The Yemen Truce Is in Danger: The Aggressor’s Ships Are in the Crosshairs of the Yemeni Forces

Sep 30, 2022

By Mustapha Awada 

During negotiations for the extension of the armistice agreement for a fourth time in a row and before the current ceasefire expires, Yemen’s Ansarullah movement put forward three conditions.

The conditions are as follows:

“Paying salaries, ending the siege on Sana’a Airport, north of the capital, and the port of al-Hudaydah, west of the capital, and a halt to violations in order to achieve real stability.”

*Al-Hanash: If the aggressors do not abide by the terms of the armistice, we will end it.

Offering insight into the course of these negotiations, a member of the Yemeni national negotiating delegation, Abdul Majeed Al-Hanash, told Al-Ahed News that “if the aggressor does not abide by the terms of the armistice, we will end it ourselves. Sanaa would have no other choice because if the conditions are not implemented, the Yemeni people will demand their leadership resume the war.”

“The bank of objectives that the Yemeni leadership adopted before the truce is the same one that we are working on. But oil shipments will be added to that list. It is not possible for us to allow oil to cross into the Gulf to go to global markets while our people are besieged and their wealth is being stolen,” Al-Hanash added.  

“If we end the truce, we will use everything we have within the territorial waters to intercept oil tankers and stop the theft that is being conducted.”  

Abdul Majeed Al-Hanash applauded the resistance axis, stressing that “the Yemeni people are a qualitative addition to this axis and to the Palestinian cause, who pledged to always stand by its side and its resistant people.”

Anam: The forces of aggression not complying with the armistice will pave the way for an expansion of the circle of engagement.

For his part, the advisor of the Yemeni Supreme Political Council, Dr. Muhammad Taher Anam, told Al-Ahed that “the failure of the forces of aggression to abide by the armistice will not only push the leadership to resume military confrontations, but will expand the circle of engagement, especially after it was disturbed by the theft of oil resources and the conspiracy involving the United Arab Emirates, Total and the French government that are stealing Yemeni gas from Shabwa Governorate.”

“Clear statements were issued by the Yemeni army’s official spokesman, directed at foreign companies that steal Yemeni oil and gas. He called on them to take these statement seriously if an agreement on a new truce is not reached based on the conditions we set.”

He pointed out that “the adherence to the truce by the Saudi and Emirati regimes was in the 20% to 25% range, according to our estimates. They opened Sana’a Airport to Yemeni travelers to Amman and Cairo and allowed fuel ships to enter the port of al-Hudaydah. Other than that, there was no commitment neither to paying salaries of the employees from oil and gas revenues that are exported from Shabwa nor opening roads.

“There are some mediators, such as the UN envoy to Yemen, the Sultanate of Oman, and other countries, that are trying to press Saudi Arabia and the UAE to abide by their duties. We hope that these mediations will result in the implementation of the agreement that was signed because if this is not done, we will target companies and ships that steal Yemeni gas and oil unless salaries are paid before specifying the next truce.”

The adviser to the Yemeni Political Council stressed that “the military parade that the Sana’a government recently held on the occasion of the anniversary of September 21 was not random. Rather, it carried a message that we are still carrying the rifle and are ready for war again, and on a larger scale.”

According to Dr. Anam, “the parade is a warning to the Saudi and Emirati regimes. If both of them do not abide by the agreements that are in the interest of the Yemeni people, withdraw from their lands, and pay war compensation, the upgraded missiles and naval mines will be used to protect the interests of this nation.”

Muhammad Taher Anam affirmed that “both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are still violating these agreements and the commitments presented to the UN envoy and the mediating countries, as they are trying to position themselves between Russia and the West by stealing Yemeni gas and exporting it to Europe. This is after concluding agreements on this issue with some European states at a time when they are importing their oil from Qatar and others. However, we will follow through on the threat of the leader Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, and we will not be patient to the continuous looting of our wealth.”

Lavrov x two

May 30, 2022

Source

Introduction by Amarynth

This posting contains one recent interview and one recent address by Mr Lavrov.  One is extensive and the second contains a few comments not included in the first.  One is directed to an international audience (more specifically the Arab world) and the other to a domestic audience.  Why should we look at these very carefully, and why do we post them on the Saker Blog?   Mr Lavrov is arguably one of the best diplomats in the world today.  In that role, he is a pleasure to read or listen to.  But, that is not the main reason.  He has a fine facility with language and explains exactly Russia’s position and further, the world position in its process toward multipolarity and a new financial system in a pragmatic realpolitik style, undergirded by an encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs.

Sidebar:  While Mr Lavrov is speaking to the Arab countries, his counterpart in China, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, is speaking to all of the smaller Pacific island countries (PICS).  Comparing the welcome that these statesmen receive, it is beginning to clarify that the other geopolitical axis (which we roughly and in shorthand refer to as Zone B)  of this war for the world is active and up and running.  Mr Lavrov mentions the organizations.   It is then worthwhile to mention that BRICS is expected to grow by at least two countries during the next general meeting.  It is expected that Argentina will be next, which will then start including the new Latin American groupings such as Celac (The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) or ALBA-TCP.  Thus we see a coalescence of countries around the principles of international law, the true principles in the UN Charter, and a world community built on cooperation and collective values, instead of one ruler of the world.

First up is an interview with RT Arabic, clearly for an international audience.

Second up is remarks to the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, clearly a domestic audience.


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT Arabic, Moscow, May 26, 2022

Question: Your recent visit to Algeria and Oman generated a lot of interest. What can you say about its results? Why did you decide to visit these states?

Sergey Lavrov: We communicate with all interested countries. As for this tour, it was planned long ago. The programme of my visits and their timeframe were coordinated some time ago.

In Algeria, I had good, lengthy talks with President of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Abdelmadjid Tebboune and Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra. We emphasised that for many years our relations were based on the Declaration on Strategic Partnership that was signed by our presidents in 2001. Since then we have intensively developed our strategic ties as partners in many areas. It is enough to mention our regular political dialogue, trade (it went up by several percent in 2021 to exceed $3 billion despite the pandemic), the economy, joint investment, our work in the OPEC+ and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, extensive military-technical ties and cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

We concluded (at the prompting of Algeria) that our relations are reaching a qualitatively new level. This should be reflected in a document that is already being drafted. We hope to sign this document when President of Algeria Abdelmadjid Tebboune visits Russia at the invitation of President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

We appreciate that the countries of the Arab world are refusing to follow in the wake of the West and are objectively assessing the events in Ukraine and refusing to join the anti-Russia sanctions. They understand that the current situation was caused by the flat refusal of our Western colleagues to reach an accommodation on equal and indivisible security in our common region.

As for Oman, this was the first visit since its new Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said acceded to the throne. The Sultan received me with good grace and devoted much time to me. I was particularly grateful to his Majesty for this gesture (the protocol of the Sultanate of Oman does not envisage communication with ministers in this format). Our detailed talks showed that we have a good potential for developing trade and economic ties. We want to raise them to the level of our trust-based political dialogue. We have many opportunities in energy and ICT and interesting cultural projects. A half-year exhibition of Islamic Art in Russia ended in the National Museum of Oman last March. This museum and the Hermitage have been closely cooperating since 2015. Both museums display their own expositions on each other’s territory.

These two planned visits to both countries at the planned time were useful, in my view.

Question: What about a top-level visit?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that during a telephone conversation with President of Algeria Abdelmadjid Tebboune, President of Russia Vladimir Putin invited him to visit the Russian Federation. Now we are preparing the documents required for this visit.

Question: And what about Oman?

Sergey Lavrov: No top-level visits are envisaged for Oman for the time being. We are planning to develop practical cooperation, make it more intensive and productive.

Question: Will there be additional agreements on military cooperation?

Sergey Lavrov: Our military-technical cooperation with many countries develops according to their wishes. We are always ready to examine ways to strengthen their defence capabilities. We consider them as we receive relevant requests.

Question: We are talking about Algeria, which also produces both gas and oil. The OPEC+ countries have shown firmness about the previously agreed positions within the organisation on the parameters of oil production and pricing on the oil market. Do you have confidence in the stability of your partners’ position?

Sergey Lavrov: We have discussed our further cooperation not only within OPEC+ but also the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), where Russia and Algeria are also included. All OPEC+ and GECF members without exception publicly affirmed their commitment to the agreements reached in these formats and their intention to continue working in this direction in order to stabilise the energy market.

Question: Where will you visit next?

Sergey Lavrov: The next visit will take place very soon. On May 31 and June 1, based on my invitations, I plan to visit Bahrain first. Later, on June 1, Riyadh will host a regular meeting of the Russia-GCC Foreign Ministers Forum. This forum has been around for a long time. Due to the pandemic, there was a break in our meetings. Now our friends have proposed resuming them. In addition to the Russia-GCC meeting, there will also be bilateral meetings with almost all members of this organisation.

Question: How do you find Arab countries’ position on the Ukrainian crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: Just now, answering the previous question, I said that all Arab countries have a responsible position. This proves that they rely solely on their national interests and are not ready to sacrifice them for the sake of anyone’s opportunistic geopolitical adventures. We have mutually respectful relations. We understand the vital interests of the Arab countries in connection with the threats to their security. They reciprocate our feelings and understand the threats to the security of the Russian Federation that the West has been creating right on our borders for decades, trying to use Ukraine to contain Russia and seriously harm us.

Question: Do you think these countries will continue to pursue this policy, despite the pressure from the West, particularly, from the Anglo-Saxon alliance?

Sergey Lavrov: The arrogance of the Anglo-Saxon alliance has no limits. We are offered evidence of that every day. Instead of delivering on their obligations under the UN Charter and honouring, as is written in this charter, the sovereign equality of states and abstaining from interfering in their domestic affairs, the West churns out ultimatums every day, issuing them through their ambassadors or envoys to each, without exception, capital not only in the Arab world but in other regions of the world as well, and, in so doing, blatantly blackmailing them, citing some subjective situations. The West is directly threatening their interlocutors, saying they will regret failing to join the sanctions against Russia and will be punished for this. It is blatant disrespect for sovereign countries. The reaction of Arab countries and almost all other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that we are seeing shows that these countries do not want to disregard their national dignity, running errands, in a servile manner, for their senior colleagues. This situation is yet another example of colonial thinking. The habits of our Western colleagues have not vanished. In their traditional style, the United States and Europe are still preaching the colonial customs they adhered to at a time when they could dictate to all others. It is wrong and regrettable, and flies in the face of the historical process, which objectively shows that a multipolar world is taking shape now. It has several centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence. Everyone understands now that China and India are fast-growing economies and influential countries, just like Brazil and other Latin American countries. The tapping of Africa’s enormous potential of natural resources has been held back by the colonialists during the period of neo-colonialism as well, which is not over yet. That is why Africa is also making its voice heard. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Arab world is objectively one of the pillars or one of the centres of a multipolar world that is being shaped now.

Question: We are talking about good relations between Russia, China and India. Can these countries form an alliance against US hegemony?

Sergey Lavrov: We never form alliances against anyone and never make friends with someone against others. We have a ramified network of partner organisations established many years ago. I will mention the organisations established after the Soviet Union’s disintegration. These are the CIS, the CSTO, the EAEU and the SCO on a broader geopolitical plane. The SCO has established and is developing close ties with the EAEU and as part of the linkage of Eurasian integration projects with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The EAEU and the PRC have signed an agreement. The linkage of these integration projects is embracing more and more territories. Thus, in addition to EAEU-SCO cooperation, these organisations have memorandums on cooperation with ASEAN. The Greater Eurasia project (or the Greater Eurasia Partnership) should embrace the whole of Eurasia. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this at the Russia-ASEAN summit six years ago. It is based on the processes on the ground and has a Eurasian dimension.

Many countries of the Arab world are interested in establishing partner relations with the SCO that represents all other leading sub-regions of our enormous common continent. These are efforts to build constructive and positive (not antagonistic) alliances that are not aimed against anyone. They are gradually acquiring a global character, which is reflected in the development of the BRICS Five (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Our Saudi friends and Argentina are interested in it. Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero expressed his country’s desire to become a full member of BRICS.

BRICS is preparing for a regular summit. It will create an outreach format in which a dozen developing nations will take part. These processes are underway. We know that our Western friends have many phobias and complexes of their own superiority and infallibility. But they are also paranoid. The West sees opposition and a threat to its domination in any process in which it does not take part and which it does not control. It is time to get rid of these manners and customs.

Question: What about the recent Russia-China military exercises? What do they show?

