Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Arab paper: Syria, Iran instigated Gaza conflict

2012-11-19

[Ynet News] While the Arab world condemns Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip and Operation Pillars of Defense steals the headlines on the Arab channels, a civil war continues to run wild in Syria between the rebels and Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime – a war that has been going on for a year and eight months. In a report given by the opposition on Sunday night to the SkyNews channel in Arabic, the violence and warfare continue in a few of the country's cities, killing 51 in the last 24 hours and almost 200 since the weekend. Against this backdrop, editor-in-chief of the most-read newspaper in the Arab world, "al-Sharq al-Awsat", Tariq Alhomayed tried to turn his readers' attention to another tragedy in the Arab world; revealing what he believes brought upon the escalation in southern Israel – the Iranians and Assad. In an editorial entitled, "The solution to Gaza return to Syria," Alhomayed wrote that, " Unfortunately, wars in our region have become like a race, so each war is to cover another one. In other words, these wars are nothing more than a move to escape forward. Therefore what is happening in Gaza is escaping forward, particularly in the hope of saving al-Assad or at least ensuring that the cost of toppling him will be greater for everybody. The greatest architect of such wars is Iran".

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

The Syrian Position

2011-01-25

[Asharq al-Aswat] By Tariq Alhomayed It is generally assumed that states, like individuals, benefit from their mistakes, and evaluate their experiences, especially when dealing with particular issues. However, The infamous However... this is not the case with the Syrian position, in terms of dealing with Leb, specifically the International Tribunal, and nominations for the next Prime Minister. Regarding the parliamentary ruling [in 2004] to extend former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term in office, Damascus insisted on him staying in power at any price, knowing that it would then be easier to bring in another pro-Syrian President afterwards. At the time, Damascus seemed as if it was playing in accordance with the rules of the game in Leb. Syria ignored all warnings and extended Lahoud's term in office, in what was considered to be a landslide Syrian victory. However, The other infamous However... what actually happened was to the contrary. The move was costly for Damascus and brought serious consequences, consequences which ultimately came to a head when the Syrian President announced, in front of his parliament, that his country had made mistakes in Leb. On that same day, he even announced his intention to withdraw the Syrian army from there! Today, Lebanese affairs are following the same pattern, whereby Damascus is repeating its mistakes. In the event that Hezbullies's project is victorious, in its attempt to seize the whole of Leb, Syria will be the loser. If the situation erupted -- and this is both likely and expected -- then the Syrians will pay the price and take the blame. If Hezbullies's project is victorious, Tehran will be in control, and Iran will reap the fruits of this success, not Damascus. In such a case no one would go to Syria to negotiate, but instead everyone -- yes everyone -- would negotiate with Iran, instead of Syria. Why would there be a mediator so long as Iran is the dominant force? This is what Iran is explicitly seeking, and has told the West very clearly, amidst the backdrop of negotiations surrounding its nuclear program. Tehran's search for a regional role must be recognized by the West, because it holds the keys to the troubled areas of the region, and this is no secret! If the Iranian project was to fail in Leb, the situation may still erupt, and this [eruption] is expected as I said previously. Damascus would bear the consequences of this, faced by the Lebanese first and foremost. This would deepen the gap between the two neighbors, and it would subsequently be difficult to build any wall of confidence between the Syrians and the Arabs, and matters would worsen. Arabs will deal with Damascus in accordance with past experiences, rather than listening to its promises and the same can be said of the West. Furthermore, such a scenario would also create tensions within Syria itself, and this is an obvious matter which does not require further analysis. Hezbullies's control over Leb would inevitably fuel sectarian sentiments, and awaken the Sunni fundamentalist giant, which is currently stirring and has a genuine presence. Then it would not matter whether Hezbullies had light or heavy arms with which to intimidate its opponents, for it only takes one thug to have the same impact as an artillery assault. This is something we have seen in sectarian conflicts throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and we have witnessed the extent of its damage. Syria's interpretation of the current situation is a dangerous one, because it is an old interpretation of a new case; or rather it has not developed over time. The current situation comes in light of changing global conditions, and dramatic changes in the rules of the game, while following up on the daily occurrences will stop many from asking the question; when will they learn?

