saying that Saudi Arabia remained a "critical financial base" for terrorism and that Riyadh has taken only limited action" to stop the flow of funds to the Taliban and other such groups."

Zakaria also quoted Stuart Levey, a top Treasury official in 2007, as telling ABC News that: "If I could snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia... It is the nation most responsible for the rise of Islamic radicalism and militancy around the world. Over the past four decades, the kingdom's immense oil wealth has been used to underwrite the export of an extreme, intolerant and violent version of Islam preached by its Wahhabi clerics."

Moreover, Zakaria quoted former Pakistani Law Minister, Iqbal Haider, as saying in 2012 that: "Whether they are the Taliban or Lashkar-e-Taiba, their ideology is Saudi Wahhabi without an iota of doubt." He added: "There was no doubt Saudi Arabia was supporting Wahhabi groups throughout Pakistan."
Fareed Zakaria concluded by saying that : "Whatever the reason, let's concede that, yes, Saudi Arabia is angry with the U.S. But are we sure that's a sign Washington is doing something wrong?"

Despite that Fareed's Zakaria's assault against Saudi Arabia was the toughest, many commentators and influential columnists in several US newspapers strongly criticized the Saudi Foreign Policy. For instance, Fred Kaplan wrote an article under the headline: "A Royal Pain". In its introduction, Kaplan related the differences between Saudi Arabia and the Obama Administration to the kingdom's weakening position in the world, and concluded that: "Obama should make it clear that our interests in the Middle East are not as wrapped up with the desires or fate of the royal family as they used to be."

For his part, Doug Bandow published on Huffington Post website an article in which he strongly criticized the Saudi Royal family. Bandow, a researcher at CATO institute, who worked as a special assistant to the president in the Reagan Administration, considered that: "Saudi Arabia is angry with Washington. In Riyadh's view, the US government isn't doing enough to support tyranny and war in the Middle East." The writer refuted Saudi calls for concern over the Syrian people who are being butchered by chemical weapons on the hands of Assad (according to Turki Al-Faisal) who couldn't have committed all that if it wasn't for the US president's retreat from punishing him for crossing the "red line" which Obama himself set. Doug Bandow further reminded the Saudi Royal family that it had supported former Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, in his violence against Iran, in which he used chemical weapons and killed up to a million people, concluding that: "But mass butchery by Riyadh's de facto ally mattered less to the Sunni Saudi royals than defeating a Shia Islamic regime."

On the apparently failed campaign which the Saudis led to influence the decision corridors in Washington and urge them to work closer with them, Bandow said that: "But Americans shouldn't be concerned that powerful Saudi elites, used to buying everything they want, are frustrated that they no longer can so easily purchase Washington's services... Instead, the Obama Administration should tell America's foreign "friends" that Washington acts in the interests of the American people, not corrupt dictators."

Doug Bandow concluded his article by saying that: "President Obama deserves kudos for refusing to bend American policy to suit the whims of the Riyadh royals. Washington might not be able to stop the Saudis from promoting tyranny and war. But the US certainly shouldn't aid them in their quest."

Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh



"Storms of the Desert"

 Saudi Arabia: No Escape from US (3/3)

Dr. Ahmad Malli
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=23&frid=23&eid=143010

The list of objectors to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the US elite class and other positions is long, and the significant point here is the sharp tone many critics have used against a supposed ally who has a "special relation" with the United States. Among these critics are former employees in the government who worked in previous Administrations, and some of them have ties with the Republican Party and have many criticisms towards the Obama Administration, like Kori Schake who occupied many positions in the Pentagon, National Security Council, and the Foreign Ministry, in addition to her strong participation in Republican candidate John Mc Cain's presidential campaign in 2008. Schake published her article in the Foreign Policy Magazine under the headline: Saudi Arabia's Unhappy. So What?

Schake says:
"But the Saudis' unhappiness is not proof that US policies are wrong. Obama administration policies are wrong, but not in the ways or for the reasons the Saudis excoriate them. And bringing US policies into alignment with Saudi Arabia is likely to create a Middle East even less in America's interests than the Obama administration's bungling has."

