The crisis in Qatar: yet another clumsy attempt by the Three Rogue States to weaken Iran (UPDATED)

horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Analysis by The Saker


First, a quick who’s who

We will probably never find out what truly was discussed between Trump, the Saudis and the Israelis, but there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results of these negotiations. How do I know that? Because Trump himself said so! As I mentioned in a recent column, Trump’s catastrophic submission to the Neocons and their policies have left him stuck with the KSA and Israel, two other rogue states whose power and, frankly, mental sanity, are dwindling away by the minute.


Qatar's ambassador must be sitting on a hot plate as he struggles to remain polite while Trump, the opportunistic bumbling idiot at the White House, suddenly rains insults and accusations on his country. Qatar is no angel; it has financed Takfiris all over the world and assisted in the destruction of Syria and Libya, but the attacks by Ryadh and Washington are beyond hypocrisy.


While the KSA and Qatar have had their differences and problems in the past, this time around the magnitude of the crisis is much bigger than anything the past. This is a tentative and necessarily rough outline of who is supporting whom:

Supporting the Saudis (according to Wikipedia) Supporting Qatar (according to me)
United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , Egypt , Maldives , Yemen (they mean the pro-Saudi regime in exile), Mauritania , Comoros , Libya (Tobruk government), Jordan , Chad , Djibouti , Senegal , United States , Gabon. Turkey, Germany, Iran.

The numbers are on the Saudi side, but the quality?


Questions, many questions

The situation is very fluid and all this might change soon, but do you notice something weird in the list above? Turkey and Germany are supporting Qatar even though the US is supporting the KSA. That’s to major NATO member states taking a position against the USA.

Next, look at the list supporting the Saudis: except for the USA and Egypt they are all militarily irrelevant (and the Egyptians won’t get militarily involved anyway). Not so for those opposing the Saudis, especially not Iran and Turkey. So if money is on the side of the Saudis, firepower is on the side of Qatar here.

Then, Gabon? Senegal? Since when are those two involved in Persian Gulf politics? Why are they taking sides in this faraway conflict? A quick look at the 10 conditions the Saudis demand that the Qataris fullfildoes not help us understand their involvement either:

  1. Immediate severance of diplomatic relations with Iran,
  2. Expulsion of all members of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas from Qatar,
  3. Freezing all bank accounts of Hamas members and refraining from any deal with them,
  4. Expulsion of all Muslim Brotherhood members from Qatar,
  5. Expulsion of anti-[P]GCC elements,
  6. Ending support for ‘terrorist organizations’,
  7. Stopping interference in Egyptian affairs,
  8. Ceasing the broadcast of the Al Jazeera news channel,
  9. Apologizing to all [Persian] Gulf governments for ‘abuses’ by Al Jazeera,
  10. Pledging that it (Qatar) will not carry out any actions that contradict the policies of the [P]GCC and adhering to its charter.

The Saudis also handed over a list of individuals and organizations they want banned (see here).

Looking at these conditions it becomes pretty clear that Iran and the Palestinians (especially Hamas) are high on the list of demands. But why would Gabon or Senegal care about this?

More interestingly, why is ISRAEL not listed as a country supporting the KSA?

As always, the Israelis themselves are much more honest about their role in all this. Well, maybe they don’t quite say “we done it” but they write articles like “Five reasons why Israel should care about the Qatar crisis” which lists all the reasons why the Israelis are delighted:

  1. It hurts Hamas
  2. It brings Israel closer to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf
  3. It shows US influence is back in the region
  4. It delegitimizes terrorism
  5. It bolsters Israel’s hand in general and Israel’s government in particular

That kind of honesty is quite refreshing, even if it is primarily for internal, Israeli, consumption. Quick check with a Palestinian source – yup, the Israelis are backing the KSA. This is hardly surprising, no matter how hard the western corporate media tries to not notice this.


What about the USA? Do they really benefit from this crisis?

The USA has what might possibly the largest USAF base worldwide in Qatar, the Al Udeid Air Base. Furthermore, the forward headquarters of United States CENTCOM are also located in Qatar. To say that these are crucial US infrastructures is an understatement – one could argue that these are the most important US military facilities anywhere in the world outside the United States. Thus one would logically conclude that the very last thing the US would want is any type of crisis or even tensions anywhere near such vital facilities yet it quite clear that the Saudis and the Americans are acting in unison against Qatar. This makes no sense, right? Correct. But now that the US has embarked on a futile policy of military escalation in Syria it should come as no surprise that the two main US allies in the region are doing the same thing.
...
Besides, was there ever a time with the Trump Administration’s policies in the Middle-East made any logical sense at all? During the election campaign they were, shall we say, 50/50 (excellent on ISIS, plain stupid about Iran). But ever since the January coup against Flynn and Trump’s surrender to the Neocons all we have seen in one form of delusional stupidity after another.

Objectively, the crisis around Qatar is not good at all for the USA. But that does not mean that an Administration which has been taken over by hardcore ideologues is willing to accept this objective reality. What we have here is a very weak Administration running a rapidly weakening country desperately trying to prove that it has still a lot of weight to throw around. And if that is, indeed, the plan, it is a very bad one, one bound to fail and one which will result in a lot of unintended consequences.


Back to the real world

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat he have here is a severe case of smoke and mirrors and what is really taking place is, yet again, a clumsy attempt by the Three Rogue States (USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel) to weaken Iran.

Of course, there are other contributing factors here, but the big deal, the core of the problem, is what I would call the rapidly growing “gravitational pull of Iran” and the corresponding “orbital decay” of the entire region closer and closer to Iran. And just to make things worse, the Three Rogue States are visibly and inexorably losing their influence over the region: the USA in Iraq and Syria, Israel in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in Yemen – all three have embarked on military operations which ended up being abject failures and which, far from showing that these countries were powerful, showed how weak they really are. Even worse is the fact that Saudis are facing a severe economic crisis with no end in sight, while Qatar has become the richest country on the planet, mostly thanks to an immense gas field Qatar it shares with Iran.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t could appear that Qatar is not such a big threat to Saudi Arabia after all, being – unlike Iran – another Salafi country, but in reality this is very much part of the problem: over the past couple of decades the Qataris have felt their new wealth give them means completely out of proportion with their physical size: not only did they create the most influential media empire of the Middle-East, al-Jazeera, but they even embarked on a foreign policy of their own which made them key players in the crises in Libya, Egypt and Syria. And yes, Qatar did become a prime supporter of terrorism, but so are the United States, Saudi Arabia or Israel, so that is just a hollow pretext. The real Qatari ‘crime’ was to refuse, on purely pragmatic reasons, to join into the massive anti-Iranian campaign imposed on the region by Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unlike the long list of countries who had to voice their support for the Saudi position, the Qataris could had the means to simply say “no” and chart its own course.

What the Saudis now are hoping for is that Qatar will yield to the threats and that the Saudi-lead coalition will prevail without having a “hot” war against Qatar. How likely they are to achieve this result is anyone’s guess, but I am personally rather dubious (more about this later).


What about Russia in all that?