Sergey Lavrov: This is the continuation of our cooperation aimed at enhancing security in this region. They supplement regular military undertakings: drills and training sessions with counterterrorism aims, efforts to strengthen the security of our common borders within the SCO. Russia-China bilateral military cooperation already has a long history. This is not the first year that we are holding events in the zone of our common borders where our security interests directly overlap; we do it regularly. They show that both Russia and China have a responsible attitude to fulfilling these tasks.

Question: Despite the evidence cited by Russia, the development of biological weapons by the United States in Ukraine has not evoked any concern in the West. What should be done for the world to understand how dangerous this is? The Arab press writes about the historical importance of Russia’s efforts to show how these laboratories operate.

Sergey Lavrov: This is a direct violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons. Enjoying support of all countries except the US, we have long been advocating the formation of a universal transparent verification mechanism within its framework that would allow all states to be sure that no participants of the Convention violate it. The United States has simply blocked this initiative since 2001 (for more than 20 years). Now it is clear why it occupies this position. During all these years, the Americans have been setting up their military bio laboratories all over the world. The Pentagon’s unit – the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) – is in charge of these activities. In developing a network of such laboratories, the Pentagon is focusing on the post-Soviet space and Eurasia. Available information shows that these laboratories have been or are being established along the perimeter of the Russian Federation and closer to the PRC. We initially suspected that the experiments made in these laboratories were not entirely peaceful and innocent. When the Russian Armed Forces and the militias of Donetsk and Lugansk liberated Mariupol during the military operation, they discovered laboratories left by the Americans in a rush. The Americans tried to get rid of documents and samples but didn’t destroy all of them. The samples of pathogens and the documents found there clearly pointed to the military character of these experiments. It is clear from the documents that there are several dozen such laboratories in Ukraine. We are pursuing two goals. First, we will convince the UN Security Council to take seriously the information we presented to it (you noted that the overwhelming majority of the developing nations do take it seriously). Second, we want this information to lead to specific actions that must be taken under the Biological Weapons Convention. It requires that the United States explain what it was doing there. We held five special briefings in the UN Security Council, one of them quite recently. We will work to make the US take specific actions proceeding from its commitments under the Convention. We will also analyse additional information about the involvement of other countries in these experiments and military bio laboratories in Ukraine. According to some sources, these are Great Britain and Germany.

Question: If you don’t mind my asking, where are other similar laboratories located in the vicinity of Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: No, I don’t mind. There are such laboratories in Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Central Asian countries. Russia and these countries have been analysing these problems both bilaterally and at the CSTO. We are signing (or have signed, or are preparing) memorandums on interaction in biological security with practically all CSTO and other CIS countries.  These documents stipulate that the signatories will inform each other of how biological programmes develop in each country.

What is important is transparency, which makes it possible to ascertain that these programmes have no military dimension, since this is prohibited under the Convention. These memorandums imply that the parties will pay mutual visits and familiarise themselves with the activities conducted by these laboratories.  In addition, it is stipulated that there should be no military representatives of any third party at the biological facilities in each of our countries.

Question: How are these countries motivated in having such laboratories? Will this bring them any material or political benefits?

Sergey Lavrov: The USSR pursued a large-scale biological programme. After the Soviet Union joined the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, this programme was stripped of its military aspects, but the scientific value of the biological research is retained.  We all remember the state in which this country was in 1991, when the USSR ceased to exist. We faced the problem of preserving the Russian Federation’s integrity. There were no state reserves to repay the national debt or even to purchase the basic necessities for the Russian population’s everyday life. At that time, our Western partners “hopped to it,” as we say, offering their services in all areas of life. They penetrated all spheres of the newly independent states, sending their advisers and advice-givers. Today we are experiencing the aftermath of those times. Major changes have occurred. There are no Soviet republics, which became independent overnight. They had no experience of independent international activity. But now all of this is a thing of the past. All the post-Soviet republics have consolidated their stand, asserting themselves as absolutely sovereign, independent states.  They decide what partners to choose on their own. We have agreements with them to the effect that the commitments assumed within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and the Eurasian Economic Union should be fully respected by other countries interested in developing relations with all post-Soviet states. We discussed the problems that all of us encountered during the emergence of the new statehood.  Various agencies exchange information about the risks involved in this sweeping cooperation with foreign countries in sensitive spheres. Biology is, of course, one of these spheres.  There is awareness that we have a unified biological security space. The CSTO’s purview includes security issues that are directly related to public health and the environment.  We will continue our constructive cooperation based on these statutes.

Question: Turkey and Italy have proposed a plan for organising talks between Russia and Kiev. Is Russia ready to continue the talks, which have not yielded any results lately?

Sergey Lavrov: We pointed out on numerous occasions that our Western colleagues want to use Vladimir Zelensky and all citizens of Ukraine to the last Ukrainian, which has become proverbial, to damage Russia as much as possible, to defeat it on the battlefield. This has been openly declared in Washington, Berlin, London and especially loudly in Warsaw. Poland has proposed that the Russian world must be destroyed like a “cancer” which is a deadly threat to the whole world. I would like to look at this world as it is represented by our Polish neighbours. For many years Russia has tried to explain why NATO’s eastward expansion and the drawing of Ukraine into the bloc are unacceptable to us. They listened to us but did not comprehend what we said.

When the coup was staged in 2014, the [Ukrainian] opposition trampled on the agreements reached despite the EU’s guarantees. The EU proved unable to force the putschists to respect the signatures of France, Germany and Poland. In 2015, the war in Donbass unleashed by the new Ukrainian authorities, who seized power in the coup, was stopped. The Minsk agreements were signed and guaranteed by France and Germany. All these years we called on Kiev to honour its commitments. Since the West had the decisive influence on it, we also worked with the Europeans and Americans, appealing to their conscience. Regrettably, they have no conscience.

Instead of forcing Kiev to implement the agreements, which should have been done through a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, the West tried to justify Zelensky and his team, even when they said publicly that they would never talk with “those people,” although this is stipulated in the UN Security Council resolution approving the Minsk agreements. They said that they would never implement the Minsk agreements or give a special status to these republics. At the same time, they adopted laws that prohibited the Russian language in education and media. Media outlets were shut down. The Russian language was even prohibited in everyday life. Only the Ukrainian language was allowed as the medium of interaction between people in Ukraine.

Moreover, Vladimir Zelensky stated that those who feel Russian must go to Russia. He said this in September 2021. We drew the attention of some Western countries, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the relevant UN bodies to these aggressively Russophobic and racist statements made in the spirit of the neo-Nazi policy which was gaining a foothold in the Ukrainian legislation. They did not react in any way. Some officials sometimes called for respect for international commitments. But Zelensky doesn’t give a damn about international commitments or the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. They showed no respect for the Constitution and international conventions and adopted a lot of anti-Russian laws.

As for Russia’s readiness for talks, we have already explained why we couldn’t sit on our hands any longer. What we found on the Ukrainian army positions during the special military operation proved that we were barely in time with starting it, because Ukraine’s Plan B was to be enacted on March 8. A huge group of the Ukrainian armed forces, which was deployed on the contact line with Donbass by mid-February, planned to attack and occupy these territories in flagrant violation of the Minsk agreements and the UN Security Council resolution.

I have no doubt that had they succeeded the West would have turned a blind eye to these violations, just as it pretended not to notice Kiev’s disregard for all the agreements during the previous eight years.

When the Ukrainian authorities proposed negotiations several days after the operation began, we agreed immediately. We held several in-person rounds of talks in Belarus, trying to understand Ukraine’s position and what it wants to achieve at the talks, because we had presented our approach. After several rounds were held in Belarus and online, the idea of meeting in Istanbul was put forth, and the Ukrainian delegation brought, for the first time, written proposals signed by the head of the delegation to the meeting we held on March 29. We analysed these proposals, reported our opinion to President Putin and told our Ukrainian colleagues that we were ready to proceed on that basis. Since they didn’t present a complete agreement but only its individual provisions, we used them to quickly draft an agreement that was based on the Ukrainian proposals and turned it over to the Ukrainian delegation. The following day a flagrant provocation was staged in Bucha, where dead bodies were found in the streets three days after Russian troops had left the city, after three days of peaceful life. We were accused of killing those people. You remember what happened next.

The West adopted a new package of sanctions, as if it had been waiting for it to happen. The Ukrainians said that they had reviewed their position and would reformulate the principles underlying the agreement. Nevertheless, contacts between us continued. The latest draft agreement, which we submitted to Ukraine nearly a month ago, is gathering dust. If you ask who wants to hold and is ready for talks, Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview the other day (he does this almost every day) that he is ready for talks, but they must be held between himself and Vladimir Putin, because there is allegedly no use doing this at any other level. He said the talks should be held without any intermediaries and only after Ukraine resumed control of its territory as of February 23, 2022. Anyone can see that this is not serious. But it suits the West to keep up this unreasonable and unsubstantiated obstinacy. This is a fact.

The West has called for defeating Russia on the battlefield, which means that the war must continue and that increasingly more weapons must be provided to the Ukrainian nationalists, to the Ukrainian regime, including weapons that can hit targets in the Russian Federation. It is such weapons that Vladimir Zelensky demands publicly. We have issued most serious warnings to the West that it is, in fact, fighting a proxy war against the Russian Federation with the hands, bodies and brains of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, which can become a major step towards an unacceptable escalation. I hope that the remaining reasonable forces in the West are aware of this.

As for Turkey and Italy, Turkey doesn’t have a plan. At least nobody has presented it to us, although President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has noted on many occasions that Turkey is ready to provide a venue just as it did in Istanbul on March 29.  In fact, it was a useful contact. For the first time the Ukrainians presented their vision of a peace agreement on paper in response to our numerous requests, which we accepted and translated into the legal language. I have told you what happened after that. President Erdogan stands for peace and is ready to do all he can to bring it about. But Vladimir Zelensky has said that he doesn’t need intermediaries. That’s his business. He is as fickle as the wind: first, he rallied the support of all the G7 countries, and now it appears that former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is creating an advisory group at Kiev’s request that will provide proposals on security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of a peace settlement.

I would like to remind you that initially the Ukrainians’ concept was to draft a comprehensive agreement which would include Ukraine’s pledge not to join any blocs or have nuclear weapons, as well as guarantees of its neutral status. It would also stipulate the guarantor countries’ guarantees that will take into account the security interests of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and other countries in the region. As I have mentioned, Kiev is moving away from that concept. If Andreas Fogh Rasmussen has been recruited to formulate certain “guarantees” in a narrow circle of the Ukrainian regime’s Western sponsors and to subsequently try to submit them to Russia, it is a path that leads nowhere.

Question: Is this a non-paper? Just an initiative of former [NATO] officials?

Sergey Lavrov: We are looking into this now. This has already been promoted as a breakthrough step. The same applies to the Italian initiative.  Luigi Di Maio is quite active in the media landscape promoting the Italian four-point initiative. All we know about it is that it can bring the long-awaited peace, and not just suit both Russia and Ukraine, but launch something like a new Helsinki process, a new agreement on European security, and that it already enjoys the support of the G7 and the UN Secretary-General. I don’t know whether this is true, or to whom he has shown it. No one has sent us anything. All we can go by is speculation, descriptions of this initiative as they appear in the media.

But what we have read (if it is true, of course) makes us regret that the sponsors of this initiative show so little understanding of what is happening or knowledge of the subject, the history of this matter. Allegedly, it says that Crimea and Donbass should be part of Ukraine, which should grant those regions broad autonomy. Serious politicians who want to achieve results, not just grandstand to impress their voters, cannot be proposing such things. Donbass could have returned to Ukraine a long time ago if the Ukrainian regimes (Petr Poroshenko, and then Vladimir Zelensky) had fulfilled the Minsk agreements and granted a special status to the people that refused to accept the coup. The package included the status of the Russian language. However, instead of granting that status, Ukraine banned the Russian language. Instead of unblocking economic ties, Poroshenko announced a transport embargo on those regions, making retirees travel many kilometres to receive their pension benefits.

This Italian initiative you asked me about – as reported by the media – also calls for launching a new Helsinki process, in addition to reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine, to ensure the safety of everyone and everything.  Our colleagues in Rome came to their senses too late. The Helsinki process has given a number of important gains to the world, to our region, to the Euro-Atlantic region, including declarations signed at the highest political level, at the OSCE summits, in particular in Istanbul in 1999, in Astana in 2010 – declarations on indivisible security. Those documents said security can only be equal and indivisible. Further elaborating on this, they said all participating states have the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance, but no country can join any alliances or otherwise strengthen its security if it affects the security of any other state. The third component of this formula is that no country, no organisation in the OSCE area will claim to dominate security issues.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Europe understands that Western countries have been grossly violating the key components of that commitment by strengthening their security in violation of Russia’s right to its own security. They claim that only NATO can call the tune in this region, and no one else. We have tried to make those beautiful political words become reality, to make them work rather than keep them on paper signed off by the presidents of the United States and European countries. We proposed making that political commitment legally binding. As far back as in 2009, we proposed an agreement to NATO countries. They said they wouldn’t even discuss it because only NATO could provide legal security guarantees. When we asked about the OSCE’s role, they said those were just political promises and slogans. That showed how Western politicians treat the signatures of their presidents. But we did not stop there.

