“I believe in a cruel God who made me in his image and who in fury I name.”

– Iago, in Verdi’s Opera Othello

On June 22, 2021, Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva published an expose titled “US fuels Syrian war with new arms supplies to Al Qaeda terrorists,” showing documents obtained by the US Federal Contracts Registry, revealing that the US Army Contracting Command, ACC Picatinny Arsenal,  has contracted eight American companies to procure Category 1 End User Certificate weapons from 2020-2025.

According to Gaytandzhieva, the Pentagon is buying $2.8 billion worth of weapons for conflict zones around the world. Most of the weapons are destined for Syria. After all, the Idlib Province in Syria (which is presently entirely controlled by Al Qaeda) has been recognised as one of the most strategic locations in the Middle East.

There are even a number of propaganda videos by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham HTS (formerly known as Al Nusra Front, which is Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria), showing them using American TOW anti-tank missiles.

A US-made TOW missile system seized by Syrian troops during their offensive in Urum al-Kubra in the de-escalation zone of Idlib. The province is under the control of the terrorist group HTS. (Telegram)

Propaganda footage published by Ibba news agency, linked to the terrorist organisation HTS, shows HTS militants being trained to operate American BGM-71 TOW weapon systems, Kornet and Konkurs anti-tank systems in the Syrian province of Idlib (Telegram @new_militarycolumnist)

Abu Mohammad al-Julani is the commander of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS), the Al Qaeda in Syria, and has been listed under the US State Department as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” And yet there is ample evidence that the US has been arming Al Qaeda in Syria all along.

In addition, there is the strange April 2, 2021, PBS fluff piece on Abu Mohammad al-Julani with a fashion make-over, appearing to prepare the American public for his running for public office. Why would a government-funded American broadcasting company do such a thing?

Above picture: Abu Mohammad al-Julani in natural habitat.

Abu Mohammad al-Julani in PBS habitat.

Eight American companies have been contracted to procure non-US standard weapons from 2020 to 2025 through the US Army Contracting Command (ACC) Picatinny Arsenal. The weapons are not American made and thus cannot be used by American soldiers, however, according to the Pentagon solicitation W15QKN-19-R-0049 “Non-standard Weapons, Parts and Accessories”, the weapons will be used in “theaters of conflict”.

The weapons are described as Category 1 End User Certificate, these are issued by the US to third parties other than governments, which means militia or terrorist groups.

Source: dilyana.bg

According to Gaytandzhieva’s report, the weapon descriptions of these non-US standard weapons indicate that they originate from Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania, (see her report for a detailed run through).

Details on End User Certificates. Source: W15QKN19R0049, US Army Contracting Command (ACC) Picatinny Arsenal

What this means is that Eastern European weapons are going to be flooded into “theaters of conflict” and once released “into the wild” will be very difficult to trace where the source came from, say the United States. Eastern European weapons are analogous to Soviet weapons that are being used by the Syrian army. This will also make it difficult to determine the source in acts of terrorism, since the equipment used by both sides will be virtually indiscernible.

However, as already noted above, for sophisticated equipment such as the American-made TOW anti-tank weapon systems, these are still being supplied by the good ‘ol US of A directly.

Of course, for anyone who has been paying attention to the situation in Syria, this is no surprise.

It should be obvious that the American, European and Turkish arms supplying of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is meant as a stubborn continuation of Brzezinski’s Arc of Crisis, which he coined in 1977 as President Carter’s National Security Adviser, and which led to the formation of the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) the following year. The Arc of Crisis concept was and is designed to foment ethnic tensions through encouraging religious fanaticism and terrorism in the Muslim communities of the Middle East which could then offshoot into Central Asia. It was believed that such Islamic fanaticism would direct its wrath against the Soviet Union, sparking Islamic anarchy within the Muslim community of the USSR itself. This was thought to be the “soft underbelly” of the Soviet Union.

However, 54 years later, the west is still in a Cold War with Russia and  terrorist cells have now spread across the Middle East, Asia, Africa and even within western countries who thought perhaps they were too far removed from these “theater of conflicts” to be burnt by the fires they started.

Yet strangely, this rather disastrous foreign policy has not been recognised for the absolute lunacy and general mayhem that it emboldens but rather, the disaster has been used as the very justification for why western countries, who cannot even employ the majority of their populace or offer proper healthcare, needed to enter and spend billions of dollars on the forever “War on Terror,” to which these governments are presently arming the other side to combat!

It is not the Assad government who has proven to be a threat to “western democracy,” but rather it is the very terrorism that the west has created and is backing that has caused the most destruction to western people’s lives at home.

These acts of terrorism are then used to justify why the civil rights of a country’s populace need to be “temporarily” revoked, such as the 20 year old and still going strong Patriot Act, to which we can expect further add-ons in addressing “domestic terrorism.”

It is clear that the declared “enemy” in this “War on Terror,” is not what we were led to believe, and increasingly, it is beginning to look like the enemy may in fact be, anyone who resists this global agenda.

Made in London Mullahs

In a previous paper, I went through the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood as being essentially a British funded and backed creation, which dates back to intellectual founder of the Salafiyya movement, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani back in 1869.

Al-Afghani’s student Muhammad Abduh would receive direct and full support of the representatives of her Majesty’s imperial force and was given positions of high station and influence in British occupied Cairo. Abduh would work closely and openly with Lord Cromer (aka Evelyn Baring), London’s Egyptian proconsul, and scion of the enormously powerful banking clan (Barings Bank) under the city of London, in establishing the base for the Salafiyya movement. (1)

After London defeated ‘Urabi’s revolt against the British consortium in Egypt, which lasted from 1879 to 1882, Baring returned to Egypt in 1883 as a British agent and consul general, and served as the virtual ruler of the country until 1907.

British support continued with Hassan al-Banna (a follower of al-Afghani) who in 1928 officially founded the Muslim Brotherhood which would be linked with the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, which also has a history of British funding.

Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in Egypt, would receive a grant from England’s Suez Canal Company. (2) It is no coincidence that the Muslim Brotherhood would be run-out of Egypt by President Gamal Abdel Nasser, only after he managed to nationalise the Suez Canal and successfully call an end to Britain’s occupancy of Egypt in 1956.

And thus it was clear that the British military occupancy of the Suez Canal was quite literally being used as a terrorist hub in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, for more on this refer to my paper.

Thanks to the Sykes-Picot affair, British dominance was not only found in Egypt but also, most notably, Saudi Arabia. As a result of the British orchestrated Sykes Picot, Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, the British India Office favourite, was proclaimed King of Hejaz and Najd in 1926, leading to the founding of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

From the 1920s on, the new Saudi state merged its Wahhabi orthodoxy with the Salafiyya movement, now organized into the Muslim Brotherhood and has taken form as the modern militant Islamic extremism we are supposedly fighting today.

Who Really Runs the Middle East?

Islamic banking [that is the banking system dominated presently by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States] was born in Egypt and financed by Saudi Arabia and then spread to the far corners of the Muslim world. Eventually the Islamic banking movement became a vehicle not only for exporting political Islam but for sponsoring violence. However, Islamic banking did not get off the ground on its own, as Ibrahim Warde (a renowned scholar of international finance) explains in his book “Islamic Finance in the Global Economy,” Islamic banking:

“…operates more out of London, Geneva, or the Bahamas than it does out of Jeddah, Karachi or Cairo…Ideologically, both liberalism and economic Islam were driven by their common opposition to socialism and economic dirigisme…Even Islamic Republics have on occasion openly embraced neo-liberalism…In Sudan, between 1992 and the end of 1993, Economics Minister Abdul Rahim Hamdi – a disciple of Milton Friedman and incidentally a former Islamic banker in London – did not hesitate to implement the harshest free-market remedies dictated by the International Monetary Fund. He said he was committed to transforming the heretofore statist economy ‘according to free-market rules, because this is how an Islamic economy should function.’  ” [emphasis added]

However, perhaps the best case study to this phenomenon is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

BCCI was an international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The bank was registered in Luxembourg with head offices in Karachi and London. A decade after opening, BCCI had over 400 branches in 78 countries in excess of $20 billion USD, making it the seventh largest private bank in the world.

In the 1980s investigations into BCCI led to the discovery of its involvement in massive money laundering and other financial crimes, and that the BCCI had illegally and secretly gained the control of a major American bank, First American, according to Robert Morgenthau (Manhattan DA) who had been investigating the bank for over two years.

BCCI was also to be found guilty for illegally buying another American bank, the Independence Bank of Los Angeles, using a Saudi businessman Ghaith Paraon as the puppet owner. The American depositors lost most of their money when BCCI was forced to foreclose since it was essentially operating a Ponzi scheme to fund illegal activity of all sorts.

Investigators in the United States and the UK determined that BCCI had been “set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.”(3)

This is an incredibly sophisticated operation, and interestingly, uses the very same methods that the City of London has been using for centuries and presently operates to a diabolical perfection today. There is no way that a solo Pakistani financier, even if he was financed by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, could rise in less than a decade , operating on the turf of ancient banking channels that go back several centuries, to rise to become the seventh largest bank in the netherworld of finance without a little help from the big boys.

Ibrahim Warde writes:

“At the international level, the major Islamic banking groups, rather than trying to establish a global Islamic network that would rival the global banking system, are keen on remaining embedded within that system. Indeed, in its transnational operations, Islamic banking operates more out of London, Geneva or the Bahamas, than it does out of Jeddah, Karachi or Cairo. As for the Islamic Development Bank (IBD), its statutes provide for coordination and collaboration with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international organizations.” (4) [emphasis added]

On July 29^th, 1991, a Manhattan grand jury indicted BCCI on twelve accounts of fraud, money laundering and larceny. Morgenthau has described BCCI as “the largest bank fraud in world financial history.”

So what does this all mean? It means that the so-called terrorists we are supposed to be fighting in this “War on Terror” are essentially working for the orchestrators that justify said narrative.

What it means is that the sin cities steeped in crime, dope, sex-trafficking (including children), arms-trafficking and terrorist groups, are all being funded by the same centralised system of finance, located in the London-Geneva-Bahamas (which is an offshoot of the City of London) triangle.

And it isn’t just Islamic banks that are involved in funding this kind of netherworld activity. It is being done by banks that continue to have an incredibly large role to play in more “respectable” global finance such as HSBC.

Yes, HSBC is still bizarrely considered reputable despite several very embarrassing lost lawsuits, however, the biggest to date occurred in 2012 when allegations were made against HSBC for allowing terrorists to move money around the financial system  and for which it had to pay a record $1.9 billion, with no form of regulated control on the bank afterwards but rather an agreement with the DOJ that the bank itself would install a 5 year independent monitor. (For more on this refer to my paper.)

HSBC managed to avoid being criminally prosecuted, a move that could have stopped the bank from operating in the US.

Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general at the time, stated:

“HSBC is being held accountable for stunning failures of oversight – and worse…that led the bank to permit narcotics traffickers and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries and to facilitate hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned countries.”

And just as Africa is being looted twice over with capital flight that amounts to 5x their foreign debt, which then returns to City of London offshore nether regions, only to ask for loans to pay off this debt at exorbitant interest rates by the very same grouping who stole the money…So the “privileged” western world is starting to feel a similar brunt.

While western countries are increasingly unable to provide a proper standard of living, with mass unemployment, lack of healthcare, increased crime and suicide rates, and increased overdoses and homelessness, and pretty much everything you would expect to rise during a Dark Age straight out of a Goya painting, these “first-world” governments are applying further austerity measures on the people, even after prolonged lockdowns, while openly pumping billions of dollars into wars that not only fund the destruction of entire nations, but funds the global drug, arms and sex-trafficking trade. All of this dirty money then circles back into the London-Geneva fondi, benefitting a select class that has existed and thrived for centuries on this sort of backdrop.

In this system, you do not own your money and you do not get to decide what your money is used for. Unknowingly, we are all tied to it, we all labour for it, and if so decided for us, we may even die for it.

Iago’s Prophecy

“From the very vileness of a germ or an atom, vile I was born. I am a wretch because I am a man, and I feel within me the primeval slime. Yes! This is my creed! …I think and do by destiny’s decree. I believe the just man to be a mocking actor in face and heart; that all his being is a lie: tear, kiss, glance, sacrifice and honour. And I believe man the sport of evil fate from the germ of the cradle to the worm of the grave. After all this mockery then comes Death. And then? …Death is nothingness…”

–        Iago, in Verdi’s Opera Othello

For those who are not familiar with Shakespeare’s play “The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice.” Iago is a Venetian, and though he most certainly would have called himself a “Christian,” as we see with his above monologue, his interpretation is rather more akin to that of the Devil.