The Russians and the Qataris have butted heads many times over, especially over Syria and Libya where Qatar played an extremely toxic role being the prime financiers of various takfiri terrorist groups. Furthermore, Qatar is Russia’s number one competitor in many LNG (liquefied natural gas) markets. There were also other crises between the two countries, including what appears to be a Russian assassination of the Chechen terrorist Leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and the subsequent torture and trial of two Russian Embassy employees accused of being involved in the assassination (they were sentenced to life in prison and eventually sent back to Russia). Still, the Russians and the Qataris are eminently pragmatic peoples and the two countries mostly maintained a cordial, if careful, relationship which even included some joint economic ventures.

It is highly unlikely that Russia will intervene directly in this crisis unless, of course, Iran is directly attacked. The good news is that such a direct attack on Iran is unlikely as none of the Three Rogue States really have any stomach to take on Iran (and Hezbollah). What Russia will do is use her soft power, political and economic, to try to slowly reel in Qatar into the Russian orbit according to the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to “turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies”. Just like with Turkey, the Russians will gladly help, especially since they know that this help will buy them some very precious influence in the region.


Iran, the real target of it all

The Iranians are now openly saying that the recent terrorist attack in Tehran was ordered by Saudi Arabia. Technically speaking, that means that Iran is now at war. In reality, of course, Iran being the real local superpower is acting with calm and restraint: the Iranians fully understand that this latest terrorist attack is a sign of weakness, if not desperation, and that the best reaction to it is to act the same way the Russians reacted to the bombings in Saint Petersburg: stay focused, calm and determined. Just like the Russians, the Iranians have now also offered to send food to Qatar but it is unlikely that they will intervene militarily unless the Saudis really go crazy. Besides, with Turkish forces soon deployed in Qatar, the Iranians have no real need for any displays of military might. I would argue that the simple fact that neither the USA nor Israel have dared to directly attack Iran since 1988 (since the shooting down by the US Navy of the Iran Air Flight 655 Airbus) is the best proof of the real Iranian military power.


So where are we heading?

That is truly impossible to predict, if only because the actions of the Three Rogue States can hardly be described as “rational”. Still, assuming nobody goes crazy, my personal feeling is that Qatar will prevail and that the latest Saudi attempt to prove how powerful the Kingdom still is will fail, just like all the previous ones (in Bahrain 2011, Syria 2012 or Yemen 2015). Time is also not on the side of the Saudis. As for the Qataris, they have already clearly indicated that they are unwilling to surrender and that they will fight. The Saudis have already taken the outrageous decision to impose a blockade of a fellow Muslim country during the holy month of Ramadan. Will they really now further escalate and commit an act of aggression against a fellow Muslim country during that month? They might, but it is hard to believe that even they could be that ignorant of Muslim public opinion. But if they don’t, then their operation will lose a lot of momentum while the Qataris will be given time to prepare politically, economically, socially and militarily. Qatar might be small, and the Qataris themselves not very numerous, but their immense pockets allow them to quickly line up any amount of suppliers and contractors willing to help them out. This is a case where the famous “market forces” will act to Qatar’s advantage.

The Qatari Foreign Minister is expected in Moscow on Saturday and it is pretty obvious what the talks will be about: while Russia will not put all her political weight to support the Qataris, the Kremlin might accept to become a mediator between the KSA and Qatar. If that happens, that would be the ultimate irony: the main outcome of the Saudi-Israeli-US operation will make Russia an even more influential player in the region. As for Qatar itself, the outcome of this crisis will probably articulate itself along Nietzschean lines: “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.”


Conclusion

I see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I think that it will fail. For example, I just don’t see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one of their most powerful “weapons”. Nor do I see them breaking all diplomatic relations with Iran as those two states are joined at the hip by the immense South Pars gas condensate field. The immense wealth of the Qataris also means that they have very powerful supporters worldwide who right now, as I write these lines, are probably on the phone making calls to very influential people and indicating to them in no unclear terms that Qatar is not to be messed with.

If anything this crisis will only serve to push Qatar further into the warm embrace of other countries, including Russia and Iran, and it will further weaken the Saudis.

The Three Rogue States have the same problem: their military capability to threaten, bully or punish is rapidly eroding and fewer and fewer countries out there fear them. Their biggest mistake is that instead of trying to adapt their policies to this new reality, they always chose to double-down over and over again, even though they fail each time, making them look even weaker and their initial predicament even worse. This is a very dangerous downward spiral and yet the Three Rogue States seem unable to devise any other policy.

I will end this column by comparing what Presidents Putin and Trump are doing these days as I find this comparison highly symbolic of the new era we are living in:

Trump, after bombing a few “technicals” (4×4 trucks with a machine gun) and trucks in Syria, proceeded to tweet that Comey was a liar and a leaker.

As for Putin, he participated in the latest meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which welcomed both Pakistan and India as full members. The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world’s GDP. You can think of it as the “other G8”, or the “G8 that matters”.


The Russian version of the G8: the SCO, the “G8 that matters”

I submit that this quick comparison of agenda really says it all.

—The Saker


UPDATE1: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now telling the Saudis to ‘cool it’.  The Saudi-Israeli plan is already beginning to collapse.


Watch the latest video at <a href="//video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a><span id="mce_marker" data-mce-type="bookmark" data-mce-fragment="1">​</span>

This column was written for the Unz Review 



About the Author
The Saker, a former Russian-born geopolitical/military analyst is the founding editor of the Saker network of sites dedicated to strategic analysis of contending power blocs, and in particular the US-led war for global domination and against Russia. 

APPENDIX 1—Noteworthy
WHY Saudi Arabia Is Our Friend And Iran Is Our Enemy (explained by Jimmy Dore)


Observe closely the convolutions by a White House press hack as he tries to explain the indefensible, the abject, corrupt (and criminal) US policy in the Middle East, always promoting war against innocent nations (Syria, Libya, Iran, etc.) while favoring rotten royal mafias like the Saudi monarchy, sitting atop a lake of oil (money which they waste on buying expensive weapons from the US, thereby bribing Washington’s MIC elites into unconditional support). It’s all cynical and hypocritical to the core, but it is a regime of crime supported by the curtain of lies and disinformation operated by the complicit presstitutes in the Western media.

Published on Jun 3, 2017

The official reasons from the US government are lies. Jimmy Dore, and Steve Oh discuss on the latest episode of Aggressive Progressives. Watch the full Aggressive Progressives episode here: https://tytnetwork.com/2017/06/01/agg…


horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationI see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I think that it will fail. For example, I just don’t see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one of their most powerful “weapons”. Nor do I see them breaking all diplomatic relations with Iran as those two states are joined at the hip by the immense South Pars gas condensate field.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel



BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

My examination of 54 prominent international examples of what U.S. President Donald Trump is presumably referring to when he uses his often-repeated but never defined phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” indicates that it is exclusively a phenomenon that is financed by the U.S. government’s Sunni fundamentalist royal Arab ‘allies’ and their subordinates, and not at all by Iran or its allies or any Shiites at all. Each of the perpetrators was either funded by those royals, or else inspired by the organizations, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, that those royals fund, and which are often also armed by U.S.-made weapons that were funded by those royals. In other words: the U.S. government is allied with the perpetrators. 