We made another attempt last year. In November 2021, President Vladimir Putin instructed his team to draft new documents to agree with the United States and NATO on the principles that would be approved by all at the highest level. We drafted those treaties and transferred them to Washington and Brussels in early December 2021. Several rounds of negotiations followed. I met with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. We were told that we could discuss the arms control agenda, but NATO expansion was not our business or anybody’s business, for that matter. When we again quoted their commitment not to strengthen their security at the expense of others, they dismissed that as immaterial. What mattered was NATO’s so-called open door policy. We have warned them repeatedly – in 2009, then in 2013, 2014 (when a coup d’état occurred in Ukraine), and in 2015 (the Minsk agreements). All these years, we have been telling our Western colleagues that it will end badly because they continue to ignore our legitimate interests and rudely tell us no when we ask them to take us into consideration – not somewhere tens of thousands of kilometres away, but right on the borders of the Russian Federation. This arrogance, this air of being exceptional, this colonial mentality (I can do anything and you will do what I tell you) is not manifested only in their attitude to our interests.

Remember 1999, when the United States suddenly decided that Yugoslavia, lying 10,000 kilometres away from its coasts, posed a threat to its security? They bombed it to dust in a heartbeat. They used OSCE Mission leader William Walker from the United States to loudly declare that several dozen corpses discovered in the village of Racak were a crime against humanity. As it turned out later, these corpses were not civilians, but militants who were disguised as civilians and scattered around the place.

The same setup was used in Bucha near Kiev on April 3. It works regardless of whether the public finds it convincing or not. They didn’t need to convince anyone. They bombed Yugoslavia, created an independent Kosovo violating every OSCE principle in the process and then said it would be like that from then on.

They said no after the referendum in Crimea. According to them, self-determination in Kosovo is a good thing, but self-determination in Crimea is not. This is being done as if nothing were wrong. No one is even blushing, although it’s a shame for Western diplomacy which has lost its ability to provide elegant explanations for their grossly reckless moves.

In 2003, the United States decided that a threat was coming from another country located 10,000 kilometres away and produced a vial with what I think was tooth powder. Poor Colin Powell later lamented that he had been set up by the intelligence. Several years later, Tony Blair, too, said it was a mistake, but nothing could be done about it. Nothing can be done about it. They bombed the country killing under a million civilians. Until now, Iraq’s integrity has not been restored. There are enough problems there, including terrorism, which did not exist there before. Indeed, Iraq and Libya were authoritarian regimes, but there were no terrorists, ongoing hostilities, or military provocations.

Libya is on that list, as well. In 2011, President Obama said that they would be “leading from behind” Europe.  France, the most democratic nation in the Old World (freedom, equality, fraternity), led the NATO operation to destroy the regime. As a result, they destroyed the country. It is hard to put it back together now. Again, the French are trying to do so as they come up with initiatives, convene conferences and announce election dates. All in vain, because, before going in, they needed to think about what would become of Libya after the West ensured its “security” in that country.

I’m citing this example not to say: they can, but we can’t. That would be simplifying matters. What I’m saying is that the Western countries believe that the entire world is part of their security, and they must rule the world.

As NATO was crawling up to Russia’s borders, it told us not to be concerned about it, since NATO is a defensive alliance and does not threaten our country’s security. First, this sounds like a diplomatic effrontery. We must decide for ourselves on our security interests, just like any other country. Second, NATO was a defensive alliance when there was someone to stand up to like the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. There was the Berlin Wall between Western and Eastern Europe. Everyone was clear about the line of defence. After the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union ceased to exist, any lieutenant with basic training knew there was no longer any such thing as a defence line. All you need to do now is live a normal life based on shared values and a common European space.

We put our signature under multiple slogans including “from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean,” “from Lisbon to Vladivostok,” and “we are brothers and sisters now.” However, they retained their military nature as they continued to move the “line of defence” closer to our borders. We have just had an in-depth discussion on the outcomes of this policy. In recent months, the NATO Secretary General and warmongering politicians like the British Foreign Secretary have been publicly stating that the alliance must have global responsibility. NATO must be in charge of security in the Pacific. This may mean that next time NATO’s “defence line” will move to the South China Sea.

Not only NATO, but the EU leaders also decided to “play soldiers.” Ursula von der Leyen, who is rivalling EU top diplomat Josep Borrell in terms of bellicosity, claimed that the EU must be in charge of security matters in the Indo-Pacific region. How are they going to accomplish this? They keep talking about an EU “army.” No one will let them create this “army” as long as NATO exists.

To all appearances, no one is going to even reform NATO. They are going to turn this “defensive alliance” into a global alliance claiming global military dominance. This is a dangerous path that is definitely doomed to failure.

Question: To what extent are these developments affecting the Russian army’s presence in Syria?

Sergey Lavrov: We are present in Syria at the request of the legitimate President of the Syrian Arab Republic and the legitimate government of that country. We are there in full compliance with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter and are addressing the tasks set by UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We will stick to this policy and support the Syrian government in its efforts to fully restore Syria’s territorial integrity. The armed forces of the countries that no one had invited to Syria are still deployed there. Until now, the US military, which has occupied a significant portion of the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, is openly building a quasi-state there and is directly encouraging separatism taking advantage of the sentiment of a portion of the Kurdish population of Iraq. Problems are arising between the various entities that unite the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. All of that intensifies tensions in this region. Of course, Turkey cannot stay on the sidelines.

We want to address these issues solely on the basis of respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are talking to the Kurds. We have channels which we use to communicate with all of them. We encourage them to take a closer look at recent developments where the United States promised something to someone and then failed to deliver. Starting a serious dialogue with Damascus and agreeing on arrangements of living in a single state is a much more reliable approach even from these purely pragmatic considerations, not to mention international law.

Of course, Russia will continue to provide humanitarian aid. The United States is trying to keep the crisis situation unchanged and to encourage the sides to resume hostilities. The notorious Caesar Act is designed to strangle the Syrian economy. We see that a growing number of Arab countries are starting to understand the utter futility of this policy and are interested in resuming relations with Syria. Recently, the UAE restored its embassy’s activities in full. A number of Arab countries have never withdrawn their embassies from Damascus. Preparations are underway for a summit of the League of Arab States, which I discussed with Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. The vast majority of the League members (as far as we can tell from our contacts) are in favour of a solution that will make it possible to resume Syria’s full Arab League membership.

Refugees are another issue. The UN mediators are trying to get involved in this matter, but the United States and the compliant Europeans are doing their utmost to make the return of these people impossible. Remember when Syria held a conference in Damascus a couple of years ago to raise funds and make it possible for the refugees to return, the Americans went out of the way to keep everyone from attending this conference. Not everyone listened to them and about 20 countries, primarily Arab countries, as well as the People’s Republic of China and other countries, took part in it.

The UN showed its weakness by refusing to participate in that conference and only sending its representative in Damascus to sit there as an observer. That decision hit the United Nations’ reputation hard because its Resolution 2254 explicitly calls for the return of refugees. Both the UN Secretariat and the Secretary-General personally have an obligation to contribute to this directly. Until recently, the European Union held its own conferences on refugees (and they were not devoted to creating conditions for their return, but to raising money to pay the host countries). The purpose of those conferences was to make the current situation permanent and prevent any chance of positive developments in Syria. Yet, the Secretary-General did not just send representatives to them, but participated in these conferences as a co-chair. We have been pointing out that serious misinterpretation of his direct responsibilities.

As for the process that is taking place in Geneva, including the Constitutional Committee, its Drafting Commission – I keep in touch with Geir Pedersen, who represents the UN as a mediator in this process. He visited Russia not long ago. We also communicate through our mission in Geneva. There is an agreement that the next meeting of the Drafting Commission will begin at the end of May. I believe that President Bashar al-Assad’s recent decision to grant amnesty to Syrians charged with terrorism-related crimes was an important positive step. As far as I understand, a lot of work has been done, and the amnesty was announced. It will be a good chance to see how it goes. Geir Pedersen as well as many of our Western colleagues said Bashar al-Assad should take some steps. Okay. Whatever prompted the Syrian president’s decision, he did take a step. Let’s reciprocate now. Let Geir Pedersen talk to the opposition and those who control it, and persuade them to show some constructive action in this regard.

Question:  Is Russia keeping the same number of troops in Syria?

Sergey Lavrov: We have not had any requests from the Syrian government. If any such decisions are deemed expedient, they will be implemented. The numbers on the ground are determined by the specific objectives our force is tasked with there. It is clear that there are practically no military objectives left, but only ensuring stability and security. As for the remaining military objectives that the Syrian army is working for, with our support – there is the terrorist threat in Idlib, and it has not gone anywhere. Our Turkish friends and neighbours are trying, as they are telling us, to fulfil what presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed on a few years ago. As we all see, things are going hard. This objective remains on the agenda. However, thanks to the actions by our contingent and the Syrian armed forces, we have not seen any provocations from Idlib lately targeting the Syrian army strongholds or our bases in Syria.


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 38th meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, Moscow, May 27, 2022

Colleagues,

We are holding a regular meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation. The meeting is taking place against the background of the special military operation in Ukraine, which is being conducted in connection with the tasks set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, tasks involving the protection of civilians, the elimination of the Ukraine-posed security threats to the Russian Federation, and the denazification of this kindred country whose people have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of a regime which encourages extreme neo-Nazi sentiments and practices.

You see the United States and its satellites double, triple and quadruple their efforts to contain Russia with the use of a broad range of tools, from unilateral economic sanctions to utterly false propaganda in the global media space. Popular Russophobia has taken on an unprecedented scale in many Western countries, where, to our regret, it is nurtured by government circles.

Under these circumstances, it is of crucial importance that the foreign policy course approved by President Vladimir Putin is based on a broad national accord and supported by the key political forces of Russia and the leading public and entrepreneurial associations. We also feel daily the support from all Russian regions. This country is witnessing the consolidation of all healthy and patriotic forces. This is an important aspect of the present stage.

Colleagues,

At our last meeting, we discussed regions’ cultural diplomacy. The recommendations that we approved have made it possible to give a new impetus to international cultural ties maintained by Russian regions and expand the geographical reach and range of partners (of Russia’s republics, regions and territories). But the situation has changed since that time: the West has declared a total war on us and the entire Russian world. No one is concealing this any longer.

The cancel culture directed at Russia and all things Russian is reaching the apogee of absurdity. Russian greats, including Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and Alexander Pushkin, are banned. Russian cultural figures and artists representing our culture today are persecuted.

It may safely be said that this situation is here to stay. We should be ready to accept the fact that it has revealed the West’s true attitude to those fine-sounding slogans concerning human values and the need to create a united Europe, a “common European home” stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which were put forward 30 years ago after the end of the Cold War. Today we see the true worth of all these empty words.

Let us not become self-complacent. Under the current circumstances, we need a detailed analysis of the Foreign Ministry’s effort to promote cooperation with civil society, including at the level of regions.

A sufficiently effective system of collaboration between the Foreign Ministry and non-profit organisations focusing on international issues has been established. For example, the recent assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy has clearly demonstrated the high expert potential of scientific diplomacy. Our joint work has made it possible to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the highly intricate and complex developments in the world.

That said, the presence of NGOs from regions at international venues is insignificant. However, the inclusion of certain regional NGOs in Russian delegations to the UN General Assembly has been a success. This experience shows that this partnership has a promise. We would like to make it regular and broad in nature.

I would like to highlight a number of priority areas concerning interaction with civil society institutions:

1. Mobilising Russian NGOs’ capabilities to promote recovery and to provide humanitarian aid to residents of the DPR and the LPR, as well as the liberated Ukrainian territories.

2. Engaging public diplomacy channels for outreach activities with constructive international partners, including stepping up efforts to debunk fakes about the special military operation and promoting our views in social media and the blogosphere.

3. Using NGO resources, in particular, regional associations of entrepreneurs and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, to minimise the consequences of unilateral sanctions, and to promote ties with the friendly countries, primarily, our allies and like-minded partners in the CSTO, the SCO, the CIS, the EAEU and BRICS.

On a separate note, regional consultative mechanisms with the participation of top executives from national cultural associations are working productively. Clearly, this helps maintain inter-ethnic and inter-religious peace and accord. I think broader use of this set of tools should be made in order to strengthen business ties with the expat communities’ countries of origin, primarily in the CIS.

