"Leaving on a jetplane...
Don't know when I'll be back again......"
Peter, Paul & Mary- Dec 1969: their own bit of Bush-ism
A columnist, Mahmoud al-Mubarak, has written an interesting column in the daily alhayat . He titles it "When the Guest is an Idiot." No, he is not writing about Ahmadinejad as a guest of Columbia University- he is writing about another leader, another guest, on another visit just about to start. Now, if the two ever meet, it might be hilarious.
Elaph notes that the Israelis are receiving Mr. Bush (not with flowers, but) by intensifying the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories of the West bank.
The same site also headlines a report that "Arabs Lose 50% of Their Brains Each Year". My first reaction was extreme worry at the thought that all are becoming half-wits and then worse every year. In that case, and using some version of half-life analysis (the power of e exponential and all that), at some point in time the brain power of the Arab world will approach zero- but of course it will never get to zero- the mathematical function won't allow it. The curve will be asymptotic to the zero-line. I believe that will be much worse than the case is now- unless they lose 50% of the leaders each year, to voluntary retirement of course. Of course.
But not to worry, the report was not as revolutionary as that.
Now the mystery is cleared- perhaps this is why they don't let them drive over there. A Saudi woman in Cairo drove her Hummer into a taxi and killed three (so far). Some Cairo press reports claimed that she was a princess, but in Cairo any Gulf woman is a princess or a shaikha- many like being thought of as such, except for the real ones. Some Saudi media outlets were quick, in tribal Gulfie fashion, to declare that the (Saudi) woman is of an Egyptian mother- as if a personal accident casts a pall over Saudi Arabia, and an Egyptian mother somehow spreads the blame among the tribes....er....countries. Had the woman won a gold medal, or mor likely given birth to a kid with two sets of eyes, a holy sign in some circles, everybody would be scrambling to claim her...100%, and the other tribe be damned.
A richness of alibis: the lady claimed she was trying to dislodge her son who had slipped between the seats and that her brakes failed at the same: in the old days the Zionists would have been blamed as well- but that was the Old New Middle East...before the birth pangs that rained death over Southern Beirut and killed so many people in the Summer of 2006- Ok, OK, arguably those explosive birth pangs were initially invited by the Hezbollah action of kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, before they got out of hand.
Cheers
Mohammed
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Secretary General of the Arab League is probably a humorous person, many Egyptians are- unlike, say, the Lebanese and Jordanians where it is often impossible to discern a sense of humor. In the Gulf states there is some limited sense humor as well, but it is always at the expense of others. Perhaps this is because the Egyptians are secure of their own place in history- they have no inferiority complex, because they concede that they are in many ways inferiors to some other nations now. The others, they suspect that they are inferior, in many ways, to many others as well, but they would never concede it, and try to cover it up with permanent scowls which scream "I am serious, take me seriously." Try driving or walking around in the Gulf States or in Jordan, or Lebanon- you'll see mostly scowling faces, especially among the extremely insecure men. This also applies to a lesser extent to Iranians and I suspect the Israelis as well, although I doubt that they can match the others.
Almost all of them have at least one thing in common: they are ruled by lousy regimes. But so are the Egyptians, who seem to have kept their historic sense of humor- but I suspect that the longer Mr. Mubarak lasts, the less humorous Egyptians will become. Before you know it, you can walk around a grim Cairo, looking at scowling faces, thinking you might be in Amman, Riyadh, or Beirut.
Back to Mr. Moussa, the Arab League chief. He said the other day that Lebanon is solely 'an Arab issue'. He said that between visits of American and French dignitaries, and between statements from Mr. Bush, Secretary Rice, and M. Sarkozy about what should happen in Lebanon. Even Dr. M. Kouchner, whose heart is probably not in it, has opined on it.
The Iranians, the target of the League's statement, are being clever about it. They have a finger in the Lebanese pie, like evrybody else, but they have refrained from making public statements about Lebanon recently. Which has led to louder complaints by frustrated Arab governments and their media about "non-Arab" interference in Lebanon- they do not mean American, French, or Israeli interference. Perhaps they mean Hezollah and Syria which are Arab and not Mr. Hariri who is both Lebanese and Saudi- and as Arab as a Lebanese can get.
Arab media, especially in the Gulf region, are full of columnists sharing with us their wishes for the new year. They mostly want for the Lebanon impasse to be settled, for Syria to desist, for democracy to prevail in places like Venezuela, Pakistan and Myanmar- and in some Arab states like Syria, but only Syria is named because that is the only Arab state where democracy, accountability and freedom do not flourish.
Either they are insinuating that these are the main countries of the world that are still undemocratic, or they are insinuating that it is hopeless to hope for democracy in the Arab world and hence it is best to push for it elsewhere. I suspect the latter in most cases.
Hezbollah's Hassan Nassrallah has also opined on his country's situation. He has threatened more serious civil action to break the political deadlock. Except the deadlock is not lasting because of the Lebanese, they are good at compromises- it is lasting because both sides are being subjected to extreme pressure from their rich Arab and powerful foreign supporters.
Iran's supreme leader (for life of course), no, the real leader not Ahmadinejad (he is only the elected help), has stated that not having relations with America is one of the main policies of his country. This is the first time I hear that not having relations with another country is a major policy of a government. Perhaps the US stand on Cuba is another case, althoug there might be unresolved financial, economic, and Florida electoral issues involved in that case.
He hinted that Messrs Bush and Chaney should not lose hope though, because this may change some day.
Oh, and more than one Arab opinion-maker has expressed the wish that, in 2008, the biggest hit Arab song will be something other than the hit for 2007: that one was "bahibbak ya hmar, I Love You, Jackass". No idea which one of the jackasses the song was dedicated to- I believe it is a one-size-fits-all type of song that can be sung in any Arab capital safely.
Cheers
Mohammed
Almost all of them have at least one thing in common: they are ruled by lousy regimes. But so are the Egyptians, who seem to have kept their historic sense of humor- but I suspect that the longer Mr. Mubarak lasts, the less humorous Egyptians will become. Before you know it, you can walk around a grim Cairo, looking at scowling faces, thinking you might be in Amman, Riyadh, or Beirut.
Back to Mr. Moussa, the Arab League chief. He said the other day that Lebanon is solely 'an Arab issue'. He said that between visits of American and French dignitaries, and between statements from Mr. Bush, Secretary Rice, and M. Sarkozy about what should happen in Lebanon. Even Dr. M. Kouchner, whose heart is probably not in it, has opined on it.
The Iranians, the target of the League's statement, are being clever about it. They have a finger in the Lebanese pie, like evrybody else, but they have refrained from making public statements about Lebanon recently. Which has led to louder complaints by frustrated Arab governments and their media about "non-Arab" interference in Lebanon- they do not mean American, French, or Israeli interference. Perhaps they mean Hezollah and Syria which are Arab and not Mr. Hariri who is both Lebanese and Saudi- and as Arab as a Lebanese can get.
Arab media, especially in the Gulf region, are full of columnists sharing with us their wishes for the new year. They mostly want for the Lebanon impasse to be settled, for Syria to desist, for democracy to prevail in places like Venezuela, Pakistan and Myanmar- and in some Arab states like Syria, but only Syria is named because that is the only Arab state where democracy, accountability and freedom do not flourish.
Either they are insinuating that these are the main countries of the world that are still undemocratic, or they are insinuating that it is hopeless to hope for democracy in the Arab world and hence it is best to push for it elsewhere. I suspect the latter in most cases.
Hezbollah's Hassan Nassrallah has also opined on his country's situation. He has threatened more serious civil action to break the political deadlock. Except the deadlock is not lasting because of the Lebanese, they are good at compromises- it is lasting because both sides are being subjected to extreme pressure from their rich Arab and powerful foreign supporters.
Iran's supreme leader (for life of course), no, the real leader not Ahmadinejad (he is only the elected help), has stated that not having relations with America is one of the main policies of his country. This is the first time I hear that not having relations with another country is a major policy of a government. Perhaps the US stand on Cuba is another case, althoug there might be unresolved financial, economic, and Florida electoral issues involved in that case.
He hinted that Messrs Bush and Chaney should not lose hope though, because this may change some day.
Oh, and more than one Arab opinion-maker has expressed the wish that, in 2008, the biggest hit Arab song will be something other than the hit for 2007: that one was "bahibbak ya hmar, I Love You, Jackass". No idea which one of the jackasses the song was dedicated to- I believe it is a one-size-fits-all type of song that can be sung in any Arab capital safely.
Cheers
Mohammed
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Arabia 2007, Political vacuums, Bhutto's Revenge,
"The root of the word 'vacuum' is the Latin adjective 'vacuus' which means empty, but space can never be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice, partly because 'quantum theory' predicts that no volume or space can be perfectly empty in this way." Wiko.
Arab media has been full of anguish over Lebanon. Statements by Arab leaders are full of the same anguish about Lebanon. They are all worried about the vacuum of the presidency in Lebanon. This is all symbolic, of course, because the president of Lebanon is a head of state and does not make policy: he is no more important for the daily running of the country than the presidents of Israel and Germany, and how many people remember their names? What they probably worry about is the continued impasse between the Hariri-Saniora rump cabinet and the Hezbollah-Amal-Michel Oun opposition, which has paralyzed the country. There is a vacuum in Lebanon that needs to be filled soon, if only bcause it is hampering the functioning of a full cabinet that does not exist.
Reporters, columnists, and opinion-makers in the (Persian) Gulf of Frustration states, some of them perofessors doubling as royal gunslingers, get especially misty-eyed about Lebanon these days. They lament the old days when they spent summers in cool Lebanon, doing and drinking many things they cannot do and drink at home whether in Najd, Hijaz or on the shores of the Gulf of Frustration. Those were the same old days when many disenfranchised Lebanese, mostly Shi'as, were confined to their southern villages and subsistence farms, and did not bother the bosses who ruled from Beirut and were mostly paid up agents of Western and Arab regimes. Those were the days when everybody knew their place: in true Arab fashion, as the atrocious popular Gulf saying goes, "one never extended his feet beyond his blanket". That tattered blanket has been kicked off and burned. Aaah, for the days of cheap drinks and cheap women in Lebanon, perhaps gone forever.
Yet everybody in the Arab media seems to ignore a bigger vacuum looming in the Middle East- in the largest Arab country. The president of Egypt, in power for over 26 years, is nearing eighty years of age. He has always refused to appoint a vice president, disingenuously claiming that he does not want to impose a future president on the country. And he says it with a straight face. He has imposed himself on the people without an election for all these years, yet he worries about a vice president. Of course he has been grooming his son to inherit power, in the style of a true Arab absolute monarchy, a la Kim Jung Il and Bashar al-Assad, both having inherited their respective countries and their peoples from their despotic fathers. He has been doing it for a quarter century, and has only been forced in recent years to show his hand. And the Arabs, rulers and media have bought it all, hook, line, and sinker- well, they know, but then they all play the same game. So apparently has the West: both Bush and Sarko stand next to Mubarak, creator of what can be potentially the biggest political vacuum in the MIddle East, and decry the vacuum in Lebanon. Clever Arab autocrat? Dumb Westerners? A bit of both.
The Saudi ruling family has noted the possibility of family conflict once the direct sons of old Ibn Saud are dead. The ruling family has set up a council from among its members, of course, to look into the issue of succession in the future. They do not want a vacuum and the potential internal conflicts it might lead to, as has happened in some emirates and sheikhdoms in the Gulf in recent years.
Iran's Ahmadinejad made a blunder of his own by talking about a coming vacuum in Iraq. He said that Iran, along with Iraqis and other regional nations like Saudi Arabia, can help fill the vacuum. This was another of his many foolish statements- he seems to be good at making them just when everybody has almost forgotten his last one. It shored up the Bush administration policy in Iraq and the Middle East by worrying Americans and scaring the hell out of some Arabs. But is any regime foolish enough to think it can supplant the United States in Iraq and do any better?
In Pakistan, the late Benazir Bhutto was being feted as a near-martyr democrat by the Western and Arab press when her will was read. In true 'turd' world fashion, she had willed the whole Pakistan People's Party to her 19 year old son and her husband with sticky fingers. That was her lousy present to her people on New Years Eve. Maybe it was her way of avenging herself and her father. No wonder Pakistan is a hopeless case with nuclear weapons. Imagine Hillary willing the Democratic Party to Chelsea.
Alarabiya TV reports that Saudi Arabian security has been holding a blogger, Fouad al-Farhan, for three weeks now. Officials say he is being held for breaking certain 'regulations'. They did not say what these regulations were that he broke- perhaps they have not decided. I think it has to do with free speech and speaking his mind, to some extent. The report notes that he is one of the few Saudi bloggers who write in their own names. His family have not seen him since his arrest, and they do not know what he is being charged with. Bloggers in Egypt were also eagerly persecuted by the thugs of the security services, with several arrests and many sites being closed.
On the brighter side, and contrary to some 'expert' predictions in the West, petroleum prices held steady and then moved above $ 90 during the year. This has been good politically for all Middle East rulers, both Arab and Iranian. Talk of reform continues, but it is more muted, and is almost exclusively about economic and financial reform, which tends to flow with about the speed of cold molasses on a January morning.