Venice, was the center of world intelligence at the time, and the direct descendant of the Roman Empire. Venice was an enemy of Florence (the birthplace of the Italian Renaissance) and is the reason why Machiavelli wrote ‘The Prince,’ which was meant as a guidebook to the prince of Florence in understanding Venetian techniques so that he could defeat them.

Iago dislikes Othello and wants to remove him from his position as general. Not only this, but he wants to see Othello destroyed. However, in order to destroy Othello, Iago does not use physical force or confront him directly but rather, from the shadows, plays the fears and insecurities of Othello against himself.

Through this strategy, Othello becomes increasingly distrustful of those who he should keep close and is drawn ever closer to his destructor Iago, thinking him his only true confidante. Finally, Othello turns against his beloved wife and trusted friend Cassio and is driven mad by Iago’s relentless poisoned whisperings in his ear. In the end, Othello in a blind fury suffocates his faithful wife Desdemona in their bedroom chamber.

Incredibly controversial at the time of its first performance, it remains so today. What is the lesson we are to take from Shakespeare? Was Shakespeare making the point that Othello simply acted what was in his nature the entire time, as that of a Berber/Arab Muslim man, nothing more than a savage? Was it only a matter of time before Othello would have committed such atrocities against his beloved and his good friend, and that Iago merely inflamed what was already within him?

Othello is a tragedy, because Othello the man did not recognise that he was caught in the middle of someone else’s orchestration.  He allowed himself to be the plaything of another and to execute actions that were not his own conceptualisation. Othello is guilty of his crimes, but it is Iago who is by far the most formidable and terrible monster in the play. It is Iago who manipulates behind the scenes, and it is an Iago that goes undetected and unchecked by most, allowed to continue his atrocities without ever facing any justice until his death, when he will finally be confronted by the eternal.

As Schiller stated in his Ghost Seer about the Venetian technique, one will only be freed by masked tyranny’s terrible grip when one can comprehend what is the nature of true villainy, that is, the orchestrator of evil and not just a mere hand of evil. Only then will such a villain be unmasked to us, otherwise we will forever be pitted against the other, just a plaything for a higher will than our own.

Thus, let us not be fully distracted by the mayhem on center front stage…but rather, let us take a look at who is standing behind that curtain.

The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

Notes

(1) Elie Kedourie, “Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam.”
(2) Richard P. Mitchell, “The Society of the Muslim Brothers.”
(3) John Kerry “The BCCI Affair: A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations.”
(4) Ibrahim Warde “Islamic Finance in the Global Economy.”

By As`ad ABUKHALIL

The monarchical-sounding declaration by Kaïs Saïed eight days ago was stunning: the president who was freely elected in 2019 (for only the second time in Tunisian history) was basically proclaiming a coup d’etat by dismissing the prime minister and suspending parliament.

Saïed was elected nine years after the overthrow of President Zine Ben Ali, who in 1987 as the security chief launched a coup against Habib Bourguiba, the founding president of Tunisia.  The 1987 coup was classified in Arab political terminology as a “medical coup”, because Ben Ali stated that Bourguiba was no longer mentally fit to assume the duties of the office.

As is well-known, the protests against the corruption and repression of Ben Ali (a darling of Western governments and lending institutions) sparked the Arab uprisings in December 2010.

Kaïs Saïed arriving as president at Palace of Carthage in October 2019. (Houcemmzoughi, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Surprise Winner

Kaïs Saïed was an unexpected victor in the 2019 presidential election. He was a professor of constitutional law, did not belong to a political party and was not affiliated with any political ideology.

He won support in television debates largely due to his strong command of classical Arabic in a country where French influence remains strong.

Furthermore, Saïed’s campaign was noted for his firm and categorical denunciation of any normalization with Israel.  His answers regarding Palestinian rights and rejection of Israel were a hit on social media, and helped propel him to the top job.

Saïed attracted support among Tunisian youth because he represented a new genre of politicians who have not been tainted by the corrupt system.

The political system that emerged after the end of the Ben Ali rule suffered from many weaknesses; the divide between the secularists and the Islamists only widened, and the regional, political wars between the UAE and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Qatar and Turkey on the other hand, raged inside Tunisia, just as they did in Libya and elsewhere.

UAE Versus Muslim Brotherhood

The UAE regime now leads the battle against the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab world, even in Palestine, for instance, where a UAE puppet, Muhammad Dahlan, a former Fatah chief, has championed the agenda of his boss, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Muhammad Ben Zayid.

The Muslim Brotherhood was probably the largest opposition group in several Gulf countries for many years until Sept. 11 convinced Gulf rulers that the elimination of any presence of the Brotherhood was essential for improving relations with the U.S. (and later with Israel).  Saudi interior minister, Prince Nayif (who questioned the U.S. government’s account of Sept. 11), loudly blamed Saudi problems on the Muslim Brotherhood.

When Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul-Nasser banned the Brotherhood after 1954 for trying to kill him, Brotherhood leaders and activists sought refuge in Gulf countries where they were given prominent positions in education, religion and endowment. The UAE even sought the help of a Sudanese Islamist, Hasan Turabi, to draft its constitution.

Essentially, Nasser represented secularism and socialism, while the Gulf regimes represented religious conservatism and obscurantism (naturally, the U.S. and all Western governments were on the side of Gulf regimes — and remain so to this very day).

After the uprising in 2010, Tunisia had a chance to establish a new democratic government. Tunisia became known as the second Arab democracy after Lebanon. (Lebanon remains the freest Arab country in terms of freedom of expression but has a political system marred by horrific corruption and sectarian allocation of government posts.)

In response to the 2010 uprisings, the UAE led the Arab counter revolution — or one side of it, as the Qatari regime and Turkey a led different counter-revolution, which sought to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power in possibly all Arab countries.

The UAE and Saudi regimes (likely with Israeli and U.S. blessings) united their efforts to:

• prevent the establishment of a vibrant democracy anywhere in the Arab world;
• thwart the electoral success of the Brotherhood in any Arab country.

By funneling money and direct intervention through various sectors of the state, Saudi Arbia and the UAE were keen on restoring the ancien regime in Tunisia.  The Gulf alliance (presumably with the West) wanted to prevent a rise of any Islamist government in the region.

Islamists Reassured the West 

April 10, 2015: Antony Blinken, then undersecretary of state in the Obama administration, meeting with Al-Nahda President Rashid al-Ghannushi in Tunis, Tunisia. 

But the Islamists quickly adjusted and reassured the West, especially about their intentions toward Israel. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood suddenly abandoned its previous calls for the elimination of the peace treaty with Israel, and the Tunisian Al-Nahda party sent its leader, Rashid Ghanoushi, to reassure AIPAC (in a talk at WINEP) that Nahda would not support the popular Tunisian demand for criminalization of normalization with Israel.

True to its word, for all the years since 2011, the Brotherhood has lowered its rhetoric on Palestine, and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was part of a Syrian opposition coalition which did not harbor much ill-will toward the Israeli occupation.

Yet, no matter how much the Brotherhood has been accommodating to Israeli and Western interests, the Saudi-UAE alliance refused to accept the very existence of Islamist governments. One reason has been because the political clout of the Brotherhood reflected the influence of the Turkish-Qatari alliance, which sponsors and funds the Brotherhood in the region.

June 16, 2012: Street in Cairo during second round of Egypt’s presidential elections, where Muslim Brother’s candidate Mohamed Morsi faced SCAF/Mubarak’s candidate Ahmed Shafik. (Jonathan Rashad, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

In Tunisia, the local variant (Nahda) won successive elections and their rule was not in any way characterized by competence or good governance.  But that was not what the UAE cared about; they just wanted to bring the rule of the Brotherhood down, by force (as in Libya) or by electoral interference as in Tunisia.  The UAE and Saudi regimes funded the most reactionary (and ostensibly secular) groups and personalities, and promoted leftovers from the ancien regime of Ben Ali, and even Bourguiba before him.

The victory of Saïed in 2019 dealt a blow to the Nahda. His victory also coincided with an economic crisis that was only accentuated with the onset of the coronavirus.  Gulf regimes withheld financial aid, except to those governments that normalized with Israel like Sudan. (Last month, Saudi Arabia and the UAE announced that 60 percent of Sudanese debt to their countries would be forgiven, and that each country would provide $3 billion in aid to Sudan.)

Sudan is ruled by a military junta and the U.S. and Israel ordered Gulf countries to reward those regimes which normalize with Israel.  By contrast, Tunisia is a democratic country and people in all Arab countries (according to all reliable public opinion polls) vehemently reject any normalization with Israel.

Jan. 18. 2011: Protesters run away from tear gas during a demonstration against former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in the center of Tunis. (Nasser Nouri, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Tug of War

The tug of war in Tunisia between the Islamist Nahda-controlled parliament and the independent president has been going on for a year.  The coronavirus and the shutdowns have strained the Tunisian economy, which traditionally relied on tourism and foreign aid.  The UAE and the Saudi regime now withhold traditional financial aid except in those cases where regimes (like Egypt) are of service to the Israeli agenda.

President Saïed contacted Saudi and UAE leaders only days before his coup, which he denies is a coup because the article 80 of the Tunisian constitution allows for emergency powers to dissolve parliament and to dismiss the cabinet in the event of a threat to the state and peace.  The president has failed to show evidence of such a threat.

It was not clear at first that this coup enjoyed foreign backing.  But it would have been close to impossible that Saïed would have dared strike at the parliament and government if he did not have the support of the Saudi and UAE regimes (and possibly the U.S.).

Within hours of the announcement of the coup, Saudi and UAE regime media published laudatory coverage and fiercely attacked the Nahda as remnants of the “terrorist Ikhwan (Brotherhood).”

The U.S. Department of State was slow in reacting to the coup and indicated the matter is purely one of political science, and that legal experts were consulted to decide if this was a coup or not.  When it comes to threats to U.S. client regimes, U.S. official experts are quick to denounce and condemn a coup.

This one enjoyed support among some of the secularist forces in Tunisia (including the leftist workers’ unions) but the secular progressives have long been tools of repressive regimes, such as Sisi in Egypt or MbS in Saudi Arabia and MbZ in the UAE.

A youth counsel suddenly emerged in Tunisia to express support for the coup; this immediately drew resonance to the Egyptian youth group, Tamarrud, which was later found to be a tool of the UAE regime to bolster support for the Sisi coup.  The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. just don’t want democracy in the Arab world.  Repressive regimes are far more convenient for their interests.

consortiumnews.com

The U.S. was conflicted, as these earlier rumblings of thunder spread from hilltop to hilltop. Some in the CIA, had perceived popular movements – such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (although Islamist) as the useful solvent that could wash away lingering stale Ottoman residues, to usher in a shiny westernised modernity. Many over excited Europeans imagined (wrongly), that the popular Awakenings were made in their own image. They weren’t.

The facile interpretation of the Awakening as a liberal democratic ‘impulse’ was at best, an exaggeration, if not a pure fantasy. I wrote then (in 2012): “What genuine popular impulse there was at the outset … has now been subsumed, and absorbed into three major political projects associated, rather with a push to reassert [Sunni] primacy across the region: a Muslim Brotherhood project, a Saudi-Salafist project, and a militant Salafist project [which subsequently was to evolve into ISIS]”.

The key early player was the Muslim Brotherhood. I wrote:

“No one really knows the nature of the Brotherhood project: whether it is that of a sect, or if it is truly mainstream; and this opacity is giving rise to real fears. At times, the Brotherhood presents a pragmatic, even an uncomfortably accommodationist, face to the world, but other voices from the movement, more discretely evoke the air of something akin to the rhetoric of literal, intolerant and hegemonic Salafism. What is clear, however, is that the Brotherhood tone everywhere, is increasingly one of militant sectarian [i.e. Sunni] grievance.”

This was the common thread: All these supposedly popular dynamics had become tools in the “fervour for the restitution of a Sunni regional primacy – even, perhaps, of hegemony – to be attained through fanning rising Sunni militancy and Salafist acculturation”. Containing Iran, of course was a primary aim (encouraged, of course, by Washington). But these forces collectively comprised a project in which Gulf leaders managed and pulled the levers – and paid the bills too.

And for an early instant, those in the U.S. who had bet on the Muslim Brotherhood, glimpsed victory. Egypt fell to the MB; Syria was subject to a full-spectrum ‘war’, and the Muslim Brotherhood openly expressed its objective to ‘take’ the Gulf, where it had long established covert cells and networks.

But it was overreach. The Muslim Brotherhood was, it seemed to interested parties, about to steal (like Prometheus), the fire which belonged exclusively to ‘the gods’. Plus, the MB were revealing obvious flaws: Its leadership in Cairo was deeply unconvincing. In Syria, where the movement never had significant penetration (single digit percent support), it was being quickly displaced by war-experienced Salafists coming in from the war in Iraq.