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Leadership is sacrifice

2011-01-24

By Tariq Alhomayed I have often heard men say that the King of the Arabians, Sheikh of the Burning Sands, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques , King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, had a lot of respect and appreciation for the late Kamal Jumblatt. The King believes that Jumblatt held a stance which ultimately cost him his life, but he never compromised his position. I recalled this after a recent presser, in which Walid Wally Jumblat ... who's been on every side in Leb at least four times... t, the son of the late Lebanese leader, declared that he had changed his allegiances [regarding the nomination of the next Prime Minster], and joined forces with Syria and Hezbullies. This move was considered a complete reversal of his previous position, and thus there is a clear difference between the son and his father! Walid says that he wants to maintain civil peace in Leb, and this desire is both sincere and noble. It is a desire which I have repeatedly heard from Jumblatt himself, whether over the telephone or in person during my last interview with him in Beirut. However, The infamous However... this is also one of the most important reasons to hold everyone to the International Tribunal, in order to put an end to liquidations and political crimes, and furthermore to put an end to the manipulation of Leb, and the constant threats to its unity, sects, and above all, its existence. Regarding Jumblatt's recent statements, some believe that he has not completely closed the door on the March 14 Those are the good guys, insofar as Leb has good guys... th Alliance, which he insinuated by saying he had joined Syria and Hezbullies. It could be that his deputies hold a different stance regarding nominations for the next Prime Minister. The irony is that Hezbullies and its allies, and those behind them of course, want to nominate Omar Karami as Prime Minster...the man who held that very post when Rafik Hariri was assassinated, yet today he is being put forth as a candidate to lead a government intending to abolish the Hariri Tribunal! I was thoroughly convinced by what Eli Maroni, a member of al-Kata'ib bloc, said the day before yesterday in our newspaper, stating "MP Jumblatt's move to stand with Syria and Hezbullies was imposed upon him by threats and intimidation. This happened as a result of the strong presence of armed Hezbullies forces of Evil between my town Qmatiye and Aley (all predominantly Druze areas). This has left the Lebanese in a state of constant anxiety, stemming from the fear of weapons". I sensed this much from sporadic conversations with Walid Jumblatt, and I have also heard such comments from those close to Jumblatt himself, and others who are in communication with him. Thus someone might say Walid Jumblatt is changing his stance based on a rational motive; to protect his followers, the Druze. This is true, for it is the duty of a leader, any leader, to take into account the interests of those who follow him. However, The infamous However... only taking the interests of supporters into account is an act of self-preservation, whereas it is also the duty of the leader to achieve a larger objective, namely the preservation of the Lebanese state. He must protect all components of Leb, including the Druze, but not at the expense of others. If Leb does indeed end up with a government led by Iran and Syria, as hinted by Samir Geagea, ... Geagea was imprisoned by the Syrians and their puppets for 11 years in a dungeon in the third basement level of the Lebanese Ministry of Defense. He was released after the Cedar Revolution in 2005 ... this will mean an end to the Lebanese state, and even an end to the Druze community. They will either be transformed into followers of the Wali al-Faqih, or handed over to the intelligence services. To give Leb to Iran, with the blessing of the Lebanese leaders, is both cowardly and weak. [Lebanese leaders] ought to be reminded of the piece of history that I am recalling today, that Kamal Jumblatt was a brave man and uncompromising in his positions. Therefore we say to Mr. Walid Jumblatt: leadership is sacrifice.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