Cheers
Mohammed
Arab media has been full of anguish over Lebanon. Statements by Arab leaders are full of the same anguish about Lebanon. They are all worried about the vacuum of the presidency in Lebanon. This is all symbolic, of course, because the president of Lebanon is a head of state and does not make policy: he is no more important for the daily running of the country than the presidents of Israel and Germany, and how many people remember their names? What they probably worry about is the continued impasse between the Hariri-Saniora rump cabinet and the Hezbollah-Amal-Michel Oun opposition, which has paralyzed the country. There is a vacuum in Lebanon that needs to be filled soon, if only bcause it is hampering the functioning of a full cabinet that does not exist.
Reporters, columnists, and opinion-makers in the (Persian) Gulf of Frustration states, some of them perofessors doubling as royal gunslingers, get especially misty-eyed about Lebanon these days. They lament the old days when they spent summers in cool Lebanon, doing and drinking many things they cannot do and drink at home whether in Najd, Hijaz or on the shores of the Gulf of Frustration. Those were the same old days when many disenfranchised Lebanese, mostly Shi'as, were confined to their southern villages and subsistence farms, and did not bother the bosses who ruled from Beirut and were mostly paid up agents of Western and Arab regimes. Those were the days when everybody knew their place: in true Arab fashion, as the atrocious popular Gulf saying goes, "one never extended his feet beyond his blanket". That tattered blanket has been kicked off and burned. Aaah, for the days of cheap drinks and cheap women in Lebanon, perhaps gone forever.
Yet everybody in the Arab media seems to ignore a bigger vacuum looming in the Middle East- in the largest Arab country. The president of Egypt, in power for over 26 years, is nearing eighty years of age. He has always refused to appoint a vice president, disingenuously claiming that he does not want to impose a future president on the country. And he says it with a straight face. He has imposed himself on the people without an election for all these years, yet he worries about a vice president. Of course he has been grooming his son to inherit power, in the style of a true Arab absolute monarchy, a la Kim Jung Il and Bashar al-Assad, both having inherited their respective countries and their peoples from their despotic fathers. He has been doing it for a quarter century, and has only been forced in recent years to show his hand. And the Arabs, rulers and media have bought it all, hook, line, and sinker- well, they know, but then they all play the same game. So apparently has the West: both Bush and Sarko stand next to Mubarak, creator of what can be potentially the biggest political vacuum in the MIddle East, and decry the vacuum in Lebanon. Clever Arab autocrat? Dumb Westerners? A bit of both.
The Saudi ruling family has noted the possibility of family conflict once the direct sons of old Ibn Saud are dead. The ruling family has set up a council from among its members, of course, to look into the issue of succession in the future. They do not want a vacuum and the potential internal conflicts it might lead to, as has happened in some emirates and sheikhdoms in the Gulf in recent years.
Iran's Ahmadinejad made a blunder of his own by talking about a coming vacuum in Iraq. He said that Iran, along with Iraqis and other regional nations like Saudi Arabia, can help fill the vacuum. This was another of his many foolish statements- he seems to be good at making them just when everybody has almost forgotten his last one. It shored up the Bush administration policy in Iraq and the Middle East by worrying Americans and scaring the hell out of some Arabs. But is any regime foolish enough to think it can supplant the United States in Iraq and do any better?
In Pakistan, the late Benazir Bhutto was being feted as a near-martyr democrat by the Western and Arab press when her will was read. In true 'turd' world fashion, she had willed the whole Pakistan People's Party to her 19 year old son and her husband with sticky fingers. That was her lousy present to her people on New Years Eve. Maybe it was her way of avenging herself and her father. No wonder Pakistan is a hopeless case with nuclear weapons. Imagine Hillary willing the Democratic Party to Chelsea.
Alarabiya TV reports that Saudi Arabian security has been holding a blogger, Fouad al-Farhan, for three weeks now. Officials say he is being held for breaking certain 'regulations'. They did not say what these regulations were that he broke- perhaps they have not decided. I think it has to do with free speech and speaking his mind, to some extent. The report notes that he is one of the few Saudi bloggers who write in their own names. His family have not seen him since his arrest, and they do not know what he is being charged with. Bloggers in Egypt were also eagerly persecuted by the thugs of the security services, with several arrests and many sites being closed.
On the brighter side, and contrary to some 'expert' predictions in the West, petroleum prices held steady and then moved above $ 90 during the year. This has been good politically for all Middle East rulers, both Arab and Iranian. Talk of reform continues, but it is more muted, and is almost exclusively about economic and financial reform, which tends to flow with about the speed of cold molasses on a January morning.
Cheers
Mohammed
Monday, December 31, 2007
The official website of Iran's president yesterday headlined the following nuggets:
- Ahmadinejad terms Iran-Sudan relations "excellent".
- President appreciates filmmakers boycotting Denmark film festival.
- Ahmadinejad calls for enhancement of ties with Latin America.
- President calls for special attention to welfare of villagers.
- Production of auto engines for domestic production a source of natinal pride: president.
(That last one is a classic, my favorite- with the one about Sudan relations th runner-up).
His own personal blog, titled 'Ahmadinejad's Personal Memos' reads like a Dear Abby of (usually Islamic) piety. Something like Mike Huckabee's blog might look like, but perhaps more coherent, and with more crosses, Mathews, and Lukes than sauras and ayahs. Given the eschatology-centered GOP campaigns, any Republican website might look like that....even Rudy's during his first term.
Secretary Rice said she will meet her Iranian counterpart anytime, anywhere with the condition that Iran first stop enriching uranium. Except that the Iranians have not asked for such a meeting yet, and are now less likely to do so.
This was an unusual thing because it will almost certainly be rejected, especially now that the Bush administration looks unlikely to succeed in pushing through tougher international sanctions. Normally, a meeting among diplomats is a means, part of a process, toward a goal. Meetings are what diplomats do, and as such a meeting can never be considered a reward, not by both sides. Unless it is a date, and some dates can be included in the rewards column- which this one certainly ain't, not from the point of view of the dour Iranian mullahs.
The election of a Lebanese president has been postponed for the nth time. Both sides, the Hariri-Saniora camp and the opposition camp, now agree on the same candidate for the job, but there are differences on details- as it is in any deal, the devil is in the details.
President Bush has said that 'the world' wants a Lebanese president elected based on the demands of the Hariri-Saniora-Junblatt camp, which is the American-Saudi (and by default and preference Israeli) camp as opposed to the opposition Hizbollah-Amal-Michel Oun camp, which can be dubbed the Syrian-Iranian camp.
He did not make the mistake of saying that the Lebanese people want that: he may realize by now that many Lebanese, perhaps more than one half of them, do not want that.
Hezbollah responded quickly to Mr. Bush, asserting that they reject his wisaya over Lebanon, a term meaning mandate or guardianship over someone. Its spokesman claimed that it was Mr. Bush who is blocking an agreement which was within reach. Meanwhile a spokesman for the rump cabinet, with the name of Fitfit, said that the cabinet, what remains of it, will not resort to selecting a president on their own, although he said that option was not off the table for the future. Perhaps it is Fatfat in the Lebanese accent which is more singsong than my Gulf accent- either way it sounds French and feline. Back to the basics: Hezbollah and her allies claimed that Mr. Bush's proposals go against the Lebanese constitution.
In Iraq the government is pressing for various 'Awakening Council' Sunni militias that are mushrooming and are funded and armed by the Americans to be brought under central Iraqi control. Baghdad looks with suspicion at these militias, and rightly so, since they had been until recently allied with al-Qaeda. It is suspected that they may be biding their time before turning their guns and bombs against the government. Actually there is no uncertainty here: once US troops start to depart in earnest and petro-money and arms from all the neighboring countries start to flood in more rapidly than now, this is most likely what will happen. Baghdad's suspicion is probably exacerbated by the fact that some Saudi-owned media have recently been calling for similar 'awakening councils' in the Shi'a provinces as well.
Unfortunately the same measures that may have contributed to the current success of the surge may end up defeating US goals in Iraq in the long term, that is if the goal is a stable Iraq under a viable and elected central government.
The Guardian (UK) newspaper has published details of Tony 'Yo' Blair's role in pressuring the British Serious Frauds Office and the Attorney General to quash invetigation of the famous GBP 1 billion payoff (also called a bribe but not in polite mixed company). This was allegedly paid off by the British defense contractor BAE to Prince Bandar Bin Sultan while he was ambassador in Washington- before he became national security adviser to the Bush administration which was before he became head of the Saudi National Security. The report cites the various stages of the exchange between Blair and the investigators, and how they eventually caved in to Blair, who had already caved in to the Saudis.
Cheers
Mohammed
- Ahmadinejad terms Iran-Sudan relations "excellent".
- President appreciates filmmakers boycotting Denmark film festival.
- Ahmadinejad calls for enhancement of ties with Latin America.
- President calls for special attention to welfare of villagers.
- Production of auto engines for domestic production a source of natinal pride: president.
(That last one is a classic, my favorite- with the one about Sudan relations th runner-up).
His own personal blog, titled 'Ahmadinejad's Personal Memos' reads like a Dear Abby of (usually Islamic) piety. Something like Mike Huckabee's blog might look like, but perhaps more coherent, and with more crosses, Mathews, and Lukes than sauras and ayahs. Given the eschatology-centered GOP campaigns, any Republican website might look like that....even Rudy's during his first term.
Secretary Rice said she will meet her Iranian counterpart anytime, anywhere with the condition that Iran first stop enriching uranium. Except that the Iranians have not asked for such a meeting yet, and are now less likely to do so.
This was an unusual thing because it will almost certainly be rejected, especially now that the Bush administration looks unlikely to succeed in pushing through tougher international sanctions. Normally, a meeting among diplomats is a means, part of a process, toward a goal. Meetings are what diplomats do, and as such a meeting can never be considered a reward, not by both sides. Unless it is a date, and some dates can be included in the rewards column- which this one certainly ain't, not from the point of view of the dour Iranian mullahs.
The election of a Lebanese president has been postponed for the nth time. Both sides, the Hariri-Saniora camp and the opposition camp, now agree on the same candidate for the job, but there are differences on details- as it is in any deal, the devil is in the details.
President Bush has said that 'the world' wants a Lebanese president elected based on the demands of the Hariri-Saniora-Junblatt camp, which is the American-Saudi (and by default and preference Israeli) camp as opposed to the opposition Hizbollah-Amal-Michel Oun camp, which can be dubbed the Syrian-Iranian camp.
He did not make the mistake of saying that the Lebanese people want that: he may realize by now that many Lebanese, perhaps more than one half of them, do not want that.
Hezbollah responded quickly to Mr. Bush, asserting that they reject his wisaya over Lebanon, a term meaning mandate or guardianship over someone. Its spokesman claimed that it was Mr. Bush who is blocking an agreement which was within reach. Meanwhile a spokesman for the rump cabinet, with the name of Fitfit, said that the cabinet, what remains of it, will not resort to selecting a president on their own, although he said that option was not off the table for the future. Perhaps it is Fatfat in the Lebanese accent which is more singsong than my Gulf accent- either way it sounds French and feline. Back to the basics: Hezbollah and her allies claimed that Mr. Bush's proposals go against the Lebanese constitution.
In Iraq the government is pressing for various 'Awakening Council' Sunni militias that are mushrooming and are funded and armed by the Americans to be brought under central Iraqi control. Baghdad looks with suspicion at these militias, and rightly so, since they had been until recently allied with al-Qaeda. It is suspected that they may be biding their time before turning their guns and bombs against the government. Actually there is no uncertainty here: once US troops start to depart in earnest and petro-money and arms from all the neighboring countries start to flood in more rapidly than now, this is most likely what will happen. Baghdad's suspicion is probably exacerbated by the fact that some Saudi-owned media have recently been calling for similar 'awakening councils' in the Shi'a provinces as well.
Unfortunately the same measures that may have contributed to the current success of the surge may end up defeating US goals in Iraq in the long term, that is if the goal is a stable Iraq under a viable and elected central government.
The Guardian (UK) newspaper has published details of Tony 'Yo' Blair's role in pressuring the British Serious Frauds Office and the Attorney General to quash invetigation of the famous GBP 1 billion payoff (also called a bribe but not in polite mixed company). This was allegedly paid off by the British defense contractor BAE to Prince Bandar Bin Sultan while he was ambassador in Washington- before he became national security adviser to the Bush administration which was before he became head of the Saudi National Security. The report cites the various stages of the exchange between Blair and the investigators, and how they eventually caved in to Blair, who had already caved in to the Saudis.
Cheers
Mohammed
Friday, December 21, 2007
NewSpeak in Arabia: News media reported recently that Saudi King Abdullah has pardoned the 'Qatif girl' who was abducted and raped by seven men and was later sentenced to prison and flogging for her troubles. Not one outlet noted the irony in this act- but them, we are not known for understanding irony.
This is good news because it shows that world pressure works in some of the darker corners of the world.
It is also good news because the victim was 'pardoned', and 'pardoning' a victim is a good and humane thing- I think it is better than giving her 200 lashes. All victims should be pardoned, because they deserve it more than the criminals who are pardoned, no? There is no more to say on this, for now.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is trying hard to clear itself from any accusations of fear-mongering. Campaign spokesmen have been re-iterating on television, on a daily basis, that they did not bring up the 'cocaine' issue intentionally, that they do not think the 'cocsaine' issue matters, and that they will never raise the 'cocaine' issue again, no matter what new revelations come out about Senator Obama and his association with the use and trade of 'coaine' or other such substances.