4. Working with our compatriots residing abroad is particularly important. They are at the forefront of dealing with the phenomenon known as Neanderthal Russophobia. Our foreign-based communities are facing unprecedented pressure and are being discriminated against on national and linguistic grounds. In spite of everything, our compatriots are holding their own and bravely defending their right not to sever contacts with the Motherland even in the most challenging times. The Immortal Regiment drive that took place in over 80 countries, including the United States and Europe, clearly showed it. Our duty is to continue to support our compatriots, and we count on the regions’ proactive moves in this regard.

It is gratifying to know that many regions, in particular, Moscow, St Petersburg, Tatarstan, Crimea, the Altai Territory and the Yamalo-Nenets and Khanty-Mansi autonomous areas (the list goes on) are effectively working with the Russian expat communities and their coordinating bodies. The most recent examples include the Moscow Government holding, in conjunction with other regions, round table discussions on the topic “Interactions with compatriots abroad at the regional level.” Such events took place in certain regions, in particular, Kaliningrad in late March, and Khabarovsk and Vladikavkaz in April. More such meetings will be held this year. We strongly support these initiatives and will sponsor such events. We are ready to provide advice to our colleagues from non-governmental organisations on the corresponding issues. We will update them on the situation of their compatriots, including instances of their legal rights being violated.

5. The developments in Ukraine confirm the importance of continued efforts to counteract the falsification of history and glorification of Nazism. The absurd content of modern Ukrainian school textbooks is a case in point. However, the problem is not limited to Ukraine. The West does not stop trying to pit the peoples of the former Soviet Union against each other through a biased interpretation of historical facts.

The other day the German government approved plans for a World War II and the German Occupation of Europe documentation centre. At first glance, this concept raises serious questions regarding its historical truthfulness. The planned centre is structured not only to downplay the Soviet Union and the Soviet people’ decisive role in defeating German Nazism, but also to play down the crimes committed by the Third Reich against the Soviet people. These themes are not indicated in the planned expositions. The plans also contain language that seeks to equate German criminals to liberators of Europe. This is yet another step within the policy adopted by modern Berlin which seeks to rewrite the history of World War II and to rehabilitate the Third Reich.

It is important to focus on preserving the common chapters of history, primarily, the Great Patriotic War, and to promote shared memories of the war and the fallen war hero search movement, as well as the ongoing CIS historians’ dialogue on existing platforms.

Proper resources and staff are required in order to overcome these challenges, and the broad involvement of NGOs that should be issued targeted grants and subsidies to this end as well. Let’s not forget about this, either.

Many Russian regions are addressing these issues adequately, including through the use of extrabudgetary sources. We are ready to support this work and supplement these initiatives with increased funding from the federal budget.

In conjunction with Rossotrudnichestvo and the Civic Chamber, we will continue to help the regions use public and people’s diplomacy in the interest of promoting our foreign policy.

Iran, Oman Ink 12 Agreements during President Raisi’s Visit

May 24, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

Iran and Oman signed twelve cooperation documents and memorandums of understanding to broaden relations in various fields during Iranian President Sayyed Ebrahim Raisi’s trip to Muscat.

The twelve cooperation documents were signed between senior officials of Iran and Oman on Monday in the fields of energy, politics, transportation, diplomatic cooperation, trade and economic relations, science, environment and sports.

The agreements were signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Industry, Mines and Trade, Oil, Roads and Urban Development, and the Head of Trade Development Organization of Iran and their Omani counterparts.

In comments at a meeting with Omani businesspeople and economic actors in Muscat, Raisi highlighted the serious will between Tehran and Muscat to expand interactions, especially with the focus on economic and trade relations.

“We are determined to expand fields of relations between the two countries to all areas of interest,” he noted, adding, “It seems that the businesspeople of the two countries do not have enough knowledge of the economic capacities of the two countries, so it is necessary for the economic actors of both sides to take steps towards recognizing the mutual capacities.”

“The first step is to establish an active Iranian business center in Oman. One of the functions of the business center is to identify the capacities of the two countries, especially in Iran,” Raisi stated.

Raisi in Oman: the development of strong relations, high trade exchanges and security is the focus

Referring to his meeting with the Sultan of Oman, the Iranian president said, “Resolving the problem of transportation and monetary and bank payments was discussed in this meeting and it was decided to resolve these issues.”

Describing the joint investment between the two countries as necessary, Raisi emphasized the need for production to be exported to the Eurasian market, his website reported.

“The customs problems for trade exchanges between Iran and Oman should be resolved as soon as possible,” he added.

“We are determined to develop the relations between the two countries and the ministers of the two countries should pursue their work seriously,” Raisi concluded.

عُمان لسورية واليمن والكويت للبنان وقطر لأوكرانيا وأفغانستان!

الاربعاء 2 2 2022

ناصر قنديل

شهد العام الأول من إدارة الرئيس الأميركي جو بايدن، تبلوراً لمجموعة من المعالم التي ترسم ملامح الحركة السياسية الأميركية، رغم الارتباك والتشوش المخيمين على كواليس صناعة القرار الأميركي، وقد شهدنا تسخيناً للكثير من الملفات الإقليمية حول العالم، سواء ما رافق حرب اليمن أو الضغوط على لبنان أو التشدّد تجاه سورية وصولاً للتجاذب الساخن حول أوكرانيا، بحيث بات الحديث عن الحاجة للتفرّغ للصين، مجرد عامل ذرائعي لتغطية ضعف القدرة على فرض الإرادة، ليبقى الثابت عكس ذلك كله عبر ما اتخذته ادارة بايدن من قرارات ترسم سياقاً استراتيجياً يصعب كسره. وهنا يقع الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، والمسار التفاوضي الذاهب نحو التفاهم حول الملف النووي الإيراني، وتبدو دول المنطقة التي حجزت مقاعدها للعب دور الوسيط بين واشنطن حول ملفات المنطقة الساخنة مدعوة لتشغيل محركاتها استعداداً لمرحلة جديدة.

حاولت قطر تاريخياً ان تتصدر هذه الأدوار ونجحت في مراحل كثيرة بلعبها، وشكلت لقاءات الدوحة التي انتهت حول لبنان بصياغة تفاهم فتح الطريق لانتخابات رئاسية ونيابية، عام 2008، أبرز تجليات هذا النجاح، بالاستناد الى علاقة خاصة أقامتها قطر مع سورية. ومنذ التموضع الحاد والنافر لقطر في الحرب على سورية أصيب الموقع القطري بالتضعضع، رغم إعادة الوصل مع إيران ومحاولة لعب دور في الملف النووي الإيراني أو في العلاقات الخليجية الإيرانية، ولكن بالنتيجة باءت المحاولات القطرية بالفشل في الحصول على دور في المفاوضات الأميركية مع إيران. ويبدو أن أمير قطر قد تبلغ في زيارته الحالية لواشنطن بضرورة الكف عن التحرك لحجز مقعد في هذا الملف. فالملف يتولاه الرئيس الأميركي مباشرة، والمفاوضات الجارية لا تحتمل المضاربات والمزايدات، وكانت قطر قد تبلغت موقفاً سعودياً رافضاً لأي مسعى للوساطة في التفاوض مع إيران، بعدما حجز هذا المقعد للعراق.

الملفات التي كان أمير قطر يبحث عن تفويض أميركي بإدارة الوساطات حولها تتسع بحجم أزمات المنطقة، من سورية الى اليمن وصولا للبنان، وحاصل النتائج الصادم لقطر هو أن المهام قد توزعت ولا مقعد بينها لقطر. فقطر وسيط غير مقبول في سورية، وغير مؤهل في اليمن، وغير نافع في لبنان، وقد أثبتت سلطنة عُمان أهليتها لقيادة التفاوض حول الملفين السوري واليمني، حيث ترحّب الدولة السورية بمساعي مسقط، ومثلها يفعل أنصار الله، وصولاً لحد أقرب للاشتراط بحصر التفاوض بمعبر إلزامي يمر بمسقط، من كل من دمشق وصنعاء. وزيارة وزير خارجية عمان الى سورية ليست للمجاملة والتضامن فقط، وهي جزء من مسار للدور العماني في ترتيبات تطال العلاقات السورية بالجامعة العربية من بوابة التحضير للقمة العربية المقررة بعد شهرين في الجزائر، وبالغرب من بوابة ملفات عودة النازحين وإعادة الإعمار والحل السياسي، واليمنيون الذي تلقوا إشارات عن إمكانية قيام الكويت بالعودة لدور راعي التفاوض قالوا إنهم يفضلون عُمان، وإن الكويت التي لعبت دور الوسيط في مرات سابقة في الملف اليمني ففقدت فرصها للعودة اليه بعدما تخلت عن الحياد تجاه الدول الخليجية التي تقود الحرب على اليمن. وهنا يجب الربط بين استحالة لعب الكويت لدور الوسيط في الشأن السوري، وتراجع الفرص الكويتية للعودة الى دور الوسيط في اليمن، وبين تقدّم الكويت للمشهد حول لبنان، وتكليفها بمهمة الوسيط فيه. والوساطة هنا هي وساطة ستظهر مع الأيام أنها مسار تفاوضي وليست مجرد إملاءات تهديدية وإنذار بالإذعان بلسان دول الخليج. ويسأل أمير قطر، وماذا تفعل الدوحة؟

الجواب الأميركي إن الدور الذي أعطي لقطر في مرحلة ما بعد الانسحاب من أفغاستان نقلها من الإقليمية الى العالمية. وهذا يجب أن يكون موضع تقدير قطريّ، ويترجم بحمل الأعباء المالية للنهوض بأفغانستان منعاً لتجذر الإرهاب فيها مجدداً، وينتظرها اليوم دور «عالمي» مشابه قبل نشوب حرب في أوكرانيا، عليها الاستعداد له بالتموضع في خانة توفير بدائل الغاز لأوروبا في حال تعرّضها لخطر تدفق الغاز الروسي، وقطر تعرف حدود قدراتها وعجزها عن لعب هذا الدور، وأميرها يعود بخفي حنين من زيارته لواشنطن، مكتفياً بنقل رسائل تشجيع لإيران على المضي قدما في المسار التفاوضيّ لأن واشنطن جدّية بالوصول للاتفاق، رغم كل التصعيد الإعلامي الموجه نحو الداخل، ومثلها رسائل تشجيع لحكام الخليج على الإسراع بإيجاد مخارج منسابة لوقف حرب اليمن، لأن واشنطن لم تعُد قادرة على التغطية سياسياً وعسكرياً.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

S. Arabia has lost its cards in Yemen: analyst

June 23, 2021 – 18:55

By Reza Moshfegh

TEHRAN – A Yamani writer says that Saudi Arabia looks for a solution to get out of Yemen’s swamp as it has lost its cards in the regions and Yemen.

“Saudi Arabia is looking for a way to exit from this war, which entered this year its seventh,” Talib al-Hassani tells the Tehran Times.

“Saudis have lost more cards facing more military and economic pressures, and this means that time is not going in their favor, but rather in the interest of Yemen,” al-Hassani adds.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: How do you see Saudi Arabia’s position on Yemen after the Yemenis showed that they are able to respond to the Saudi aggression? Is Saudi Arabia in a position of strength?

A: Saudi Arabia is looking for a way to exit from this war, which entered this year its seventh.

 Meanwhile, Saudis have lost more cards facing more military and economic pressures, and this means that time is not going in their favor, but rather in the interest of Yemen.

The decision to end this catastrophe will not be in hands of Saudis, as the war decision was. The United States of America is a major partner in decision-making, and therefore today they are partners in the search for safe exit from Yemen.

These partners in war after their failure have no card on the negotiating table, unless embargo, economic sanctions and further restrictions.

All the Saudi or American initiatives that have been put forward since Biden came to power are based on negotiating with Sana’a over two options: 

lifting the siege in exchange for stopping targeting Saudi Arabia and freezing military operations inside Yemen, including the process of restoring the city of Marib in eastern Yemen, which is the last stronghold of the Saudi-led coalition in northern Yemen, or continuing embargo and more sanctions.

Sana’a has rejected this deal in whole and in detail and stipulated the lifting of the siege without expecting something in return, as well as the withdrawal of the Saudi and Emirati forces and all foreign forces from the south of the country.

This is a very big achievement and progress for Yemenis that did not exist during the past years.

In all cases, and according to the current developments, the coalition not only failed, but prompted Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to search for a gradual retreat, and it is now clear that Sanaa has achieved two strategic goals:

The first is to preserve the revolution and to remove Yemen from the U.S. and (Persian) Gulf camp that has lasted for decades.