The American, European and Gulf leaders (i.e. the gods) turned sharply away from the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar was the exception) – and turned instead to ISIS and Al-Qaida. The ‘gods’ were set on making an example of a non-compliant Assad and increasingly, they looked to the latter – ISIS – to inject the required savagery to claw down Assad – in the face of the latter’s tenacious fight-back.

In any event, sentiment turned violently against the MB from many quarters. Secular Arab nationalists had always heartily detested the MB, and the al-Saud and Emirate leaderships similarly detested the Muslim Brotherhood (albeit for different reasons).

But there was always a fundamental contradiction in the American flirtation with the Muslim Brotherhood: it was that Washington’s objective was never regional reform – whether secular or Islamist; the aim always was to preserve a malleable status quo in the Middle East.

U.S. neo-cons were then at the peak of their influence. Since 1996, they had insisted on unqualified U.S. support for the region’s Kings and Emirs versus the Ba’athists and Islamists. It was they who won out easily – against CIA officers such as Graham Fuller – in the debate on whether or not to support any sort of ‘Arab Awakening’.

The U.S. sided with Saudi Arabia and UAE in mounting the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood President in Cairo. And still today, the U.S. and its European protégés support the UAE’s Crown Prince in his vendetta war against Islamists everywhere, from the Horn of Africa to the Magreb – and against Turkey too, as the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘mother-ship’.

This ‘war on Islamists’ has provided cover for the counter-revolutionary repression of any reform of the ‘Arab System’ – a rearguard Gulf action initially triggered by fears that any ‘Awakening’ might sweep away Gulf ruling families. Today, the UAE continues to try to seed compliant strongmen, General Sisi lookalikes, in states such as Libya and now Tunisia.

So, here we are. But, where are we going? And, above all, why no reform? Can this continue, or will the region explode under the effects of the Covid-triggered, recession?

No reform at all, for a full decade? What’s the block? Well, in the first place, the background lies with those two key neo-con policy papers: the 1996 Clean Break, and David Wurmser’s follow-on, Coping with Crumbling States. These two documents laid the basis for the U.S. (and Israeli) endorsement of Gulf States acting as ‘policeman’ and regional strongmen (a role that the UAE has taken to a new peak), managing any rumblings of dissent (such as in Libya).

These ‘policy papers’ may have been the precursors, but in the final analysis, the ‘block’ simply is, and has been, Israel – both indirectly and directly. The Clean Break’s full title was a New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e. Israel). It was a blueprint for underpinning Israel’s security. Ditto for Wurmser’s paper.

In sum, either U.S. or Israeli fears, or U.S. concerns to appease domestic U.S. constituencies, lie at the bottom of this stasis: Israeli and the U.S. élites are wholly comfortable with this malleable status quo – and fear it changing in any way that they cannot control. No reform for the Middle East – only disruption.

Here is the point: There has been no reform, but there is a new dynamic at work. Power is an attribute that is based in deference and powerful illusion. So long as people are willing to defer to a leader; so long as people are persuaded by the illusion of power; so long as people fear – the leader leads. But should the illusion become evident as illusion, nothing easily can prop it up. Power is ephemeral; it dissipates like mountain mist. And the U.S. is losing it.

The western response to the Coronavirus spoke loudly: The U.S. and Europe have appeared powerful because they projected the illusion of competence; of being able to act effectively; of being strategic in their actions. On Coronavirus, the U.S. has shown itself incompetent, dysfunctional, and indifferent to human affliction.

Trump is fighting an existential war: on the one hand, the coming Election is not merely the most important in the U.S.’ history. It will be existential. No more is Blue/Red a contrived theatre for the electorate – this is deadly serious.

For an important segment of the population (no longer the majority), to lose in this coming election would signify their ejection from power and politics, and their substitution by a culturally different class of Americans, with different cosmopolitan and diversity values. It is the tipping point – two irreconcilable visions of American life believe that they can continue only if they own the whole order, and the other side be utterly crushed.

And on the other hand, Trump sees the U.S. fighting a similarly existential war, albeit at a global plane. He is fighting a hidden ‘war’ to retain America’s present dominance over global money (the dollar) – the source of its true power. For Americans to lose this parallel competition to the EU’s and China’s multilateral values of global co-operation and financial governance, would imply Americans’ (i.e. white Anglo Saxon’s) ejection from control over the global financial system, and (again) their substitution by a quite different vision (i.e. a Soros-Gates-Pelosi vision), advocating the ‘progressive’ values of ecological and financial, global governance.

Again – two irreconcilable visions of the global order, with each party believing that it must own the whole order to survive.

Hence Trump’s full-spectrum disruption of China (and the whole multilateral ideology) to maintain dollar hegemony. Europe, on one side, exemplifies the shift towards a transnational regulatory and monetary super-state. And China, on the other, is not only Europe’s willing partner, but the only power capable of sitting atop this globalist ambition, giving it the (required) financial weight and substance. This constitutes the existential threat to the U.S.’ exceptional control of the global financial system – and therefore over global political power.

A sovereignty-ist Russia may not be as drawn to this cosmopolitan vision as China, but really it has little choice. Because, as President Putin repeatedly points out, the dollar constitutes the toxic problem plaguing the world trading system. And in this, Russia cannot stand aloof. The dollar is the problem for the Middle East too, with its noxious corollaries of oil, currency, trade and sanctions wars. The region will not long be able to sit on the fence, keeping distant from this struggle for the global financial order.

The Middle East, as deference to the U.S. illusion of power wanes, has as little choice as has Russia: It will be pushed to view the U.S. as its past, and to ‘Look East’ for its future.

And Israel will cease to be the pivot around which the Middle East revolves.

As the Syrian government makes massive gains across the country, many are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Western destabilization and attempt to destroy the secular government of Syria by the United States and the West. However, it must be remembered that the goal to impose hegemony across the world by the Anglo-financier system is not some fly-by-night venture that cropped up in 2011 to be easily abandoned in 2018. Indeed, the plan to destroy Syria has spanned nearly four decades, only moving into high gear in 2011 under the Obama administration.

While the destabilization initiative did begin in earnest under Obama’s watch, the truth is that previous administration were also heavily involved in the planning of Syria’s destruction.

For instance, in 2006, TIME revealed a leaked two-page document circulating amongst key figures in the Bush administration that openly stated that the U.S. was “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document made no bones about expressing hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document also stated, according to TIME, that Syria’s legislative elections which were going to take place in March of 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime.” The document expressed an open desire to take advantage of that opportunity by suggesting an “election monitoring” plan where “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.”

The document also advocates for providing money to at least one Syrian politician who was allegedly intending to run in the election against Bashar al-Assad. The document also called for the funding of and implementation of “voter education campaigns” and “public opinion polling,” the first being “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”

As TIME reported in December 2006 in the article “Syria In Bush’s Cross Hairs,”

American officials say the U.S. government has had extensive contacts with a range of anti-Assad groups in Washington, Europe and inside Syria. To give momentum to that opposition, the U.S. is giving serious consideration to the election-monitoring scheme proposed in the document, according to several officials. The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: “You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government.”

Some critics in Congress and the Administration say that such a plan, meant to secretly influence a foreign government, should be legally deemed a “covert action,” which by law would then require that the White House inform the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress would undoubtedly raise objections to this secret use of publicly appropriated funds to promote democracy.

The fact that “critics in Congress and the administration” believed that the plan should be labeled a “covert action” means clearly that the plan was kept from members of Congress legally obligated to be informed of the plan. That doesn’t mean that certain members of Congress or all members of the “intelligence committees” were not aware of the plan but that these individuals were simply never officially informed of the plan’s existence.

Nevertheless, TIME reports that the document advanced a proposal to fund the destabilization efforts through the National Salvation Front and, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood. TIME reported,

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

“Democracy promotion” has been a focus of both Democratic and Republican administrations, but the Bush White House has been a particular booster since 9/11. Iran contra figure Elliott Abrams was put in charge of the effort at the National Security Council. Until recently, Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the Vice President, oversaw such work at the State Department. In the past, the U.S. has used support for “democracy building” to topple unfriendly dictators, including Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Ukraine’s [Leonid] Kuchma.

The plan to make “election monitoring” work to America’s benefit, the document states clearly that the plan to do so would have to be kept secret. It says, according to TIME, that “Any information regarding funding for domestic [Syrian] politicians for elections monitoring would have to be protected from public dissemination.”

TIME adds,

But American experts on “democracy promotion” consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria’s government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn’t already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Any American-orchestrated attempt to conduct such an election-monitoring effort could make a dialogue between Washington and Damascus — as proposed by the Iraq Study Group and several U.S. allies — difficult or impossible. The entire proposal could also be a waste of effort; Edward P. Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who worked on the Iraq Study Group report, says that Syria’s opposition is so fractured and weak that there is little to be gained by such a venture. “To fund opposition parties on the margins is a distraction at best,” he told TIME. “It will only impede the better option of engaging Syria on much more important, fundamental issues like Iraq, peace with Israel, and the dangerous situation in Lebanon.”

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. “Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus,” notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration’s agenda to reform the greater Middle East.” Landis adds: “This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘election monitoring,’ but it’s really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government” into doing what the U.S. wants. That would include blocking Syria’s border with Iraq so insurgents do not cross into Iraq to kill U.S. troops; ending funding of Hizballah and interference in Lebanese politics; and cooperating with the U.N. in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Senior Syrian government officials are considered prime suspects in Hariri case.

According to the document, money for the “election-monitoring” proposal would be channeled through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), a State Department program. TIME wrote,

According to MEPI’s website, the program passes out funds ranging between $100,000 and $1 million to promote education and women’s empowerment, as well as economic and political reform, part of a total allocation of $5 million for Syria that Congress supported earlier this year.

MEPI helps funnel millions of dollars every year to groups around the Middle East intent on promoting reforms. In the vast majority of cases, beneficiaries are publicly identified, as financial support is distributed through channels including the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit affiliated with the Democratic Party, and the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is linked to the G.O.P. In the Syrian case, the election-monitoring proposal identifies IRI as a “partner” — although the IRI website, replete with information about its democracy promotion elsewhere in the world, does not mention Syria. A spokesperson for IRI had no comment on what the organization might have planned or under way in Syria, describing the subject as “sensitive.”

U.S. foreign policy experts familiar with the proposal say it was developed by a “democracy and public diplomacy” working group that meets weekly at the State department to discuss Iran and Syria. Along with related working groups, it prepares proposals for the higher-level Iran Syria Operations Group, or ISOG, an inter-agency body that, several officials said, has had input from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, deputy National Security Council advisor Elliott Abrams and representatives from the Pentagon, Treasury and U.S. intelligence. The State Department’s deputy spokesman, Thomas Casey, said the election-monitoring proposal had already been through several classified drafts, but that “the basic concept is very much still valid.”

A plan to destabilize Syria by means of funding political “opposition” as well as physical “opposition” in the form of Sunni Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood is incredibly familiar. And it should be.

As journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his article, “The Redirection,” in 2007,

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” who are “hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda” are the definition of the so-called “rebels” turned loose on Syria in 2011. Likewise, the fact that both Iran and Hezbollah, who are natural enemies of al-Qaeda and such radical Sunni groups, are involved in the battle against ISIS and other related terrorist organizations in Syria proves the accuracy of the article on another level.

Hersh also wrote,

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said…

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”…

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah…

In January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”…

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”…

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi’ite Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. In relation to the Western strategy against Syria, he reported,

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

The trail of documentation and the manner in which the overarching agenda of world hegemony on the behalf of corporate-financier interests have continued apace regardless of party and seamlessly through Republican and Democrat administrations serves to prove that changing parties and personalities do nothing to stop the onslaught of imperialism, war, and destruction being waged across the world today and in earnest ever since 2001. Indeed, such changes only make adjustments to the appearance and presentation of a much larger Communo-Fascist system that is entrenching itself by the day, particularly in the Western world.

activistpost.com

These are the two main families vying for the leadership not only of Arabia, but of international Islam. Until now, both families have been backed by the U.S. aristocracy. But that might now be beginning to change — and the U.S. join the Sauds against the Thanis.

The difference between the Sauds and the Thanis is that whereas the Sauds are committed to destroying Iran and all Shiite Muslims, the Thanis instead aim to bring together Sunnis and Shiites into a broader Islamic control over the world. The Sauds say that Iran is the terrorist threat to the world, and that the Thanis aren’t sufficiently hostile against ‘terrorists’ (i.e., against Shia, such as Iran’s rulers; or against Shia-tolerating Sunnis, such as Qatar’s rulers, and their Muslim Brotherhood).