Meanwhile, former Senator Bob Kerry, an aspiring VP, has put in his own two Manhattan subway tokens in trying to heal the party. He said that Senator Barack Hussein Obama should highlight (shades of The New School?) his middle name, and should be proud of his African father's name, 'Hussein'. The former senator almost hinted that Obama's father was not likely any relation of Saddam 'Hussein'. Kerry said while standing next to a beaming Hillary "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim."
Kerry, the war hero possibly turned hatchet man, did not have time to call for a series of one-on-one debates between Barack and Hillary. Nor to offer that Clinton, Hillary not Bill, would be happy to wear a Hijab, or Burq'a, or even the more modernistic Niqab, just to show Iowa voters her cultural sensitivity to any latent Islamic quirks that Obama may hold. She would do it, he would have said, if being open-faced would insult Obama's Muslim heritage.
He did not, however, repeat that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself....."
Cheers
Mohammed
This is good news because it shows that world pressure works in some of the darker corners of the world.
It is also good news because the victim was 'pardoned', and 'pardoning' a victim is a good and humane thing- I think it is better than giving her 200 lashes. All victims should be pardoned, because they deserve it more than the criminals who are pardoned, no? There is no more to say on this, for now.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is trying hard to clear itself from any accusations of fear-mongering. Campaign spokesmen have been re-iterating on television, on a daily basis, that they did not bring up the 'cocaine' issue intentionally, that they do not think the 'cocsaine' issue matters, and that they will never raise the 'cocaine' issue again, no matter what new revelations come out about Senator Obama and his association with the use and trade of 'coaine' or other such substances.
Meanwhile, former Senator Bob Kerry, an aspiring VP, has put in his own two Manhattan subway tokens in trying to heal the party. He said that Senator Barack Hussein Obama should highlight (shades of The New School?) his middle name, and should be proud of his African father's name, 'Hussein'. The former senator almost hinted that Obama's father was not likely any relation of Saddam 'Hussein'. Kerry said while standing next to a beaming Hillary "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim."
Kerry, the war hero possibly turned hatchet man, did not have time to call for a series of one-on-one debates between Barack and Hillary. Nor to offer that Clinton, Hillary not Bill, would be happy to wear a Hijab, or Burq'a, or even the more modernistic Niqab, just to show Iowa voters her cultural sensitivity to any latent Islamic quirks that Obama may hold. She would do it, he would have said, if being open-faced would insult Obama's Muslim heritage.
He did not, however, repeat that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself....."
Cheers
Mohammed
Thursday, December 20, 2007
There was a Republican debate in Iowa last week. I was following the stock market, and it was moving up earlier. The Dow Jones Index had stabilized around 80 points plus when the debate started. It was interesting to see how the debate influenced the market indices.
The candidates were not exactly Churchillian, even with the country engaged in two wars and possibly facing a third one. But then nobody has sounded Churchillian, not even on 9/11 and the days after- remember the great Decider oratory about defeating the terrorists by going shopping? How more ordinary can leaders get?. But they were excited, drooling, about cutting taxes furiously (or is it slashing, which evokes those teen films) in order to achieve the following lofty goals, not all of them Lafferian:
Clean up the environment (one or two actually conceded that global warming existed, and to hell with Rush Limbaugh and that angry chubby guy on CNN Headline News).
Stop illegal immigration (Rep. Tomas Tancredo was salivating at this point, who knows: perhaps he was even undergoing more although he doesn't seem like the type, because he looked almost joyous, a very uncharacteristic state for him. Or maybe he was just grimacing, thinking of all those child rapists and other criminals waiting to cross the border)
Defeat terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism whether Sunni, Shi'a, Salafi, or Unitarian. (plausible over time).
Improve the quality of education (Rep. Hunter seemed ready to appoint Jaime A. Escalante, the teacher from Stand and Deliver, as secretary of education. Or maybe he just meant Edward James Olmos)
Improve the economy and employment (plausible)
Reduce dependence on foreign oil. (In your dreams, gentlemen. Besides, this may conflict with the goal of cleaning up the environment (see above)).
Encourage celibacy (definitely a quixotic quest, just ask Rudy).
Reduce abortion.
Raise overall moral standards (possible, but depends on what the definiton of it is).
The market indices gradually declined as they debated, and by the end of it the Dow had made a 150 point turnaround to the negative, with the Nasdaq and S&P following closely. The market buttomed at the end of the debate, and once the gentlemen had departed, the indices started to improve. They closed modestly up, and it was a good thing they ended the debate almost an hour before the markets closed- gave the markets time to recover.
I have no idea at this point what people in the Middle East think of all this. Perhaps we can have debates among the eligible sons of potentates to see who will get to the throne without having to off the others. But then all these will be of the male denomination, and where would that put Hillary?
Since there are no taxes in the Western sense in most Arab countries, things work backwards. The rulers and potentates get the income, from oil or sheep or whatever, and they get the first dibs, then it goes to the budget, where it is spent, and they get a second dibs through the various 'services' they provide. So, it is hard to see whose taxes can be slashed and cut here.
I also wonder what our leaders and potentates would think of Mike Huckabee's surprising discourse on the division of labor in the brain: right side for arts and creativity, left side for logic and analysis (I assume it is this way all over the world, not just in Arkansas). I wonder which side, if any, they use the most.
Cheers
Mohammed
The candidates were not exactly Churchillian, even with the country engaged in two wars and possibly facing a third one. But then nobody has sounded Churchillian, not even on 9/11 and the days after- remember the great Decider oratory about defeating the terrorists by going shopping? How more ordinary can leaders get?. But they were excited, drooling, about cutting taxes furiously (or is it slashing, which evokes those teen films) in order to achieve the following lofty goals, not all of them Lafferian:
Clean up the environment (one or two actually conceded that global warming existed, and to hell with Rush Limbaugh and that angry chubby guy on CNN Headline News).
Stop illegal immigration (Rep. Tomas Tancredo was salivating at this point, who knows: perhaps he was even undergoing more although he doesn't seem like the type, because he looked almost joyous, a very uncharacteristic state for him. Or maybe he was just grimacing, thinking of all those child rapists and other criminals waiting to cross the border)
Defeat terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism whether Sunni, Shi'a, Salafi, or Unitarian. (plausible over time).
Improve the quality of education (Rep. Hunter seemed ready to appoint Jaime A. Escalante, the teacher from Stand and Deliver, as secretary of education. Or maybe he just meant Edward James Olmos)
Improve the economy and employment (plausible)
Reduce dependence on foreign oil. (In your dreams, gentlemen. Besides, this may conflict with the goal of cleaning up the environment (see above)).
Encourage celibacy (definitely a quixotic quest, just ask Rudy).
Reduce abortion.
Raise overall moral standards (possible, but depends on what the definiton of it is).
The market indices gradually declined as they debated, and by the end of it the Dow had made a 150 point turnaround to the negative, with the Nasdaq and S&P following closely. The market buttomed at the end of the debate, and once the gentlemen had departed, the indices started to improve. They closed modestly up, and it was a good thing they ended the debate almost an hour before the markets closed- gave the markets time to recover.
I have no idea at this point what people in the Middle East think of all this. Perhaps we can have debates among the eligible sons of potentates to see who will get to the throne without having to off the others. But then all these will be of the male denomination, and where would that put Hillary?
Since there are no taxes in the Western sense in most Arab countries, things work backwards. The rulers and potentates get the income, from oil or sheep or whatever, and they get the first dibs, then it goes to the budget, where it is spent, and they get a second dibs through the various 'services' they provide. So, it is hard to see whose taxes can be slashed and cut here.
I also wonder what our leaders and potentates would think of Mike Huckabee's surprising discourse on the division of labor in the brain: right side for arts and creativity, left side for logic and analysis (I assume it is this way all over the world, not just in Arkansas). I wonder which side, if any, they use the most.
Cheers
Mohammed
Monday, December 17, 2007
(This was posted on my website last week):
Things seem to be suddenly quieting down in the Gulf region, in terms of rhetoric. There has been little follow-up on the NIE Iran report, after an initial burst of necon damage control spin all over the media outlets. President Bush, and even VP Cheney, have both been quiet on the subject. Even Iran's Ahmadinejad has been silenced- Iran's al-alam TV website has barely referred to the nuclear issue these past few days. His own website barely mentions the issue now.
There is still vocal disappointment in some Arab media, particularly the Saudi-owned media like alhayat, asharqalawsat and a few Gulf satellite newpapers. And in these papers, there has been an increasing tendency over this past week of talk about a conspiracy. Some of the editors and columnists have even started to talk of 'capitulation' by Washington, which is absurd and only reflects nervousness at a possible rapprochement between Washington and the clerical regime in Tehran.
The ire has spread to the Lebanon crisis as well. A regular alhayat correspondent and analyst writes in today's (Dec. 14) edition that Bush is now compromising over Lebanon, abandoning his 'promises' to the Lebanese (meaning to the less than half of the Lebanese who support the Saniora-Hariri cabinet). When a country is as divided as Lebanon, or Iraq, or, come to think of it, as the United States, compromise is the only solution.
France's Nicholas Sarkozy has come under some fire as well this week, partly because of perceived laxity about Lebanon. He can't be compared to Chirac who was close to the Hariris- Chirac has had his own ethical/financial issues since leaving office, but these are the kind of issues that make some Arab media and rulers comfortable with a Western politician. Sarkozy doesn't seem to have these kind of issues, not yet, but then he is just a rookie.
There have also been dark hints in some Arab media this week about Sarkozy's close relations with 'Jewish goups', whatever they are, and talk of his Jewish 'roots' or connections. At the same time, he is criticized for being too easy on Syria in Lebanon, allowing her to regain some influence, something that clearly would conflict with the interests of these alleged 'groups'.
In the end, Riyadh may have more money, but it is too far and Lebanon is surrounded by Syrian territory except for a short strip of Israeli border.
Sarkozy has been under fire in Algeria as well, even during his latest visit. The Algerians, led by the forever-ruling FLN, are still blaming France for what they themselves, led by Mr. Bouteflika's FLN, have done during 45 years of independence to screw up their own country. Seeing how Algerians cross the Mediteranean by droves to live and work in France, they probably would have been better off staying part of France- after some changes to empower the Arab and Berber citizens. They would be free to speak, write, and vote by now. And they would enjoy European Union living standards by now.
Iraqi officials have hinted at a proxy war waged in Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran finances her allies and probably arms them, although anybody can buy any kind of arms in Iraq these days. Saudi Arabia is financing her proxies among the Sunni tribal shaikhs, and is trying now to buy off some of the marginal Shi'a shaikhs as well. The latter is unlikely to work for long, given the history and treatment of Shi'as in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are good at this sort of thing, funding a civil strife, and they have had longer experience in it than anyone else in the region. They had perfected this long before the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s.
The first time was probably during the (North) Yemen civil war of the 1960s, after army officers overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed a republic. They were Nasserist pan-Arab secularists, and the Saudi regime was terrified at having a pro-Nasser secular republic next door, especially with unresolved border issues. They poured money among the tribal shaikhs and got the civil war started. Their nemesis, Egypt under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, had no choice but to send in troops to counter the flow of petro-money. Egypt's military was bogged down for several years in a guerrilla war with seventh-century tribes being financed by an eighth-century petro-dynasty. The Egyptians were bloodied and demoralized, and although this crtainly did not cause their defeat on June 5, 1967, it probably added to the other serious issues they had. They, together with Jordan and Syria would have lost the war anyway. The audacious Israeli war plan, tactics and superior training did most of the job.
Is it deja vu all over again, as they say in Riyadh? The Yemen war ended as a stalemate, but the monarchy was not restored: it remained a republic in name, although of course not democratic. It is not likely that the new Saudi efforts will fare any better in Lebanon or in Iraq- nor would any Iranian efforts to dominate these countries succeed, despite the media frenzy about that possibility. Not when at least half of the people in each of these countries seems to be on the 'wrong' side, or is it the 'right' side. Maybe this is why King Abdullah and Mr. Ahmadinejad have a date: they will be going to the Hajj together next week.
Cheers
Mohammed
Things seem to be suddenly quieting down in the Gulf region, in terms of rhetoric. There has been little follow-up on the NIE Iran report, after an initial burst of necon damage control spin all over the media outlets. President Bush, and even VP Cheney, have both been quiet on the subject. Even Iran's Ahmadinejad has been silenced- Iran's al-alam TV website has barely referred to the nuclear issue these past few days. His own website barely mentions the issue now.
There is still vocal disappointment in some Arab media, particularly the Saudi-owned media like alhayat, asharqalawsat and a few Gulf satellite newpapers. And in these papers, there has been an increasing tendency over this past week of talk about a conspiracy. Some of the editors and columnists have even started to talk of 'capitulation' by Washington, which is absurd and only reflects nervousness at a possible rapprochement between Washington and the clerical regime in Tehran.
The ire has spread to the Lebanon crisis as well. A regular alhayat correspondent and analyst writes in today's (Dec. 14) edition that Bush is now compromising over Lebanon, abandoning his 'promises' to the Lebanese (meaning to the less than half of the Lebanese who support the Saniora-Hariri cabinet). When a country is as divided as Lebanon, or Iraq, or, come to think of it, as the United States, compromise is the only solution.