The Lebanese Hole

2011-01-23

[Asharq al-Aswat] By Tariq Alhomayed The first lesson that any lifeguard learns is not to let a drowning man cling to them and drag them under, and the first lesson that anybody dealing with the Lebanese scene must learn is that you must not march to their beat, but rather raise your engagement with them to the state level. Forgive me, Mr. Alhomayed, but there is no one there at the state level with whom to engage. It's like negotiating with "Palestine". Prince Saud al-Faisal announced that the Saudi monarch had given up on mediation with Syria with regards to the Special Tribunal for Leb, and following this it was asked in Beirut "Is Soddy Arabia angry with Hariri?" My [Lebanese] brothers, please pay attention! Prince Saud al-Faisal said that King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz had spoken with Syrian President Bashar "Pencilneck" al-Assad ... hereditary dictator of Syria ... , head-of-state to head-of-state, and when there was no forthcoming commitment to what had been agreed upon, he gave up on this agreement. However, The infamous However... the Lebanese then said "Yes...but does this confirm that Soddy Arabia has given up on Leb?" Yesterday, Prince Saud al-Faisal responded to this, answering that it confirms that Soddy Arabia has "only [given up] with regards to the issue of mediation." However tomorrow the Lebanese will ask, "why did you withdraw from your withdrawal?" This is a vicious circle that will continue in this way; the Lebanese hole drowns everybody who tries to enter it. The issue does not stop here, for during the 2006 war, when Soddy Arabia issued a statement about the [military] adventurists, the Lebanese asked "who wrote this speech?" and the answer was "what's the difference? Everybody is loyal to King Abdullah." This, of course, was a statement that was followed by even more analysis [from the Lebanese]. The whole issue is one of wrangling, for the Lebanese only hear what they want to hear, otherwise how can we explain their disregard of the statement issued by the Turkish Foreign Minister [Ahmet Davutoglu]. The Turkish foreign minister, accompanied by his Qatari counterpart, issued a statement [on Thursday], announcing the end of their mediation efforts in Leb. This came after the Saudi Foreign Minister [Prince Saudi al-Faisal] announced that King Abdullah had given up on mediating the Lebanese problems. Davutoglu's statement was clear, he said that his country would be halting its mediation efforts because the Lebanese parties were not responding...this was a very unambiguous statement, but we did not hear any [Lebanese] response to this. In order to understand the problems [in Leb], we must consider one simple thing whose symbolism is clear, and that is that when [Hezbullies chief] Hassan Nasrallah met with the Iran's diminutive President [Mahmoud Short Round Ahmadinejad] in Leb during his last visit, this meeting took place at the Iranian embassy. Ahmadinejad was not taken blindfolded to meet with Nasrallah [at a secret location], and this is because Ahmadinejad was dealing with a subordinate or an employee. The same applies to many others when they visit Damascus, for the Damascus leadership does not come to them [in Leb]. However when the Saudi monarch visited Leb, he went and visited Hariri, rather than having Hariri come to him at the Soddy Arabian embassy, and that is a big difference! In comparison, we have all heard the complaints made, for example, by Arab League Secretary-General Jerry Lewis doppelgänger Amr Moussa ... who has been head of the vaporous Arab League since about the time Jerry and Dean split up ... , about the journey he was taken on in order to meet with Hassan Nasrallah. We also do not know the manner in which the Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers met with Nasrallah a few days ago. Therefore, what we mean to say here is that states cannot lower themselves to the level of sect or militia leaders, meeting with them in caves or rooftops. Tell me...is it rational for the Saudi Foreign Ministry to deal with the fickle Walid Wally Jumblat ... who's been on every side in Leb at least four times... t? The changeable nature of Mr. Jumblatt means that it would be better for the Saudi Weather Service to deal with him, for his changes in position go beyond even the weather changes in our region! Therefore we say, there is no need for further clarification, now is the time to deal with Leb with the logic of a state, and if the Lebanese do not respond, they are the ones who will pay the price; their situation is getting progressively worse, and this will not only affect them but their neighbors, because there is no question that this fire will spread to others. In other words, find out what local hegemon Syria and Hizb'allah's puppet master Iran have decided, yes? The Lebanese will continue their pointless wrangling until they know what they're dealing with.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Lebanon: caught between flattery and dishonesty