Saudi King Salman-bin-Abdulaziz-Al-Saud, one of the main figures behind the Middle East mess and key sponsor of terrorism. A big ally of the US of course.


Though U.S. President Donald Trump blames Shias, such as the leaders of Iran and of Syria, for what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism,” and he favors sanctions etc. against them for that alleged reason, those Shia leaders and their countries are actually constantly being attacked by Islamic terrorists, and this terrorism is frequently perpetrated specifically in order to overthrow them (which the U.S. government supports even overtly, such as in the case of Bashar al-Assad). Furthermore, all of that terrorism and those attacks, not only against the U.S. and Iran but against all nations except for Israel, are perpetrated not by Shia such as the U.S. President alleges, but instead by fundamentalist Sunnis, and they are financed by the very same fundamentalist Sunni Arab leaders that President Trump calls America’s allies against “radical Islamic terrorism.” 
 ..
My review of well-known Islamic terrorist incidents shows that, other than terrorism inside and against Israel, all Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by fundamentalist Sunnis, none of it is perpetrated by Shia, either fundamentalist or not, though the U.S. government and its allies blame Shia countries for “radical Islamic terrorism” — even while the U.S. government and its officials know full well that only  fundamentalist Sunnis are actually behind it. Israel, the Sauds, and their client-nations — and U.S. weapons-manufacturing firms such as Lockheed Martin — benefit, but the publics get slaughtered by these terrorist groups, which are financed by America’s ‘allies’, and armed largely by the U.S.
 ..
The exceptional case is Israel. Specifically in that country, Al Quds Brigades in the Gaza Strip are “majority funded by Iran”, but, even in Israel, America’s allies contribute to the terrorism. The dominant Hamas in the Gaza Strip is not Shiite, but is instead strictly fundamentalist Sunni, with the “donor bodies located in Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, the United States, United Arab Emirates, Italy and France”. (That’s most of the strongly U.S.-allied countries.) The other major terrorist organization in Israel is Hezbollah, which is fundamentalist Shia, and is funded by Shia throughout the world, not only in Iran (such as the U.S. government frequently implies, though it’s false to attribute Hezbollah to Iran, instead of to the world’s wealthy Shia everywhere). 
 ..
However, outside Israel, all of the Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by fundamentalist Sunni groups, such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their regional affiliate organizations, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba in India.
 ..
The countries that the U.S. government rails against and imposes economic sanctions against, are the non-sponsors of radical Islamic terrorism (except in Israel), and are themselves the chief victims of it, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Those countries’ governments, and Shia populations, are purely victims of Islamic terrorism (sometimes beheaded for being so), not perpetrators of it (except, occasionally, against Israel — but, even there, they don’t have any monopoly, whereas Islamic terrorism against countries other than Israel is virtually, if not entirely, a Sunni fundamentalist monopoly). 
 ..
Wikipedia keeps a “List of Islamist Terrorist Attacks”, which currently describes 479 Islamic terrorist incidents. I have looked into the perpetrators of 54 of these incidents that struck me as having been especially publicized in the U.S., and that thus might reasonably be expected to have formed the American public’s general impression of Islamic terrorism, if the U.S. is a democracy (and so the public in the U.S. would be informed by an honest press), but I excluded all incidents that were against Israel, because if the U.S. is a democracy, then the U.S. public wouldn’t be focused on any single foreign country’s experience with Islamic terrorism, but would instead be concerned mainly about the national (U.S.), and then secondarily the global international, problem — no one foreign country. Every one of the perpetrators, so far as I was able to determine from the news-reports, has been fundamentalist Sunni (affiliated with, or else inspired by, known fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organizations). In none of the 54 instances was any connection at all indicated to the Shiite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which group focuses solely against Israel, nor connected to any other Shia organization. 
 ..
Here are those 54 incidents (and for the basic details about each one, see that wikipedia list of all 479 attacks), all of which would reasonably be referred to by the phrase (if used by an American) “radical Islamic terrorism,” if any terrorist attack would be referred to by that commonly-used-by-Trump phrase:

U.S., 11 September 2001, 4 hijacked airliners
U.S., 4 July 2002, shooting at Los Angeles International Airport
Indonesia, 12 October 2002, Bali bombings
Russia, 23 October 2002, Moscow theater hostage crisis
Russia, 12 May 2003, Znamenskoye Grozny suicide bombing
Indonesia, 5 August 2003, Marriott Hotel bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta
Turkey, 15-20 November 2003, Istanbul bombings
Philippines, 27 February 2004, sinking of Super Ferry by Abu Sayyaf
Turkey, 9 March 2004, pipe-bomb attack in Istanbul restaurant
Spain, 11 March 2004, Madrid train bombings
Russia, 31 August 2004, Moscow Metro bombing
Russia, 1-3 September 2004, Beslan school hostage crisis
Indonesia, 9 September 2004, Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta
UK, 7 July 2005, London bombings
Indonesia, 1 October 2005, Bali, Jimbaran, and Kuta, bombings
India, 11 July 2006, Mumbai train bombings
India, 13 May 2007, Jaipur bombings
India, 26 July 2008, Ahmedabad bombings
India, 13 September 2008, Delhi bombings
India, 26 November 2008, Mumbai attacks in the financial center
U.S., 1 June 2009, Little Rock recruiting office shooting
Indonesia, 17 July 2009, Marriott and Ritz-Carlton bombings in Mega Kuningan
U.S., 5 November 2009, Fort Hood shooting
Russia, 29 March 2010, Moscow Metro bombings
Iran, 15 July 2010, Zahedan bombings
Egypt, 1 January 2011, Alexandria bombing
Russia, 24 January 2011, Domodedovo International Airport bombing
Egypt, 7 May 2011, Attacks on Imbaba Coptic church
China, 30 July 2011, Knife and bomb attacks in Kashgar
Bosnia and Herzogovina, 28 October 2011, U.S. Embassy shooting
Nigeria, 25 December 2011, church bombings in four cities
Russia, 3 May 2012, Makhachkala attack
Libya, 11 September 2012, Benghazi attack on U.S. Consulate
U.S., 15 April 2013, Boston Marathon bombings
Syria, August 2014, ISIS massacres 700 residents of Deir Ezzor
France, 7-9 January 2015, Charlie Hebdo shootings
Nigeria, 8 January 2015, Baga massacre
Denmark, 14 February 2015, Copenhagen shootings
Nigeria, 26-30 June 2015, Boko Haram rampage kills 200+
France, 13 November 2015, Paris bombings and shootings
Belgium, 22 March 2016, Brussels bombings
Iraq, 3 July 2016, Baghdad bombings
France, 14 July 2016, Nice truck-attack
Germany, 18 July 2016, Wuerzburg knife-hatchet attack
Germany, 24 July 2016, Ansbach suicide-bombing
France, 26 July 2016, Rouen church attacks
U.S., 28 November 2016, Ohio State U. car-attack
Sweden, 7 April 2017, Drottninggatan truck-attack
Egypt, 9 April 2017, Coptic churches attacked in several cities
France, 20 April 2017, Champs-Élysées shooting-rampage
UK, 22 May 2017, Manchester Arena massacre
Egypt, 26 May 2017, Minya shootings of Copts
UK, 3 June 2017, Knife-attacks on London Bridge
France, 6 June Notre Dame knife attacks