Schake adds:
"Saudi Arabia wants a very different Middle East than we do. The Saudis oppose democracy. They oppose freedom of the press. They oppose freedom of conscience and practice of faiths other than Islam. They oppose women's equality before the law. They oppose the idea that individuals have rights and loan them in limited ways and for limited purposes to governments."

"Not only do the Saudis oppose these fundamental values of American society, but they have funded and armed some of the most virulent jihadists."

"The Saudis now want US complicity in supporting jihadists in Syria and the return to power of the deep state in Egypt (a model they would perpetuate throughout the region)."

After the author tackles the options that Riyadh might take in its opposition to the Obama Administration and her estimation to the dangers that could result from these options, she offers an advice to the Obama Administration using the term "red line" which the president himself used, but this time against the Saudis, saying:

"And if there's one red line that President Obama has made credible, it's his willingness to abandon countries relying on American assistance."

Saudi options towards the United States:

US and Saudi ArmiesFar from the clamor that accompanied the intense escalation in the Riyadh-Washington relations, a careful reading to the reality of the partnership between the two parts clearly indicates that it is an incompatible one. The Saudi side is the weak one in this relation, and it is not in the position where it can impose its conditions, hence its options are limited if not completely absent.

Based on this perspective, What Prince Bandar bin Sultan was quoted as saying about his country's determination to reduce the level of relations with the United States under the title that it did not want to be dependent (on Washington), in addition to Saudi Ambassador to Britain, Prince Mohammad bin Nawaf's threat in an article he wrote in New York Times (December) that all options are open for his country, these statements are just words that lack action, as it is hard for the kingdom that kept a strong alliance with the United States for long decades to find alternative alliances that easily.

What are the options open for the ruling family in Saudi Arabia?

These alternative forces are limited to China, Russia, and the European Union, and the latter is a wide body that consists of 28 countries, two of them are France and Britain.

China: Undoubtedly, the Saudi-China relations have developed quickly in the last years. Starting from 2009, Saudi oil exports to China exceeded those to the United States to reach 1.2 million barrels per day forming at least 21% of China's oil imports from around the world. This was accompanied with an increase in China's investments in Saudi Arabia in different fields. It is worth mentioning that Chinese contracting companies are the establishers of the railroads system that transports pilgrims in Holy Mecca.
However, it is not apparent that the developing relations on the economic level between Riyadh and Bekin is harmonious on the political level, as a possibility of the development of political relations between China and Saudi Arabia is minimized because of the two sides' opposing stances on the Syrian crisis.

Moreover, the current tensions in Xinjiang province which has the majority of Muslims in China keeps the Chinese leadership cautious towards the Saudi ruling family, and the strong ties between Bekin and Tehran arouse the suspicion and concern of Riyadh leaders.

Russia: In contrast to China, Russia is an oil exporting country, and its daily oil production rate exceeded that of Saudi Arabia's at the end of 2013, labeling the country as the number one oil producer in the world, as it produces 10,38 million barrels per day while Saudi Arabia produces 9,35 million. Hence, the relation between Moscow and Riyadh is closer to competition rather than interdependence.

Despite that, the Saudis, who have shown interest in diversifying their relations, are also interested in Russia as an arms exporter, and this was the topic of discussion in Prince Bandar bin Sultan's two visits to Moscow in 2013. 

A similar visit by Saudi Minister of Defense, Suleiman bin Sultan, to Moscow is expected to close a number of arm deals with Russia that are estimated to be worth 12 million dollars. In the same context, Kommersant newspaper close to the Kremlin had mentioned that Saudi Arabia agreed on funding a two billion dollar Russian arms deal with Egypt.

Certainly, the Saudi leadership has its own accounts in adopting the "carrot and stick" policy with Moscow, hoping to push it away from Damascus. However, the long years of war in Chechnya and the terrorist attacks accompanying it targeting Russian goals makes it hard to fill up the deep gap between Moscow and Riyadh.