2011-01-20

By Tariq Alhomayed In a process of blackmail and a clear pressure tactic, Hezbollah yesterday sought to demonstrate its capabilities on the streets of Beirut. However, its supporters soon dispersed and withdrew, and the party was quick to say that it does not intend to resort to the street [as a form of protest]. It is clear that Hezbollah wanted to send a message to Hariri and his associates, indicating that the party is ready and able to occupy Beirut. Hezbollah's conduct came after a three-way summit in Damascus, involving Syria, Turkey and Qatar, who called for the activation of the Saudi-Syrian initiative. On the same day that both the foreign ministers of Turkey and Qatar arrived in Beirut, the Syrian President was meeting with the Commander of the Lebanese Army as well. Hezbollah's behavior was seen as a message to those visiting Beirut, and to the Saudis of course, implying: Pressure Hariri to accept our demands, or else...! It may be appropriate here to share with our readers what I heard from an official close to the Hezbollah issue, who gave an important account of the situation. He said that two facts that must be pointed out, because what people see in Lebanon, and the region in general, comes from conversations that conceal more than they reveal, and simply consist of "flattery and mutual dishonesty". The first fact, according to the official, is that the Tribunal "is the only way to learn the truth and achieve justice. To attack and try to disable it only serves to protect the killers, and those who stood behind them, with planning and equipment". The official believed that "their [Hezbollah's] agenda had come to light through their attempts to overthrow the Tribunal, even before they had been exposed by it. Even if they had just a modest degree of intelligence, they would have discovered that the Tribunal in fact works in their favor, because it will only charge individual suspects. Yet everyone knows that crimes which involve the assassination of Lebanese leaders require a degree of organization and preparation that is beyond the capabilities of an individual". The official then revealed the second fact, namely that terrorist groups and organizations, on the one hand, and sectarian militia on the other, "are just two sides of the same evil coin, despite their false affiliations to God and religion. Their real goal is to tear the countries of the region apart, and turn them into arenas of public discord, civil wars, and conflicts between Muslims and Christians, Sunnis and Shiites. This serves those who want to transform the region into a sort of chessboard to play with, or a bargaining chip". He added that this in turn "benefits only two parties, namely Israel and Iran. Here we understand why some want to displace Christians, or denounce Sunni moderation, when they know that the alternative is 'al-Qaeda' ". The official wondered "what do you think will be the future of Lebanon if it was ruled by al-Qaeda and sectarian militia?" Accordingly, further to what was said above, will everyone give in to Hezbollah's blackmail, or have matters now reached a tipping point? Certainly, giving in to Hezbollah's demands will only solidify the crisis in Lebanon and the region, whether sectarian or otherwise. However, insisting upon the Tribunal will also increase the irrational behavior of Hezbollah, and ignite the situation...so what is the solution? It is clear that the time has come for Lebanon to move on from the state of labor it has endured for decades. The country has been built upon mistakes, and all attempts to rectify this have only made matters worse. Thus the time has come to reform Lebanon the hard way, and the International Tribunal is the best way in which to do this.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

'Riyadh pressing Hariri to step down'

2010-10-27

[Iran Press TV] In a sudden U-turn, Soddy Arabia has called on pro-West Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to step down to pave the way for a pro-Syrian government. The Saudis demanded Monday for Hariri to immediately step down and make way for an administration dominated by pro-Syrian ministers and Hezbullies, Israeli military intelligence website debkafile quoted its Middle East and Beirut sources as saying. The resignation call comes days after Hariri told US Deputy Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman that he was under Saudi pressure to leave office and that he was about to give into the Saudi king's demand. Feltman reportedly urged the Lebanese premier not to surrender and stay in office despite a deepening crisis triggered by a UN-backed tribunal into the liquidation of his father, late premier Rafiq Hariri in 2005. Saad Hariri's resistance prompted the Saudi mouthpiece Asharq al-Awsat to publish an article on Monday, suggesting the Lebanese prime minister had a choice in the matter. Chief Editor Tariq Alhomayed warned Hariri that he had run out of options and the only choice left for him was to follow his father's example and resign as prime minister as the senior Hariri did in 2004. The Saudi daily asserted that no Lebanese leader stepping into Hariri's shoes would be able to question the legitimacy of a UN-backed tribunal investigating his father's liquidation in 2005. Debkafile's sources, however, predicted that a pro-Syrian Sunni leader would annul the court and blame the killing of the popular prime minister on Israel -- which would ignite a war between Leb and Israel. Meanwhile, ...back at the ranch... confessions by two employees of the Lebanese Alfa cell phone company have revealed that during the thirty-two days of the 2006 Leb War, Israel had controlled the company's database. Israeli sources expect Hezbullies to produce evidence proving that Israel was responsible for the Hariri murder and that Tel Aviv managed to blame the killing on Syria and Hezbullies by means of its command over Leb's telephone system.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: Assad's Contempt for Clinton Contradicts Syria's Previous Statements