This is why the Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate than Al Qaeda: whereas the Muslim Brotherhood (even after America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, which started the global Sunni-v-Shiite war by the Sauds and the Americans against Shia) seeks to unify the world’s Muslims, Al Qaeda has increasingly come to be at war against Shiites and not only against other non-Sunnis (and Al Qaeda has to be anti-Shiite, especially now, because the rabidly anti-Shia Saud family are Al Qaeda’s main funders — Al Qaeda would lose its chief funder if it accepted Shia, so it doesn’t accept them).

Furthermore, both Iran and Qatar — and the Muslim Brotherhood — have official policies rejecting the apartheid Israeli government, its authority over Palestinians. By contrast, the Sauds are increasingly allied with Israel’s aristocracy, not only because both aristocracies are obsessed to overthrow the Shia leaders in Iran, Syria and Lebanon, but because both the Saudi and the Israeli aristocracies are bonded with (and rely upon) America’s, in order to be able to carry out their own military operations. On July 2^nd, Abdel Bari Atwan, a reliably accurate analyst of Arabic international relations, headlined «The Saudi-Israeli Alliance» and explained the Sauds’ policies (including their opposition to the Thanis) in that light.

On 9 June 2017, I had headlined what’s basic here: «All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis — Except Terrorism Against Israel». So, for the U.S. and Europe (and the many other regions that suffer Islamic terrorism), Islamic terrorism comes only from fundamentalist Sunnis; and Iran and Shia have no real involvement in it. (The U.S. aristocracy and their agents say things such as «Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism» but know that it’s not true and that Saudi Arabia is that.) Furthermore, the world center for all aspects of it (including the production of suicide-bombers) is Saudi Arabia. The only reason why the Muslim Brotherhood is now being focused upon, as being especially bad, is that the Sauds are now at war against the Thanis, who especially back the MB. And the Sauds are determined to win dominance over all of global Islam, and thus to crush Iran, Qatar, and any other potential contender for that throne. Thus the Sauds view everything, above all, in a Sunni-v-Shia context.

The Muslim Brotherhood first became viewed by the Sauds to be soft on Iran, after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, and the Sunni group ISIS then arose in Iraq in 2006. But the Muslim Brotherhood split away from other fundamentalist Sunni groups first in Lebanon that year (2006). Samuel Helfont headlined in the Spring 2009 issue of Orbis, «The Muslim Brotherhood and the Emerging ‘Shia Crescent’», and he explained the MB’s response to Shia (specifically Hezbollah) efforts to cooperate with the MB in that country:

The Muslim Brotherhood has responded positively to these outreach programs. The best example of this occurred in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. 

Despite the fact that Hezbollah fought fiercely against Israel throughout the war, much of the Sunni Arab establishment condemned Hezbollah’s actions. The regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia criticized Hezbollah in ways that they would never have criticized a Sunni group fighting the Israelis. Moreover, the prominent Kuwaiti Sheik Hamid al-Ali denounced Hezbollah’s actions and described them as resulting from Iran’s imperial ambitions. In addition, the influential Wahhabi Sheik Abdullah bin Jabreen in Saudi Arabia declared it to be «illegal for Muslims to join, support, or pray for the militant group Hezbollah».32

Contrary to the Sunni establishment, the Muslim Brotherhood supported Hezbollah throughout the conflict. The Brotherhood organized rallies backing Hezbollah fighters and the influential Muslim Brotherhood linked scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi rejected the Saudi fatwa against praying for Hezbollah. In the Egyptian daily al-Wafd he declared «The Shias are a part of the Islamic Ummah». He explained that the Shias say «there is no God but God», and that «They agree with us in many of the fundamentals and disagree [only] on some doctrines». Qaradawi therefore insisted that «It is obligatory to aid this [Hezbollah’s] resistance against the enemy Israel».33 Qaradawi later posted a fatwa on his website, Islam Online, reinforcing the idea that Shias are «Muslims who believe in the Oneness of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad», and emphasizing that «We should try to make use of what we have in common for the benefit of all Muslims».34 Qaradawi has also defended Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology, declaring that a «nuclear Iran is not a threat to regional countries»,35 and that «It is obligatory on all Muslims to resist any possible attack the U.S. might launch against Iran».36

The statements of other leading figures in the Muslim Brotherhood depict a similar conciliatory attitude toward Iran and the Shias.

Israel is opposed mainly by three jihadist, or Islamic terrorist, organizations, all of which focus especially upon Israel: Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Islamic Jihad, and Sunni Hamas. Islamic Jihad started in 1981 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas started in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. (There also is a secular, anti-imperialist, terrorist organization: al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.) Thus: Israel really does have good reason to fear and detest the MB. But The West simply does not. The claims by the U.S. government on that are hoaxes.

On 2 May 2017, Reuters headlined «Hamas softens stance on Israel, drops Muslim Brotherhood link», and this enormous concession by Hamas to separate from its very foundation, was hidden by the Western press: not a single U.S. (or UK or Canadian or Australian) ’news’ medium (other than Reuters itself) published that historic news-report. That news-article, furthermore, closed by stating an important universally unreported reason why the Saud family loathe and fear the (Thani-backed) Muslim Brotherhood: «The Brotherhood denies links with Islamist militants and advocates Islamist political parties winning power through elections, which Saudi Arabia considers a threat to its system of absolute power through inherited rule». In backing the Sauds against the Thanis, the U.S. aristocracy are supporting not only dictatorship, but hereditary rule. It doesn’t get more right-wing than that: racist-fascist — an extension from ancient tribalism. Some of America’s operations against the U.S. aristocracy’s main target, Russia, and even against just ethnic Russians (such as in the break-away parts of Ukraine), rely upon long-established native local pro-Nazi (racist-fascist) militias who enjoy doing the dirty-work that U.S. troops would have to be paid in order to do, if they would be willing to do it at all; so, there is really no limit to the political extreme that America’s aristocrats back, in order to achieve their coercive ends for conquest. In fact, the U.S. government was — along with the Ukrainian coup-regime that it installed in a bloody coup in February 2014 — one of the three governments that voted at the U.N. against a resolution to condemn racism, genocide and Holocaust-denial. The U.S. ‘news’media — owned and controlled by U.S. aristocrats — didn’t report it. And, a few months later, Obama’s U.N. Ambassador went to Ukraine and elicited cheers from her racist-fascist rabidly anti-Russian invited audience. So: America’s supporting the Sauds, makes sense.

That’s some of the relevant background in order to understand America’s position regarding the conflict between the Sauds and the Thanis.

—

On July 3^rd, the U.S. aristocracy’s Politico bannered «Nonprofit urges multinational companies to shun Qatar» and opened:

A U.S. nonprofit is warning businesses to avoid getting entangled with the Qatari government, alleging that the tiny Gulf state, currently embroiled in a regional diplomatic dispute, harbors terrorists and is a funder of extremist groups.

The letter is evidence of the extent to which the blockade imposed upon Qatar by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates [all being ruled by Sunnis] has implications far beyond the borders of the involved nations. The U.S., which has called for an end to the dispute, has close ties with Qatar as well as the countries blockading it.

«Qatar has a long history of providing support for extremism and terrorism, including but not limited to vast financial and material support to internationally designated terrorist groups and willing accommodation of internationally designated or wanted terrorist leaders and financiers», Counter Extremism Project CEO Mark Wallace wrote in his letter.

Over seven footnoted pages, Wallace details Qatar’s alleged misconduct, including sections on «terror financing overseas», «money laundering», «harboring of terrorist individuals» and «risk to employees resident in Qatar». Wallace accuses Qatar of offering financial support, either directly or indirectly, to Hamas, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Taliban.

A version of the letter sent last week to American Airlines was also provided to POLITICO by the Counter Extremism Project. Additional versions of the letter will be sent to 11 different companies from around the world, including Siemens, Volkswagen, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Royal Dutch Shell and AccorHotels, later this week and early next week. Portions of each letter are specific to the recipient company but the arguments laid out against the Qatari government remain the same in each. …

Nowhere in the entire article, is the letter itself linked to, or otherwise shown to Politico’s readers — it might as well be a print medium, for all the access it provides to the alleged evidence, there.

Furthermore, Politico keeps secret from its readers the crucial fact that the Counter Extremism Project keeps its financial backers, its donors, secret. We don’t even know whether the Saud family (or their agents) are funding it, and/or whether the Israeli regime (which is allied with both the Sauds and the U.S.) does.

Is that ‘news’ report, itself, propaganda, instead of journalism? Is any ‘news’ that uses, as sources, the spokespersons for employers (or other funders) whose identities are secret? Shouldn’t such sources (where the reader is being kept ignorant of whom is paying for the propaganda) be automatically excluded from use as sources, since their agenda is secret? What does this agenda-hiding say about Politico (other than that the most effective way to advertise in it is to become a ’news’-source in it)?

Here is what is known — though not from Politico — about the Politico article's main source, the Counter Extremism Project:

It was «launched in September 2014» and its three «Senior Leadership» are:

Mark Wallace, CEO. Founder both of CEP in 2014, and UANI — United Against Nuclear Iran — in 2008. 

Frances F. Townsend, President. George W. Bush Advisor on Homeland Security. UANI Advisory Board along with John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Bill Richardson, and other neocons.

David Ibsen, Executive Director. President of UANI. Back in 2014, he was a propagandist for the Thanis’ Al Jazeera against ISIS, but now he’s a leading anti-Thani propagandist for CEP’s secret funders, against the Thanis. As the President of UANI, his big funders were hidden by the anti-Iranian (though not enough to satisfy Saudi Prince Salman, who runs the country of which his father is the titular head) Obama regime, but UANI’s financial information became penetrated by Eli Clifton at lobelog on 6 July 2015 headlining "Document Reveals Billionaire Backers Behind United Against Nuclear Iran» and exposing the Israeli-American families of billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Thomas Kaplan as UANI’s big funders. In fact, «Adelson famously proposed launching a first-strike nuclear attack against Iran to send a message to Tehran’s nuclear negotiators» (actually just a demonstration-nuclear-bombing «somewhere in Nebraska» so as to force a stop to Iran’s nuclear program; Adelson didn’t like Obama’s negotiating with Iran, but demanded they be forced), wrote Clifton; so, Adelson might even be called a super-neocon (especially by Nebraskans). However, now, under Trump, Adelson and Saudi Prince Salman are in the driver’s seat.

On 9 December 2016, the Washington Post mentioned in an aside, within an article about then President-elect Trump, that,

His biggest supporters: casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who gave a total of $21.2 million to support his run. They were followed by Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus ($7.6 million), [wrestling-magnate, Linda] McMahon ($7.5 million), Dallas banker Andy Beal ($4.4 million) and hedge fund executive Robert Mercer ($3.4 million).

So, this is some of the context that Politico excluded, and it shows the mindset of the actual people who were funding this U.S.-Saudi-Israeli campaign against the Thanis. And also it shows the mindset of the people who funded Trump’s victory. Trump’s biggest donor, Adelson, was rabid against Iran’s government — and so too is Trump’s regime. (But whether Trump will join Adelson and Salman against Thani isn’t yet clear.)

On 8 July 2014, James Dorsey wrote about the beginning of the alliance between the Saud family and the Israeli aristocracy, and then just twelve days later, David Hearst headlined «Saudi Israeli alliance forged in blood» meaning Palestinian blood, and:

The attack on Gaza comes by Saudi Royal Appointment. This royal warrant is nothing less than an open secret in Israel, and both former and serving defense officials are relaxed when they talk about it. Former Israeli defence minister Shaul Mofaz surprised the presenter on Channel 10 by saying Israel had to specify a role for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the demilitarisation of Hamas. Asked what he meant by that, he added that Saudi and Emirati funds should be used to rebuild Gaza after Hamas had been defanged.

What had happened is that after the failure of Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud’s effort on 31 July 2013 to pry Russia away from its alliance with Iran, Bandar and Obama locked themselves together in arms to overthrow Iran’s ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Whereas Bandar’s bête noire was Iran and Shia, Obama’s was Russia and Russians; but, both America and Saudi Arabia were committed to conquering both Syria and Iran. Obama didn’t satisfy Prince Salman enough about that, but he satisfied him some. And America’s and the Sauds’ all-out backing for the tens of thousands of jihadists whom they and their Al Qaeda-allied groups had already imported into Syria to take down and replace Assad, was now operating full-force, with the 21 August 2013 U.S.-Saudi-Turkey-staged sarin gas attack in East Ghouta Syria that they pinned on Assad as a ‘justification' to invade Syria.

Where Hearst referred to the UAE (United Arab Emirates) as joining with the Sauds and the Americans, that occurred during the Obama years, but the UAE is now importantly involved in the Sauds’ blockade of Qatar; and the Trump Administration is only mostly backing that blockade. State Department chief Rex Tillerson, and some others in the Trump regime, back restraint, and are not fully on-board the Sauds’ anti-Thani campaign, as of yet.