The second is putting Yemen on an anti-U.S. axis that is a real threat to some (Persian) Gulf countries. This shift means that the American axis has failed after years of unremitting efforts and billions of dollars.

The first objective of the aggressive war on Yemen was to return it to the arms of America, through blocking efforts for change, and to impose more hegemony within two axes:

The first is a regional axis that ensures the existence of America’s allies in the region, and the second is international and within the conflict with Iran, China and Russia. In a word, the two axes are the continuation of dominance over the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the coasts of the Red Sea and Arab Sea or the Indian Ocean. 

All the headlines that were raised and announced in the media, including the restoration of the government of Abd Rabbeh Mansour Hadi, are considered marginal.

Saudi Arabia is currently in a predicament after losing its military and political reputation and is also threatened by political and economic instability.

The goals of the Saudi crown prince and Saudi rulers will not be realized as long as the war remains open, and therefore it will be the biggest loser.

Q: How do you see the level of coordination between the Yemeni resistance with other resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine?

A: Yemen has become practically and openly within the axis of resistance; it is an important stronghold and a great addition to the axis, especially given its geopolitical geography is very pivotal in terms of supervising one of the most important seaports, Bab al-Mandab, as well as part of the map of the Chinese Silk Road. The Israeli statements were clear about their fear of Yemen playing an important role in blocking the movement of the Israelis in the Red Sea.

The other matter is the military future of Yemen, as the predictions say that Yemen will turn into a large military force, which is not far from the occupied Palestinian territories. The offer of Abdul Malik Badr Al-Din Al-Houthi, the leader of the revolution, to send military assistance to the Palestinian resistance factions in the last war, Seif Al-Quds, signals an important change in the regional balances. It is very important, and the Palestinian resistance factions commented on that with much praise and belief that this is a major shift on the path to liberating Palestine. This was not a slogan, but rather Yemen currently possesses winged missiles and drones whose range reaches the Palestinian territories. All the resistance factions have representatives in Sana’a, and there is clear coordination.

Q: What is the status of the Palestinian cause among the Yemenis? What are the reasons for Yemeni support for Palestine?

A: The Yemeni people view the Palestinian cause from a religious ideological standpoint. Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa Mosque are sacred lands and must be liberated.

The other matter is that America seeks hegemony over the Yemeni people, which constitutes a real threat to Islam and Muslims.

The U.S. has committed war crimes against Yemeni people that are not permissible. Yemeni people cannot remain silent or form a coalition with the United States of America, which represents an existential threat to Islam.

The Yemeni people also look at the Palestinian cause from a nationalistic point of view. Palestine is an Arab land that must be liberated, and this appears through the broad popular response in demonstrations and marches in solidarity with the Palestinian people on all occasions, including the International Quds Day.

Therefore, the Yemeni people are still part of the Arab nations. The new development is that the Ansar Allah Islamic Movement has now become the ruling political front in the country, and this movement led by Abdul Malik Badr Al-Din Al-Houthi succeeded in changing the failed and puppet traditional system, which did not represent the Yemeni Islamic and religious identity.

This shows the volume of support for this popular movement, which is a major shift in the future of the country, especially its active role in making and influencing the decision in the region in the future.

Q: What will be the fate of the peace negotiations between Yemen and Saudi Arabia? Who are the mediators in peace talks?

A: Negotiations still have a long road to reach results. It was clear that the Omani delegation that went to the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, to meet with officials was expected more than what it could carry out, and therefore hopes were opened wide to reach an end to the war on Yemen, lifting the siege, and opening Sana’a International Airport, which has been closed since 2017. 

There are many reasons for this reliance on the Omani role, the first of which is the positive position of the Sultanate of Oman and its great efforts in playing the role of mediator between the various regional and international parties, as well as its embrace of the Yemeni national negotiating team, as it has been leading this role for years.

Among these reasons is the Yemenis’ confidence in Omanis, and hence some observers confused the mission of the sultanate’s delegation with the chaos of political analysis and deductions based on wrong information.

 Especially since it coincides with a great regional and international diplomatic move, from which it was understood that the final touches are being put in steps to stop the war that has been going on for six-and-a-quarter years.

But the reality says:

First, the delegation does not have an Omani initiative to be presented to various parties, if so the Sultan of Oman would have presented it to officials in the capital, Sana’a, and if that was the case, this initiative would have been announced.

Secondly, the official Omani media, even the unofficial ones, did not issue a statement explaining the mission of the delegation, and the official media were limited to referring to the presence of this delegation in Yemen. This necessarily means that the delegation, despite its importance, does not exceed its mission as a continuation of efforts to bring the views closer and try to overcome the obstacles to address the crisis and support the process of negotiations that do not move much.

Third, the official statements made by the chief Yemeni negotiator and head of the national negotiating team, Muhammad Abd al-Salam, who accompanied the Omani delegation, whether made during arrival or during departure, were limited to praising the humanitarian role of the Sultanate of Oman and referring to the establishment of humanitarian arrangements in an effort to (to mitigate the suffering of our Yemeni people) as Muhammad Abd al-Salam says, and this means that efforts are focused on trying to separate the humanitarian file and lift the siege on the civil international airport of Sana’a, as well as the port of Hodeidah from the political and military files.

Whoever follows the statement issued by the ruling Supreme Political Council in the capital, Sana’a, which followed the meeting of Al-Mashat and members of the Political Council with the Omani delegation who praised the position and role of the Sultanate, will find that he focused on three main points, one of which is very important, which is the point related to the necessity of the withdrawal of Saudi, Emirati and foreign forces from all Yemeni lands before talking about any ceasefire initiative, as well as lifting the siege and opening Yemeni airspace for civilian flights as a legitimate, humanitarian and sovereign right of the Republic of Yemen.

The statement summarizes the Yemeni vision that was presented to the Omani side, and therefore the mission that the royal delegation carried out did not go beyond the fact that Oman wanted to know directly from the office of Mr. Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, as the leader of the revolution, towards the various issues being discussed.

They wanted to address the major reasons for the failure of the United Nations and the failure of Biden’s envoy to Yemen, during the past few months.

The mission of the Omani royal delegation can be described as being limited to knowing Sana’a’s point of view, ideas, and approaches to a comprehensive solution in Yemen, and then transferring it to the other side. 

Therefore, this is an Omani effort that cannot be talked about its failure or success. In the end, it is a humanistic effort, an effort that its results cannot be discussed.

Some went on to think that the Sultanate of Oman intended to present an initiative of its own to Sana’a, and linked the visit of the Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi and his delivery of a message from Sultan Haitham bin Tariq to King Salman and the delegation that flew to the capital Sana’a. 

Therefore, the failure of the “Omani initiative” would mean that the position of the Sultanate has changed over Yemen. This perception and description is inaccurate and goes beyond the pivotal and important strategic role that Oman plays for all parties, a role that stems from its stance and vision of the crisis in Yemen.

Some Arab newspapers and Saudi analysts worked a lot in this direction and hinted in one way or another to their dissatisfaction with the Omani role.

They made every effort to ruin the Omani-Yemeni relationship and its mediating role in trying to solve the crisis by receiving delegations and coordinating meetings between the various parties, within a humanitarian and political framework to stop the aggression on Yemen and the ongoing war, including hosting the (secret) Yemeni-Saudi dialogue.

RELATED NEWS

اليمن آخر الحروب وأول التسويات Yemen is the last war and the first settlement

**Please scroll down for the Adjusted English Machine translation**

اليمن آخر الحروب وأول التسويات

11/06/2021

ناصر قنديل

 لا يحبّ اللبنانيون تصديق أن بلدهم يشكل جبهة ثانوية في الصراع الكبير الدائر في المنطقة. ورغم الأبعاد الداخليّة الحقيقية للأزمات السياسية والاقتصادية والمالية التي تعصف بلبنان. والتي يأمل البعض أن تشكل أبواباً للتغيير. يبقى أن النظام الطائفي والمتخم بمظاهر الفساد والمحكوم بسياسات اقتصاديّة ومالية فاشلة. بقي على قيد الحياة بقرار خارجي. كان يراهن على تقييد المقاومة بمعادلات لبنانيّة داخلية. أو بمتغيرات ينجح بفرضها في الإقليم. نظراً للكلفة العالية لكل تفكير بمواجهة مباشرة مع المقاومة في لبنان. وعدم وجود نتائج موثوقة لمثل هذه المواجهة. وعندما وصل الرهان على متغيرات الحرب في سورية أو على معادلات الداخل. ونجحت المقاومة بفرض معادلات داخلية أشد قوة مع التسوية الرئاسية وقانون الانتخاب القائم على النسبية. قرّر هذا الخارج وبصورة خاصة الراعي الأميركي والمموّل الخليجي. وقف تمويل هذا النظام. فانكشفت عوراته. وانفجرت أزماته. لكن المصيبة الأعظم هو أن هذا الخارج عندما يفرغ من ترتيبات التسويات ووضع قواعد الاشتباك في المنطقة. وقد قرّر السير بها كبديل عن خيار المواجهة الذي ثبت فشله وظهر أنه طريق مسدود. سيعود لتمويل هذا النظام وتعويمه. لكنه يريد للمفاوضات أن تجري والمقاومة منشغلة بهموم النظام وارتداداتها على الشعب اللبناني.

 سورية التي تشكل عقدة المنطقة الرئيسية بتوازناتها ومكانتها من كل عناوين الصراع الإقليمي، شكلت بيضة القبان في رسم التوازنات التي أسقطت الرهانات على خطط المواجهة. وأجبرت بالانتصارات التي تحققت فيها حلف الحرب عليها بالتراجع وأصابته بالتفكك وفرضت عليه التسليم بالفشل. لكن صورة التسوية في سورية مؤجلة. رغم ما فرضه الشعب السوري في يوم الانتخابات الرئاسية من معادلات ترسم ثوابت أي تسوية بما يتصل بشكل النظام السياسي ومرجعياته. ورغم الاستدارة التي يقوم بها أطراف كثيرون شاركوا بالحرب ويعودون الى دمشق ويفتحون سفاراتهم ويغيّرون خطابهم، إلا أن سورية ترسم أوزاناً جديدة لكل قوى العالم الجديد. ففيها الاحتلال الأميركي والإحتلال التركي ومستقبل الدويلة الكردية والجماعات الإرهابية، ومنها تتقرر قواعد الاشتباك بين محور المقاومة وكيان الاحتلال في الجولان وحول مستقبل الغارات على سورية، وفيها الوجود الروسي والإيراني والمقاوم. ويعتقد الأميركي أنه بالعقوبات واحتجاز النازحين والإمساك بتمويل إعادة الإعمار يملك القدرة على المفاوضة على شرعنة النصر السوري وثمن هذه الشرعنة وشروطها. ولذلك تبدو التسوية حول سورية مؤجلة لما بعد حلقات تسبقها. تضع قطار التسويات على السكة. وتطلق صفارة الانطلاق.

 تقع إيران في قلب الصراع وتشكل قاعدة الارتكاز فيه. ويشكل ملفها النووي عنوان الصراع الذي يختزن ما هو أبعد من النووي، ليطال مستقبل مكانة إيران في المنطقة. وقد كانت كل محاولات الضغط بحجة النووي لتطويع إيران وإضعافها. فيما يشكل التراجع عن العقوبات تحت عنوان العودة للاتفاق النووي تعبيراً عن التسليم بالفشل وسعياً للانخراط في تسويات يدور التفاوض حول مضامينها. وكل الوقائع تقول إن الاتفاق بات منجزاً بنصوصه وتفاصيله. وإن روزنامة التنفيذ الجزئي قبل الإعلان عن العودة للاتفاق قد بدأت. سواء عبر تحرير أموال وودائع إيرانية في الخارج كانت تحتجزها العقوبات الأميركية. وصولاً لما أعلن مساء امس عن اول خطوة أميركية مباشرة برفع العقوبات عن اشخاص وكيانات كانوا تحت نظام العقوبات، كما قالت وزارة الخارجية الأميركية.