France's Nicholas Sarkozy has come under some fire as well this week, partly because of perceived laxity about Lebanon. He can't be compared to Chirac who was close to the Hariris- Chirac has had his own ethical/financial issues since leaving office, but these are the kind of issues that make some Arab media and rulers comfortable with a Western politician. Sarkozy doesn't seem to have these kind of issues, not yet, but then he is just a rookie.
There have also been dark hints in some Arab media this week about Sarkozy's close relations with 'Jewish goups', whatever they are, and talk of his Jewish 'roots' or connections. At the same time, he is criticized for being too easy on Syria in Lebanon, allowing her to regain some influence, something that clearly would conflict with the interests of these alleged 'groups'.
In the end, Riyadh may have more money, but it is too far and Lebanon is surrounded by Syrian territory except for a short strip of Israeli border.
Sarkozy has been under fire in Algeria as well, even during his latest visit. The Algerians, led by the forever-ruling FLN, are still blaming France for what they themselves, led by Mr. Bouteflika's FLN, have done during 45 years of independence to screw up their own country. Seeing how Algerians cross the Mediteranean by droves to live and work in France, they probably would have been better off staying part of France- after some changes to empower the Arab and Berber citizens. They would be free to speak, write, and vote by now. And they would enjoy European Union living standards by now.
Iraqi officials have hinted at a proxy war waged in Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran finances her allies and probably arms them, although anybody can buy any kind of arms in Iraq these days. Saudi Arabia is financing her proxies among the Sunni tribal shaikhs, and is trying now to buy off some of the marginal Shi'a shaikhs as well. The latter is unlikely to work for long, given the history and treatment of Shi'as in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are good at this sort of thing, funding a civil strife, and they have had longer experience in it than anyone else in the region. They had perfected this long before the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s.
The first time was probably during the (North) Yemen civil war of the 1960s, after army officers overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed a republic. They were Nasserist pan-Arab secularists, and the Saudi regime was terrified at having a pro-Nasser secular republic next door, especially with unresolved border issues. They poured money among the tribal shaikhs and got the civil war started. Their nemesis, Egypt under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, had no choice but to send in troops to counter the flow of petro-money. Egypt's military was bogged down for several years in a guerrilla war with seventh-century tribes being financed by an eighth-century petro-dynasty. The Egyptians were bloodied and demoralized, and although this crtainly did not cause their defeat on June 5, 1967, it probably added to the other serious issues they had. They, together with Jordan and Syria would have lost the war anyway. The audacious Israeli war plan, tactics and superior training did most of the job.
Is it deja vu all over again, as they say in Riyadh? The Yemen war ended as a stalemate, but the monarchy was not restored: it remained a republic in name, although of course not democratic. It is not likely that the new Saudi efforts will fare any better in Lebanon or in Iraq- nor would any Iranian efforts to dominate these countries succeed, despite the media frenzy about that possibility. Not when at least half of the people in each of these countries seems to be on the 'wrong' side, or is it the 'right' side. Maybe this is why King Abdullah and Mr. Ahmadinejad have a date: they will be going to the Hajj together next week.
Cheers
Mohammed
Sunday, December 16, 2007
A Closed Shop Media:
I was looking up inormation on Arab media ownership when I came across the minutes of a conference on Arab media held during March 2005. It was titled "Arab Media, Power and Influence" and it was sponsored by various groups, including Woodrow Wilson (Princeton), James A. Baker (yep, Rice), and the IISS.
What was shocking, or maybe it should not have been, was that almost all the Arab participants were either directly or indirectly employees of two ruling houses of the Gulf monarchies who own these major media outlets. The Arab participants were from Alhayat (published in London and reportedly owned by Prince Khalid Bin Sultan al-Saud), Asharq Alawsat (published in London and reportedly co-owned by Prince Salman al-Saud), Alarabiya TV (Saudi but broadcasts from Dubai, and has the same ownership as Asharq Alawsat), and Aljazeera (Qatar, and owned by an al-Thani shaikh).Then there was James Abourezq and a couple of other people. The rest were all either full-time staff of these venerable organizations or regular columnists and commentators. No one else of the media anywhere in the vast Arab world was deemed to have anything to say about the important issue except for these three semi-state-owned organizations.
They talked about some general aspects of Arab media including, oddly, "how ownership of Arab outlets drives media agenda". But that is not what they really talked about: the topic was plainly open for everyone to see, in the participants to the conference. It is not clear who financed that conference.....but in this case I am a betting man.
It is noteworthy (an understatement) that many pan-Arab media outlets have been snapped up and are now owned by Saudi conglomerates, including all the satellite multi-channels operated by ART, MBC, Rotana, and LBC of Lebanon (control of LBC was purchased recently by Prince al-Waleed from another Saudi potentate). They also pull the strings of a few newspapers that tow the official Saudi line on all issues in other Gulf states, especially in Kuwait and Bahrain- no need to mention Lebanon here. Now if they can only make a deal with Mel Karmazin and manage to shut up Howard Stern.
Now that the pressures of the 'unifying' threat of an American attack have receded, Iran's Ahmadinejad is coming under intense fire at home, from both rival politicians and college students who normally have little love for the hardliners. This must be seen in the context of parliamentary elections next spring and presidential elections in 2009. It is possible that Ahmadinejad will be voted out of office just a few months after Bill Clinton moves back into the White House (if she wins he'll probably be confined to the Lincoln Bedroom at night).
BTW on Oil prices: whatever happened to threats and predictions about a year ago that Saudi Arabia would follow a strategy of increasing oil production in order to halve crude prices and apply pressure to the Iranian econmy? The threats were tied to increased Iranian influence in Iraq and were taken quite seriously in the West, although this site dismissed them at the time mainly because of doubts about production capacity and the budgetary, and internal political, impact on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers. We also speculated at the time that the thousands of princes would not stand for having less dinero and lowering their lifestyles. Oil prices have since increased by about 30% or so, depending on the base price used for calculation. Apparently the princely Samsons decided to keep the temple standing because they did not like losing all that dinero and incurring public ire.
To paraphrase a famous lame duck: If they really want to beat the troublemakers, they should keep on shopping.
Cheers
Mohammed
I was looking up inormation on Arab media ownership when I came across the minutes of a conference on Arab media held during March 2005. It was titled "Arab Media, Power and Influence" and it was sponsored by various groups, including Woodrow Wilson (Princeton), James A. Baker (yep, Rice), and the IISS.
What was shocking, or maybe it should not have been, was that almost all the Arab participants were either directly or indirectly employees of two ruling houses of the Gulf monarchies who own these major media outlets. The Arab participants were from Alhayat (published in London and reportedly owned by Prince Khalid Bin Sultan al-Saud), Asharq Alawsat (published in London and reportedly co-owned by Prince Salman al-Saud), Alarabiya TV (Saudi but broadcasts from Dubai, and has the same ownership as Asharq Alawsat), and Aljazeera (Qatar, and owned by an al-Thani shaikh).Then there was James Abourezq and a couple of other people. The rest were all either full-time staff of these venerable organizations or regular columnists and commentators. No one else of the media anywhere in the vast Arab world was deemed to have anything to say about the important issue except for these three semi-state-owned organizations.
They talked about some general aspects of Arab media including, oddly, "how ownership of Arab outlets drives media agenda". But that is not what they really talked about: the topic was plainly open for everyone to see, in the participants to the conference. It is not clear who financed that conference.....but in this case I am a betting man.
It is noteworthy (an understatement) that many pan-Arab media outlets have been snapped up and are now owned by Saudi conglomerates, including all the satellite multi-channels operated by ART, MBC, Rotana, and LBC of Lebanon (control of LBC was purchased recently by Prince al-Waleed from another Saudi potentate). They also pull the strings of a few newspapers that tow the official Saudi line on all issues in other Gulf states, especially in Kuwait and Bahrain- no need to mention Lebanon here. Now if they can only make a deal with Mel Karmazin and manage to shut up Howard Stern.
Now that the pressures of the 'unifying' threat of an American attack have receded, Iran's Ahmadinejad is coming under intense fire at home, from both rival politicians and college students who normally have little love for the hardliners. This must be seen in the context of parliamentary elections next spring and presidential elections in 2009. It is possible that Ahmadinejad will be voted out of office just a few months after Bill Clinton moves back into the White House (if she wins he'll probably be confined to the Lincoln Bedroom at night).
BTW on Oil prices: whatever happened to threats and predictions about a year ago that Saudi Arabia would follow a strategy of increasing oil production in order to halve crude prices and apply pressure to the Iranian econmy? The threats were tied to increased Iranian influence in Iraq and were taken quite seriously in the West, although this site dismissed them at the time mainly because of doubts about production capacity and the budgetary, and internal political, impact on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers. We also speculated at the time that the thousands of princes would not stand for having less dinero and lowering their lifestyles. Oil prices have since increased by about 30% or so, depending on the base price used for calculation. Apparently the princely Samsons decided to keep the temple standing because they did not like losing all that dinero and incurring public ire.
To paraphrase a famous lame duck: If they really want to beat the troublemakers, they should keep on shopping.
Cheers
Mohammed
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Kuwaiti daily alwatan reports on its front page two days ago that US forces have been trying to draw Iran into a conflict by provocative flights and firing artillery across its border. Alwatan claims to have 'credible' reports form 'reliable' European diplomatic sources that the military option is not off the table, and that in fact Israel is slated to attack Iran, and that if Iran retaliates, then the US will side with Israel. The report claims that this plan aims to ease fears of Persian Gulf states that host American military facilities of Iranian retaliation and to limit the coming conflict to three sides: Iran-Israel-USA. (This is pure twisted Gulf logic: it still doesn't make sense to me, it will still have the US using its forces in the Gulf in a conflict and possibly drawing retaliation).
There is another serious problem with the report: its source, Alwatan is arguably the second least credible newspaper in Kuwait and perhaps the whole Gulf region, after alseyassah. Both tabloids have many times attributed wild reports to un-named "confidential and reliable" sources in the past, often with certain dates set for wars on Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, the al-Maliki government or all of the above. The owner/editor of one of these newspapers has been editorially kissing royal flanks so often that he can probably nose his way to Riyadh with his eyes closed, if you get my drift (he won't). So, this latest bit of wishful thinking can be safely relegated to the dustbin of journalism as well.
These people really had their heart set on another war- they really want their war, to be fought by the brave children of others, of course.
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has publicly denied comments by Iraq's National Security Chief Muaffaq al-Rube'ie that Iran and Saudi Arabia are seeking to settle their own rivalries and disputes in Iraq. He also said that a Saudi embassy may open soon in Baghdad, which would be a first positive step in any effort to balance Iranian influence in Baghdad. Maybe the Arab governments are finally waking up.
In Iraq, in an important symbolic move, Arab media report that Ayatollah Sistani announced that the Eid Adha will be December 21st for Shi'as- except that the Iraqi government had already announced the Eid holiday to start on the 19th. Perhaps he was telling the bureaucrats that they should have left it to the Hawza to set the date. Still, the holiday can be started by the bureaucrats before the actual Eid itself on the 21st. There has been no confirmation of this yet in the Iraqi media.
Even as the Gulf seems to cool down, the Arab region is heating up again this week:
Bombings have picked up in intensity in Iraq, especially in the north and south (Al-Amarah).
Huge bombings in Algeria that killed UN and local personnel were attributed to al-Qaeda.
The general slated to head the Lebanese army was killed, among others, probably by a favorite Lebanese invention and wartime pastime, a car bomb. The current army chief looks set to become the new compromise president, if the two sides can agree on the shape of the new cabinet. Right now it looks like there will be no reconciliation unless Mr. Saniora leaves, but anything can happen in politics.
Clearly Lebanon needs a new covenant among its various factions: the old one has not worked, at least not for the past thirty five years as the demographics and political power have shifted.
Shifting the blame on the Nile: In Egypt a newly-wed groom failed to deflower his bride on their wedding night, a must if he is to have his breakfast of fool medammas the next morning. The man suspected that she was not a virgin, and stabbed her to death. The police decided to hold the husband, who has already confessed, for four days pending an investigation- it is not clear an investigation of what. In an earlier case, a man also killed his bride for the same reason: when medical tests showed that in fact she had been a virgin that man was sentenced to hard labor- but only after the medical test results....which means what it means.
Perhaps they should start Sex-Ed classes, for men only, in the New New Middle East?
Cheers
Mohammed
There is another serious problem with the report: its source, Alwatan is arguably the second least credible newspaper in Kuwait and perhaps the whole Gulf region, after alseyassah. Both tabloids have many times attributed wild reports to un-named "confidential and reliable" sources in the past, often with certain dates set for wars on Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, the al-Maliki government or all of the above. The owner/editor of one of these newspapers has been editorially kissing royal flanks so often that he can probably nose his way to Riyadh with his eyes closed, if you get my drift (he won't). So, this latest bit of wishful thinking can be safely relegated to the dustbin of journalism as well.
These people really had their heart set on another war- they really want their war, to be fought by the brave children of others, of course.
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has publicly denied comments by Iraq's National Security Chief Muaffaq al-Rube'ie that Iran and Saudi Arabia are seeking to settle their own rivalries and disputes in Iraq. He also said that a Saudi embassy may open soon in Baghdad, which would be a first positive step in any effort to balance Iranian influence in Baghdad. Maybe the Arab governments are finally waking up.