France and Britain: France and Britain remain at the front of the "options" according to Saudi cabinet advisor, Nawaf Obeid. Relations with Britain are old. As for France, the relations with it seem to be at their best today, considering the arm deals between Riyadh and Paris. In this context, French Defense Minister Jean Yves Le Drian had visited last October the kingdom for the third time since occupying this position in May 2012 and stated that: "Saudi Arabia and France share a unified approach on main regional crises on top of which are the Iranian nuclear file and the Syrian crisis."

According to the latest report handed over to the French Parliament about arm imports, Saudi Arabia remains France's number one costumer between 2003-2014, with almost seven billion Euro worth contracts, preceding by that India and Brazil.  

Where are the Saudi-US relations heading?
After the Saudis exhausted all they could to send the message to the United States and the whole world that they are strongly dissatisfied with the US Administration and its Middle East policies, a spontaneous question comes out:
What do the Saudis want exactly... and how far could they depart from Washington?

It is no longer a secret that the Saudis have wagered on a direct US military intervention in Syria as a preface to topple Bashar Al-Assad regime. This hypothetical war on Syria falls within the great confrontation Saudi Arabia is taking up against Iran, in which it is constantly depending on the US because it can't stand alone in the face of Iran. This raised the feeling of bitterness for former US Defense Minister Robert Gates who said that: "Saudis want to fight Iran to the last American".

However, the temporal nuclear deal between western powers and Iran was more like the worst Scenario for the Saudis due to their fear that a US-Iran approach would end the isolation which the US tried to impose on Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. This gave a rare opportunity for Saudi Arabia to present itself as a central player in the Gulf. Based on that, the worst nightmare for the Saudis is imagining the return of the regional equation which was established in the 70s, when Iran played the role of the major protective power in the Gulf under the approval of the United States, and Saudi Arabia was left with the role of a small partner. 

Saudi Arabia doesn't have an alternative to the United States:
After the Saudi Royal family's trust in Washington became shaky and it expressed its discontent with the maximum it can, will the Saudis separate from the United States?

It is not likely for this to happen, as the Saudis don't have another place to go to - according to some US analysts.

US Ambassador to Riyadh (2001-2003), Robert Jordan says that: "There is no country in the world more capable of providing the protection of their oil fields, and their economy, than the US, and the Saudis are aware of that. We're not going to see them jump out of that orbit."

Jordan adds: "There’ll be more contact with the Russians and Chinese than in the past. They’ve gone elsewhere for weapons before and we’ll see some more of that, but the overall environment will be America-centric."
Undoubtedly, France forms one of the "options" open as mentioned earlier, but this must not be exaggerated, according to Ian Black who wrote for the Guardian (last December) that: 
"The notion that China or France can replace the US is – for now – fanciful nonsense."


We are in front of a deep and tangled relation in different aspects, as the Saudi Army and Air Forces are being structured similar to the US Army which supplies them with large quantities of weapons, in addition to the support and training they give them. Moreover, the economy of the kingdom is strongly attached to the United States that any serious attempt to break this attachment on the long run would have a high and tough cost.

A quick revision to the types of projects the Americans are carrying out in the kingdom and the number of contracts they have closed reveals the unbreakable attachment between the two parts, an example on that is the strong cooperation between the US security and military forces and the Saudi military forces, and no part has the motive to give up this partnership. The Americans equip and train the Saudi National Guards, which is the main Internal Security force for the Saudi regime, and they have been doing that since 1977, as they have been establishing security facilities for a unit of 35 thousand members of the National Guards, and which is being spread to protect the oil facilities, desalination plants, power stations, and other vital facilities in other countries.

As for the arms and military services costs which the Saudis have demanded from the United States in the last couple of years, they seem imaginary as they reached 60 billion dollars, including 34 billion dollars the sum of US arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2012 which is ten times more than in 2011, and recently the US Congress announced its intention to close a 6.8 billion dollar arms deal with the kingdom.


Can the current tensions in relations between Riyadh and Washington be disregarded?