 الحرب على اليمن كانت خط الاحتياط الأميركي السعودي في مواجهة نتائج التوقيع على الاتفاق في المرة الأولى. وجاءت نتائجها وبالاً. وشكل اليمن مفاجأة الحروب كلها. فانقلبت الحرب من أداة ضغط أميركية سعودية الى أداة ضغط معكوسة. وصار أمن الطاقة وأمن الخليج تحت رحمة أنصار الله. وبات دخول زمن التسويات مشروطاً بإنهاء الحرب بشروط غير مذلة للسعودية تتيح حفظ ما تبقى من ماء الوجه. لكن سوء التقدير السعودي الذي كان مع بداية الحرب لا يزال مستمراً مع الحاجة لإنهائها، وأوهام تحقيق المكاسب يحكم العقل السعودي الذي لم يعرف كيف يربح ولا يعرف اليوم كيف يخسر. فعرض وقف النار دون إنهاء الحصار تسبب بتعقيد الإعلان عن انطلاق خط التسوية في اليمن. وتسبب بتأجيل الإعلان عن التوصل الى الاتفاق على العودة للاتفاق النووي. لكن الزمن داهم. ولذلك يرمي الأميركيون بثقلهم لمخارج يقول بعض الوسطاء إن بينها توقيع اتفاق لفتح مطار صنعاء وميناء الحديدة بين السعودية وعُمان، وتوقيع اتفاق مماثل بين عُمان وأنصار الله، خلال أيام وربما ساعات يعقبها الإعلان عن وقف النار. ليتسنى السير بالإعلان عن الاتفاق على الملف النووي من فيينا.


Yemen is the last war and the first settlement

11/06/2021

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D9%82%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%84-780x470.jpg

Nasser Kandil

–  The Lebanese do not like to believe that their country is a secondary front in the great conflict in the region. Despite the real internal dimensions of the political, economic and financial crises ravaging Lebanon, which some hope will open doors to change. It remains that the sectarian system, full of corruption and governed by failed economic and financial policies, survived by external decision, betting on restricting resistance with internal Lebanese equations, or variables imposed in the region. Due to the high cost of direct confrontation with the resistance in Lebanon, there are no credible results of such a confrontation. The bet on the variables of the war in Syria and internal equations failed and the resistance succeeded in imposing stronger internal equations with the presidential settlement and the proportional election law. The abroad, in particular, the American sponsor and gulf financier decided to stop funding this corrupted system. His nakedness was exposed, his crises exploded. But the greatest misfortune is that this outsider, when decided to settlement arrangements and rules of engagement in the region he pursue it as an alternative to the option of confrontation, which proved to be a failure and a dead end. Therefore he will return to finance and float the the Lebanese sectarian corrupted system. But he wants negotiations to take place while the resistance is preoccupied with the regime’s concerns and their repercussions on the Lebanese people.

Syria, which constitutes the region’s main knot, with its balances and its position from all the titles of the regional conflict, formed the weight-bearing egg in drawing balances that dropped bets on confrontation plans. The victories achieved by the War Alliance were forced to retreat, disintegrated and forced to admit failure. But the picture of a settlement in Syria is postponed . Despite the equations imposed by the Syrian people on the day of the presidential elections, that outline the constants of any settlement with regard to the shape of the political system and its references.

Despite the rotation of many parties who participated in the war and return to Damascus, open their embassies and change their speech, Syria is drawing new weights for all the forces of the new world. It includes the U.S. occupation, the Turkish occupation, the future of the Kurdish state and terrorist groups, from which the rules of engagement between the axis of resistance and the occupation entity in the Golan are decided and about the future of the raids on Syria, where the Russian, Iranian and resistance are presence. The American believes that with the sanctions, the detention of the displaced, and the seizure of reconstruction funding, he has the ability to negotiate the legitimacy of the Syrian victory, the price and conditions of this legitimization. Therefore, the settlement over Syria seems to be postponed until after the previous episodes. Put the train of compromises on the rails. The launch whistle sounds.

Iran is at the center of the conflict and forms its basis. Its nuclear file is the title of the conflict that holds what is beyond nuclear, affecting Iran’s future position in the region. All attempts to pressure under the pretext of nuclear power were to subdue and weaken Iran. The rollback of sanctions under the heading of a return to the nuclear deal is an expression of the recognition of failure and an effort to engage in compromises whose contents are being negotiated. All the facts say that the agreement is now complete with its texts and details. The partial implementation calendar before the announcement of a return to the agreement had begun. Whether by freeing Iranian funds and deposits abroad that were held by U.S. sanctions. The first direct U.S. move to lift sanctions on people and entities under the sanctions regime was announced Tuesday night, the State Department said.

 The war on Yemen was the U.S.-Saudi reserve line in the face of the results of the signing of the nuclear deal the first time. Their were bad. Yemen was the surprise of all wars. The war went from a U.S.-Saudi pressure tool to a reverse pressure tool. Energy and Gulf security are at the mercy of Ansar Allah. Entering the time of settlements became conditional on ending the war on non-humiliating terms for Saudi Arabia that would allow saving the rest of the face. But the Saudi miscalculation that was at the beginning of the war is still continuing with the need to end it, and the illusions of achieving gains rule the Saudi mind, which did not know how to win and does not know how to lose today. Offering a cease-fire without ending the siege complicated the announcement of the launch of the settlement line in Yemen. And caused the postponement of the announcement of reaching an agreement to return to the nuclear agreement. But time is running out. Therefore, the Americans are throwing their weight at exits that some mediators say include the signing of an agreement to open Sanaa airport and the port of Hodeida between Saudi Arabia and Oman, and the signing of a similar agreement between Oman and Ansar Allah, within days and perhaps hours, followed by announcing a cease-fire. In order to be able to announce the agreement on the nuclear file from Vienna.

6 Years of War on Yemen: Ansarullah’s Constants Identified, Resistance to Continue Until the End of War

6 Years of War on Yemen: Ansarullah’s Constants Identified, Resistance to Continue Until the End of War

By Staff

As Thursday, March 25th marks the sixth anniversary of the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen, Head of Yemen’s National Delegation and Ansarullah revolutionary movement’s spokesman Mohammad Abdul Salam identified the group’s constants, making clear that nothing would with respect to Yemen’s military actions as long as the siege and aggression continue.

Noting that the Ansarullah has previously offered many initiatives, Abdul Salam slammed the Saudi one as illogical in form and presentation, and considered it a sort of call for dialogue as if Saudi Arabia is not part of the conflict, adding that the insults and threats included in the initiative are enough for us not to look at it.

“We informed Oman about our remarks and we will wait what would happen before we announce our stance. We were surprised that the continued bombing and keeping the airport and the seaport shut didn’t represent what we have been told about.”

Labelling Saudi Arabia as the leader of the aggression against Yemen, Abdul Salam said its initiative came amid the US-UK-supervised aggression and blockade, adding that a British officer leads the blockade in a room that includes Britons, Americans, Saudis and Emiratis. This room allows and denies the entry and exit of ships via the Red Sea, while fugitive President Abd Rabbuh Manour Hadi’s team knows nothing about the issue of ships’ entry and exit.

The Ansarullah spokesman underscored that the Saudi initiative is an exaggerated flattening and it is not accurate in describing the facts, emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is not in the position of the mediator that is allowed to present such ideas.

“The war is not a Yemeni problem but was abused along with the political dispute. Yemen’s problem is with Saudi Arabia and the United States and their supporters,” Abdul Salam made the remarks in an interview with al-Mayadeen TV.

“Saudi Arabia has no right to call for dialogue as long as its aggression continues, and we will never accept the survival of this blockade imposed on Yemen,” the Yemeni official outlined, stressing that it has to leave the war before offering such initiative.

“Thousands of Yemenis die due to this blockade, lack of food and medicine, and we could never put our signature in an agreement on the blockade while the Yemeni people could hardly find oil derivatives,” he added.

The Ansarullah spokesman went on to explain that “sometimes we release some detainees in exchange for medicine; we don’t need negotiations but to open airports and seaports,” ruling out Saudi claims about oil shipments entering Yemen so far.

Stressing that the Yemeni group doesn’t accept monthly negotiations to let one ship carrying oil derivatives enter the country, Abdul Salam said “We won’t bargain on any military or political issue for entering oil ships.”

“The Yemeni Armed Forces have made gains while the blockade achieved nothing,” Abdul Salam highlighted, vowing that as long as the blockade continues, all military options are legitimate and on the table.

Mocking the Saudi-led coalition’s siege inability to achieve anything; the Ansarullah spokesman voiced demands to end the aggression in a rightful and just stance, in addition to lifting the siege.

“It is a humanitarian duty to enter food ships to Yemen; no country has been besieged for the last 30 years as Yemen was,” he said, adding the “We are ready to have good Yemeni-Saudi relationships and Iran doesn’t interfere in any detail regarding the Yemeni issue.”

“They are the ones who link solving the situation to an Iranian intervention, and the West interferes in their decisions,” Abdul Salam explained, noting that Yemen is paying the price due to its stance from the Zionist entity which is complicit in this war in bombing as well as presence in the coalition’s [operations] room.

“We respond to the aggression by bombing military facilities, and any strike against Yemen will be responded to with a missile,” Abdul Salam outlined, adding that “There are many military operations that will continue as long as the Saudi aggression continues; we will strike Saudi Aramco even if it was feeding the entire world.”

He also noted that the American is convinced that a war on the Yemenis would neither benefit the US nor ‘Israel’.

The Yemeni official referred to Marib, the ground of the most recent and fiercest battle, as the key points driving the war on Yemen, and announced that all western areas in Marib have been completely liberated. “The noise being heard from the Saudi coalition’s side reveals the truth of its losses,” he noted, wondering why would the West also make noise every time the Yemeni forces advance in Marib?

“All strategic camps belonging to the coalition forces have been taken in Marib, and there is an almost daily advancement for the Yemeni Armed Forces in the city.”

“Many figures in the other camp, who used to support Saudi Arabia in the beginning of the aggression, are not pleased now with the Saudi role.”

Saudi intelligence runs Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] and al-Qaeda, for which it built bases in al-Mahrah, Abdul Salam said, adding that Daesh is fighting in al-Jawf and Marib.

He touched upon the situation in Taiz and Hiran, saying that the ongoing situation continues there.

Abdul Salam stressed that this war must end in any way, and accused the United Arab Emirates [UAE] of being a shadow leader in this war as it has announced its withdrawal so many times while it is still part of it.

“We declared that the party being directly involved in the war will be targeted but we didn’t mention that the UAE is safe. It is our leadership that choses the targets and identifies the priorities.”

As long as the aggression exists, UAE is a possible target in any moment as it is part of the coalition and it is still bombing our country, he added.

Elsewhere, Abdul Salam denies any regional calculations in the Yemeni resistance operations, and said that if Iran and Hezbollah offered us weapons and support, we thank them.

He also vowed that the Yemeni resistance will continue to defend every occupied inch of the Yemeni land

“The Yemeni people are steadfast; we are the ones being attacked and they have to stop their aggression.”

Abdul Salam concluded that the Yemeni resistance will continue defending Yemen’s dignity, referring to this fighting as an honor.

Six Years of War On Yemen: 17k+ Killed, Infrastructure Damaged [Numbers]

Six Years of War On Yemen: 17k+ Killed, Infrastructure Damaged [Numbers]

By Humanity Eye Center

Six Years of War On Yemen: 17k+ Killed, Infrastructure Damaged [Numbers]

Related Videos

Related Articles

الأميركيّون يستنجدون بمسقط لوقف الانهيار… اليمن ينتصر ومدن الملح تنحسر!

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Untitled-126.png

محمد صادق الحسينيّ

«كلّ الشواهد والقرائن والإشارات تدلّ على أننا ماضون في أمّ المعارك حتى الظفر بالنصر الكبير وقلب موازين القوى في المنطقة لصالح شعب اليمن المحتسب والصابر منذ ست سنوات…

والمعارك حامية الوطيس على كلّ جبهات مأرب وإنْ شاء الله الأمور تتجه الى النصر بإذن الله».

هذا ما أبلغته لنا مصادر يمنيّة رفيعة المستوى مواكبة للمعارك الميدانية الدائرة على مشارف مأرب التاريخية، وكذلك للفريق اليمني المفاوض باسم الدولة الوطنية اليمنية وأنصار الله المقيم في مسقط.

و»أما بخصوص الرسالة الأميركية الواصلة عبر القناة العُمانية والمتعلقة بمطالبتنا بوقف المعارك على جبهة مأرب، والطلب إلينا بالدخول في مفاوضات مباشرة مع الرياض بهذا الخصوص»، فإنها كما تضيف المصادر إنما «تأتي في إطار خوف واشنطن وهلعها من انعكاس خسارة الرياض للحرب بشكل مدوّ مع انتهاء تحرير مأرب على كلّ النفوذ الأميركي في المنطقة، الأمر الذي يمكن أن يقوّض نظام الحكم السعودي كلياً، وهو ما لا تريده واشنطن بهذا الشكل وإنما تريد إعادته إلى ما قبل السلالة السلمانيّة وبما يخدم سياسات الإدارة الجديدة التي ترى أنها خسرت الحرب في اليمن وعليها ترتيب أوراقها في المنطقة بناء على موازين القوى الجديدة المعبّرة بصعود أنصار الله الصاروخي ومعهم كلّ حلفائهم في المنطقة وفي مقدّمهم إيران.