2010-03-06

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat editor Tariq Alhomayed wrote: "Whilst U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that her country has asked the Syrians to distance themselves from Iran, the Syrian president [welcomed] his Iranian counterpart to Damascus, celebrating the occasion of Mawlid [the birth of the Prophet Mohammed]. [The two presidents] signed an agreement to cancel [the need for] travel visas between the two countries. Was this [a case of] Syria challenging the U.S. -- or just public embarrassment [for the U.S.] in response to Secretary Clinton embarrassing Damascus, especially as Assad's comments about Clinton were clearly sarcastic... "But if Damascus is the one that determines how things go, and believes that its interest lies in consolidating its ties with Tehran, then why is Syria openly asking the Americans to intervene in negotiations with Israel[?]... If Damascus agrees with Ahmadinejad... that the 'Zionist entity is on its way to disappearing,' and 'will be confronted by all nations in the region, especially Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq,' then why is Syria cooperating with the Americans on security issues and with acknowledgement from Washington, as the number of foreign [jihad] fighters heading to Iraq [via its borders] has decreased?... "...If the Syrians want to normalize relations with the U.S. and want the U.S. to mediate between Syria and Israel, then how can they fight on Ahmadinejad's side and agree with him on eliminating Israel?... If the idea of Syria negotiating with Israel is accepted by Iran, then why does Tehran denounce others as traitors?... "...[W]ho is deceiving whom? There is something not right about the Damascus-Tehran relationship today. The loud voice suggests that one side is nervous whilst the other is portraying something contrary to what is on the inside. Let us wait and see!"

Link

Arabia

Combating Al Qaeda Means Protecting Islam

2010-01-12

By Tariq Alhomayed Many among us ignored Al Qaeda's infiltration of Yemen despite the continuous warnings of the threat that this poses. As soon as the US President spoke about the Al Qaeda threat in Yemen, some people began to warn against US intervention. In fact they used this to blackmail the Yemeni government and expose it, internally and externally, and to criticize the Jordanians and the Saudis because of their cooperation with the West in the war on terror in a clear case of blackmail. The question here is: who has been harmed the most by what Al Qaeda is doing, the West or the Arabs and Muslims? Who is being subjected to harassment and suspected at the airports, Westerners or Arabs and Muslims? Who is facing difficulties in their studies and in their work, and whilst undergoing treatment or whilst on holiday, the West or the Arabs and Muslims? It is the Arabs and Muslims, of course, who have been suffering since the outbreak of violent terrorist acts as they have become suspects and they are being harassed more and more. As a result, we must realize that the war on terror has to be our war before anyone else's war. When we wage war on Al Qaeda we are protecting ourselves and our reputation and we are protecting our children who extremists are trying to turn into time bombs. Above all, we will be protecting our religion that Al Qaeda has hijacked. For instance, when Jordan cooperates with the West, or the Americans let us say, then they should be credited for this action. Are the Jordanians expected to wait until other violent explosions take place in their country like those that targeted their hotels, or should they wait for another Abu Musab al Zarqawi or Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi to rise from among them? The same applies to the Saudis; is Riyadh expected to remain silent in the face of intimidation and media incitement and let whoever wants to trade in the lives of our children do so, or should it wait for whoever to come out and carry out new destructive terrorist attacks in the country, or wait for a new Bin Laden or a new Abdulaziz al Muqrin to emerge? The game of treachery and branding [others] as traitors has been revealed and it must be confronted instead of going along with it or [merely] observing it. When the state cooperates with the international community this means that the state is doing its job. States do not negotiate with or seek to please terrorists. Above all, as mentioned previously, our duty is to protect our reputation and the reputation of our innocent religion against Al Qaeda and its actions. What we must realize is that every time we give in to intimidation and media incitement we give Al Qaeda and others more space to move about freely and, consequently, to recruit more of our children and target our stability and security, our reputation and the reputation of our religion. For that reason we say and we repeat that a serious ideological war, not a superficial war, is necessary to combat terror, its Sheikhs, its instigators, and its media. Equally, international cooperation is very important whether this is through training, [sharing] information or combating funding [of terrorism] and even cooperation in military operations. What we want to say is that we must not give into blackmail and campaigns of incitement and suspicion. In fact we must confront these campaigns and refute them for one very simple but important reason; when we fight Al Qaeda, physically and mentally, we are defending the reputation of our religion. It is our battle first and foremost. We must realize that and not be ashamed, and we must expose the instigators and the blackmailers whether they are states, groups or even individuals.