100% of those attacks were by fundamentalist Sunnis.
 ..
That is not intended to constitute an all-inclusive count of all terrorist instances, but to be instead a count of instances that I, an American, recollected seeing reported since the time of the 11 September 2001 attacks against America, and, thus, as being reasonably what is referred to by Trump’s often-repeated phrase, “radical Islamic terrorism.” 
..
The conclusion that I draw from those 54 instances is that U.S. President Trump [and the US establishment] is himself strongly allied with the chief international funders of what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism”. For example, when ISIS on June 7th did deadly gun and suicide-bomb attacks against Iran’s parliament in Tehran, Trump immediately responded by blaming Iran’s government for that, by saying, “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.” Later that same day, the pro-Saud, anti-Shiite, CNN reported, “Iran's Revolutionary Guards say Saudi Arabia supported ISIS in the deadly twin attacks in Tehran on Wednesday, an accusation likely to infuriate the Saudi kingdom amid high tensions in the region.” (In other words: if the Sauds attack Iran afterward, they’ll just be doing what the Iranian government should have expected — and the Sauds would not, in that case, be doubling-up on their own hatred and aggression against Iran and against Shia generally, such as in Yemen and Syria.) 
..
Contrast this Trump-response versus the way Iran had responded to the 9/11 attacks against Americans: “After 9/11, Iran not only denounced the attacks and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, but also offered to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of differences with no preconditions.” (George W. Bush responded to that initiative by Iran, only slightly less hostilely than Trump did to the attacks by ISIS in Tehran. The names of U.S. Presidents change far more frequently than U.S. government policies do. Trump, Obama, and Bush, are merely different brand-names for the same basic governmental product. The U.S. aristocracy remains much the same regardless of the nominal President etc.)
..
In addition, however, I should note that Trump’s phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” presumes the existence of such a thing as “moderate Islamic terrorism,” and that Trump’s remaining admirers evidently don’t care about, nor even notice, such ugly, or even stupid, implications of this phrase that he often uses. He would be better advised to remove the term “radical” from it. He might as well distinguish between “radical” versus “moderate” genocides, as talk about “radical” versus “moderate” terrorism. But there is no evidence that his followers even notice that ugly absurdity from him.
..
The evidence is clear and overwhelming, that the U.S. government is allied with the people who fund international Islamic terrorist groups, except for the few Islamic terrorist groups that perpetrate their attacks in or otherwise against Israel. At least in this regard, the U.S. government is clearly anti-American (i.e., against the American people), but the owners of U.S. weapons-manufacturing firms benefit from it, and so too do Israel and the owners of the fundamentalist Sunni countries that are treated by the U.S. government as ‘allies’ but might perhaps more accurately be referred to (along with Israel’s aristocracy) as America’s “masters.”
..

MAIN COVER IMAGE: The Saudi royals and their entourage. A force for backwardness and evil in the world. 


About the author

EricZuesseThey're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

horiz-long grey
uza2-zombienation
Though U.S. President Donald Trump blames Shias, such as the leaders of Iran and of Syria, for what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism,” and he favors sanctions etc. against them for that alleged reason, those Shia leaders and their countries are actually constantly being attacked by Islamic terrorists, and this terrorism is frequently perpetrated specifically in order to overthrow them (which the U.S. government supports even overtly, such as in the case of Bashar al-Assad). Furthermore, all of that terrorism and those attacks, not only against the U.S. and Iran but against all nations except for Israel, are perpetrated not by Shia such as the U.S. President alleges, but instead by fundamentalist Sunnis, and they are financed by the very same fundamentalist Sunni Arab leaders that President Trump calls America’s allies against “radical Islamic terrorism.” 


[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Qatar and the forty thieves

horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

by Ghassan Kadi
THE SAKER






The sudden, unprovoked and coordinated outrage of Middle East regional powers, as well as international powers, against Qatar is something akin to a story in “Fables de La Fontaine”. With a bit of a twist, it resembles the story of “The Animals Seized with the Plague”.

For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with this fable, the animals convened to find out why they were struck by the plague. One by one, the big predators made their confessions about their hunting, killing and ravaging adventures, but they were forgiven and vindicated. Then a donkey admitted that he once a mouthful of grass from someone’s pasture, and for this act, the donkey was named as THE culprit, killed and sacrificed to save the rest of the animals from the wrath of the gods.

Qatar is not as innocent as La Fontaine’s donkey, but who are those who are passing judgement?

The Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) clearly has his eyes on the ailing Saudi economy and stature. An invasion and takeover of Qatar can put Saudi Arabia in the position of being on par with Russia in terms of having the world’s largest reserves of both petrol and gas combined, and not petrol alone. This is a badly needed stripe on the shoulder that MBS can use, and this on its own is a very lucrative prospect. But has Trump given him the go ahead to march his troops into Qatar? If the crisis keeps escalating at its current rate, we shall find out the answer to this question in the not too distant future.

Let us get this straight. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not ideological. Even though Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and helped former Egyptian MB President Mursi and continues to support and fund the now outlawed MB within Egypt (and Saudi Arabia), in principle, the ideology of the MB is not drastically different from the Saudi Wahhabi version.

And at the time that Qatar’s Al-Jazeera was allowing Muslim clerics like Egyptian-born Qardawi to call for Jihadi recruits to go and fight in Syria, Saudi Arabia was allowing Syrian-born Ar’our alongside many other Saudi clerics to use Saudi televised media to do just the same. As a matter of fact, many Saudi clerics have used Al-Jazeera to vent their hatred for Syria and for canvassing recruitments.

What is interesting in all of this is the following current amazing political mosaic:

  1. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both pushing for different forms of Muslim fundamentalism, but they are emerging as mortal enemies.
  2. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have both supported and sponsored terrorism that became known as Islamic terrorism, despite the Saudi accusation that the sponsorship was only Qatar-based.
  3. Qatar is principally one of the nations that form the Saudi-led anti-Yemen coalition.
  4. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are just a tad away from engaging in a war, but they have united views about being enemies of Syria.
  5. Erdogan is a friend of Saudi Arabia, but a supporter of Qatar and of the Egyptian MB.
  6. Qatar is a dedicated enemy of Syria, but accused to be close to Iran, Syria’s friend.
  7. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are both allies of the USA and the USA has a base in Qatar that it used as a launch pad against Iraq.
  8. Trump, who has a base in Qatar, now says that Qatar has been sponsoring terrorism.
  9. Hamas supports the MB and remains close to Qatar, even though under MB President Mursi, the Egyptian siege of Gaza was intensified.

One could add more to that interesting mosaic, especially if other players are to be included in the equation. Such is the “logic” of the Middle East, but the West is not any better or more rational; allegedly fighting terrorism with one hand and feeding it with the other.

What is most ominous in the sudden and virtually global anti-Qatar stance is the stark similarity with previous situations. Gaddafi and Assad were never really regarded as friends of the West, but there was a time when Gaddafi was accepted and established good relationships with Britain, France and Italy before they suddenly joined the anti-Gaddafi tsunami and decided to join the plot. Likewise, Assad was accepted by the West, and has in fact partaken in international events like the funeral of the late Pope John Paul II. He was also on very good terms with Erdogan before Erdogan decided to stab him in the back. And how can we mention Assad and Gaddafi without remembering Saddam and Mubarak?