في هذا الإطار فقط يمكن فهم المطالبة الأميركية المستعجلة عن طريق العُمانيين الذين نقلوا هذه الرسالة الى اليمنيين أصحاب الدولة الشرعيّة والممثلين بوفد أنصار الله المقيم في مسقط.

ودائماً حسب هذه المصادر نفسها فقد جاء الطلب الأميركي «في إطار كلام عام زعموا فيه أنهم جادّون في وقف الحرب»… فيما نحن أبلغناهم الجدّية أيضاً في وقف الحرب، ولكن ليس قبل رفع العدوان والحصار أولاً ونقطة ومن أول السطر».

وهذا يعني أنّ الردّ اليمني جاء واضحاً وسريعاً وحازماً: «من دون رفع الحصار عن الميناء والمطار ووقف العدوان كلياً لا حلّ يُرتجى لأيّ موضوع، والحرب لن تتوقف… وأما عن مأرب فستعود الى حضن الوطن ومن دون شروط».

الحراك الأميركي والغربي المتواصل منذ إحاطة أنصار الله بخناق المرتزقة من جماعة هادي المقيم في فنادق الرياض، وإرهابيّي داعش والقاعدة الذين سرعان ما انضمّوا الى حزب الإصلاح وحكومة الفنادق في هذه المعركة، انْ دلّ على شيء فإنما يدلّ على خسارتهم للحرب على اليمن كلياً، وكلّ ما يتمنّونه الآن هو وقف تدهور وانحسار دور كلّ مدن الملح في المنطقة من مملكة الدرعيّة حتى آخر نقطة ارتكاز لهم في بقايا قراصنة الساحل المعروفة بالإمارات المتصالحة…!

وهكذا يكون أنصار الله قد حققوا بصبرهم الاستراتيجي وأخلاقهم العليا في الحرب والسلام، نوعاً من توازن الرعب مع تحالف العدوان الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» السعودي الإماراتي، لا عودة فيه الى الوراء، فإما التسليم بمعادلة القصف بالقصف والنفط بالنفط والميناء بالميناء والمطار بالمطار، والبادي أظلم، وإما انحسار مدن الملح وانتصار يمن السيف والرمح والدخول في عهد جديد من معادلات القوة وجغرافيا اقتدار الشعوب.

تحوّل سيغيّر وجه المنطقة برمّتها ويترك انعكاساته على سائر معادلات الإقليم والعالم.

والله غالب على أمره ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

السلطة صمتت عن تطبيع الرباط مع الاحتلال.. وحماس اعتبرته «خطيئة سياسيّة»!؟

البناء

عُمان ترحّب باتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والكيان الصهيونيّ

انتقد الكاتب والمحلل السياسي الفلسطيني هاني المصري صمت السلطة الفلسطينية إزاء التطبيع المغربيّ الذي أُعلن عنه الخميس.

وقال المصري الذي يرأس مركز أبحاث السياسات والدراسات الاستراتيجية (مسارات) في رام الله: «صمت القبور رسمي فلسطيني إزاء تطبيع المغرب، بعد وصف ما قامت به الإمارات والبحرين بالخيانة وطعنة بالظهر وسحب السفراء إلى إعادتهما بعد عودة العلاقات الفلسطينية الإسرائيلية والتنسيق الأمني».

وأضاف المصري في منشور عبر صفحته على «فيسبوك»: «يوجد مكان لموقف وإجراءات بين الخيانة والصمت المريب!».

من جهتها، اعتبرت حركة «حماس» أن اتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والكيان الصهيوني هو «خطيئة سياسيّة».

وقال المتحدث باسم الحركة، حازم قاسم، عبر تويتر: «إن الاحتلال يستغلّ كل حالات التطبيع لزيادة شراسة سياسته العدوانيّة ضد شعبنا الفلسطيني وتوسيع تغوّله الاستيطاني على أرضنا».

وأكد أن «التطبيع يشجّع الاحتلال على استمرار تنكره لحقوق شعبنا، ولا يخدم بالمطلق قضيتنا العادلة ولا القضايا الوطنية للدول المُطبّعة».

وفي سياق متصل، رحّبت سلطنة عُمان، أمس الجمعة، باتفاق تطبيع العلاقات بين المغرب والعدو الصهيوني.

جاء ذلك وفق بيان لوزارة الخارجية العمانية، غداة إعلان الولايات المتحدة والمغرب استئناف العلاقات الدبلوماسيّة بين الرباط وتل أبيب.

وأفاد البيان بـ»ترحب سلطنة عُمان بما أعلنه جلالة الملك محمد السادس عاهل المغرب الشقيق في اتصالاته الهاتفيّة بكل من الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب ورئيس السلطة الفلسطينيّة محمود عباس».

وأضاف: «تأمل سلطنة عُمان أن يعزّز ذلك من مساعي وجهود تحقيق السلام الشامل والعادل والدائم في الشرق الأوسط».

وسلطنة عُمان رابع دولة عربية ترحّب بالتطبيع بين المغرب والكيان الصهيوني، بعد مصر والإمارات والبحرين.

ومساء الخميس، أعلن الملك المغربي استئناف الاتصالات الرسمية الثنائية والعلاقات الدبلوماسية مع الكيان الصهيوني «في أقرب الآجال»، وفق بيان صدر عن الديوان الملكي.

لكنه شدّد على أن ذلك «لا يمسّ بأي حال من الأحوال، الالتزام الدائم والموصول للمغرب في الدفاع عن القضية الفلسطينية العادلة، وانخراطه البناء من أجل إقرار سلام عادل ودائم في منطقة الشرق الأوسط».

وبإعلان اليوم سيكون المغرب الدولة المغاربية الوحيدة التي تقيم علاقات مع الكيان الصهيوني إثر قطع موريتانيا علاقاتها مع تل أبيب في 2010، وهو ما يعتبر اختراقاً صهيونياً لافتاً لمنطقة المغرب العربي.

كما سيصبح المغرب رابع دولة عربية توافق على التطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني خلال العام 2020؛ بعد الإمارات والبحرين والسودان.

وفي 15 سبتمبر/أيلول الماضي، وقعت الإمارات والبحرين اتفاقيتين للتطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني في واشنطن، فيما أعلن السودان، في 23 أكتوبر/تشرين أول الماضي، الموافقة على التطبيع تاركاً مسؤولية إبرام الاتفاق إلى المجلس التشريعي المقبل (لم يُنتخب بعد).

وبذلك، تنضمّ هذه البلدان الأربعة إلى بلدين عربيين أبرما اتفاقي سلام مع الكيان الصهيوني، وهما الأردن ومصر.

وكان الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترمب أعلن، أول أمس الخميس، عن تطبيع العلاقات بين إسرائيل» والمغرب في مقابل اعتراف أميركا بسيادة المغرب على الصحراء الغربية.

مقالات ذات صله

Ansarullah Releases Two US Prisoners in Exchange For 200 Yemeni Detainees

Ansarullah Releases Two US Prisoners in Exchange For 200 Yemeni Detainees

By Staff, Agencies

Yemen’s popular Ansarullah revolutionary movement released two American prisoners as part of a deal that also secured the return of more than 200 Yemenis stuck in Oman as a result of the Saudi-led blockade of the war-torn country.

The Wednesday swap apparently involved Saudi Arabia and Oman, which frequently plays the role of broker in the region.

Kash Patel, a deputy assistant to US President Donald Trump, who worked on the agreement, identified the freed US nationals as Sandra Loli, a “humanitarian worker” who was held in Yemen for three years, and Mikael Gidada, a “businessman” detained for a year, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The remains of a third American captive, Bilal Fateen, was also being sent back to the United States.

Little had been known about the Americans held in Yemen until the announcement of their release.

Ansarullah leaders have previously announced detentions of foreign humanitarian workers found to be spying and diverting some of the badly needed aid sent into impoverished Yemen.

Ansarullah also reported receiving some 240 Yemenis from Oman.

The movement’s spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam tweeted that the Yemenis returned to the capital, Sana’a, included people who had either been stranded in Oman or were casualties of the Saudi-led war who had traveled there during UN-brokered peace talks held in Sweden in 2018.

The Yemeni official said Riyadh had blocked the Yemenis from returning home after they arrived in Oman two years ago.

“Today, we were pleased to receive some wounded brothers who were stuck outside the country as a result of the brutal and continuous siege on our country. The coalition obstructed their exit and entry, one of its war crimes against Yemenis,” Ansarullah tweeted.

He said the United Nations also failed to bring the wounded Yemenis back from Oman in line with the agreement reached in Sweden.

The exchange came a day before a planned UN-brokered exchange of more than 1,000 prisoners between the Ansarullah and Yemen’s former Riyadh-allied government.

The UN had said in September that the two sides agreed to exchange 1,081 conflict-related prisoners, including Saudi and Sudanese troops fighting on the side of the Saudi-led coalition of aggressors.

Saudi Arabia and a number of its regional allies launched the devastating war on Yemen in March 2015 in order to bring former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi back to power.

The US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project [ACLED], a nonprofit conflict-research organization, estimates that the war has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the past five years.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have purchased billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the United States, France and the United Kingdom in their war on Yemen.

Riyadh and its allies have been widely criticized for the high civilian death toll resulted from their bombing campaign in Yemen.

The UN says over 24 million Yemenis are in dire need of humanitarian aid, including 10 million suffering from extreme levels of hunger.

Related Videos

Related News

History Will Show No Mercy for Arab Traitors to Palestine – Hamas Leader

History Will Show No Mercy for Arab Traitors to Palestine – Hamas Leader

By Staff, Agencies

Head of Hamas resistance movement’s political bureau Ismail Haniyeh has once again condemned the US-brokered deals that the United Arab Emirates [UAE] and Bahrain signed last month to normalize ties with ‘Israel,’ warning that history will show “no mercy” towards the Arab states that betrayed fellow Palestinians.

In an interview with the Middle East Eye [MEE] news portal published on Monday, Haniyeh said that the Arab countries that normalized ties with ‘Israel’ will be losers as the occupying regime will eventually threaten them.

“The Zionist project is an expansionist project. Its objective is to create a greater ‘Israel.’ We don’t want to see the Emiratis or the Bahrainis or the Sudanese being used as vehicles for this project. History will show no mercy, the people will not forget, and humanitarian law will not forgive,” he said.

In mid-September, US President Donald Trump presided over the signing of the normalization pacts between Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi and Manama. During a ceremony at the White House, Trump said “five or six” other countries were close to making similar agreements with ‘Israel,’ but did not name them.

Meanwhile, reports suggest that Sudan and Oman could be next in line to normalize with the ‘Israeli’ occupation regime.

“We know ‘Israeli’ leaders better than them. We know how they think. We would like to tell our brothers in the United Arab Emirates that they will lose as a result of those agreements because ‘Israel’s’ only interest is to seek a military and economic foothold in areas close to Iran,” Haniyeh said.

“They will use your country as a doorstep. We don’t want to see the UAE being used as an ‘Israeli’ launchpad,” he added.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Haniyeh stressed that Hamas had been vindicated by the collapse of the 1990s Oslo process between the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and ‘Israel.’

“From the day it was announced, Oslo bore the seeds of its own destruction… Oslo was a failure from day one because it was a security agreement, not a political one,” he said.

Additionally, Haniyeh enumerated the factors that had forced Abbas to rethink his approach towards the resistance group and deliver a “positive response to the initiative by Hamas.”

Moreover, the Hamas leader said the resistance group was prepared in case of any ‘Israeli’ attack on Gaza, warning that any future war would be costly for the Tel Aviv regime.

Beyond the Gratuitous Normalization: An Escalating War on Palestine ما بعد التطبيع المجّاني: نحو تسعير الحرب على فلسطين

Beyond the Gratuitous Normalization: An Escalating War on Palestine

By Ali Haidar – Al-Akhbar Newspaper

Translated by Staff

With the opening of a new era in the region, titled “The Declared Arab Alliances with the ‘Israeli’ Enemy”, the war on Palestine is moving towards more extensive levels, in order to escalate pressure on the Palestinians and force them to accept the fait accompli. The statements –published yesterday- of the American ambassador to “Israel”, David Friedman, in which he claimed that the Arabic-‘Israeli’ conflict has reached “the beginning of the end”, are perhaps a clear proof of that. In parallel, there are continued talks about the intention of other states to join normalization, in the light of exposing further information about the trajectory that led to this result, and which was commanded by the Mossad over the past years

After the Emirati and Bahraini regimes have accomplished their task, which is enhancing political, security and economic supplies to the enemy entity, in the context of the war that it is waging against Palestinians and the region, eyes are now focused on the Saudi regime, which is awaiting its next task to be outlined and waiting for setting the time at which it will take the lead of the Gulf States. These states are working on distorting the direction of the conflict to make it fit the “Israeli” priorities and interests. In this context, Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen repeated, in an interview with the entity’s “Channel 12”, that the deal with Saudi Arabia was “within reach”, expressing his conviction that the deal might be sealed “during the current year”. He reiterated that many states, whether Gulf States or others, will join the normalization deals. “Israeli” reports mentioned that Oman was the next state to normalize, as it dispatched its ambassador in Washington to the signing ceremony for the ‘Israel’-Bahrain-UAE “Peace Deal” at the White House.