In Iraq, in an important symbolic move, Arab media report that Ayatollah Sistani announced that the Eid Adha will be December 21st for Shi'as- except that the Iraqi government had already announced the Eid holiday to start on the 19th. Perhaps he was telling the bureaucrats that they should have left it to the Hawza to set the date. Still, the holiday can be started by the bureaucrats before the actual Eid itself on the 21st. There has been no confirmation of this yet in the Iraqi media.
Even as the Gulf seems to cool down, the Arab region is heating up again this week:
Bombings have picked up in intensity in Iraq, especially in the north and south (Al-Amarah).
Huge bombings in Algeria that killed UN and local personnel were attributed to al-Qaeda.
The general slated to head the Lebanese army was killed, among others, probably by a favorite Lebanese invention and wartime pastime, a car bomb. The current army chief looks set to become the new compromise president, if the two sides can agree on the shape of the new cabinet. Right now it looks like there will be no reconciliation unless Mr. Saniora leaves, but anything can happen in politics.
Clearly Lebanon needs a new covenant among its various factions: the old one has not worked, at least not for the past thirty five years as the demographics and political power have shifted.
Shifting the blame on the Nile: In Egypt a newly-wed groom failed to deflower his bride on their wedding night, a must if he is to have his breakfast of fool medammas the next morning. The man suspected that she was not a virgin, and stabbed her to death. The police decided to hold the husband, who has already confessed, for four days pending an investigation- it is not clear an investigation of what. In an earlier case, a man also killed his bride for the same reason: when medical tests showed that in fact she had been a virgin that man was sentenced to hard labor- but only after the medical test results....which means what it means.
Perhaps they should start Sex-Ed classes, for men only, in the New New Middle East?
Cheers
Mohammed
Friday, December 07, 2007
With one simple paragraph, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stole Christmas from the neocons in the administration and at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Until recent days, AEI 'experts' were on cable TV networks calling for a bombing campaign to start soon, before it was too late. The report vindicates a man much maligned in Washington, Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who stated recently that reports of Iranian weapons development are exaggerated- he was Blixed (as in Hans) by the neocons and the media.
Worse, the report vindicates none other than Vladimir Putin, who also stated that there was no evidence of such Iranian development. Now Mr. Cheney cannot dream of riding through the rugged Persian Plateau, with the secular (Muslim secular, not 'Christian' secular, which somehow makes it kosher) peasantry throwing wild flowers at his motorcade. It also comes on the heel of Iranian gestures toward the Arab GCC states, all U.S allies whose leaders are now left wondering who or what to believe.
One result of this new development is that the winds of war will quickly recede from the (Persian) Gulf region. Oil prices should at least stabilize at lower levels than $ 90. The Bush administration will not likely go out with a bang, as it had evidently wished. This will also reduce the chances of any stricter UN sanctions against Iran, Charles Krauthammer's wishful analysis notwithstanding. Another possible result will be within the Democratic Party. This reduces the 'wisdom' of Senator Hillary Clinton's vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. It may have some ramifications in Iowa next month and beyond.
All this does not mean that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons in the future, it just makes it a less imminent threat. It also may only mean that the administration will shift gear and may focus on Iranian influence in Iraq as a casus belli, an issue that does not concern the international community.
Of Interest: The Egyptian Ministry of Awqaf (religious affairs) has issued a fatwa saying that anyone who dies of AIDS will be considered a martyr. It did not specify if they will be considered martyrs by the bureaucrats down here or by those up there, presumably by both. The justification is quite logical, based on repentance and forgiveness: those who die of HIV will have suffered so much and repented so much that they deserve to be considered martyrs. This is a surprisingly humane fatwa by Arab theological standards, even by some American 'Christian' standards.
Now it will be interesting to see what the Salafi Jihadists will do once they get wind of this new fatwa: will they switch away from blowing themselves up among Iraqi Shi'as (Shi'ites to most of you infidels) and instead espouse unsafe sex as a way to get there? Instead of slipping across the border into Iraq, will they head for the nearest unsafe outlets, say, Beirut or Dubai?
The most boring NFL games, are those of New England. The Patriots win so predictably and consistently that they have taken the excitement and fun out of a great game. I hope they don't make it to the Super Bowl, and that they lose it if they do. Nothing personal, but I hate shooting ducks in a fenced backyard.
Cheers
Mohammed
Worse, the report vindicates none other than Vladimir Putin, who also stated that there was no evidence of such Iranian development. Now Mr. Cheney cannot dream of riding through the rugged Persian Plateau, with the secular (Muslim secular, not 'Christian' secular, which somehow makes it kosher) peasantry throwing wild flowers at his motorcade. It also comes on the heel of Iranian gestures toward the Arab GCC states, all U.S allies whose leaders are now left wondering who or what to believe.
One result of this new development is that the winds of war will quickly recede from the (Persian) Gulf region. Oil prices should at least stabilize at lower levels than $ 90. The Bush administration will not likely go out with a bang, as it had evidently wished. This will also reduce the chances of any stricter UN sanctions against Iran, Charles Krauthammer's wishful analysis notwithstanding. Another possible result will be within the Democratic Party. This reduces the 'wisdom' of Senator Hillary Clinton's vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. It may have some ramifications in Iowa next month and beyond.
All this does not mean that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons in the future, it just makes it a less imminent threat. It also may only mean that the administration will shift gear and may focus on Iranian influence in Iraq as a casus belli, an issue that does not concern the international community.
Of Interest: The Egyptian Ministry of Awqaf (religious affairs) has issued a fatwa saying that anyone who dies of AIDS will be considered a martyr. It did not specify if they will be considered martyrs by the bureaucrats down here or by those up there, presumably by both. The justification is quite logical, based on repentance and forgiveness: those who die of HIV will have suffered so much and repented so much that they deserve to be considered martyrs. This is a surprisingly humane fatwa by Arab theological standards, even by some American 'Christian' standards.
Now it will be interesting to see what the Salafi Jihadists will do once they get wind of this new fatwa: will they switch away from blowing themselves up among Iraqi Shi'as (Shi'ites to most of you infidels) and instead espouse unsafe sex as a way to get there? Instead of slipping across the border into Iraq, will they head for the nearest unsafe outlets, say, Beirut or Dubai?
The most boring NFL games, are those of New England. The Patriots win so predictably and consistently that they have taken the excitement and fun out of a great game. I hope they don't make it to the Super Bowl, and that they lose it if they do. Nothing personal, but I hate shooting ducks in a fenced backyard.
Cheers
Mohammed
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
In Doha, Iranian president Ahmadinejad proposed to the Arab GCC leaders a joint security agreement. He invited them to Tehran to discuss the matter. He also proposed an extensive array of deals, including an organization for economic cooperation. He also mentioned a proposal for 'clean family tourism', clearly emphasizing something quite different from the usual erotic tourism that Gulf men enjoy in places such as Beirut, Amman or Cairo. Ahmadinejad proposed that Iran provide the Gulf states with water and natural gas (Iran holds the second largest world reserves in natural gas). He did not mention anything about the GCC supplying Iran with much-needed refined products like gasoline which his country needs to import now because of poor refinery maintenance.
The media report that the leaders will approve a "Gulf Common Market", and that they will vote to keep the unified Gulf currency on track for 2010, and that whoever wishes and can will join the unified currency- which most likely will be somewhere between two countries or none. This is probably a way to save face for the finance and central bank officials who really botched the project. Doing the common market first makes sense. Doing a unified currency before a common market is like putting the cart before the horse: it makes no sense, if you have any sense to start with, that is. Maybe someone went back and read about the history of the Deutsche Zollverein and the European Union.....maybe.
In Sudan, the president of the republic (for the past 20+ years) has pardoned the well-meaning British teacher who named a teddy bear after me. Demonstrators in Khartoum, apparently having no other passtime on a slow Friday, had rioted for her to be put to death. Now, if she were a native or another African, or Arab....we would have a Saint Gillian (Gibbons). Well, she would have a different name.
Nawaz Sharif is back in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto is back in Pakistan. General Musharraf is still in Pakistan. A gunfight at Islamabad Corral, and that's definitely not O.K, is looming, but who are the Earps and who are the Clantons here? It doesn't really matter.
The feudalist Sharif is favored by Saudi Arabia (it figures). The quasi-kleptocrat Bhutto is favored by Washington (and the UAE, if it matters). Oddly, the Generalissimo comes across as the least unsavory Pakistani politician around. Pakistan has always been ruled by military dictators and feudal landowners, occasionally behind a figleaf of Islam, the raison d'etre of the nation that was carved out of India at the end of the Raj. Had they stayed part of India, the Pakis would have remained a large and very influential minority in a democratic country. Quel dommage.
In Lebanon, the politicians and warlords (usually the same), have resorted again to the only 'national' institution in the country, the army. It looks like all will agree on the commander of the army, a general Michel Suleiman, to become the new president. They will need to change the constitution first to allow for that. In Venezuela yesterday the people voted in a referendum on a constitutional change, and the Chavez government lost the vote. In Lebanon they cannot put an amendment for a vote by the Lebanese people: there is no such thing as one Lebanese people anymore, not for the past year and a half. So, the warlords will decide the matter among the capos of the various 'families'.
Cheers
Mohammed
The media report that the leaders will approve a "Gulf Common Market", and that they will vote to keep the unified Gulf currency on track for 2010, and that whoever wishes and can will join the unified currency- which most likely will be somewhere between two countries or none. This is probably a way to save face for the finance and central bank officials who really botched the project. Doing the common market first makes sense. Doing a unified currency before a common market is like putting the cart before the horse: it makes no sense, if you have any sense to start with, that is. Maybe someone went back and read about the history of the Deutsche Zollverein and the European Union.....maybe.
In Sudan, the president of the republic (for the past 20+ years) has pardoned the well-meaning British teacher who named a teddy bear after me. Demonstrators in Khartoum, apparently having no other passtime on a slow Friday, had rioted for her to be put to death. Now, if she were a native or another African, or Arab....we would have a Saint Gillian (Gibbons). Well, she would have a different name.
Nawaz Sharif is back in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto is back in Pakistan. General Musharraf is still in Pakistan. A gunfight at Islamabad Corral, and that's definitely not O.K, is looming, but who are the Earps and who are the Clantons here? It doesn't really matter.
The feudalist Sharif is favored by Saudi Arabia (it figures). The quasi-kleptocrat Bhutto is favored by Washington (and the UAE, if it matters). Oddly, the Generalissimo comes across as the least unsavory Pakistani politician around. Pakistan has always been ruled by military dictators and feudal landowners, occasionally behind a figleaf of Islam, the raison d'etre of the nation that was carved out of India at the end of the Raj. Had they stayed part of India, the Pakis would have remained a large and very influential minority in a democratic country. Quel dommage.
In Lebanon, the politicians and warlords (usually the same), have resorted again to the only 'national' institution in the country, the army. It looks like all will agree on the commander of the army, a general Michel Suleiman, to become the new president. They will need to change the constitution first to allow for that. In Venezuela yesterday the people voted in a referendum on a constitutional change, and the Chavez government lost the vote. In Lebanon they cannot put an amendment for a vote by the Lebanese people: there is no such thing as one Lebanese people anymore, not for the past year and a half. So, the warlords will decide the matter among the capos of the various 'families'.
Cheers
Mohammed
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
In Saudi Arabia, a young women (19) was punished, again, last week for being kidnapped and raped by seven men in the Eastern Province Shi'a (Shi'ite) town of al-Qateef. Initially a court sentenced the victim to 90 lashed plus time in prison, while the rapists got light jail terms (harsh Islamic law stipulates death sentences for rape). Later, the Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial and revised the sentence to 200 lashes for the woman- I guess that this should be enough to whitttle her down to the bare bone level, with most of the flesh and gore gone. The men got jail terms of between 2 to 9 years. The victim's laywer, a Mr. al-Lahim, was punished as well: he was barred form pursuing the case and his law license was withdrawn. Alarabiya TV's website to its credit, covered the incident and the intial sentences.
Reports (AFP) claims that the raped woman is of the Shi'a minority sect, while the seven rapists are Sunnis- alles klar?
According to Human Rights Watch: "The young woman, who is married, said she had met with a male acquaintance who had promised to give her back an old photograph of herself. After she met her acquaintance in his car in Qatif, a gang of seven men then attacked and raped both of them, multiple times. Despite the prosecution’s requests for the maximum penalty for the rapists, the Qatif court sentenced four of them to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes. They were convicted of kidnapping, apparently because prosecutors could not prove rape (this time the Saudi investigators could not obtain their normally easily obtained confessions). The judges reportedly ignored evidence from a mobile phone video in which the attackers recorded the assault." HRW notes that the harsher new sentence for the victim was a result of the woman speaking out to Human Rights staff about what she considered an injustice. It hints that the woman insisted on pursuing the case, and hence drew the anger of the court. (Are there such cases, then, where the victims do not insist in pursuing and never draw the anger of a bigoted court?)
According to HRW: "There is currently no rule of law in Saudi Arabia, which does not have a written penal code. Judges do not follow procedural rules and issue arbitrary sentences that vary widely. Often, judges do not provide written verdicts, even in death penalty cases."
No indication yet if the departure of Karen Hughes from the Arab scene in the New New Middle East had anything to do with the new harsher sentence for the victim.
Cheers
Mohammed
Reports (AFP) claims that the raped woman is of the Shi'a minority sect, while the seven rapists are Sunnis- alles klar?