What is different in those scenarios was that the fate of Assad was sealed by his people, and the support he received from his people and friends of Syria, but what is the likelihood of the Qatari Royals receiving such a support from their popular base? In any event, the whole population of Qatar is in the vicinity of a quarter million, they never had any clout in the past, and they won’t have any in the future.


Doha skyline.

What is also of interest is that long before the discovery of oil and gas in the region, “states” like Qatar and Bahrain depended mainly on the pearl trade, and a quick search on any Internet search engine reveals a long history of tribal wars and rivalries between them as well as with Al Saud during the early days of the birth of Saudi Arabia.

Who is fighting who in the Middle East and for what reason exactly is not a question that many political leaders want to answer. The bottom line here is that as the world is getting more materialistic and audacious, principles and ideologies grow increasingly marginalized, and the struggle for power is becoming more transparent. Admittedly, this struggle is as ancient as ancient Rome and beyond, but today’s society is meant to be developed and civilised. Humanity has formed the United Nations with international law to supposedly be the watchdog for the activities of nations who breach its charter on human rights and world peace issues, but it has sadly become a ploy in the hands of big powers.

Ancient Romans did what was good for Rome, without having to apologize about it. Trump has gone the full circle in his “America first” doctrine, but he shamelessly declares war on terror from the financial capital of terror; Riyadh.

Qatar is definitely no angel. The small young state which is much closer to being a big corporation, an outpost more than being a nation, seems to have run its course towards self-destruction. It played big, and with fire, and the fire it lit is now turning back to burn it.

But neither the whole of Saudi Arabia nor the young ambitious prince MBS seem to be learning. With all the upheaval around them, the rise and fall of Arab leaders, the conspiracies they have played with their American partners against other Arab and Muslim leaders, the Saudis are totally oblivious to the scenario of an impending premonition that they themselves could be next when their chips are down. If anything, it is a question of time.

Fact remains that Qatar and its former allies and growing number of enemies are like Sinbad’s infamous forty thieves; they are all partners in crime. And just like the former “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was predicted to crumble and crash, and it did, so will the forty thieves. Even FIFA seems now to be reconsidering its decision for Qatar to host the World Cup in 2020! Since when, we must ask, did FIFA respond in such manner to political squabbles and Saudi statements and accusations of other states? And if FIFA’s concern is principled, then why didn’t FIFA act responsibly when rumours of corruption were raised regarding the manner in which Qatar won the World Cup bid?

But unlike the few green bottles standing on the wall that fall one after another, the forty thieves can sometimes rebirth themselves and wear a different hat, or in this case a different Koufia and headband, but just like La Fontaine’s donkey, there is nothing that Qatar can do to get off the hook. A decision seems to have already been made that the royal Qatari headband will soon bite the dust, but not many tears will be shed.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

$27.95


About the Author
The author is a geopolitical analyst specializing on Middle East and power bloc confrontations. 


horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat is different in those scenarios was that the fate of Assad was sealed by his people, and the support he received from his people and friends of Syria, but what is the likelihood of the Qatari Royals receiving such a support from their popular base? In any event, the whole population of Qatar is in the vicinity of a quarter million, they never had any clout in the past, and they won’t have any in the future.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Let’s Face It: Western-Backed Radical Islamists Are Dangerous

pale blue horiz


Column: Society | Region: Central Asia

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

It is foolish to think that being raised by parents who have participated in terrorism cannot play a role in influencing a child to eventually become a terrorist. Yet, one of the most important details about the terrorist who killed 22 innocent concert goers in Manchester, just a few days prior to the death US foreign policy strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, is being overlooked. The terrorist, Salman Abedi, was the child of Libyans who had worked with the United States and the United Kingdom against the Islamic Socialist Government of Moammar Gaddaffi.


When ISIS held Palmyra it used its magnificent amphitheater to stage a mass execution—murder—of Syrian soldiers. The US press barely blinked.

Abedi’s father had fought against Gaddafi as part of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. NATO bombs had backed them up on the battlefield, and US made weapons had been supplied to them in order to topple the socialist government and reduce Libya to chaos and misery. Before conducting his ruthless terrorist attack, and in the process losing his own life, Abedi himself had gone to his parent’s home country to coordinate with the victorious Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a strong force in Libya now that the Islamic Socialist government has been demolished.

It appears that Salman Abedi was yet another western-backed radical Islamist who took up the family business. Like so many other recent terrorists, he was the child of extremists backed by the United States to topple independent governments. Though Brzezinski is now dead, the impact of the policies he engineered and mastered will live on.


Western-Backed Radical Islamists – A Pattern of Terrorism

After Afghanistan’s 1978 Saur Revolution, led by the People’s Democratic Party, the United States began working with militant religious Afghans who opposed the secular government. The heir to a wealthy Saudi construction firm, Osama Bin Laden, was drafted for the purposes of championing the cause and recruiting Muslims around the world to join in.The Soviet Union sent troops to defend the People’s Democratic Party.

The late Zbigniew Brzezinski bragged about his efforts to topple the People’s Democratic Party. He said: “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity to give the USSR its Vietnam War.”

Brzezinski had engineered US support for anti-Soviet uprisings in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and elsewhere. His career working behind the scenes to craft foreign policy involved manipulating artists, youth, and other dissident elements in Soviet aligned countries. However, in Afghanistan, Brzezinski suddenly had a new constituency to fight in his envisioned “Permanent Revolution” against independent, socialist, and nationalist governments: Wahabbi Muslims.

The United States escalated its support to anti-Soviet and anti-democratic Afghans after the Soviet Union’s intervention. Among the Afghans who opposed the Soviet Union’s presence was Siddique Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen, who eventually became the perpetrator of the Pulse Night Club Shooting. The father of Ahmad Rahami, the New Jersey bomber, was also among the US aligned, anti-Soviet, anti-democratic, fanatically religious faction of Afghans.

What Brzezinski called the “Afghan Trap” was part of a bigger strategy of utilizing Saudi Arabia to radicalize Muslims in Central Asia to oppose the Soviet Union. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with its strict Wahabbist interpretation of the Islamic faith, become a center of recruitment and propaganda.

For many years the United States and Saudi Arabia armed radical muslims in Chechnya, who worked to break this historically Islamic region away from the Soviet Union. Among the anti-Soviet Chechens were the parents of the Tsarnvev bombers, who conducted the infamous Boston Bombings in 2013.

So many of the terrorists who have conducted recent murderous attacks in western countries are the children of US backed anti-Communist Islamists. Their extremist Muslim parents, enlisted to fight the Soviet Union, the Afghan People’s Democratic Republic, or the Islamic Socialist Government of Libya were rewarded for their efforts with visas. In so many recent cases, their children grow up in the United States or Britain and eventually commit acts of terrorism.

It’s apparent that these radical islamists, of which there are thousands and thousands in the United States and Britain, are very dangerous. This particular demographic seems to be particularly susceptible to the “radicalization” and psychosis that leads to horrendous acts of terrorism.