Saudi officials' statements against the United States should not be regarded as an indication to their intention to abandon the strategic partnership with Washington, especially amid the major changes in the region. This Saudi campaign only aims at putting pressure to affect the US policies that do not satisfy Riyadh, considering that what is going on reflects two contradicting views on the regional changes and the Saudi leadership cannot impose its will... The two allies will sooner or later overcome their disagreements because a Saudi retraction from its relation with the United States would cost it high.

Erdogan blamed for Syria bloodshed by rival party

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1580315


Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey's main opposition Republican People's Party,( CHP) addresses a crowd of supporters during an election rally in Ankara March 28, 2014. 


The leader of Turkish opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) insists that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is responsible for the continuing bloodshed in Syria. 


Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of CHP, who has also been the leader of the main opposition in Turkey since 2010, lashed out at Turkish Prime Minister for the mishandling as well as escalating the ongoing crisis in Syria.

Kilicdaroglu also reprimanded Prime Minister for his support for the foreign-backed insurgents in waging war and violence against Syria, saying Erdogan is trying to concoct numerous pretexts to invade the neighboring Arab country .

Earlier, a leaked audio recording of Turkish officials discussing a plot to militarily intervene in Syria appeared on the YouTube site.

The controversial recording relates to a discussion of possible operations in Syria, which was apparently attended by Turkey's intelligence chief, its foreign minister and the deputy head of the armed forces.

Emine Tarhan, the vice spokesperson of CHP, also said Erdogan should be held accountable for the killings in Syria.

She added that she was expecting Erdogan to be tried in international criminal courts for his role in the bloodshed in the neighboring country .

The opposition also accuses Erdogan and his party of exploiting the crisis in Syria for their own political interests.

Erdogan Administration has been facilitating insurgent attacks on Syrian forces.  According to reports aired by different news networks, Turkey, together with some US-backed Arab states, has supported the spread of unrest and terrorism in Syria since 2011.

RA/MB
- See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1580315#sthash.L9a6UPts.dpuf

Will Turkey’s municipal elections determine Erdogan’s future?

Supporters of Turkey's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) wave Turkish and party flags during an election rally in Ankara March 28, 2014. (Photo-AFP-Adem Altan)
Published Saturday, March 29, 2014

Istanbulhttp://english.al-akhbar.com/content/will-turkey%E2%80%99s-municipal-elections-determine-erdogan%E2%80%99s-future

Sunday’s election in Turkey will be fateful, and will largely determine the political future of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The election is exceptionally important because it is taking place in a political climate fraught with tension, on account of the corruption scandals – to the tune of $200 billion – surrounding the prime minister and his son Bilal, as well as a number of government ministers and their families. Add in to the mix the recent audio leaks purporting to expose Turkish plans to intervene in Syria.

Over 52.7 million Turkish voters are supposed to go the polls, which number 170,000 distributed across 81 Turkish states, to elect their mayors, local councils, and elected neighborhood officials. Twenty two political parties will participate, led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), Turkey’s main opposition party, along with the Nationalist Movement Party and the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party. 


Public opinion surveys have produced conflicting results regarding the possible outcomes of the election, which will reveal the reaction of the Turkish people to the allegations they have been hearing for a while now about Erdogan, his party, and his government, regarding both domestic and foreign policies. Some think-tanks have predicted that the Turkish voters will continue to support the AKP, after Erdogan managed to persuade them that the audio leaks were false and fabricated, and nothing more than the work of his archrival Muslim preacher Fethullah Gulen. 


The quarrel between Erdogan and Gulen has helped the CHP immensely. With the followers of the preacher fully mobilized, the party has been able to benefit from their formidable capabilities to gain more support among the electorate. 




The CHP has sent out positive messages to Gulen’s supporters and to nationalist and liberal movements as well, taking on some of their members as candidates in the elections. However, traditional leftist forces have accused the leader of the party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, of seeking to get rid of the traditional Kemalist ideology, and transform the CHP to a center-left party infused with liberal-nationalist – if not religious – elements. 