According to Human Rights Watch: "The young woman, who is married, said she had met with a male acquaintance who had promised to give her back an old photograph of herself. After she met her acquaintance in his car in Qatif, a gang of seven men then attacked and raped both of them, multiple times. Despite the prosecution’s requests for the maximum penalty for the rapists, the Qatif court sentenced four of them to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes. They were convicted of kidnapping, apparently because prosecutors could not prove rape (this time the Saudi investigators could not obtain their normally easily obtained confessions). The judges reportedly ignored evidence from a mobile phone video in which the attackers recorded the assault." HRW notes that the harsher new sentence for the victim was a result of the woman speaking out to Human Rights staff about what she considered an injustice. It hints that the woman insisted on pursuing the case, and hence drew the anger of the court. (Are there such cases, then, where the victims do not insist in pursuing and never draw the anger of a bigoted court?)
According to HRW: "There is currently no rule of law in Saudi Arabia, which does not have a written penal code. Judges do not follow procedural rules and issue arbitrary sentences that vary widely. Often, judges do not provide written verdicts, even in death penalty cases."
No indication yet if the departure of Karen Hughes from the Arab scene in the New New Middle East had anything to do with the new harsher sentence for the victim.
Cheers
Mohammed
Thursday, November 08, 2007
"Yes; M. Danglars is a money-lover, and those who love money, you know, think too much of what they risk to be easily induced to fight a duel." Alexandre Dumas, Le Comte de Monte Cristo
Saudi Deputy Defense Minister, acronym SDDM, Prince Abdulrahman Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, has called on Gulf GCC countries to prepare their armies to face threats, presumably external threats. He added that these states must coordinate and cooperate in defense matters. What have they been doing all these years in the tough neghborhood? After all these years, and, more telling, after tons of billions of weapons purchases and billions of commissions paid to local potentates?
Riyadh-Beirut: The Arab Thought Institute, there really is such an intitute, is headed by Prince Khaled Bin Faisal al-Saud- makes sense, who else can head a creativity institute in the Arab world but a prince who needs a job? It has issued a press release that it does not like being ignored, and that it has decided to take a huge step by sponsoring and encouraging Arab creativity in all fields and activities, based on subjective criteria, according to a statement published in the Saudi Elaph website. The fields of interest include: science, literature, art, economics, technology, sociology, media- sorcery is not included. Great, the wait is over, Godot has finally arrived- now we can expect to see a burst of creative activity across the Arab world, and in due time a slew of Arab Nobel laureates surrounded by a gaggle of beaming royal princes with deep pockets and sticky fingers.
Amendment: Elaph, published in London but owned by a Saudi potentate, has shyly announced that it has just won the creativity award from the above institute, for, what else, media creativity. Now that is creative intellectual incest.
Cheers
Mohammed
Saudi Deputy Defense Minister, acronym SDDM, Prince Abdulrahman Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, has called on Gulf GCC countries to prepare their armies to face threats, presumably external threats. He added that these states must coordinate and cooperate in defense matters. What have they been doing all these years in the tough neghborhood? After all these years, and, more telling, after tons of billions of weapons purchases and billions of commissions paid to local potentates?
Riyadh-Beirut: The Arab Thought Institute, there really is such an intitute, is headed by Prince Khaled Bin Faisal al-Saud- makes sense, who else can head a creativity institute in the Arab world but a prince who needs a job? It has issued a press release that it does not like being ignored, and that it has decided to take a huge step by sponsoring and encouraging Arab creativity in all fields and activities, based on subjective criteria, according to a statement published in the Saudi Elaph website. The fields of interest include: science, literature, art, economics, technology, sociology, media- sorcery is not included. Great, the wait is over, Godot has finally arrived- now we can expect to see a burst of creative activity across the Arab world, and in due time a slew of Arab Nobel laureates surrounded by a gaggle of beaming royal princes with deep pockets and sticky fingers.
Amendment: Elaph, published in London but owned by a Saudi potentate, has shyly announced that it has just won the creativity award from the above institute, for, what else, media creativity. Now that is creative intellectual incest.
Cheers
Mohammed
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Yesterday there was hardly anything about the Iraq war in the media. Oprah and her sex scandal, rather that of her African school, took up most of the pre-dinner and post-dinner TV news shows, at least the part not taken up by the young teacher who eloped with a teenage Mexican boy. Americans do love their dinnertime spiced with some sex and crime scandals, but what about the après le dîner? (BTW: where is Paris these days?).
Yet data released at night indicate that 2007 has been the worst year for US deaths in Iraq. That was an increase in deaths of about 20% for the year! But the recent trend has been downwardm so maybe it was the surge after all.
Arab media report that the US government has imposed sanctions, including freezing of assets, on some Lebanese who are against 'democracy in Lebanon'. It is not clear what these people have done, maybe there is something specific other than belonging to the opposition which we don't know. Yet perhaps at least half the population of Lebanon is opposed to the current Saniora-Hariri government, without necessarily being members of Hizbollah- should they all be sanctioned? Will the new visa form have a question such as :"Do you oppose, or have you ever opposed, the Saniora-Hariri government in Lebanon?". It is interesting that these sanctions were announced within a week or two of visits to Washington by pro-government warlords Sa'ad Hariri and Mr. Jumblatt.
If Lebanon is a democracy, should opponents of the government be punished for their political positions by a foreign power?
The Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that the FBi and other government agencies had at some time taken to watching and monitoring 'falafel joints' as one way to track possible 'Iranian terrorists'. This was especially done in the SF Bay Area, for some reason. I got two pieces of information, call it free advice, gratis for the G-men:
1. Iranians do not hang around falafel joints. Mostly Arabs, and Israelis, hang around falafel joints. Falafel is not part of an Iranian's customary diet- there are no falafel joints in, say, Tehran or Qom - most mullahs don't even know what they are. Now Hezbollah types, being Lebanese, do hang around falafel joints, especially in Dearborn, but then again, when was the last time that group was engaged in terrorism in the United States?
2. Usually Iranians, as well as Arabs, who get to these shores want nothing to do with the ruling Iranian mullahs, Arab potentates or their politics. They also want little to do with falafel joints. So far all acts of terrorism have been committed by citizens of 'moderate allies' who support democracy, justice, tribal rule, and the American way of life. Which makes a good case for watching falafel joints: one way to know a potential terrorist's intentions is through his sandwich..
An Islamic fiqh (theology) assembly in Mecca has urged Moslems in the West to merge their societies. It urged them to participate in elections and vote- it did not , however, urge Moslem rulers to also allow people the chance to participate in free local elections.
The assembly did, however, allow prior identification of the (unborn) fetus, but only if this is necessary for medical or health purposes- definitely not for practical shopping purposes. They required that any demand to identify the sex of a baby must be approved by the Mufti, the bureaucratic religious arbiter appointed by the rulers of the country.
Cheers
Mohammed
Yet data released at night indicate that 2007 has been the worst year for US deaths in Iraq. That was an increase in deaths of about 20% for the year! But the recent trend has been downwardm so maybe it was the surge after all.
Arab media report that the US government has imposed sanctions, including freezing of assets, on some Lebanese who are against 'democracy in Lebanon'. It is not clear what these people have done, maybe there is something specific other than belonging to the opposition which we don't know. Yet perhaps at least half the population of Lebanon is opposed to the current Saniora-Hariri government, without necessarily being members of Hizbollah- should they all be sanctioned? Will the new visa form have a question such as :"Do you oppose, or have you ever opposed, the Saniora-Hariri government in Lebanon?". It is interesting that these sanctions were announced within a week or two of visits to Washington by pro-government warlords Sa'ad Hariri and Mr. Jumblatt.
If Lebanon is a democracy, should opponents of the government be punished for their political positions by a foreign power?
The Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that the FBi and other government agencies had at some time taken to watching and monitoring 'falafel joints' as one way to track possible 'Iranian terrorists'. This was especially done in the SF Bay Area, for some reason. I got two pieces of information, call it free advice, gratis for the G-men:
1. Iranians do not hang around falafel joints. Mostly Arabs, and Israelis, hang around falafel joints. Falafel is not part of an Iranian's customary diet- there are no falafel joints in, say, Tehran or Qom - most mullahs don't even know what they are. Now Hezbollah types, being Lebanese, do hang around falafel joints, especially in Dearborn, but then again, when was the last time that group was engaged in terrorism in the United States?
2. Usually Iranians, as well as Arabs, who get to these shores want nothing to do with the ruling Iranian mullahs, Arab potentates or their politics. They also want little to do with falafel joints. So far all acts of terrorism have been committed by citizens of 'moderate allies' who support democracy, justice, tribal rule, and the American way of life. Which makes a good case for watching falafel joints: one way to know a potential terrorist's intentions is through his sandwich..
An Islamic fiqh (theology) assembly in Mecca has urged Moslems in the West to merge their societies. It urged them to participate in elections and vote- it did not , however, urge Moslem rulers to also allow people the chance to participate in free local elections.
The assembly did, however, allow prior identification of the (unborn) fetus, but only if this is necessary for medical or health purposes- definitely not for practical shopping purposes. They required that any demand to identify the sex of a baby must be approved by the Mufti, the bureaucratic religious arbiter appointed by the rulers of the country.
Cheers
Mohammed
Monday, November 05, 2007
The march of democracy in the New Middle East has been stymied:
In Egypt, the ruling party conference has renewed for somnolent president Mubarak as its leader, and is poised to select his son, Jamal (Gamal) as the second man, in the tradition of the Assad, Hussein, Kim, and other Arab monarchical families. Mr. Mubarak has been in power since 1981, and the only man ever to run against him has been in prison ever since the rigged election. Egypt has been in an official state of emergency since the day Mr. Mubarak became president- it has also been in a state of political-economic-moral stagnation ever since.
In Pakistan, Generalissimo Parvez Musharraf has flushed the constitution, such as it is, down the toilet. A state of emergency, the ultimate tools of dictators, has been declared. This emergency comes loaded with nuclear warheads, which the neocons do not consider dangerous in a country half of which is ruled by al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies.
In Saudi Arabia, an Egyptian man was beheaded in a public square last Friday for 'sorcery', among other things. The official Saudi Press Agency stated that the man had also confessed to adultery and desecrating the Holy Quran as well- it seems this guy really wanted to be beheaded. Apparently Saudi investigators always obtain confessions when the accused are poor Third World types. Many Arab, Asian, and Africans have been beheaded over the years, but oddly not a single Westerner- perhaps because they have higher moral standards.
In Lebanon, the expected showpiece of the New New Middle East is still in limbo, torn evenly between two visions (if one can call them that): the vision of the Hariri-Saniora cabinet with its Western and Saudi backers and the vision of Hezbollah-Amal-Oun opposition and its backers, including Iran.
Is this relevant? CNBC reports that its own superstar and cat's meow, Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal has lost about $4 billion from his holdings in Citibank, courtesy of his friends Sandy Weill and Charly Prince. Easy come, easy go- hey, it may even come again.
On a brighter note: in Kuwait, the legislature has won another battle with the government, and perhaps put an end to a nasty habit by the government of recycling old ministers to new jobs in a game of silly political musical chairs. Whenever a minister faces a no-confidence vote, he resigns and is often given a new portfolio. Parliament does not confirm or approve cabinet appointments, but it can hold hearings and withdraw confidence- so far, not one minister has chosen to face no-confidence hearings (istijuab), which says something about the quality of the government cabinet.
Not even the speaker, Mr. al-Kharafi, who was largely chosen by the government and is basically its mouthpiece in the assembly, could save the former minister of finance B. al-Humaidhi. The minister was switched to the Oil portfolio in a silly political game, but the angry legislators threatened to hold no-confidence hearings on the prime minister himself, and His Highness was forced to relent. The minister had to resign within a few days, he did not even have the chance to appoint a bunch of his cronies in high positions in the oil ministry and its corporations, as recent national tradition requires. Now the poor man can't claim any achievement for his tenure- not even enough time for a major screw-up.
BTW: Mr. al-Kharafi himself was minister of finance during the corrupt and unconstitutional 1980s, when he appointed many of his cronies to top positions in public corporations, which they proceeded to screw up real good, as recent national tradition seems to expect and require.
The legislature is dominated by Islamist fundamentalists, and the Salafis, in alliance with the tribals, are probably the strongest and most conservative bloc.
Meanwhile Mckenzie International has prepared a proposal on suggestions for developing Kuwait into a financial and commercial center. A high committee of grandees and recycled potentates is holding meetings on the issue- actually a couple of them are quite good professionals, but a few others belong to the dum and dummer (or is it dumb and dumber?) school of economic thought. Over the past two decades, several international consulting firms have been commissioned to prepare proposals on 'making' the country a financial and commercial center, and several local committees have dealt with the matter. But alas, all to no avail. Now with oil prices so high, it is extremely unlikely that the matter will get anywhere beyond where it has been for years.
There is a good and succinct American (East Coast) term which summarizes what I expressed some years ago in a paper at a symposium on this very subject: fohgetaboutit.
Cheers
Mohammed
In Egypt, the ruling party conference has renewed for somnolent president Mubarak as its leader, and is poised to select his son, Jamal (Gamal) as the second man, in the tradition of the Assad, Hussein, Kim, and other Arab monarchical families. Mr. Mubarak has been in power since 1981, and the only man ever to run against him has been in prison ever since the rigged election. Egypt has been in an official state of emergency since the day Mr. Mubarak became president- it has also been in a state of political-economic-moral stagnation ever since.