Link

Arabia

Disturbing in Yemen!

2009-12-31

By Tariq Alhomayed [Asharq al-Aswat] How disturbing was the initial statement attributed to a Yemeni source that was published in the Washington Post following the young Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab's failed attempt to blow up a US Delta plane. The official told the newspaper, "If and when the would-be bomber's alleged link to Yemen is officially identified, authorities will take immediate action." The source added that the Americans are yet to present any information [on the incident] to his country. What is worrying is that in our Arab world, there are still people among us who are asking for proof; as if all these crimes being committed in the name of religion and in our countries and elsewhere are not enough that we still [need to] look for evidence. It's as if we're talking about a shop burglary or an ordinary murder case. It is enough to look carefully at the initial response from Nigeria in comparison to the response from Yemen; Nigerian officials were the first to provide the media with information on the terrorist's identity and that in fact, his father was the first one to alert the US embassy of his son's intentions before the incident took place. Moreover, religious figures in Nigeria condemned the terrorist act and warned of its danger. Yemen, on the other hand, spoke about evidence and we have Sanaa admitting that the young man visited Yemen and stayed there on the pretext of studying the Arabic language! The problem here is that the size of Al Qaeda in Yemen and the spread of this group is no longer a secret. We have recently seen how some leaders of the organization are coming out openly in front of the television cameras and the Yemeni government itself revolted against Al Qaeda last week and carried out major operations against the organization; so why the hesitation and hypersensitivity? The comments made by a security official last Monday were comforting when, in response to the statement released by Al Qaeda that claimed [responsibility for] the failed attempt to blow up the US airplane, he stressed that his country, "will never be a safe haven for those killer terrorists and drug traffickers, and its [Yemen's] mountains will never be a Tora Bora for them." I have no doubt that Yemen wants to combat Al Qaeda but that will not happen if there is hesitation and hypersensitivity, especially as some regions in Yemen [already] pose more of a threat than Tora Bora. Al Qaeda is a plague, which [Yemen] should not be sensitive about declaring war upon and the first stage of that war is about information and exchanging information quickly. The best example here is the US Delta plane incident as it is evidence of a gross security error and negligence. The father of the young Nigerian man himself informed [authorities] of his son and the British refused him a visa to enter their country. However, the US security apparatus failed in using the information [it had] and only by the grace of God was a major disaster prevented. Today, after all the terrorist acts we have seen, it is no longer acceptable to justify terrorism or to be hyper sensitive about fighting terrorism because we have all become victims. It is true that Yemen needs friendly states to stand by it against terrorism but Yemen must firstly stand by itself by providing its friends with information, not only in terms of security but also in terms of the media in order to mobilize public opinion against terrorism and terrorists.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran, the Hard-Liners, and the Most Hard-Line