Many here are wagering on the CHP’s collaboration with the Turkish right. Indeed, the CHP has failed throughout the past years to take power, which has always been monopolized by the right, represented at present by the AKP. Its competition this time could come from the nationalists, including the Nationalist Movement and the Islamic Felicity Party founded by the late leader Necmettin Erbakan. 


Observers believe the election will be particularly significant in Istanbul and Ankara, which Erdogan’s supporters have controlled for twenty years. But this could come to an end in tomorrow’s election; if the CHP candidates win in the two cities, the end of Erdogan’s political career will come very fast. 


AKP polls predict that the party will win around 35 percent of the vote, significantly lower that its 2011 general election share, which was 50 percent. Other pollsters downplayed the effect of the campaigns against Erdogan on Turkish voters, and estimated that the AKP will retain at least 46 percent of the vote. 


On the other hand, many are wagering on a high turnout on election day. They say that if the turnout is more than 85 percent, then the winner will no doubt be Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. To be sure, some say that the leader of the CHP has managed to convince the Turkish people of his integrity, seriousness, and credibility, in contrast to the dozens of question marks now surrounding Erdogan’s character.


Regardless of all these calculations, however, everything that has happened throughout the past several weeks confirm that Erdogan, even if his party technically wins, will be the biggest loser in the electoral battle. Polls show that 75 percent of the Turks believe the accusations made against him in the corruption scandals, even if some of them end up voting for the AKP for their personal interests. 


Everyone realizes that the results of Sunday’s election will determine the future of Erdogan. If he loses the elections, he will lose everything, including his dream to enter the presidential palace in Çankaya Köşkü. Even if he holds his ground, it will not be easy for him to carry on, because the Turkish people, as the protests in Gezi park have shown, will not remain silent vis-à-vis his government’s practices.


Indeed, it is widely expected that as of next Monday, Erdogan’s government could begin an all-out offensive to impose its total control on all facets of the Turkish state. This would require the elimination of all opposition forces, which know very well that the survival of Erdogan in power would mean the end of the Turkish republic as they know it, to use the words of Kılıçdaroğlu.


But if the CHP wins the elections, then this will open the door for the party and its leader to seize power at the earliest opportunity. So perhaps Monday will bring a series of surprises at both the domestic and foreign policy levels, with the ouster of Erdogan and his dangerous policies in Turkey, Syria, the region, and the world. 

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

2 komentar:

  1. I as a layman, deeply regrets the behavior of leaders and kings Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which is said to implement political and dissemination of false teachings of Islam and sharia sheathed ... which has been the culprit of the chaos in the Middle East.

    They are collaborating and conspiring with Israel and the U.S. and NATO have done some damage and treason against Muslims and nations in Afghanistan-Iraq-Lybia-Tunisia-Algeria-Egypt-Syria and Lebanon.

    Though it is said that Saudi Arabia and Turkey implement sharia law and teachings. It's absurd for the ummah there, that their behavior supports the war and the overthrow of existing governments in other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan and even up to the game supposedly also in Pakistan and Bangladesh ..?

    We know Saudi Arabia and Turkey is a big country and very rich ... but so nasty to other Muslim countries in the vicinity. All people of the world know that Syria and Lebanon is a country that is not rich, with considerable economic conditions alone.

    That said, if malice and greed is rooted in the human heart, then anything is always less and always want more and more. Perhaps such circumstances those who are already wealthy, the demands of other countries become the slaves are always ready to serve the greed of those who are already extremely wealthy with all its glory.

    Nauzdubillahi min zdalik. Yes Lord I seek refuge in You with everything that you pleased me .. from all temptation satan very damned > aameen

    BalasHapus
  2. GENUINE LOAN WITH 3% INTEREST RATE APPLY NOW.
    Are you in need of a Loan to pay off your debt and start a new life? You have come to the right place were you can get your loan at a very low interest rate. Interested people/company should please contact us via email for more details.

    E-mail: shadiraaliuloancompany1@gmail.com

    BalasHapus