Again, in Yemen, the Sauds are leading an anti-Shiite alliance of the U.S. and of the six royal families who own UAE. The invasion of Yemen displays the same alliance, though not all members performing the same functions as they were in Syria: the U.S. provides the training and the weapons (as it did in Syria), and the Saudi government provides the money and the pilots who bomb Yemen, while the UAE provides the torturers inside the prisons in Yemen, where the CIA writes the questions for interrogators to ask, and UAE thugs ask the questions and deliver the pain and the death if the American minders aren’t satisfied with a prisoner’s answers. Or, as the AP’s Maggie Michael headlined her blockbuster news-report about this on 23 June 2017, «In Yemen’s Secret Prisons, UAE Tortures and U.S. Interrogates». So, if Trump is intensifying the policies that Obama had followed (not quite to the satisfaction of the Sauds), then Trump is doing it by restoring the policies that George W. Bush had earlier championed (such as torture). And the American public seem comfortable about that, because, as Gallup headlined on 19 June 2017, «George W. Bush and Barack Obama Both Popular in Retirement». 

Back on 23 June 2016, James B.T. Dickey headlined, «Strategy for Saudi-Iran War to Come?» and he noted that Saudi King Salman al-Saud’s anointed successor son Prince Salman al-Saud, was dissatisfied that under President Obama, «Americans do not regard a resurgent Iran as an existential threat», and Dickey noted that «Washington’s effort at rapprochement with Tehran, exemplified by the Iranian nuclear deal, is only one of many issues that have led the Saudis to believe they can no longer count on Uncle Sam to have their back». Under Obama, America’s bête noire was Russia and Russians, not Iran and Shiites. But under Trump now, America is 100% dedicated to the interests of the Sauds and of Israel’s aristocrats; so, America’s current bête noire is Iran and Shiites. Whereas Obama relied upon America’s aristocrats (who crave to conquer Russia), Trump relies upon Saudi Arabia’s and Israel’s aristocrats (who crave to conquer Iran and its allies). However, Saudi Arabia’s and Israel’s aristocrats aren’t the ones who own and control America’s media. So, in American media, the chief demons now are Putin and Trump. And the Sauds, who funded and helped to organize the 9/11 attacks, seem to be safe, and are buying $350 billion of U.S.-made weaponry, which will make the future U.S. economy far more dependent upon them than ever before.

The U.S. aristocracy explain the wars in the Middle East — the wars that are so important to the bottom lines of America’s international corporations such as Lockheed Martin — as being caused by local Middle Eastern tensions. On 19 November 2016, right after Trump’s electoral win, the New York Times bannered, «How the Iranian-Saudi Proxy Struggle Tore Apart the Middle East», and Max Fisher wrote that,

Saudi Arabia and Iran are waging a struggle for dominance that has turned much of the Middle East into their battlefield. Rather than fighting directly, they wield and in that way worsen the region’s direst problems: dictatorship, militia violence and religious extremism.

The history of their rivalry tracks — and helps to explain — the Middle East’s disintegration, particularly the Sunni-Shiite sectarianism both powers have found useful to cultivate. It is a story in which the United States has been a supporting but constant player, most recently by backing the Saudi war in Yemen, which kills hundreds of civilians. These dynamics, scholars warn, point toward a future of civil wars, divided societies and unstable governments.

It would be nice if ‘the Saudi war in Yemen, which kills hundreds of civilians’ were a fair characterization of the conflict that Save the Children reported on 19 December 2016 kills vastly more: «an estimated 1,000 children are dying every week» from the war and the results of the war. Having ‘accuracy’ such as that, called America’s ‘newspaper of record’, might qualify as referring to the ‘record’ of U.S. propaganda, instead of any record of U.S., or any, news, at all. It would delight the Sauds to call that type of article ‘news reporting’. This NYT article closed:

President-elect Donald J. Trump will enter office having echoed Saudi Arabia’s view of the region.

Iran «took over Iraq», he said at a rally in January. «They’re going to have Yemen. They’re going to have Syria. They’re going to have everything».

Mentioning both the president-elect and Hillary Clinton, Dr. Gause said he doubted that any administration could reset the Middle East’s power struggles.

«I do not think that the fundamental problem of the region», he said, «is something that either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton could do that much about».

Furthermore, said the Times: «The United States has struggled to restore the region’s balance». 

America doesn’t invade the world; it polices the world — in order to ‘restore’ ‘balance’. Good to have that reassurance. No wonder people subscribe to that newspaper, and vote for people such as Trump, who allege that Iran ‘took over Iraq’ — the U.S. didn’t invade and conquer it — and that Iran is ‘going to have Yemen’ (which Sauds are, in fact, bombing with American planes and bombs). It’s good to be informed whom ‘the bad guys’ are. By the bad guys. So that we’ll all know how bad they really are, to deceive their readers and make ‘democracy’ that much more dysfunctional, by voters who are being lied-to in the most basic ways, about very important matters. 

Furthermore, when considering the likelihood of Trump’s deciding to go full-force against the Muslim Brotherhood (and backing the Sauds against the Thanis), one might consider that Gulf News had headlined on 18 June 2014, «US document reveals cooperation between Washington and Brotherhood», and reported that: 

The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the «Arab Spring» erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other «political Islamist» movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting «stability» in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for «stable regimes» even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing «moderate» Islamic political movements.

To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC, which obtained the documents in question.

Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public. …

But PSD-11 still hasn’t been made public. If it is as was represented there, then it constitutes clear evidence that the «Arab Spring» was supported by President Obama before it even occurred, and that his position, even at that time, back in 2010, favored the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s insistence upon regime-change in Syria and in Libya fits that view.

Other sources that testify to the existence of PSD-11 include the testimony to a subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security, by a former Chairman of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dated 22 September 2016, in which Peter Hoekstra stated:

In August 2010 Obama signed Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-11), which reportedly ordered a government-wide reassessment of prospects for political reform in the Middle East and of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the process. Under PSD-11 – which the administration needs to declassify – Obama and Clinton pivoted from the historical U.S. strategy of maintaining order and stability in the Middle East. It instead turned to a strategy that emphasized support for regime change, as well as political and democratic reforms, regardless of the impact on regional stability. PSD-11 directly led to U.S. engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Moreover, on 16 February 2011, the New York Times headlined «Secret Report Ordered by Obama Identified Potential Uprisings» and vaguely described the document, in ways that are consistent with what Gulf News and Peter Hoekstra say about it — that Obama was committed to «regime change» and to the Muslim Brotherhood, throughout the (non-Israeli) Middle East, even before the «Arab Spring» occurred (with or without CIA assistance) in those nations.

Consequently, if Trump is inclined against Obama’s foreign policy, then the U.S. government will be inclined toward the Sauds’ position on this, and away from the Thanis’ position on it. (Trump will then be against the pro-MB position.) This will mean a commitment by the U.S. government to maintain in power the existing fundamentalist Sunni Arab dictatorships, defending the ownership and control over those nations by the families that currently own and control them.

The U.S. government will be committed to dictatorships there, and the only question is the identities of the dictators. Under both Obama and Trump, there will be U.S. honor, prestige, blood, and money, spent, either propping up, or else replacing, the current dictators. Is this good for the American people? Is it good for the people of Syria, or of Iran, or of Yemen, or anywhere? Was it good for the people of Iraq? Whom is it really intended to benefit? America’s weapons-manufacturing firms, perhaps?

When the Times reports that, «The United States has struggled to restore the region’s balance», whose ‘balance’ is that, really? Maybe some firms’ balance sheets will be restored, in that ‘struggle’? But ‘the region’s balance’? Oh, balance of power, maybe. Between whom and whom? For whom? By whom? Well, at least we know whom it’s to be by — supposedly, it’s got to be by ‘the United States’ (whomever that really represents — which is certainly not the American public, the people that are constantly being lied-to, throughout the entire racket, including the invasions of Iraq, Libya, and Syria).

An article in the Spring 2015 issue of the highly influential journal International Security (a neoconservative and neoliberal Harvard publication), titled «The Myth of Entangling Alliances», argued against America’s Founders, and said that America’s network of alliances have «restrained the United States» from invasions. It pretended to base this ridiculous conclusion on an objective recitation of the relevant history of the matter. 

America’s Founders are being dismissed by lies, frauds, and hoaxes, and the U.S. Constitution has become just so many words to warp and misrepresent, by America’s aristocracy and its influential and well-funded agents.   

Whatever decision Trump comes to, whom is it likely to benefit? And whom will it hurt? It would be a good thing if the American government represented the American public, but it doesn’t. And that’s a fact which is unpublishable in the U.S.

Nowadays, international affairs is just the relationships between billionaires, as negotiated and carried out by their agents. In the U.S. and other dictatorships, the public don’t count, at all. And the people of places such as Syria and Yemen count for even less. And that’s true even if those victim-countries are led by leaders who do care, very much, about their public. But, if they do, then the international aristocracy will destroy them. Because, internationally, fascism certainly does reign. That much is absolutely clear. This is today’s world. Not the fantasy world; it is instead the real world. This is not the world that FDR envisioned and worked so diligently for, but the world that the international billionaires have tragically come to impose after he died.

According to the brilliant blogging geostrategist who goes by the pen-name ‘bernhard’ and who posts at his own «Moon of Alabama» blog, the evidence on the Saudi-Thani war, as of July 5th, is that Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Salman, and UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, are the principals in the campaign to blockade Qatar, and that the plan is collapsing for lack of foreign support. He ends by saying:

They, Mohammad bin Zayed [MbZ] and Mohammad bin Salman [MbS], are the instigators of the campaign against Qatar. The meeting today had to deliver some penalty against Qatar for not giving in to any demand: some additional significant sanctions, a more intense blockade, some threat of military strikes. But the meeting came up with … nothing.

The clown princes had shot their wad on the very first day. They could not come up with any new measures that were agreeable. Kuwait and Oman reject to push Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the UAE would lose all its international businesses in Dubai should the Qatari gas supplies, and thereby its electricity, shut down. An additional blockade of Qatar is impossible without the agreement of the U.S., Russia, and other big states.

Such a huge loss of face will have consequences. When the Saudi clown prince launched the war against Yemen he expected, and announced, that Sanaa would fall within days. Two years later Sanaa has not fallen and the Saudis are losing the war. Qatar was expected to fold within days. But it has enough capital and income to sustain the current situation for many years to come. The war against Yemen and the sanctions against Qatar were indirectly aimed against Iran — the Saudis' arch-enemy. But without investing even a dime, Iran is now the winner from both conflicts. MbS, the Saudi clown prince, has twice proven to be a terrible strategist who endangers his country.

The Saudi King Salman and his son said that neither of them will take part in the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg. Rumors have it that they fear an imminent coup should one of them leave the country.

No one should be surprised if the Salman era finds a bloody end within the next week or month.

Photo: The Nation

Weiner, Sexting and Emails

It all started with the FBI investigation regarding a 'sexting' scandal. A 15-year-old girl reported having received compromising photos from Anthony Weiner, former husband of Hillary Clinton's top advisor Huma Abedin. It is the type of situation where the person of interest’s computing devices are reviewed by the FBI to check the contents for clues or evidence. The problem is that Anthony Weiner’s computer is not just like any other but rather one that he shared with his then wife, Huma Abedin. From the small amount of information leaked, it seems that the New York FBI division charged with investigating the affair has for a long time been silent over the enormous 650,000 email archive found. That was until a few days ago, when the director of the FBI revealed, with a letter to Congress, that this data was considered relevant to the ongoing investigation regarding Hillary Clinton and her private email server. It is a huge revelation given the few days left before the elections, causing huge problems for the Democratic campaign.

The more appropriate question to ask is why the director of the FBI, James Comey, decided to inform Congress. The most likely answer points to a leak that would have otherwise caused irreparable damage the reputation of the FBI. Had the new information about Clinton been withheld by the FBI, then it is easy to imagine that the reaction would have been far worse for Comey than the criticism he is currently enduring.

The FBI and Wikileaks

While it is easy to assume that senior federal employees are mostly expressions of political interests, Andrew McCabe being an indicative example, it is unlikely that there is a complete control of all the employees of a large agency like the FBI. This is essentially what the story of Anthony Weiner, former husband of Abedin, centers on. Fox News reported that the FBI detachment in New York had for months ignored the email archive in the computer thanks to the plausible excuse of the lack of a mandate. It almost looks as if the FBI had managed to conceal this new discovery for a long time. It is a fact that in the past Clinton has repeatedly been saved from catastrophe, managing to block federal investigations and forcing the FBI chief to a ridiculous testimony before Congress in order that she not be investigated. It is her trail of scandals that has outraged many federal agents and members of the intelligence community. More than one source has revealed that the Bureau was facing the risk of an internal revolt driven by agents eager to release to the American public basic information regarding an ongoing investigation on one of the presidential candidates.