In Pakistan, Generalissimo Parvez Musharraf has flushed the constitution, such as it is, down the toilet. A state of emergency, the ultimate tools of dictators, has been declared. This emergency comes loaded with nuclear warheads, which the neocons do not consider dangerous in a country half of which is ruled by al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies.
In Saudi Arabia, an Egyptian man was beheaded in a public square last Friday for 'sorcery', among other things. The official Saudi Press Agency stated that the man had also confessed to adultery and desecrating the Holy Quran as well- it seems this guy really wanted to be beheaded. Apparently Saudi investigators always obtain confessions when the accused are poor Third World types. Many Arab, Asian, and Africans have been beheaded over the years, but oddly not a single Westerner- perhaps because they have higher moral standards.
In Lebanon, the expected showpiece of the New New Middle East is still in limbo, torn evenly between two visions (if one can call them that): the vision of the Hariri-Saniora cabinet with its Western and Saudi backers and the vision of Hezbollah-Amal-Oun opposition and its backers, including Iran.
Is this relevant? CNBC reports that its own superstar and cat's meow, Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal has lost about $4 billion from his holdings in Citibank, courtesy of his friends Sandy Weill and Charly Prince. Easy come, easy go- hey, it may even come again.
On a brighter note: in Kuwait, the legislature has won another battle with the government, and perhaps put an end to a nasty habit by the government of recycling old ministers to new jobs in a game of silly political musical chairs. Whenever a minister faces a no-confidence vote, he resigns and is often given a new portfolio. Parliament does not confirm or approve cabinet appointments, but it can hold hearings and withdraw confidence- so far, not one minister has chosen to face no-confidence hearings (istijuab), which says something about the quality of the government cabinet.
Not even the speaker, Mr. al-Kharafi, who was largely chosen by the government and is basically its mouthpiece in the assembly, could save the former minister of finance B. al-Humaidhi. The minister was switched to the Oil portfolio in a silly political game, but the angry legislators threatened to hold no-confidence hearings on the prime minister himself, and His Highness was forced to relent. The minister had to resign within a few days, he did not even have the chance to appoint a bunch of his cronies in high positions in the oil ministry and its corporations, as recent national tradition requires. Now the poor man can't claim any achievement for his tenure- not even enough time for a major screw-up.
BTW: Mr. al-Kharafi himself was minister of finance during the corrupt and unconstitutional 1980s, when he appointed many of his cronies to top positions in public corporations, which they proceeded to screw up real good, as recent national tradition seems to expect and require.
The legislature is dominated by Islamist fundamentalists, and the Salafis, in alliance with the tribals, are probably the strongest and most conservative bloc.
Meanwhile Mckenzie International has prepared a proposal on suggestions for developing Kuwait into a financial and commercial center. A high committee of grandees and recycled potentates is holding meetings on the issue- actually a couple of them are quite good professionals, but a few others belong to the dum and dummer (or is it dumb and dumber?) school of economic thought. Over the past two decades, several international consulting firms have been commissioned to prepare proposals on 'making' the country a financial and commercial center, and several local committees have dealt with the matter. But alas, all to no avail. Now with oil prices so high, it is extremely unlikely that the matter will get anywhere beyond where it has been for years.
There is a good and succinct American (East Coast) term which summarizes what I expressed some years ago in a paper at a symposium on this very subject: fohgetaboutit.
Cheers
Mohammed
Friday, November 02, 2007
Passing the Buck: the Saudi Foreign Minister told Channel 4 in London that he personally believes Saudi women should be allowed to drive. He then said that the matter is not in the hands of the ruling family, but that it depends on the families! He explained that it was a social issue, not a political one. So, if a woman goes out to drive in Riyadh, the police will not stop her, but everyone will give her nasty, maybe lascivious, looks? What about the mautawwa'een squads?
I expect that Saudi women will start driving, if only because the costs of paying and maintaining Asian drivers are going up. Once women start driving, the rate of accidents will increase sharply- not just because women will drive recklessly (some do), but because it will take men some time to get used to the idea. A young Saudi man, for example, may show his infatuation with a driving lass by ramming her car, or by making a complete ass of himself and causing a major accident. A goateed grandee (there are many of those) may feel insulted if a female driver cuts him off or passes him on the highway. We may see a wave of Arabian Road Rage that could make Los Angelenos look like pussy cats. It is possibe that a new type of Bassooss War may start, this time because of totaling a girl's car instead of killing her camel (that old war lasted many many years among the Arab tribes).
The bar for Arab reform has been lowered so much these past two years that once women get the right (or is it a privilege) to drive, we can all declare victory, for we will know that the New Middle East has become a reality.
The Mufti of Dubai, a Dr. A. al-Haddad, yesterday issued a fatwa to the effect that chat rooms and video-phoning between the sexes is haram (i.e taboo, as Melville would have said). He said that it allows men and women to be in the same 'room' without chaperon, and this could lead to sin and adultery. He did not say anything about the bars, nightclubs, and other forms of 'trafficking' that go on in the boom city.
The (non)natives are getting restless again along the Gulf. There have been riots, demonstrations and strikes by Asian workers attributed to bad treatment, non-payment of wages, and work conditions. Asian labor is vital for the functioning of all economic units in the (Persian) Gulf states, and that applies to large corporations as well as small households. The recent unrest has been mainly in the UAE, with a few limited cases in Kuwait. Not much these days about labor unrest in Saudi Arabia perhaps because the punishment/retribution is more severe. Or, to be fair, maybe because they are treated better. But then again, we probably would not hear about it either.
Breaking News Flash: The Crown Prince of Bahrain, His Highness Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Bin Issa Bin Salman al-Khalifa has had an epiphany. Today he told the London press that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. His Highness is definitely ahead of the curve.
A new idea circulating some Arab media (it is part of our conspiracy obsession, but conspiracies do exist, you know, just ask the late Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone): the US will attack Iran after the 2008 elections, so that the Republicans' chances will not suffer. Imagine a scene like the finale of Dr. Strangelove with Darth Vader skydiving hugging the bomb over Tehran. Or maybe it is wishful thinking by some editors.
Cheers
Mohammed
I expect that Saudi women will start driving, if only because the costs of paying and maintaining Asian drivers are going up. Once women start driving, the rate of accidents will increase sharply- not just because women will drive recklessly (some do), but because it will take men some time to get used to the idea. A young Saudi man, for example, may show his infatuation with a driving lass by ramming her car, or by making a complete ass of himself and causing a major accident. A goateed grandee (there are many of those) may feel insulted if a female driver cuts him off or passes him on the highway. We may see a wave of Arabian Road Rage that could make Los Angelenos look like pussy cats. It is possibe that a new type of Bassooss War may start, this time because of totaling a girl's car instead of killing her camel (that old war lasted many many years among the Arab tribes).
The bar for Arab reform has been lowered so much these past two years that once women get the right (or is it a privilege) to drive, we can all declare victory, for we will know that the New Middle East has become a reality.
The Mufti of Dubai, a Dr. A. al-Haddad, yesterday issued a fatwa to the effect that chat rooms and video-phoning between the sexes is haram (i.e taboo, as Melville would have said). He said that it allows men and women to be in the same 'room' without chaperon, and this could lead to sin and adultery. He did not say anything about the bars, nightclubs, and other forms of 'trafficking' that go on in the boom city.
The (non)natives are getting restless again along the Gulf. There have been riots, demonstrations and strikes by Asian workers attributed to bad treatment, non-payment of wages, and work conditions. Asian labor is vital for the functioning of all economic units in the (Persian) Gulf states, and that applies to large corporations as well as small households. The recent unrest has been mainly in the UAE, with a few limited cases in Kuwait. Not much these days about labor unrest in Saudi Arabia perhaps because the punishment/retribution is more severe. Or, to be fair, maybe because they are treated better. But then again, we probably would not hear about it either.
Breaking News Flash: The Crown Prince of Bahrain, His Highness Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Bin Issa Bin Salman al-Khalifa has had an epiphany. Today he told the London press that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. His Highness is definitely ahead of the curve.
A new idea circulating some Arab media (it is part of our conspiracy obsession, but conspiracies do exist, you know, just ask the late Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone): the US will attack Iran after the 2008 elections, so that the Republicans' chances will not suffer. Imagine a scene like the finale of Dr. Strangelove with Darth Vader skydiving hugging the bomb over Tehran. Or maybe it is wishful thinking by some editors.
Cheers
Mohammed
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Iran is getting more confusing by the day. It has never been easy to figure out the power structure in Tehran, mainly because there is no one power center- there are several. Now the dormant reformists are stirring again, perhaps because elections are near, the economy is stagnant, and the dangers of war are closer. The Iranian reformists are not particularly liked by the fading neocons in Washington: Bush included in his infamous 2002 axis of evil sound-bite a reformist-led Iran that had just helped the US in Afghanistan.
Oddly, the Bush administration, which detests Ahmadinejad, may be giving him a new lifeline. Each statement about Iran by the President or Darth Vader pushes petroleum prices higher, giving the regime a safety net- more money to appease the voters for the next year, just in time for the Iranian elections. (It has also pushed Halliburton share prices up to over $40 in recent weeks, but I am sure that is irrelevant). The Bush administration may be giving the Ahmadinejad administration a new lease on life, a chance to get re-elected, even as Bush leaves office in 2009.
Two weeks ago Hillary Clinton went against her natural instinct, against her obvious beliefs, against all that her generous donors stand for, and she did it again (she hasn't said ooops yet, but that may come after the bombs drop and the missiles fire across the Persian Gulf)!
Hillary wanted to look macho short of growing a moustache, so she showed up at the Capitol in figurative drag (can one say that women dress in drag? Je ne sais pas! I know that Rudy Guiliani did it, literally, at least once, and I am sure it'll make great campaign ad footage come Fall 2008). She voted to give the Bush administration what it wanted, a crack in the door that can be pushed open onto a new war in the Middle East, this time against Iran.
The Democrats, who almost universally detest the war in Iraq, have largely chosen to ignore the vote. They can almost taste victory in '08, and apparently they think she is their last best white hope. (Secretly, many Democrats I know like Obama much better, but do not think he can win. It is the fear factor Michlle Obama talked about).
The Dems record with electability has not been good. In 2002 their hearts were with Bill Bradley, but they chose Al Gore because of the electability issue (he almost lost to Bush). In 2004, their hearts were surely with Howard Dean, but their votes went for Kerry, because he was considered electable. Will Hillary's electability illusion make it three strikes for the Dems?
Cheers
Mohammed
Oddly, the Bush administration, which detests Ahmadinejad, may be giving him a new lifeline. Each statement about Iran by the President or Darth Vader pushes petroleum prices higher, giving the regime a safety net- more money to appease the voters for the next year, just in time for the Iranian elections. (It has also pushed Halliburton share prices up to over $40 in recent weeks, but I am sure that is irrelevant). The Bush administration may be giving the Ahmadinejad administration a new lease on life, a chance to get re-elected, even as Bush leaves office in 2009.
Two weeks ago Hillary Clinton went against her natural instinct, against her obvious beliefs, against all that her generous donors stand for, and she did it again (she hasn't said ooops yet, but that may come after the bombs drop and the missiles fire across the Persian Gulf)!
Hillary wanted to look macho short of growing a moustache, so she showed up at the Capitol in figurative drag (can one say that women dress in drag? Je ne sais pas! I know that Rudy Guiliani did it, literally, at least once, and I am sure it'll make great campaign ad footage come Fall 2008). She voted to give the Bush administration what it wanted, a crack in the door that can be pushed open onto a new war in the Middle East, this time against Iran.
The Democrats, who almost universally detest the war in Iraq, have largely chosen to ignore the vote. They can almost taste victory in '08, and apparently they think she is their last best white hope. (Secretly, many Democrats I know like Obama much better, but do not think he can win. It is the fear factor Michlle Obama talked about).
The Dems record with electability has not been good. In 2002 their hearts were with Bill Bradley, but they chose Al Gore because of the electability issue (he almost lost to Bush). In 2004, their hearts were surely with Howard Dean, but their votes went for Kerry, because he was considered electable. Will Hillary's electability illusion make it three strikes for the Dems?
Cheers
Mohammed
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Speaking Loudly, But What About the Stick?In Beirut, US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman is at it again, opining on internal matters. He published an article in the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, owned by Prince Salman al-Saud. The audience would be mainly Saudis and Gulf Arabs, who form the readership of that newspaper. Very few Lebanese read it- the goal is not clear, unless it is preaching to the converted.
Feltman is not doing the March 14 bloc, the Hariri-Jumblatt-Saniora bloc, any good with his periodic statements about internal Lebanese politics. Even Bashar Assad and Ahmadinejad, the designated and real American foes in Lebanon do not meddle so openly- at least they do not meddle so ineffectually. Feltman's public statements only reinforce the widespread notion, probably erroneous, that he is the real leader of the March 14 movement, the real el jefe of the rump cabinet that is clearly paralyzed. Someone ought to tell him to shut up already and do his job quietly- tone down the high profile.
An earlier statement by a Pentagon underecretary created a firestorm in Lebanon when it was interpreted in the Arab world, probably wrongly, as calling for American military bases in Lebanon.