2009-12-30

[Asharq al-Aswat] By Tariq Alhomayed It is normal for Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah to defend of Hamas, and to make reference to Egypt with regards to the issue of [the construction of] the wall along the border with Gaza. This comes following [Hamas chief] Khalid Mishal's recent visit to Iran, and prior to this Hamas met with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and almost a month ago an Iranian official met with Hamas in Damascus. However what is strange is that Hassan Nasrallah's talk about Egypt comes at the same time that Ali Larijani was meeting with the Egyptian president in Cairo, and following this [meeting] he spoke to the media about the necessity of activating Egyptian -- Iranian relations, and also Arab -- Iranian relations, in order to reach a strategic relationship based upon an Arab -- Turkish -- Iranian alliance. Larijani's conciliatory talk completely contradicts the speech given by Nasrallah on the occasion of Ashura, in which he lectured Egypt and the Egyptians. Nothing can be understood from this other than that there are two trends reacting against each other in regional Iranian politics...two trends that were born from the womb of the [original] conservative trend, and they are the hard-line trend, and the most hard-line trend. The Iranian reformists are busy, and in fact have concentrated all their efforts on the internal struggle that has begun to develop in a concrete and substantial manner, and this indicates that something might happen there. The talk about a hard-line trend and the most hard-line trend in Iran is justified if we recall the course of events, especially those events that are connected to Iran in our region, and there is the contradiction of Larijani's position [towards Egypt and the Arabs] with Nasrallah who is associated with the most hard-line [trend] in Iran, particularly the Revolutionary Guards. However apart from Egypt, there is another example of this [contradiction], and that is the occupation of the Iraqi Fakka oil well [by Iran], which came at an awkward time for Iran's allies in Iraq, and was embarrassing to the attempts of some Iranian officials who wanted to improve their regime's image in our region. Of course there are the attempts made by Ahmadinejad and others, to accept uranium enrichment abroad during negotiations with the west on the nuclear issue, however this was an issue that Tehran soon backed down from in the face of internal pressure from the most hard-line [trend] in Iran. This is something that could cause the Islamic Republic serious difficulties with the West, and particularly the US, and this will become clearer over the course of the month. Therefore the internal division that has struck Iran seems to be causing larger cracks between the hard-line trend and the most hard-line trend, and this is something that will aid the west in dealing with Iran at a time when Tehran is in more danger than ever. It is clear that the most hard-line trend does not hesitate in moving forward to achieve its interests, the most prominent of which is removing all of those that stand in their way internally. This is something that increases Tehran's vulnerability, and everybody is expecting a dangerous event to take place as a result of this, especially the [reformist] Green movement is growing, and this proves that the movement is continuing its advance, without being concerned about being the Revolutionary Guards, or the Wali Al Faqih, and they are not concerned about what is happening abroad and continue to focus on the internal struggle that is now sweeping the cities, and not just the [political] circles.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran's Allies Have Reached the Tipping Point

2009-09-21

Tariq Alhomayed Iran has celebrated the propagandist Quds Day [Jerusalem Day] for years in order to demonstrate its alleged concern towards the Palestinian Cause, however what was new this year is that many Iranian citizens came out not to denounce Israel or America, rather the Iranian demonstrators came out to chant the words "No to Gaza and Lebanon...I will give my life for Iran." Michael Ledeen has been following this here. What is the significance of this? This means that Iran's allies in our region have reached the tipping point, for half the Iranian population is openly against them, leaving them reliant upon a regime whose internal legitimacy is weak, and weakening even further day after day. The demonstrations and dissention has not stopped in Iran, and today this is no longer merely present in Tehran, but has spread to other Iranian cities. Despite the claims of the regime that the dissension has decreased and declined, the anger and opposition has been present [in Iran] since Ahmadinejad's re-election. Clearly, the internal crisis that the Iranian regime is facing is both deep and dangerous, not just to the mullah's regime, but to those who stand behind it. The religious authority of the Iranian Supreme leader has begun to erode, and the Iranians have begun to challenge the authority of the Revolutionary Guards. The Revolutionary Guard became a part of the conflict, and the commander of the silent coup that took place in Iran by standing behind Ahmadinejad. The people of Iran have begun to deal with the Revolutionary Guard in the same manner that they used to deal with the forces of the Shah's regime prior to the Khomeini revolution. Reformist sources informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the Iranians have launched the boycott of goods imported by the Revolutionary Guards, such as rice, cigarettes, and other goods. This means that the Revolutionary Guards, who are able to seriously benefit from external sources, are now beginning to suffer from the internal conflict in Iran. All of this means that the Iranian regime, its Supreme Leader, and his military forces, are suffering from the loss of internal legitimacy. This has weakened the regime's position with regards to supporting its allies and agents in the region, whether they are groups or nations. In the end the [Iranian] regime cannot ignore this internal division in order to continue to provide external support, in fact [the issue of] external support may be part of an internal settlement in the future. This clarifies the difficult position which Iran's allies and agents in the region are currently in, as there is an internal Iranian rejection towards them, and this means that Tehran is unable to continue to provide them with unconditional support as was the case in the past. And so at the same time that Ahmadinejad was making his Quds Day speech in which he -- as usual -- attacked Israel and expressed his skepticism towards the Holocaust, thousands of Iranians came out chanting "No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran." Of course [Hezbollah chief] Hassan Nasrallah and others are unable to accuse half the population of Iran of being agents of Israel and the West, unless Nasrallah is more Iranian than the Iranians themselves. We must now closely monitor Iran's position, and the position of its allies in our region who have become struck by confusion. In fact I have been informed that only a few days ago a high-ranking member of Hamas was present in Saudi Arabia, and he informed an Arab figure that he is more eager towards Saudi Arabia and Egypt than any other country, and that he is ready to reconcile with Mahmoud Abbas.