Therefore it is very difficult to believe that 650,000 emails were found on Abedin’s computer that were of little significance or even irrelevant. Otherwise what sense would there be in trying to keep them hidden? Evidently the agents working on the case have discovered explosive information.

Who is Huma Abedin?

Huma Mahmood Abedin is a good starting point down the rabbit hole of dirty and dangerous money. Born in 1976 in the United States, she moved with her family to Saudi Arabia two years later, returning to the US at the age of 18 to enrol at George Washington University. Certainly more interesting is the story of her parents, both Muslims and both heavily involved in Muslim Brotherhood networks as well as opaque financing mechanisms to structures linked Al Qaeda. How the daughter of two such controversial characters could come to occupy such an important role explains how deep down the rabbit hole this story goes.

To understand the influence of Abedin on Hillary Clinton, just think of all the latest scandals involving Clinton that revolve around the funding and indirect support of radical Islamist groups. From Libya to Egypt to Syria and Iraq, the trail of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation is everywhere. It is no wonder that a family like the Abedins have been able to forge such important friendships as the one with the possible future president of the United States. Abedin seems likely to be an intermediary connecting worlds that are adjacent but never fully overlapping. No American could ever accept the idea that alongside the next POTUS could be a person deeply embedded in such a milieu. But that is how it is. On September 11, 2001, for example, Abedin was simultaneously working for the Clinton Foundation as well as a charity subsequently discovered to be a front for money laundering on behalf of Bin Laden, as covered by Newsweek. The day when the twin towers collapsed, the current top advisor to the probable next US president was working for an organisation indirectly linked to Al Qaeda.

The American Deep State

When addressing the topic of Huma Mahmood Abedin, top advisor to Hillary Clinton, it is good to ask how deep we are willing to go to discover the mechanisms of American power, penetrating into the dark caverns and complex entrails of a state within a state, the so-called deep state.

To answer this question, it is good to define it. Generally, when we talk about the deep state, it means the various branches of power. The best known are certainly the military-industrial complex, energy giants, Wall Street, the mainstream news media, extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and its Wahhabi ideology, in addition to foreign lobbies, especially the Israeli and Saudi lobbies. Their interests are mainly based around the accumulation of money and their ability to generate more of it to buy influence.

Generally the major representatives of deep-state interests are the so-called think-tanks. These organisations, made up of experts and former members of the public and private sectors, exist primarily to influence and condition the political discussions, favoring the interests of their funders, which not surprisingly are precisely the industries and people related to the various branches of American power. As a result, think-tanks have now taken on a more central role in defining the domestic and foreign-policy postures of the United States.

Of course money also buys people in addition to associations. This is the case with direct donations to the election campaigns of senators and members of Congress by the giants of the deep state. Large companies, banks, financial institutions and the military industry use think-tanks, the media and politicians through their money with only one purpose: to protect and nurture their interests and their vision of the state within the state. Put simply, their objective is to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers.

Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Deep State

In addition to the neo-conservative and liberal factions, as well as the Israel lobby, we find the ideological component of Wahhabi Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood participating in the US political system, playing an important role in the fashioning of American foreign policy. Suffice it to say that this trio has for more than two decades completely dominated the choices about foreign policy of the United States, with dire consequences. The Muslim Brotherhood, a creation inspired by the British MI6 in the early 1900s to fight nationalism and Arab governments with communist inclinations, quickly became the spiritual fathers of the Afghan freedom fighters. It is a monster that has continued to morph in our day from the Taliban in Afghanistan to Al Qaeda in the late 1990s to the 2000s, and currently metamorphosing into Al Nusra Front/Daesh. Of course in each of its historical iterations, Islamic extremism has been fomented and directed against nations hostile to American imperialism.

In recent years the once peaceful Arab Spring turned into violent riots thanks to the ideological inspiration of movements such as Saudi Wahhabism or the Muslim Brotherhood. This distorted view of Islam has often been the catalyst transforming initially peaceful movements into violent anti-government clashes. The Wahhabi ideology and the Muslim Brotherhood’s political interpretation of Islam unites such capitals as Riyadh, Doha and Ankara with those fighting for the Islamic caliphate, namely Al Nusra Front/Al Qaeda. US geopolitical ambitions have increased over the years through terrorist attacks and the consequent destabilization of nations opposed to Washington. The use of terrorism as a geopolitical weapon is not new for the United States when one remembers the stay-behind networks that operated in Europe during the Cold War.

This conglomerate of power has in the last 30 years guided American foreign policy, justifying interventions in foreign countries under the pretext of fighting terrorism (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan), or by using terrorism as a tool of destabilization (Syria, Egypt, Yemen). Consequently, the Wahabi/Brotherhood component continues to play to this day a major role in the constant quest for global supremacy by the US deep state.

Clinton Foundation, Huma Abedin and US Deep State

The deep corruption that permeates the deep state has consistently enabled countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to buy modern and advanced means of warfare produced in the US. A summary of the so-called pay-to-play scheme goes as follows: money comes into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation thanks to generous donations from Riyadh and Doha, and in return they are cleared by the State Department (headed for many years precisely by Clinton) for the sale of weapons. It is a simple mechanism that satisfies everyone: the foreign countries are able to get their hands on advanced weapons to be employed in future bloody wars; the weapons traders receive hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts; and the Clinton Foundation, as payment, receives millions of dollars in donations.

In a rather agreeable arrangement, the arms manufacturers earn back the money invested in election campaigns many times over, thanks to the resulting lucrative contracts closed with foreign countries. The consequences of such a wicked arrangement have been seen in wars of aggression by the Saudis against the Yemenis and the Turks against the Kurdish minority, all thanks to weapons sold by Washington. Another aspect of this arrangement relates to the sale of weapons to terrorists in the Middle East from the US thanks to the sponsorship of the Gulf nations. It is an evil system that in addition to enriching the producers of American weapons, as well as the Clinton Foundation together with satisfying the regional allies of the US, uses Gulf nations to provide cover to the US to directly provide advanced weaponry to terrorists. A typical example of this perverse arrangement is easily verifiable in the events in Benghazi, which still awaits truth and justice.

Consequences

The drama around the emails contained on the computer of Huma Abedin and her ex-husband is probably attributable to the concrete risk that all this mess gets uncovered, including the unspeakable role of Clinton and her foundation in international terrorism. It remains to be seen in this complicated journey into the deep state what role the FBI and Donald Trump are playing. Although personally I have many doubts about the figure of Trump, one thing I am quite certain of is that a vast chasm separates him from the center of America’s deep-state establishment. While Clinton is a direct product of this tumor, Donald Trump comes from another set of circumstances, marshalling around him that patriotic feeling that many, even within the US government, are beginning to feel, particularly given that America’s international credibility, together with its confidence domestically, has collapsed dramatically.

Despite the constant efforts of the mainstream media to refute this representation of reality, the feeling is increasingly common in the minds of Americans that much of what ails the country today is this degenerate web of economic, political and strategic corruption. Many Americans are tired of seeing their nation fighting senseless wars far away from home without any real threat to their national security but with costs in the order of trillions of dollars.

Conclusions

The United States has been flirting immorally and illegally with organizations dedicated to terrorism, thanks to the many deep-state links. Such collusion existed before and after September 11, subsequently triggering the Arab Spring and destabilizing countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq. What we have seen in the last few days with Comey’s revelations may represent a veritable Pandora’s box. It is impossible to determine whether this scandal will eventually overwhelm Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the leaders of the deep state have decided to destroy the nomination of the Democratic nominee in favor of Donald Trump. Or maybe not; right now every hypothesis is valid. But if Trump wins on November 8, it may represent the triumph of the American people’s will to discard once and for all anything that even remotely smells of the 'deep state’, the redolence of which hangs heavily over Clinton and her aide Huma Mahmood Abedin.

Arabian Game of Thrones

It might be hard to imagine, especially since Riyadh and the Houthis fought a war in Saada earlier in 2009 and 2010, but the House of Saud has actually worked with the Houthis before the Kingdom launched Operation Decisive Storm on March 25, 2015. The Kingdom’s engagement of the Houthi movement was part of the House of Saud’s hoary and trite dirty game inside Yemen. In this regard, the House of Saud has been playing different Yemeni governments, the Houthis, the Muslims Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda all against one another in a Saudi real life version of George R.R. Martin’s best-selling book series Game of Thrones.

During the Cold War the US, the House of Saud, Britain, and Israel all supported the royalists in North Yemen and supported the idea of Zaidi imamate against Yemeni republicans. Once the republicans won the war, the Saudis began funding Wahhabi programs and schools to convert the Zaidis and to create sectarian divisions in North Yemen.

After South Yemen fought Britain to become independent in 1967, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Britain began to support a Muslim Brotherhood insurrection with the aim of toppling the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen. When North Yemen and South Yemen were unified in 1990 the Muslim Brotherhood insurgents founded Al-Islah as the Saudis continued funding the Wahhabi programs that would help produce Al-Qaeda and sympathies for it. 

While Ali Abdullah Saleh was the president of a Yemen, the Kingdom used Al-Islah to keep President Saleh and his General People’s Congress in check. After the ousting of Saleh during the so-called Arab Spring and the ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and North Africa, the Kingdom got nervous and opted to exploit the Houthis as a counterweight against Al-Islah as a means of preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from controlling Yemen.

To varying degrees the Saudi strategy to manipulate the Houthi movement against Al-Islah contributed to the ascendency of the Houthis in Yemen. 

Nothing less than suzerainty over Yemen is enough for the House of Saud. Despite the fact that the Houthis were willing to reassure the Kingdom for months and approached the House of Saud to sue for peace days before the war, the Kingdom wants total obedience from the Houthi movement. The Houthis and most the other political factions in Yemen — including Al-Hadi’s own General People’s Congress — cannot accept this. So the Saudis opted to force Yemen into submission by means of a war.

Echoes of the Cold War in Arabia?

Echoes of the Cold War seem to be at play in Arabia as history is repeating itself. 

The so-called pan-Arab that the House of Saud is promoting is a reincarnation of US containment policies from the Cold War when NATO had a sister-alliance in the Middle East named the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), which was colloquially called the Baghdad Pact. METO was interlocked with NATO and had common members and officially consisted of Britain, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan. The US was officially an associate member, but it was really the force behind METO. This was another case of Washington “leading from behind.”

The Baghdad later morphed into the Central Treaty Organization (CETO) after Iraq ousted its Hashemite monarchy in a revolution and left the military alliance in 1959. CETO was officially disbanded in 1979 after the Pahlavi monarchy was toppled in a revolution in Iran.

While the US has clenched as nuclear deal with Iran, it has never given up its quest to control Tehran. The so-called pan-Arab is a combined rehash of the Cold War’s METO/CETO alliance(s) and Washington’s “GCC+2” arrangement that in 2007 sought to create a military alliance against Syria and Iran composed of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — plus Egypt and Jordan. What this scheme effectively does is reserve the military option for the US. Using a sectarian narrative the Saudis and Israelis are trying to portray this as a so-called Sunni axis against Iran and its regional allies.

The contours of the Cold War coalition that existed during the civil war in North Yemen against the republicans have re-emerged too. During the Cold War, Israel helped the House of Saud intervene in Yemen through military aid, advisors, operatives, and weapons during the civil war in North Yemen. Both countries worked with the US, Britain, and Pakistan to help the royalists against the republicans.

The Israeli-Saudi alliance in Yemen is being relieved as the Kingdom and Israel have united with the US against the Houthis. Like the Cold War, mercenaries and foreign fighters will eventually enter the picture too.

Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi was born November 19, 1954 in Cairo to a religious family. He himself is also known for his adherence to Islamic traditions (he often quotes the Quran from memory in conversations, and his wife wears a hijab), but he is not a fanatic and is tolerant toward other faiths. He has always maintained good relations with the Orthodox Copts. Keeping in mind the irritation caused in the country by the «high society» behavior of H. Mubarak's family, especially his son Gamal, he prudently keeps his family out of public view. He has three sons and a daughter, about whom little is known. He loves order and discipline. Those around him called him «General» even in childhood. In 1977 he graduated from the Military Academy. He subsequently received additional higher military education in several institutions of learning in Great Britain and the U.S. He is interested in history and law. He was the Director of the country's Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance Department, as a representative of which he held the prestigious post of military attaché to Saudi Arabia. He has good connections with the top brass of the Saudi military and in a number of other Arab countries, particularly in Syria. In a time difficult for Egypt, when the West turned its back on it, el-Sisi, thanks to his authority, was able to obtain generous financial assistance from the Persian Gulf countries. When he became part of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt, he was its youngest member. On August 12, 2012 he was appointed Chairman of the Council and also became the Minister of Defense. 