Lebanese Ayatollah Hussein Fadlallah, a leading Shi'a authority, has contributed his own two cents in an article in a Bahraini newspaper. Fadlallah blames the Bush administration for "opening new files' in the Middle East and failing to close them. He means administration neander-cons are stirring up hornets nests all over the region without apparently giving any thought to how to settle matters. Most intelligent people now agree with this last assessment.
Fadlallah also blames the administration for stirring up sectarian and ethnic tensions in the region, citing the Kurdish, Armenian and Shi'a-Sunni issues raised by US leaders. He claims the Bush administration is giving the Lebanese people the option of agreeing to the country becoming a US base or facing sectarian divisions. He cites statements by US leaders about the Lebanese national army and the need to change its 'ideology'. (FYI: the Lebanese army can have no ideology. If it did, it would disintegrate as a unified force).
Fadlallah was kidnapped during the Lebanese civil war in the 1980s, and he was also target of several assassination attempts. He survived all, but one car bomb killed tens of people- some Arab sources claimed at the time that the CIA planned the attempt and that a rich Arab oil state financed it. (Maybe, or maybe not- our region is also known as Paranoiastan).
Profile in Power: Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia holds the folllowing titles, at least: Crown Prince- Deputy Prime Minister (the King is PM)- Minister of Defense- Minister of Aviation- Inspector General (remember the old Danny Kaye film?).
The Prince is visiting some Gulf nations this week accompanied by a delegation consisting of, among others:
Prince Khaled bin Fahad bin Khaled.....(remember the Fibonicci series in math?)
Prince Khaled bin Saad bin Fahad
Prince Sattam bin Saud bin Abdulaziz
Prince Faisal bin Saud bin Mohammed
Prince Faisal bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
Secretary General of the Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud Charitable Institution (I don't think he is named unless he is the same last gentleman up there, presumably because he is just a flunky, not a royal prince)
Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
Prince Ahmad bin Fahad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
Prince Turkey bin Salman bin Abdulaziz (happy thanksgiving)
Prince Nayef bin Salman bin Abdulaziz.
Trop de 'bins', but not to worry, there are more, many more, bins where these came from.
Cheers
Mohammed
Feltman is not doing the March 14 bloc, the Hariri-Jumblatt-Saniora bloc, any good with his periodic statements about internal Lebanese politics. Even Bashar Assad and Ahmadinejad, the designated and real American foes in Lebanon do not meddle so openly- at least they do not meddle so ineffectually. Feltman's public statements only reinforce the widespread notion, probably erroneous, that he is the real leader of the March 14 movement, the real el jefe of the rump cabinet that is clearly paralyzed. Someone ought to tell him to shut up already and do his job quietly- tone down the high profile.
An earlier statement by a Pentagon underecretary created a firestorm in Lebanon when it was interpreted in the Arab world, probably wrongly, as calling for American military bases in Lebanon.
Lebanese Ayatollah Hussein Fadlallah, a leading Shi'a authority, has contributed his own two cents in an article in a Bahraini newspaper. Fadlallah blames the Bush administration for "opening new files' in the Middle East and failing to close them. He means administration neander-cons are stirring up hornets nests all over the region without apparently giving any thought to how to settle matters. Most intelligent people now agree with this last assessment.
Fadlallah also blames the administration for stirring up sectarian and ethnic tensions in the region, citing the Kurdish, Armenian and Shi'a-Sunni issues raised by US leaders. He claims the Bush administration is giving the Lebanese people the option of agreeing to the country becoming a US base or facing sectarian divisions. He cites statements by US leaders about the Lebanese national army and the need to change its 'ideology'. (FYI: the Lebanese army can have no ideology. If it did, it would disintegrate as a unified force).
Fadlallah was kidnapped during the Lebanese civil war in the 1980s, and he was also target of several assassination attempts. He survived all, but one car bomb killed tens of people- some Arab sources claimed at the time that the CIA planned the attempt and that a rich Arab oil state financed it. (Maybe, or maybe not- our region is also known as Paranoiastan).
Profile in Power: Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia holds the folllowing titles, at least: Crown Prince- Deputy Prime Minister (the King is PM)- Minister of Defense- Minister of Aviation- Inspector General (remember the old Danny Kaye film?).
The Prince is visiting some Gulf nations this week accompanied by a delegation consisting of, among others:
Prince Khaled bin Fahad bin Khaled.....(remember the Fibonicci series in math?)
Prince Khaled bin Saad bin Fahad
Prince Sattam bin Saud bin Abdulaziz
Prince Faisal bin Saud bin Mohammed
Prince Faisal bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
Secretary General of the Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud Charitable Institution (I don't think he is named unless he is the same last gentleman up there, presumably because he is just a flunky, not a royal prince)
Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
Prince Ahmad bin Fahad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
Prince Turkey bin Salman bin Abdulaziz (happy thanksgiving)
Prince Nayef bin Salman bin Abdulaziz.
Trop de 'bins', but not to worry, there are more, many more, bins where these came from.
Cheers
Mohammed
Friday, October 19, 2007
What Did Israel Bomb?
Everyone agrees that someone, most likely Israel, bombed something somewhere deep inside Syria a couple of weeks ago. That is the only point of agreement.
Let's analyze the known facts and offered theories:
The Israelis refuse to discuss the reported bombing, something quite different from their usual attitude which depends to some extent on deterrence. Why?:
It is possible that they bombed the worng target.
It is also possible that they do not know, are not sure, what they have bombed.
Only Syria knows for sure what they have bombed, and they ain't talking.
The United States most likely knows something about it, perhaps whatever Israel knows. But that may not be that much.
So, Israel is not talking because they are not sure what they have bombed. It is unlikely that they are protecting some human asset on the ground, but it is possible.
The Syrian regime is not talking, except to acknowledge that something was bombed, because the Syrians are not that stupid and they want the Israelis and the United States to keep guessing. Why give them valuable intelligence for free?
So, both sides are playing chicken, but it is highly unlikely that Syria was working on nuclear weapons. Even Assad's advisers are not stupid enough to think that they can hide a nuclear program right in Israel's backyard, right within view of the US Sixth Fleet. And where the hell would they get the money from? The US media went too far in its paranoia, hyping up the 'nukular' angle in this episode. Or maybe it was fooled once agian.
It is not likely that this was merely a message to Iran: beating on the bully's little buddy never deters the bully- it merely shows that you fear him.
And if Israel is refusing to confirm 'what' it has bombed, how does the UN Security Council justify this unexplained raid deep into another country? What if Syrian planes bombed inside Israel (this is highly unlikely given the quality of Syrian C & C, planes and pilots)? How can a raid be justified if it is unexplained? This is definitely against the 'cogito, ergo sum' philosophy.
So, the plot thickens. More on this later, after I meditate some more.
Hill & Bill:
Hillary Clinton looks headed for the Democratic nomination, unless Iowa pulls a surprise during the caucus in January. It is possible. Her likely running mate? Well, her pillowmate, Bill Clinton. That would be the Republican's worst nightmare come true. With the Democratic majority in the House and Senate almost certain to increase, with a Democrat president, and then Clinton roaming the halls of th White House at will- and attending cabinet meetings. SNL will get a new lease on life, for the next eight years.
Cheers
Mohammed
Everyone agrees that someone, most likely Israel, bombed something somewhere deep inside Syria a couple of weeks ago. That is the only point of agreement.
Let's analyze the known facts and offered theories:
The Israelis refuse to discuss the reported bombing, something quite different from their usual attitude which depends to some extent on deterrence. Why?:
It is possible that they bombed the worng target.
It is also possible that they do not know, are not sure, what they have bombed.
Only Syria knows for sure what they have bombed, and they ain't talking.
The United States most likely knows something about it, perhaps whatever Israel knows. But that may not be that much.
So, Israel is not talking because they are not sure what they have bombed. It is unlikely that they are protecting some human asset on the ground, but it is possible.
The Syrian regime is not talking, except to acknowledge that something was bombed, because the Syrians are not that stupid and they want the Israelis and the United States to keep guessing. Why give them valuable intelligence for free?
So, both sides are playing chicken, but it is highly unlikely that Syria was working on nuclear weapons. Even Assad's advisers are not stupid enough to think that they can hide a nuclear program right in Israel's backyard, right within view of the US Sixth Fleet. And where the hell would they get the money from? The US media went too far in its paranoia, hyping up the 'nukular' angle in this episode. Or maybe it was fooled once agian.
It is not likely that this was merely a message to Iran: beating on the bully's little buddy never deters the bully- it merely shows that you fear him.
And if Israel is refusing to confirm 'what' it has bombed, how does the UN Security Council justify this unexplained raid deep into another country? What if Syrian planes bombed inside Israel (this is highly unlikely given the quality of Syrian C & C, planes and pilots)? How can a raid be justified if it is unexplained? This is definitely against the 'cogito, ergo sum' philosophy.
So, the plot thickens. More on this later, after I meditate some more.
Hill & Bill:
Hillary Clinton looks headed for the Democratic nomination, unless Iowa pulls a surprise during the caucus in January. It is possible. Her likely running mate? Well, her pillowmate, Bill Clinton. That would be the Republican's worst nightmare come true. With the Democratic majority in the House and Senate almost certain to increase, with a Democrat president, and then Clinton roaming the halls of th White House at will- and attending cabinet meetings. SNL will get a new lease on life, for the next eight years.
Cheers
Mohammed
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Libya's Colonel Qaddafi has done it again, perhaps because it worked the first time. He said yesterday that the identity and culture of North Africa is Shi'a (Shi'ite), and that it comes from the Fatimid dynasty that ruled the region from Egypt. Qaddai had called some time back for the re-establishment of the Fatimid Empire as a solution to the sectarian divide in Islam.
Qaddafi exaggerates the point about the "Shi'a identity' of North Africa, although he is right in that many Fatimid Shi'a influences have remained in Egypt and other countries of the region. One notable remaining legacy is the al-Azhar University in Cairo, which was founded by the Fatimids who establised Cairo as their capital but is now a center of (Sunni) Islamic Studies.
Last time the Colonel made such remarks he drew sharp attacks from some Arab media, especially from the vast Saudi-owned media. Some speculated that he was trying to irritate the Saudi ruling family, which he evidently did. The Saudis, in turn, were angry about reports that tied him to a plot against King Abdullah.
It is these outbursts and quirky ideas that make Qaddafi the most interesting, the only interesting, Arab leader around. His knowledge of history is not too wide off the mark either, although his intrepretation of it is quite unusual.
In Jordan a State Security court has sentenced a former legislator to one year in prison for 'insulting the state' and accusing high officials of corruption on his web site.
Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar claims today that the Shaikh of Al Azhar in Egypt has issued a fatwa that anyone who publishes rumors about the president of the country should be punished with 80 lashes. That's not so bad, at least he did not propose un-manning as a punishment for journalists. No report on what a shaikh should get for kissing up to the leader who appointed him. BTW: does a sheikh have to be a US citizen to be nominated for AG?
Iranian Schindler or Wallenberg? Iranian Television is showing a local serial in which a young Iranian diplomat posted to Europe during World War II falls in love with a Jewish girl and saves her from the Holocaust. Titled 'Journey to Nowhere', it depicts the persecution of Jews in Nazi Europe and shows them wearing mandatory the large yellow Stars of David. Media reports indicate that the serial is extremely successful in Iran. (Helloo Ahmadinejad, did you read? That spells h-o-l-o-c-a-u-s-t.) This doesn't bode well for Mahmoud's chances in his last election in 2009.
Cheers
Mohammed
Qaddafi exaggerates the point about the "Shi'a identity' of North Africa, although he is right in that many Fatimid Shi'a influences have remained in Egypt and other countries of the region. One notable remaining legacy is the al-Azhar University in Cairo, which was founded by the Fatimids who establised Cairo as their capital but is now a center of (Sunni) Islamic Studies.
Last time the Colonel made such remarks he drew sharp attacks from some Arab media, especially from the vast Saudi-owned media. Some speculated that he was trying to irritate the Saudi ruling family, which he evidently did. The Saudis, in turn, were angry about reports that tied him to a plot against King Abdullah.
It is these outbursts and quirky ideas that make Qaddafi the most interesting, the only interesting, Arab leader around. His knowledge of history is not too wide off the mark either, although his intrepretation of it is quite unusual.
In Jordan a State Security court has sentenced a former legislator to one year in prison for 'insulting the state' and accusing high officials of corruption on his web site.
Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar claims today that the Shaikh of Al Azhar in Egypt has issued a fatwa that anyone who publishes rumors about the president of the country should be punished with 80 lashes. That's not so bad, at least he did not propose un-manning as a punishment for journalists. No report on what a shaikh should get for kissing up to the leader who appointed him. BTW: does a sheikh have to be a US citizen to be nominated for AG?
Iranian Schindler or Wallenberg? Iranian Television is showing a local serial in which a young Iranian diplomat posted to Europe during World War II falls in love with a Jewish girl and saves her from the Holocaust. Titled 'Journey to Nowhere', it depicts the persecution of Jews in Nazi Europe and shows them wearing mandatory the large yellow Stars of David. Media reports indicate that the serial is extremely successful in Iran. (Helloo Ahmadinejad, did you read? That spells h-o-l-o-c-a-u-s-t.) This doesn't bode well for Mahmoud's chances in his last election in 2009.
Cheers
Mohammed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)