The point is not to create sympathy for such a person. The crimes committed by the Mateens, Tsarnevs, Rahamis, and Abedis deserve no sympathy. However, in the interests of preventing these kinds of terrorist attacks, we must look into the makeup of radical islamists. What about their background makes them predisposed to terrorism and mass murder?


Same Terrorism, Different Countries

Well, first of all, let’s remember what their parents did before coming to the United States.

While the US public was led to believe that these were mystical holy warriors, fighting for freedom in the mountains, the actual deeds of US backed Islamic fighters were quite atrocious. One of the pastimes of US and Saudi backed fighters in Afghanistan was acid attacks on women not wearing headscarves. Women lived in terror of not being covered up, knowing that if seen without head covering, they could be permanently disfigured by radical islamists, who were violently imposing their Wahabbi or Salafi interpretation of Islam onto society.

Afghan Mujihadeen also executed members of the Democratic Youth League of Afghanistan who conducted its literacy campaign. Often the corpse of a young Afghan would be hung in a public place, to terrify others as to the consequence for teaching women to read or in any way cooperating with the People’s Democratic government.

In addition to these acts of terrorism targeting individuals, the Mujihadeen were known to commit bombings, mass shootings of civilians, and other typical acts of terrorism. The same for anti-Gaddafi Libyans and Chechen Islamist Seperatists. These extremists were known to blow themselves up in crowded places, or open fire on random crowds of civilians in regions sympathetic to the government they opposed. If an individual died in the process of killing Marxists or Socialists or Atheists, he was was deemed to be a martyr for Islam.

The actions that Omar Mateen, Ahmad Rahami, Salman Abedi, and the Tsarnaev brothers conducted in the United States and Britain are not at all different from the kind of actions their parents engaged in. The only difference is geography.

However, while US media accurately portrays the horror of these actions in the US and Britain, these actions were romanticized in Afghanistan, Libya, and Chechnya.

During the 1980s, there was a huge effort to romanticize the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. The 1987 James Bond film “The Living Daylights” was dedicated to them. CBS news was caught airing fake battle footage, staged to portray the Mujahideen as romantic freedom fighters.

Libya’s “revolutionaries” along with Chechnya’s “freedom fighters” received a similar propaganda cover from the western press. In US media discourse, bombing concerts and shooting up dance clubs in the US or the UK is called “terrorism.” Doing it in Gaddaffi’s Libya, the Soviet Union, or Democratic Afghanistan was called “fighting for freedom.”

The radical islamists who conducted horrendous terrorist attacks in the west, all grew up in households with parents who undoubtedly bragged to them about committing such atrocities, and also carried the psychological trauma of witnessing and participating in such events. Imagine a child growing up around parents who spend their days bragging to them of all the “infidels” they slaughtered, and on many night awaken in screams and cold sweats, haunted by flashbacks and PTSD.


Religious Fanatics in a Secular Playground

Furthermore, the Afghans and Chechens who were mobilized to oppose the Soviet Union, and the Libyans who were mobilized to oppose Gaddaffi, seemed to be primarily motivated by religion. The primary grievance against these governments was not a lack of democracy or western style markets, but rather, a lack of religion. This indicates that the parents of the radical islamists, who took up guns and killed people in the hopes of toppling a secular government, are most likely deeply conservative and religious people.

The United States and Britain today are not exactly the ideal environment for such people. While the Mujihadeen disfigured women for not having their faces covered, partial and sometimes even complete nudity is widely tolerated in public places in western countries. Prominently displayed billboards show women’s breasts, buttocks, stomachs. Prime time TV broadcasts portray sexual intimacy. Homosexuality is increasingly tolerated, with gay marriage being legal, and LGBT couples displaying intimacy toward each other in public settings.

In such an environment, the radical islamist is most likely being told by his parents about the sinfulness and immorality of the society around him. His parents may not allow him to even make a crass joke, while the society around him is filled with nudity and pornography.

The society around him reflects the blatant opposite of what he is being raised to believe. The child is given the choice of either rejecting his upbringing, or hiding with his parents in an enclave of religious purity.

He is constantly being tempted by the world around him, and in the process, having his relationship with his family put into jeopardy. In order to maintain his fanatical beliefs and remain on good terms with his family, he must learn to have deep contempt for the society he lives in. In such circumstances, the fact that his parents received US military support in their jihadist efforts makes no difference.


Proving Themselves With Terror

In further understanding the insanity of radical islamists, add to the trauma of war, the more conservative and strict parenting styles which are more typical among conservative Sunni Muslims, but widely rejected by western societies. While corporal punishment is increasingly frowned on in the US, especially in more liberal urban areas, his traditional and religious parents may regularly spank or beat him as a routine method of discipline. In addition to harsh traditional parenting styles, his parents, scarred by years of war, are likely to fly into fits of rage and violence. The confusion and tension of such circumstances can undoubtedly contribute to a psychological explosion.

Psychology tells us that the desire to prove oneself and win the approval of one’s parents is deeply embedded in all human beings. In cases of abuse, neglect, or isolation from the wider society, this drive can become more extreme and dangerous. Think of a young man whose father constantly brags of committing atrocities in the name of Islam, while harshly punishing and castigating his son and isolating him from the society around him. It is not hard to imagine such a young man becoming psychotic and going out into the society he has learned to hate, and committing the same kind of atrocities his father once committed in the home country.

Let’s not forget that the stated motivations of Afghan Mujihadeen fighters for hanging literacy campaign volunteers, or anti-Gaddafi extremists for bombing schools and hospitals in Libya, or Chechens for taking hostages and beheading people, are the same as the stated goals of recent terrorist attacks. These are attacks intended to punish the “infidels” who advocate a secular society with more sexual freedom.

Their parents did such things in the homeland against Marxist or Socialist governments that were opposed by the western powers. They do them against the people living within the United States and Britain. To these fanatics, the acts are the same, and so are the victims. Both anti-imperialist “Marxists” or “Socialists” or westerners who embrace a more liberal lifestyle are deemed to be “infidels” who deserve death.

Now in Syria, even other Muslims, deemed to be “Shia Apostates” are ruthlessly slaughtered by US and Saudi backed religious extremists. The goal of the extremists in Syria and elsewhere is to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran, which they deem to be an abomination for allowing Christians, Zorostrians, and Jews to worship freely, and practicing Shia Islam, which they consider to be a deviation of the faith.


Re-Thinking “The Snake”

By arming and training these forces, who are so deeply intolerant of other views and lifestyles, and so committed to killing those who disagree with them, the United States and Britain have not only been endangering the world, but they have endangered themselves.

Currently in Syria, the United States is aligned with Wahabbi, Saudi-linked fanatics. They commit horrendous terrorist attacks against Syrians who support the secular Baath Socialist Government.

While liberals hold “welcome the refugees” parades, they forget that Anti-Assad Syrians are not Trotskyists or Anarchists, or people who long for western style democracy. The primary motivation for opposing the Syrian Arab Republic is religious fanaticism. To the anti-Assad “revolutionaries” Assad is not a “dictator” who rejects western capitalism and civil liberties.