Link

Arabia

Saudi Arabia: Terrorism with Degrees in Higher Education

2009-08-23

Tariq Alhomayed The title of this article not only intends to reveal that most members of the terrorist cell that Saudi Arabia discovered recently have higher education degrees, as this comes as no surprise, but also that terrorism is now being sponsored by states and the media, and political parties that talk about democracy. When we say it comes as no surprise that some of the terrorists have degrees in higher education, it is enough to make mention of the fact that Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al Zawahiri, is a qualified surgeon. However, it is odd when states and politicians defend and propagate terrorism and even justify it. When the 44-member terrorist cell was discovered in Riyadh -- most of whom have degrees in higher education and exploited their professional characters and charity work to fund terrorist operations -- some people attacked Saudi Arabia for the sake of justifying their own failures and the shortcomings in their own country. After the recent bombings in Iraq that targeted government buildings and claimed the lives of a large number of innocents, some people affiliated to Iran in Baghdad came out and attacked Saudi Arabia, falsely accusing it of standing in the way of stability in Iraq. And this was all with the help of Iranian media. If we are to highlight anything, it should be that Saudi Arabia revealed [the presence] of a terrorist cell on its land with photos and facts and Saudi public opinion, or rather international public opinion, was made aware of as much detail as possible (for security reasons) about the investigation and placed the facts in front of everybody, even if they were shocking. This is the most effective way to beat terrorism, as Riyadh is not embarrassed to say that there are academics who support terrorism, or professionals who exploit charity for the sake of evil. Do other people, in Iraq in particular, have the same courage to call things by their names? This is the best and most beneficial way for Iraq and the Iraqis to solve the country's problems, especially the faults in the political process, and to work towards reforming the country instead of justifying their failures and making comments about others. The best thing that Saudi Arabia did, or rather is still doing is that it is facing up to its problems, one of which is terrorism, with complete transparency and confidence. Therefore, revealing the testimonies of the accused members of the cell and that they took advantage of charity work is an important reminder to Saudis to pay close attention to anybody who claims to fear God and preaches, and to pay attention to anybody who claims to be doing charity work, especially as we are in the blessed month of Ramadan. It would have been more appropriate for those certain people in Iraq to embark on doing the same thing [as Saudi Arabia] in Baghdad in order to fight the facts and to say that the internal political failure, and acting based on the approach of sectarian quotas, and showing off for the sake of elections, will not benefit Iraq and the Iraqis. Who is violating Iraqi security in sensitive areas supposedly under the control of Nouri al Maliki's forces, and who are the ones who exploit their statuses as security figures to rob banks and what is it they want to fund? This is very important, especially as tracking money is considered one of the quickest ways to track down terrorist activity and destruction. It's best to face facts rather than use the issue of terrorism to settle political accounts. Therefore, don't be surprised at the emergence of terrorists with degrees in higher education as long as there are countries and politicians who are benefiting from terrorism to achieve their own limited goals.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More