Since July 3, 2013, when the military removed President Mohamed Morsi, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood, from power, el-Sisi, although formally only Deputy Prime Minister, has in fact already been the undeclared leader of the country. The upcoming elections will only confirm and legalize his real position. The path for this was opened by the successful referendum on the approval of a new constitution to replace the one adopted under the Muslim Brotherhood. Critics pointed out that only 39% of the population came out to vote in the referendum; however, they forgot to mention that only 32% voted in the referendum on the previous constitution, and only 63.8% of referendum participants voted in favor, as opposed to 98% this time. The growth of national support is clear. It is worth noting that in the opinion of experts, it was to a great extent women who stood behind this result; they voted unanimously for the new constitution, which restored rights which had previously been taken from them.

The fact that el-Sisi follows religious traditions has served him in good stead and misled the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, who placed their main stakes on him out of all the military. In fact, it turned out that national interests are more important to el-Sisi than Islam. Or more precisely, he does not believe that Islam must always resist modern life or other religious beliefs. His credo is that «We are first and foremost Egyptians, and only then Muslims and Christians». He believes that a democratic society and pluralism are fully compatible with Muslim norms; however, a gradual path to this should be taken, in his opinion. In the research paper «Democracy in the Middle East», written by el-Sisi during his year-long studies at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, he writes that democracy will be difficult to make a reality in the Middle East because the form of government must be adapted to the local cultural and religious situation. In this paper el-Sisi spoke against a theocratic society, but expressed his conviction that democracy in Egypt should be based on Islamic values. At the same time, he has always said that the army should be on the side of the people, and consequently of all the country's citizens. El-Sisi is oriented not toward an endless confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood, but toward national reconciliation. For example, the influential Egyptian Copts, who number 8-10 million in the country, unanimously support him. It is no accident that on the eve of his promotion to field marshal and the announcement that the military was nominating General el-Sisi for president on January 26 of this year, he was visited by the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Theodore II, who was accompanied by six bishops.

The fact that el-Sisi's opponents are resorting to terrorist attacks, despite their bloodiness, is a sign that they are no longer able to organize real mass protests against him and are resorting to desperate measures. With each such senseless attack his authority is only getting stronger, as the population is increasingly convinced of the need for a «firm hand». Popular confidence in him is now exceptionally high. He is supported by former pro-Western liberals, who are rather disappointed in their patrons; religious minorities; and government and military employees; but he is also supported by the majority of ordinary people from among devout Muslims, who see in el-Sisi a reincarnation of Nasser, a man who is capable of maintaining social justice in society. The former elite are also on his side. For example, former president Hosni Mubarak stated in an interview with the channel al-Arabia that the Egyptian people support el-Sisi. «They want to see him as president; they will achieve that and win that battle», said the ex-president. One of the main candidates in the previous election, former Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa, has already urged citizens to vote for el-Sisi. He himself is not going to run again. El-Sisi's popularity sometimes takes grotesque forms; there are posters with his portrait everywhere, often as a collage together with Nasser, and sometimes with V. Putin as well. At the numerous souvenir stands, el-Sisi's picture and initials are extremely popular. They can even be seen on pastries. But all of this does not go against the national culture and is not regulated from above. Such are the sentiments of the people. 

El-Sisi's potential foreign policy orientation and the steps he will take to restore Egypt's former influence in the region are also the subject of close attention. 

El-Sisi's attitude toward cooperation with the U.S. is a strictly pragmatic one. Having spent a fair amount of time there, he knows America well, but he is not at all blinded by its grandeur, for he knows its price. It is no coincidence that some American media sources call him an «opaque» and «enigmatic» figure. El-Sisi was critical of the White House's actions in Iraq, and did not hide this even during his studies in the U.S.; sometimes he encountered angry rhetoric from American veterans who had returned from there, which also apparently remained in his memory. At the time Morsi was overthrown, el-Sisi bluntly accused the American administration in an interview with The Washington Post of unfriendly actions toward his country: «You left the Egyptians. You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that». The fact that Cairo has already refused to accept Robert Ford, the current American representative in Syria who is well known for his close ties with the Islamist Syrian opposition, as the future U.S. ambassador is quite noteworthy, for example. This also characterizes el-Sisi's attitude toward events in that country, especially considering the fact that it is most likely on his initiative that official relations between Cairo and Damascus, broken off by the Muslim Brotherhood, were reestablished. Nevertheless, the Americans, who announced the suspension of their yearly military aid to Egypt in the amount of 1.5 billion dollars after the army came to power there, were forced to announce a return to their former practice for geopolitical reasons.

One of the reasons the White House decided to reestablish the aid payments was obviously concern about the security of Israel and the possibility of Cairo switching to other strategic preferences. For example, the Israeli media frightened the West with Moscow's supposed ambition to create bases for its navy in Egypt, indicating four prospective locations for them – in Alexandria, Port Said, Damietta and Rosetta – as well as with plans for large shipments of Russian armaments meant to fully replace American models. But where would Russia get so many ships, or Egypt so much money? The point of these scare tactics is quite obvious. Israel has no interest in the Americans turning away from Egypt and is motivating them to keep it in their tight embrace. 

At the same time, the Russian vector of Egypt's future policy indeed has good prospects, but they are a result not of mythical military preparations, but of objective economic factors. The three pillars of the modern Egyptian economy are tourism, revenues from the Suez Canal and extraction of natural gas. With regard to Suez Egypt is not dependent on anyone, but with regard to gas and especially tourism, cooperation with Russia could be of the closest kind. Russian citizens, who are not easily frightened by anything, literally saved the country's tourism industry in the crisis-filled year 2013; 2.5 million people visited Egypt that year. For its part, Egypt, which is highly dependent on food imports, imported 3 billion dollars' worth of grain alone from Russia in that same year, taking first place in this category of Russia's exports. The planned creation of a free trade zone between Egypt and the Customs Union could give the further development of cooperation between the two countries a strong impetus. If one considers that the famous American military aid is mostly just credits for price reductions on outdated armaments which could easily be replaced with shipments from other places on favorable terms, it turns out that Washington simply has nothing to offer that the Egyptian people truly need.

Many have noticed the unprecedented support of Saudi Arabia for the Egyptian military's actions, which they have declared, despite the facts of the harsh suppression of mass protests, a «fight against terrorism». The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the UAE have been stanch supporters of the leader of the military regime, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In the face of serious socio-economic problems compounded by unrest, financial aid from these Arab states could become a decisive factor for Egypt in consolidating the situation in the country under army leadership. Moscow has also been paying attention to the unexpected Saudi-Egyptian alliance, as shown, for example, by the recent visit of the director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar, to Moscow and his exhaustive 4-hour conversation with Russian President V. Putin. It is interesting that Prince Bandar did not respond to a similar invitation from Washington, which speaks indirectly of Riyadh's dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the Middle East. An extremely curious configuration of powers is taking shape which could have positive significance for the resolution of other problems as well, particularly in overcoming the crisis in Syria. 

President Obama prefers not to publicly support the Egyptian military regime. After the bloody events of August 14 he attempted to call General al-Sisi and urge him to «stop repressing the protesters and firing live ammunition». The White House officially condemned the declaration of a state of emergency in the country. However, according to some sources, «Egypt's strongman» did not even take Obama's call – unheard-of audacity. Instead, the Egyptians suggested that the White House call the interim president Adly Mansour, which the Americans, in turn, declined to do. This is an admission of how limited U.S. influence now is; attempts to talk the Egyptian generals out of harsh measures against protestors failed, and the refusal to grant Egypt 1.3 billion dollars in American aid will simply become an invitation for rich Arab states to replace the U.S. in this role. The KSA and UAE have already provided the Egyptian military regime with 12 billion dollars, and the total amount of promised aid comes to 40 billion dollars. The stakes are high. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood are republicans, and despite their adherence to Islam, for the Persian Gulf monarchies they are deadly enemies. Power is more important than religion to the Brotherhood. The Americans continue to harp on democracy in the Middle East, but an increasing number of observers are coming to the conclusion that by that they mean not the freedom for the people to choose, but the proverbial «controlled chaos».

Defense Minister and Commander of the Egyptian army Abdel Fattah al-Sisi openly criticized the administration of the U.S. and President Obama, saying, «You left the Egyptians, you turned your back on the Egyptians and they won't forget that». Al-Sisi urged the administration to do more to support his country, including exerting influence on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Experts recognize that «today, a democratic transition that the West sought to portray as a model that other Arab nations could emulate lies in tatters».

Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer writes, «One thing already can be said for certain: the basic distribution of power within Egyptian society has not changed. The military and the Muslim Brotherhood divide power between themselves. The Western-oriented liberals do not have any real power and stand, as we are seeing now, on the army’s shoulders». In a broader sense, the military coup in Egypt, along with the civil war in Syria, the destabilization of Lebanon which threatens to spread to Jordan, and the prevalence of violence in Iraq, heralds, in Fischer's view, the end of the Arab revolutions, at least for the time being. 

And well-known economist Jeffrey Sachs believes that «here, the feckless West – torn between its democratic rhetoric and its antipathy to the Islamists – showed its hand. The result was equivocation and delay, rather than commitment and assistance. The IMF has talked with the Egyptian government for two and a half years since Mubarak’s overthrow without so much as lending a single cent, sealing the Egyptian economy’s fate and contributing to public unrest and the recent coup».

Analysts are increasingly interested in the future course of Egypt. They are paying special attention to the current de facto leader of the country, General al-Sisi. For example, journalist Yasser Rizk from the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm describes his meeting with General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in early 2011, when the latter was Egypt's director of military intelligence. It turns out that as early as April 2010 General al-Sisi predicted the inevitability of a popular revolution against the Mubarak regime in a report to Marshal Tantawi and suggested that the army support the people. It is not surprising that subsequently, on August 12, 2012, Mursi appointed him commander in chief and minister of defense. Among the Muslim Brotherhood there was even a widespread rumor that he was a secret member of their brotherhood. However, Rizk asserts that al-Sisi was always first and foremost an «Egyptian nationalist».

After al-Sisi took his new post, his first goal was to restore the fighting capacity of the Egyptian army. He also kept it from participating in political games and interparty conflicts. The general hoped that «the political forces would reach a consensus for the sake of Egypt's future». For him the coup was a matter of necessity. Afterwards, one of al-Sisi's first decisions was the dismissal of General Shehata as the director of Egypt's General Intelligence Directorate, a very important post in Egypt's situation, on July 5 and the appointment of General Mohamed Fareed al-Tuhami, who had for a long time headed the Administrative Control Authority under Mubarak. Thus, al-Sisi already made clear his intent to partially reinstate prior experience.

Al-Sisi, as those who know him well point out, is a calm, level-headed and self-assured person. Despite his seeming mildness, which at one time deceived Mursi, he has a very determined character. At the same time he is sensitive: when he hears the traditional solemn address «the great, free Egyptian people», his eyes fill with tears. He has undoubted charisma. He believes in his mission to save Egypt from impending catastrophe. He places the interests of his country above all. He once told Yasser Rizk, «Egypt is the mother of the world and, God willing, it will fulfill this role». The journalist is certain that in his qualities al-Sisi can only be compared with «the extraordinary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser». The commander of the Egyptian army refuted reports that he plans to run for President of Egypt, although he did not fully rule out the possibility.  But according to DEBKAfile, al-Sisi will almost certainly run for the highest government post late this year and has already essentially begun his election campaign. He plans to restore the traditional high status of the army in Egyptian socio-political life, despite protests from Europe and America. Al-Sisi plans to conduct democratic changes under his own strict control. One of his main characteristics is that he claims to represent the interests of all Egyptians, not only one religious or social group. 

Some experts see al-Sisi as a symbol of «reborn Egyptian nationalism» whose roots go back to Nasser. If events confirm such an assessment, it will serve as a historical justification for advancing military men to the center of social change in Egypt. It is no accident that demonstrators in Cairo who support the actions of the military regime carry portraits of Nasser and al-Sisi in front of them, pointing out the continuity from one to the other. Media loyal to the military regime is more and more frequently calling al-Sisi the «new Nasser», while experts such as Cairo University professor Mohamed Soffar assert that «Egyptians are psychologically not ready for a civilian leader».

The rebirth of the spirit of Nasserism as an ideological and political foundation for the activities of the new government in a critical moment for the country could also open new opportunities for collaboration between Egypt and Russia. In Moscow, as in Cairo, they remember that in the Nasser era this collaboration was very productive, and Egypt was then an influential factor in world politics, including as part of the Non-Aligned Movement.