To the overwhelming majority of those on the battlefield, the opposition to Assad is due to that fact that he is an Alawaite and “Shia Apostate.” To the “Syrian opposition” Assad and Syrians who support him deserve death for not practicing Islam in the same way as the Saudi King.

Though it is strategically unspoken, you can be sure that these fanatics have similar feelings about the millions and millions of non-Wahabbis in the United States and the United Kingdom. To the Wahabbis, American and British liberals and Syrian Baath Socialists are the same.  Yet, the leaders of western capitalism, with their eyes set on “regime change” continue to back and arm such forces.

The refugee debate is mistakenly framed in terms of “compassion” versus “self-interest.” The left screams “can’t we help these poor innocent people” and the right screams “they might be dangerous.” They both avoid pointing out the actual reality of the situation.

During his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump recited a poem “The Snake” as a warning against bringing refugees into the country. The poem tells of a woman kindly welcoming an injured snake into her home, before being bit by it. The snake tells her as she dies “you knew I was snake, before you took me in.”

However, this narrative on refugees misses the point. The parents of Omar Mateen, Ahmad Rahami, Salman Abedi, and the Tsarnaev Brothers were not welcomed into western countries out of a misguided or manipulated sense of compassion.

Rather, the visas they received allowing them to legally live in the most wealthy sections of the world economy, were rewards. They had helped topple independent, socialist governments that challenged the dominance of western capitalism. They committed horrendous acts of terror, motivated by dangerous, extremist ideology. For these actions, they were welcomed to the USA and the UK.For Trump’s poem to be honest, it would have to shed more light on the true insanity of the policies championed by Zbigniew Brzezinski. A poem telling honestly of events that led to recent terrorist attacks would end with “We knew you were a snake… that’s why we took you in.”


Crosspost with: http://journal-neo.org/2017/06/07/lets-face-it-radical-islamists-are-dangerous/

black-horizontal



Caleb Maupin
Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 9.46.00 AMIs an American journalist and political analyst. Tasnim News Agency described him as "a native of Ohio who has campaigned against war and the U.S. financial system." His political activism began while attending Baldwin-Wallace College in Ohio. In 2010, he video recorded a confrontation between Collinwood High School students who walked out to protest teacher layoffs and the police. His video footage resulted in one of the students being acquitted in juvenile court. He was a figure within the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City. Maupin writes on American foreign policy and other social issues. Maupin is featured as a Distinguished Collaborator with The Greanville Post.  READ MORE ABOUT CALEB MAUPIN HERE.

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationIn further understanding the insanity of radical islamists, add to the trauma of war, the more conservative and strict parenting styles which are more typical among conservative Sunni Muslims, but widely rejected by western societies. While corporal punishment is increasingly frowned on in the US, especially in more liberal urban areas, his traditional and religious parents may regularly spank or beat him as a routine method of discipline. In addition to harsh traditional parenting styles, his parents, scarred by years of war, are likely to fly into fits of rage and violence.


[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Latest Moon of Alabama vital reports—do not miss

horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Moon of Alabama's unique and perceptive takes on recent world-historical events

Dateline: June 07, 2017 | http://www.moonofalabama.org/

The Saudis Demand Total Surrender But Qatar Will Not Fold


Qatar's monarch Sheik al-Thani with the Most Clueless Man in the Western World. The Sheik is not likely to fold that easily.

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]any people believe that Qatar will soon give in to recent Saudi demands and threats. I first though so too but have changed my opinion. Qatar will likely hold out way longer than anyone assumes and fight more intensive and much longer than foreseen.

The Saudi "young leader" has now given Qatar 24 hours to submit to 10 demands. These include (unconfirmed) the dismantling of Al Jazeera, breaking off of all diplomatic relations with Iran and (the Israeli demand of) ending all support for the Muslim Brotherhood and especially Hamas. The Saudis threaten with a military invasion.

But Qatar is not like Bahrain where 1,000 Saudi troops could easily take over to save a dictator from a mostly unarmed uprising of his people. It has way more resources and capable allies on its side and recent news shows that it knows how to use them.

Two days ago we extensively described the complex conflict between Qatar and some of its neighbors that has recently been escalating. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the main forces on one side, joined yesterday by Donald Trump but not by the Pentagon. On the other side is Qatar, geographically isolated and seemingly without any real allies even though it hosts a very large U.S. command center and air-base.

The conflict has been simmering for years. Qatar has a strong media arm with Al Jazeera TV and other prominent news outlets. Qatar and its media support the political Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood which won elections in Egypt before being kicked out in a Saudi financed military coup. The ruling Turkish AK Party is a Muslim Brotherhood branch as is Hamas in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood parties have thereby proven that it's possible to have an Islam(ist) aligned government without a hereditary dictatorship. Their pure existence de-legitimates the al-Saud clan and other dictatorial family enterprises in the wider Middle East.

There is little reason to waste tears on Qatar. It is a small country with only 200,000 original inhabitants but with 2,000,000 expatriates living there too. Thanks to its large natural gas reserves Qatar is ultra rich and has a very modern (but also vulnerable) infrastructure. The country is way more liberal than Saudi Arabia. Its cities are somewhat cosmopolitan. Unlike in Saudi Arabia women are allowed to drive and other religions than Islam can build their places of worship. But the rulers of Qatar officially follow the same ultraconservative and proselytizing Wahhabi cult as the al-Sauds. They support terrorists of the worst kind in the war against the Syrian people and elsewhere (just as the al-Sauds do).

The Saudis currently lack money. Oil prices are too low to finance the needs of its 26 million people and the exorbitant expenditures of its ruling family. The Qatari gas fields would be a very profitable extension of their oil empire. The UAE would like to take over strategic Qatari islands in the Gulf (and the hydrocarbon fields around them). Taking over Qatar would bring both countries into a better position to fight their presumed enemy in Iran.

As we wrote:

The extreme bullying of Qatar by the Saudis and the UAE, with total closure of all its borders, is designed to create an immediate capitulation. So far Qatar holds onto its course but in the end it is likely to fold. It will have to stop its support for "terrorism" i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood. Another scenario is a putsch in Doha with some Saudi puppet prepared to take over the realm. If that is unsuccessful a military move could follow. Qatar has little capabilities to withstand a potential Saudi invasion.

I have since changed my opinion and said so in a few conversation on Twitter. Qatar will hold out way longer than anticipated. It may not fold at all:

Cont. reading: The Saudis Demand Total Surrender But Qatar Will Not Fold

Posted by b at 01:19 PM | Comments (20)

June 06, 2017


Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source

[dropcap]Y[/dropcap]esterday The Intercept published a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.

Intercepted source - R.L. Winner

FBI search (pdf) and arrest warrant (pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept's reporters and editors which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the source. It leaves one scratching one's head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either way - the incident confirms what skeptics had long determined: The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking state secrets of public interests.

The Intercept was created to privatize the National Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept. Only some 5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no idea what the unpublished pages would provide.

The Intercept, a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and "philanthropist" who's (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation is "investing" for "returns". Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people from the fascists RSS party, ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely implicate Omidyar's PayPal.

The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. Its first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras - all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way.  The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream "liberal" to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda. The website seems to have no regular publishing schedule at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only a few of them make public waves. Some of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is begging for reader donations.

Yesterday's published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters) begins:

Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept publishes alongside the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations" - i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a "cyberattack" like Stuxnet which are intended to create large damage,

The "attack" by someone was standard spearfishing and some visual basic scripts to gain access to accounts of local election officials. Thee is no proof that any account was compromised. Any minor criminal hacker uses similar means. No damage is mentioned in the NSA analysis. The elections were not compromised by this operation. The document notes explicitly (p.5) that the operation used some techniques that distinguish it from other known Russian military intelligence operations. It was probably -if at all- done by someone else.

The reporters note that the document does not provide any raw intelligence. It is an analysis based on totally unknown material. It does not include any evidence for the claims it makes. The Intercept piece describes how the document was received and "verified":

The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, ...
...
The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were both contacted for this article. Officials requested that we not publish or report on the top secret document and declined to comment on it. When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions. The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests.

The piece quotes at length the well known cyber security expert Bruce Schneier. It neglects to reveal that Schneier is a major partisan for Clinton who very early on, in July 2016, jumped on her "Russia hacked the Democratic National Council" claim for which there is still no evidence whatsoever.

The Intercept story was published on June 5. On June 3 the FBI already received a search warrant (pdf) by the U.S. District court of southern Georgia for the home, car and computers of one Reality Leigh Winner, a 25 year old former military language specialist (Pashto, Dari, Farsi) who worked for a government contractor. In its application for the warrant the FBI asserted:

19. On or about May 24, 2017, a reporter for the News Outlet (the "Reporter") contacted another U.S. Government Agency affiliate with whom he has a prior relationship. This individual works for a contractor for the U.S. Government (the "Contractor"). The Reporter contacted the Contractor via text message and asked him to review certain documents. The Reporter told the Contractor that the Reporter had received the documents through the mail, and they were postmarked "Augusta. Georgia." WINNER resides in Augusta, Georgia. The Reporter believed that the documents were sent to him from someone working at the location where WINNER works. The Reporter took pictures of the documents and sent them to the Contractor. The Reporter asked the Contractor to determine the veracity of the documents. The Contractor informed the Reporter that he thought that the documents were fake. Nonetheless, the Contractor contacted the U.S. Government Agency on or about June 1, 2017, to inform the U.S. Government Agency of his interaction with the Reporter. Also on June I. 2017, the Reporter texted the Contractor and said that a U.S Government Agency official had verified that the document was real. ...

To verify the leaked document the reporter contacted a person working for the government. He used insecure communication channels (SMS) that are known to be tapped. He provided additional meta-information about the leaker that was not necessary at all for the person asked to verify the documents.

It got worse:

13. On June I, 2017, the FBI was notified by the U.S. Government Agency that the U.S. Government Agency had been contacted by the News Outlet on May 30, 2017, regarding an upcoming story. The News Outlet informed the U.S Government Agency that it was in possession of what it believed to be a classified document authored by the U.S Government Agency. The News Outlet provided the U.S. Government Agency with a copy of this document. Subsequent analysis by the U.S. Government Agency confirmed that the document in the News Outlet's possession is intelligence reporting dated on or about May 5. 2017 (the "intelligence reporting"). This intelligence reporting is classified at the Top Secret level, ...
...
14. The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased,suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.15. The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.

The source that provided the document had no operational security at all. She printed the document on a government printer. All (color) printers and photo copiers print nearly invisible (yellow) patters on each page that allow to identify the printer used by its serial number. The source used email from her workplace to communicate. Ms. Winner is young, inexperienced and probably not very bright. (She is also said to be Clinton partisan.) She may not have known better.

But a reporter at The Intercept should know a bit or two about operational security. Sending (and publishing) the leaked documents as finely scanned PDF's (which include (de) the printer code) to the NSA to let the NSA verify them was incredibly stupid. Typically one only summarize these or at least converts them into a neutral, none traceable form. Instead the reporters provided at several points and without any need the evidence that led to the unmasking of their source. Wikileaks is offering $10,000 for the exposure and firing of the person responsible for this.

It is also highly questionable why the Intercept contacted the NSA seven days(!) before publishing its piece. Giving the government such a long reaction time may lead to preemptive selective leaks by the government to other news outlets to defuse the not yet published damaging one. It may give the government time to delete evidence or to unveil leakers. The Intercept certainly knows this. It had been burned by such behavior when the National Counterterrorism Center spoiled an Intercept scoop by giving a polished version to the Associate Press. Back then the Intercept editor John Cook promised to give government agencies no longer than 30 minutes for future replies. In this case it gave the NSA seven days!

Besides the failure(?) of The Intercept there are other concerns to note.

  • Why has a 25 year old language specialist for Afghanistan access to Top Secret NSA analysis of espionage in the U.S. election? Where was the "need to know"?
  • Could this espionage -if it happened- have been part of a different plan by whomever? Consider:

@mattblaze
10:52 PM - 5 Jun 2017

More additional question are asked in this thread.

The lessons learned from this catastrophic -for the source- leak:

  • Start thinking of good op-sec before you think of leaking.
  • Computer access gets logged. Do not leave any suspicious (log) trace at your workplace (or anywhere else).
  • Do not provide any trace from your immediate workplace or any personal metadata with the leaked material.

And last but certainly not least:

  • Do not trust The Intercept.

Posted by b on June 6, 2017 at 06:09 AM | Permalink

Cont. reading: Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source

Posted by b at 06:09 AM | Comments (138)

June 05, 2017


"The GCC States Led By Saudi Arabia Will Collapse Into Oblivion"

Emboldened by U.S. backing Saudi Arabia launched a campaign to finally subjugate Qatar into client state status. The plan has now reached a high point. A few hours ago Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia severed all ties with Qatar.

All sea- and airspace have been closed for Qatari traffic and the land-routes severed. All Qataris will have to leave those countries within 14 days. Qatari diplomats were given just 48 hours.

The immediate consequences are huge. Some 37 million passengers cross through Doha each year. But Qatar Airways now has to fly through Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish airspace to reach Europe. (If the situation persists the UAE owned Emirates Airways will likely order a huge bunch of new planes.) Half of the food in Qatar comes via Saudi Arabia through Qatar's only land border. 600-800 trucks per day can no longer pass. The 19 flights per day between Doha and Dubai are called off.  Oil prices rose some 1.6% and the Qatari stock exchange tanked.

The reasons for the immediate spat are manifold. It has only little to do with Iran.

The Saudis accuse Qatar of supporting terrorists. That is like Britain accusing the U.S. of imperialism, or the mafia cutting ties with the mob over gangsterism. As Joe Biden remarked (vid) when still Vice President, both Wahhabi countries, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have been funding and fueling terrorism in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. But the Saudi view is that the more "liberal" Qatar is simply supporting the "wrong" kind of terrorists.

Cont. reading: "The GCC States Led By Saudi Arabia Will Collapse Into Oblivion"

Posted by b at 06:50 AM  

About the Author
The precise identity of Moon of Alabama's chief blogger is a matter of debate. You can reach the current administrator of the site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA_at_aol.com (replacing _at_ with @). 


horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationThe Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. Its first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras – all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way.  The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream “liberal” to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]