The latest events have left the country deeply split, with many bearing deep grudges that the popularly elected Brotherhood-backed government was removed, and other Egyptians backing the military's efforts to reassert control. Critics of Morsi and his backers in the Muslim Brotherhood say the former President was acting like a dictator who had lost popular support, and thus he needed to be deposed in order to pave the way for new elections. There is consensus that the country is facing exceptional chaos and bloodshed or even civil war.

International response

The turmoil is spreading overseas. The EU is urgently reviewing its ties; an emergency meeting is at hand. The presidents of the European Commission and European Council, Jose Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, said in a joint statement that the violence «cannot be justified nor condoned « and that it was the responsibility of the military to end it. The EU has pledged several billion dollars in loans and grants to Egypt, but some countries are now calling for this aid to be frozen.

The 15-member Security Council was briefed on the situation in Egypt behind closed doors by U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson. The meeting was jointly requested by council members France, Britain and Australia. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had a telephone conversation with his Egyptian counterpart Nabil Fahmy to discuss the latest developments in Egypt, the Foreign Ministry said on August 15. Egypt counts on Russia’s assistance in this trying time, Izeddin Shahin, press secretary of the Egyptian embassy in Moscow, told ltar-Tass on the same day. He said Egypt was living though extremely hard times and hoped that Moscow would give it assistance, just as it used to in the past. The relationship between the countries justifies this point of view. The number of Russian tourists who opted for Egypt as their getaway in 2012 rose by 30%. Trade turnover between Russia and Egypt rose to 3.5 billion dollars last year. Russia Russia-Egypt summit took place in the southern city of Sochi in April on the occasion of the 70^th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations. There is an agreement reached on Russia’s support in the construction of Egypt's first nuclear power station at Dabaa near the Mediterranean coast and the development of the country's uranium deposits. Russian companies are offered lucrative contracts to develop onshore and offshore oil and natural gas. Russia is ready to cooperate with the Egyptian interim government and it never took sides in the Egyptian internal political struggle calling to abstain from the use of force. There is also a hope the Morsi-announced plans to intervene in Syria have become a thing of the past. 

On August 15 U.S. President Barack Obama announced he was cancelling the Bright Star joint military exercises with Egypt next month and suspending the delivery of a shipment of F-16 fighter aircraft saying normal U.S. cooperation cannot continue. The President stopped short of cutting off the $1.3 billion in annual military aid it supplies to Egypt. According to him, after Morsi was removed there remained an «opportunity to pursue a democratic path», Obama said. «Instead we've seen a more dangerous path taken». I’m afraid he’s got wrong advisers; the opportunity he mentioned was brought to naught by the Brotherhood, the group he actually defends. The US hotly defended Chechen terrorists in the 1990s, refusing to realize Russia and America were in the same boat till the 9/11’s «rude awakening» followed by other crimes like the one committed recently by Tsarnaev brothers. US Republican Senator John McCain told BBC News night that the ousting of President Morsi was a «coup» and President Obama should have cut off aid to Egypt as a result. «The law is very clear that if there is a coup aid is cut off». So far President Obama has been careful not to use the word coup as under US law this would mean stopping aid.

Is the US sincere saying it will get tough on new Egyptian rulers? What about being dependent on Egypt as a transit route to Afghanistan and the Middle East? The figure is 2000 flights by US Air Force last year. Around 50 U.S. naval ships annually pass through the Suez Canal to support the operations of the 5th operational Fleet. The ships are often expedited to leave a very long line of ships behind. Just imagine the consequences for the US military in case Egypt closes its airspace and Сanal access and makes warships cruise around Africa to get to the Persian Gulf! The US has an economic interest as the major arms supplier of the Egyptian armed forces and police. The weapons and equipment are provided under non-repayable, outright U.S. military grants since Egypt joined the U.S.-brokered Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel in 1978. Egypt receives about 1.5 billion dollars in both military and economic aid annually, of which 1.3 billion dollars is earmarked for the military. About 35 % of the 1.3 billion dollars in annual U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants is utilized each year for the purchase of new U.S-produced weapons systems. Of the balance, about 30 percent is earmarked for the purchase and maintenance of U.S. equipment (including the procurement of ammunition), with 20 percent covering the ongoing costs of programs underway and 15 % used to maintain and upgrade equipment in service. Egypt receives grants under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, amounting to about 1.3 million to about 1.9 million dollars annually, plus about $ 250 million annually in economic aid. So far, the White House has refused to cut off aid to Egypt, I believe it won’t because the military and the military-industrial complex that ex-President Eisenhower warned about has a special interest here. The US influence is felt in Egypt. For instance, the head of the Egyptian armed forces, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, spent a year at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania from 2005 to 2006. The loss of American hardware might reduce the Egyptian military’s ability to control jihadis in the ungoverned Sinai desert, but it would also hurt US military equipment sellers, damage foreign policy goals and put Israel in danger. So far the US has already adroitly shied away from calling a spade a spade, the word «a coup» is never mentioned in official statements. It will have to find an accommodation with the Egyptian military, because it’s the only real force to rely on. 

Qatar had poured nearly $5 billion into Morsi’s government in its one short year in office propping up Egypt’s teetering economy in belief it was investing in a lasting relationship. Now with Morsi gone, the emirate has lost its clout. The Qatar-owned news network Al Jazeera praised the ousted Egyptian President. Now the Qatar’s flag is burnt in Tahrir Square by people enraged by its strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Earlier this month, the Egyptian military rounded up 28 of the channel’s staff in Cairo and made its correspondent flee a press conference, claiming that Al Jazeera endangered Egypt’s national security. Qatar has lost in the contest for influence between old rivals in the Gulf. Since the interim government took the reins, aid has poured in from the other Gulf states. Saudi Arabia lost no time to announce its support for the interim government of Egypt. In the time of need, it immediately offered Egypt $5 billion in aid added by $3 billion more from the United Arab Emirates and $4 billion by Kuwait making pale the Qatar’s $5 billion going to the Morsi’s government last year. It was the ousted Morsi who opened the door to rapprochement with Iran after all. He played with the idea of sending support to Brotherhood cells in the Gulf. Just a few days ago the UAE convicted around 70 people reported to be allied to the Brotherhood for «plotting a coup». Both General Sisi and Adly Mansour have old ties with Riyadh – Gen Sisi was once defense attaché there, while Mr. Mansour spent seven years as an adviser to the Saudi Ministry of Commerce. So the Persian Gulf states have become an important factor against the background of diminishing US clout. Anti-Brotherhood protesters believe the U.S. was involved in conspiring to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in power, while the radicals are equally convinced that the United States had conspired to topple Morsi. It happens that the Obama’s Cairo delivered four years back has failed to bear fruit. This is an important turn of events. Perhaps that’s what makes the Egyptian government so self-assured, no matter what the US (or the EU) does or says. 

Going to the bottom of events

Reading the news attentively one can clearly see it was the Brotherhood snipers on the rooftops who started to use arms first. They took positions around the protesters camps areas. They did it being warned two days before the camps had to disappear. The Brotherhood launched preparation for bloodshed it knew would happen. And they had been warned. This is the style of Egyptian military – the ousted President had been warned he had two days to find an accommodation with the opposite side before the action started.

The military toppled Morsi, but the action was supported by millions of common people. The masses insisted the military do it, call it a coup or a popular action. Was it really a coup? Normally coups are led by top generals who take power. This time it’s the opposition leaders who are offered to take the reins and the prospects are high for democratic parliamentary and then presidential elections to take place soon. Adly Mansour, the interim country’s leader, is not a general. 

If the prospects for elections are real, then it’s the only legitimate way out of the situation. What is important – the representatives of all forces and the military supported the idea of Muslim Brotherhood’s taking part in the political process. As I have mentioned above, the military have had no intention to exclude the Brotherhood from political life. So, there was a chance for peaceful settlement. At that, up to the moment all the advances to find an accommodation have been flatly refused by «brothers». It was them who started the stand-off. They refuse the policy for finding the way out through democratic elections offering a bloody revolt instead. One more trend is important to take notice of. The support for the Brotherhood has been dwindling. The Morsi’s government is a miserable failure. The Muslim Brotherhood realizes it stands no chance to be the winner if the election is held today. 

About 20% of the population are Copts, the Christians, who realize the consequences of Islamists grabbing power and establishing the Sharia laws. If the military starts to lose, the non-Muslims will have no choice but mobilize their forces. Then it will be something similar to the situation in Syria. A cruel and never ending war in the country of 85 million with the Suez Canal playing an important role for the world economy. 

So the «brothers» find it is more blessed to preserve what they had a year ago by demanding Morsi come back. It’s worth to note, they expressed their readiness to discuss the situation with the interim government during the next couple of days after the coup and then all of a sudden made an about-face and became adamant in their demands for Morsi’s return.

Will they prevail? I believe no, because the popular support is down. They are still going strong, but it’s going down, this trend is obvious. The military knows well who they deal with, no doubt it has prepared for the challenge. The brothers never stopped to shed blood before, remember the Luxor Massacre killing 62 people, mostly tourists that took place on 17 November 1997? Nobody doubts they have armed formations, but the army and police bolstered by popular support, at least in big cities, will sooner or later bring their fervor down. Besides, the Brotherhood is already decapitated and the process will continue, their leaders will have to leave the battlefield. These are obvious facts that cannot be ignored by any assessment of the situation in the country. 

Who does the Egyptian military oppose?

The Brotherhood had been internationally classified as a terrorist group till the turmoil in Egypt started. It openly says it hates all the Jews and views them as sworn enemies (is peace with Israel possible if it wins?). It incites hatred against Egyptian Christians and it sets the goal of spreading Sharia laws across the whole world. They use populist slogans to their advantage because approximately 60% of Egyptian population cannot read and write. Those who voted for the Brotherhood are mainly poor people from rural areas. Women from the countryside voted for whatever party their husbands told them to vote for. The Brotherhood knows that if they fail now they are finished. Its goal is to pose as victims abroad and get international support that puts emphasis on moral principles, the very same ones the Brotherhood trampled on so disdainfully in the Morsi’s days. If the West continues to react the same way it does and, suppose, the Brotherhood gets the upper hand, then the West will step on the same rake, something it has already done on so many days in so many ways when it comes to the Middle East policies. 

If the military is successful and it manages to stabilize the things, it will affect the whole region, so the events in Egypt are a kind of Armageddon for the Middle East: Tunisia, Libya and even Turkey. 

In case the Brotherhood holds a victory, a prospect for an alliance of Sharia-ruled countries is a strong possibility. Then Egypt becomes a leader of the Middle East Islamist movement. It will spur the process of islamization of Algeria, Jordan and Morocco. 

Economy and social stability

Around 5000 enterprises have become idle since 2011. Tourism, the 15 % budget segment of economy, is down. The gold reserves have fallen from 36 billion dollars in 2011 to 13 billion in 2013. The international credits (30 billion dollars) are frozen till democracy is restored. Unemployment is 13%. 21.4 % of the 27.3 million strong work force are temporary workers and at least 46.5 percent of those employees work in the unofficial sector without contracts. 67 percent has no health insurance. The turmoil started in 2011 has undermined foreign investment and harmed the tourism industry. Social stability is threatened by rising crime rate. According to the Interior Ministry, the past year has witnessed a 120 percent increase in murders, 350 percent increase in robberies, and 145 percent jump in kidnappings. It was widespread poverty (25 percent under the poverty line) and poor working conditions were all factors fuelled the January 2011 revolution. It is exactly the moribund economy, fuel and food shortages that the Morsi’s government failed to tackle. A Pew survey of Egyptian public opinion released in May showed 66% of Egyptians preferred democracy to any other form of government, and 51% were willing to live under a democratic government even if there is a risk of instability. Yet, when asked if they preferred «strong democracy over a strong economy», only 45% agreed, while 52% said that living in a good economy was more important to living in a democracy.

* * *

Egypt is the largest Arab state and has all the resources and opportunities to become the driving force for the economic development of the entire region. Economic progress is key to real democracy diminishing the importance of pure populist slogans covering the thrust for personal totalitarian power. The country will have political freedoms, but it’s a gradual process. Rome wasn't built in a day. Economic success will undermine the basis for extremists support among grassroots. True, a government that came to power in a fair election was overthrown by the army. The Morsi’s government was democratically elected but his coming to power was the last nail in the coffin of the country’s democratic process being, as is often said nowadays: one man – one vote – one time. The military had no choice but oust a democratically elected president to get democracy back.

The interim government should be given a chance, it does not exclude the Brotherhood from the process (rather the Brotherhood excludes itself) and the international community may and should play a positive role. Egypt is going through hard times and it needs a helping hand, not rebukes and sanctions. It has announced the intention to cede power to elected officials. This option is much more preferable than prolonged chaos and civil war in the country with the population exceeding 80 million people.