This ceremony, with all the following seasons of the same series, are just a result of a secret or declared trajectory that has been ongoing for years. This trajectory was supervised by the Mossad, who has to manage relations with non-normalizing states, as one of its official missions. This is what Cohen himself has confirmed, when he said that “The body was always working on creating relationships at various levels. These relations could be, at the beginning, economic, commercial or reciprocal concerning understanding regional and international security relations.” He added that “We all seek, in the end, official relations with Arab States”. Building on this, Cohen considered the two “Israeli” deals with the UAE and Bahrain to be “the culmination of years of efforts and communications that have been managed in a pretty accurate way.” These efforts are being made by the Mossad which comes under the direct authority of the Prime Minister, so the political level brings their rewards. Besides, the Mossad has many plans that target –as declared in the “Israeli” political and media discourse- the Palestinian cause firstly, then Iran secondly since it is considered to be the strategic depth of the axis of Resistance. Concerning this, Cohen said that the signed agreements with the UAE and Bahrain are a great message which is more important than the idea of supporting “Israel”. He added that the agreements were a strategic change in the war against Iran.

Although the attempts to give the ‘Israeli’-UAE and ‘Israeli’-Bahraini deals a strategic nature seem to be exaggerated given the two States’ size and regional role, the situation will be different when Saudi Arabia joins them. It would be possible then to talk about a new regional map that has a strategic nature. However, the engagement of all these regimes in the normalization has less consequences than Egypt’s exit from the confrontation with “Israel”, through the “Camp David Accords” in 1979, which created a radical transformation in the balance of power to the benefit of the “Israeli” enemy. This transformation needed another one on the opposite side, in the magnitude of the Iranian Revolution, to contain its consequences, and realign the movement of the regional reality in directions that are different from the ones for which the enemy was planning four decades ago.

Concerning the direct consequences of the two agreements, it is highly unlikely that the Zionist entity will play a direct role in protecting the regimes that are newly normalizing with “Israel”, or that it will engage in a military intervention for their sake. Also, it is unlikely that “Israel” will take the initiative, in the foreseeable future, to set up military bases in the Gulf as some are saying, simply because the entity doesn’t want to put direct military targets in front of its enemies, since they could restrict its ability to make aggressive operational choices in the region, especially against Iran. On the other hand, the normalizing regimes will continue playing a military role to the benefit of Tel Aviv, but this time, with a fake political legitimacy.  

Regarding the Palestinian cause, it is obvious that the establishment of a new era, titled “The Declared Arab Alliances with the ‘Israeli’ Enemy”, absolutely means the amplification of the attempts to end the Palestinian cause. Accordingly, it seems that the next stage will see an escalating aggression against Palestinians, with the participation of the normalizing regimes that think that the insistence of Palestinians on keeping their cause alive will undermine their efforts and plans, and constitute a durable conviction of them. Hence, they will treat every Palestinian stance that claims one of the Palestinians’ minimum rights as a missile that targets their thrones.

The American ambassador to “Israel”, David Friedman, is the one who opened the direct war against Palestine and its people, by attacking Palestinians again, and considering the Arab-‘Israeli’ conflict to have reached the “beginning of the end” in the light of the normalization agreements. In a clear message to Ramallah, Friedman revealed, in a conversation with the “Israeli” newspaper “Israel Hayom”, that the United States was thinking of replacing the former leader of Fatah movement, Mohammed Dahlan, by the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas; but “they didn’t want to reorganize the Palestinian leadership.” It seems that Friedman wanted to suggest that Ramallah’s insistence on rejecting normalization, and refusing the Palestinian legalization of it, will make Washington more willing to topple the current leadership. Friedman sees that “this leadership didn’t stop upholding the same old complaints, which had nothing to do with this issue.”

In parallel, Washington and Tel Aviv are still refusing to provide the UAE and Bahrain with an umbrella, even a fake one, for their normalization choices. Friedman has stressed that the postponement of the annexation plan was just a “temporary suspension”, pointing out that the current US administration was the first one to recognize the legitimacy of settlement, and to share a “Peace plan” that excludes the evacuation of settlers from their homes across the West Bank. Friedman had previously indicated that the West Bank was a part of “Israel”.


ما بعد التطبيع المجّاني: نحو تسعير الحرب على فلسطين

ما بعد التطبيع المجّاني: نحو تسعير الحرب على فلسطين
سيختلف الأمر لدى انضمام النظام السعودي، إذ يمكن عندها الحديث عن خارطة إقليمية جديدة تتّسم بطابع استراتيجي (أ ف ب )

مع افتتاح حقبة جديدة في المنطقة عنوانها التحالفات العربية المعلَنة مع العدو الإسرائيلي، تتّجه الحرب على فلسطين وداعميها نحو فصول أكثر شراسة، بهدف تصعيد الضغوط على الفلسطينيين وإجبارهم على قبول الأمر الواقع. ولعلّ التصريحات التي نُشرت أمس للسفير الأميركي في إسرائيل، ديفيد فريدمان، والتي ادّعى فيها أن الصراع العربي – الإسرائيلي وصل إلى «بداية النهاية»، تُعدّ دليلاً واضحاً على ذلك. على خطّ موازٍ، يتواصل الحديث عن اعتزام دول إضافية الانضمام إلى ركب التطبيع، في ظلّ انكشاف المزيد من المعطيات حول المسار الذي قاد إلى هذه النتيجة، والذي تزعّمه «الموساد» على مرّ السنوات الماضية.

بعدما أكمل النظامان الإماراتي والبحريني مهمّتهما التي أُوكلت إليهما في تعزيز الإمداد السياسي والأمني والاقتصادي لكيان العدو في سياق الحرب التي يشنّها على شعوب فلسطين والمنطقة، تَتوجّه الأنظار نحو النظام السعودي الذي ينتظر اكتمال رسم معالم الخطوة المطلوبة منه، وتحديد توقيت تصدّره القافلة الخليجية التي تعمل على حرف وجهة الصراع نحو أولويات تتماهى مع المصالح والأولويات الإسرائيلية. وفي هذا الإطار، أعاد رئيس «الموساد»، يوسي كوهين، في مقابلة مع «القناة 12» في التلفزيون الإسرائيلي، الحديث عن أن الاتفاق مع السعودية «في متناول اليد»، معبّراً عن اقتناعه بإمكانية تحقق ذلك «خلال هذا العام»، مجدّداً القول إن العديد من الدول، الخليجية وغير الخليجية، سينضمّ أيضاً إلى ركب التطبيع، فيما تحدّثت تقارير إسرائيلية عن أن «الدولة التالية ستكون سلطنة عُمان»، التي أوفدت سفيرها في واشنطن إلى مراسم توقيع اتفاقيتَي «السلام» مع الإمارات والبحرين في البيت الأبيض.

مراسمُ ليست، وما سيعقبها من حلقات إضافية في المسلسل نفسه، إلا نتيجة لمسار سرّي وعلني امتدّ على مدار السنوات السابقة، وأشرف عليه جهاز «الموساد»، الذي من مهمّاته الرسمية إدارة العلاقات مع الدول غير المُطبّعة. هذا ما أكّده كوهين بنفسه، بحديث عن أن جهازه «يعمل دائماً للوصول إلى وضع نقيم فيه علاقات على مستويات مختلفة. ويمكن أن تكون في البداية علاقات اقتصادية، وعلاقات تجارية، وعلاقات تبادلية في فهم الأحداث الأمنية – الإقليمية والدولية. في النهاية، أعتقد أن هدفنا جميعاً هو الوصول إلى علاقات رسمية مع الدول العربية». وانطلاقاً من ذلك، اعتبر كوهين الاتفاقيتين الإسرائيليتين مع الإمارات والبحرين «تتويجاً لسنوات من الجهود والاتصالات التي تدار بطريقة دقيقة للغاية». هذه الجهود التي يبذلها «الموساد»، التابع مباشرة لرئيس الوزراء، يقطف ثمارها المستوى السياسي، ويؤسّس عليها مخططات تستهدف مباشرة، كما هو معلن في الخطاب السياسي والإعلامي الإسرائيلي، قضية فلسطين أولاً، وإيران تالياً باعتبارها العمق الاستراتيجي لمحور المقاومة. عن هذا، قال كوهين إن «الاتفاقيات الموقّعة مع البحرين والإمارات تعتبر رسالة كبيرة جدّاً تتجاوز فكرة دعم إسرائيل. الاتفاقيات هي تغيير استراتيجي في الحرب ضدّ إيران».

من المستبعد جدّاً أن يلعب الكيان العبري دوراً مباشراً في حماية الأنظمة المُطبّعة


وعلى رغم أن محاولات إضفاء الطابع الاستراتيجي على الاتفاقيتين الإسرائيليتين مع النظامَين البحريني والإماراتي تبدو مبالغاً فيها، بلحاظ حجم الدولتين ودورهما الإقليمي، إلا أن الأمر سيختلف لدى انضمام النظام السعودي إليهما، إذ يمكن عندها الحديث عن خارطة إقليمية جديدة تتّسم بطابع استراتيجي. على أن إقدام كلّ تلك الأنظمة على التطبيع لا يوازي في تداعياته خروج مصر من المواجهة مع اسرائيل، عبر «اتفاقية كامب ديفيد» عام 1979، والتي أحدثت تحوّلاً جذرياً في موازين القوى لمصلحة العدو. وهو تحوّلٌ كان يحتاج إلى آخر مقابل بحجم ثورة إيران لاحتواء تداعياته، وإعادة تصويب حركة الواقع الإقليمي في اتجاهات مغايرة لِما كان يُخطَّط له قبل أربعة عقود.

في التداعيات المباشرة للاتفاقيتين الأخيرتين، من المستبعد جدّاً أن يلعب الكيان العبري دوراً مباشراً في حماية الأنظمة المُطبّعة معه حديثاً، أو أن يذهب إلى حدود التدخل العسكري لمواجهة أيّ تهديد تتعرّض له. كذلك، يستبعد أن تبادر إسرائيل، في المدى المنظور، إلى نصب قواعد عسكرية لها في الخليج وفق ما يجري تداوله أحياناً، والسبب – ببساطة – أنها لا تريد وضع أهداف عسكرية مباشرة أمام العدو، يمكن أن تُقيّد قدرتها على اتخاذ خيارات عملانية عدوانية في المنطقة، خصوصاً تجاه إيران. في المقابل، ستواصل الأنظمة المُطبّعة لعب دور أمني لمصلحة تل أبيب، لكن هذه المرّة مع شرعية سياسية مصطنعة.

في ما يتعلّق بقضية فلسطين، من الواضح أن التأسيس لحقبة جديدة عنوانها التحالفات العربية المعلنة مع كيان العدو، يعني بالضرورة تزخيم محاولات تصفية القضية الفلسطينية. ومن هنا، يبدو أن المرحلة المقبلة ستشهد تصاعداً في العدوان على الشعب الفلسطيني، بمشاركة من أنظمة التطبيع التي تعتقد أن إصرار الفلسطينيين على إبقاء قضيّتهم حية سيُقوِّض الكثير من جهودها ومخطّطاتها، وسيشكّل إدانة مستمرّة لها. ولذا، فهي ستتعامل مع كلّ موقف فلسطيني يطالب بالحدّ الأدنى من الحقوق على أنه بمثابة صاروخ مُوجّه إلى عروشها.

تسعير الحرب المباشرة على فلسطين وشعبها افتتحه السفير الأميركي في إسرائيل، ديفيد فريدمان، بمهاجمة الفلسطينيين من جديد، واعتباره أن الصراع العربي – الإسرائيلي وصل إلى «بداية النهاية» في ظلّ اتفاقيات التطبيع. وفي رسالة واضحة الدلالة إلى رام الله، كشف فريدمان، في حديث إلى صحيفة «إسرائيل اليوم»، أن الولايات المتحدة الأميركية تدرس استبدال القيادي السابق في حركة «فتح» محمد دحلان، برئيس السلطة محمود عباس، مستدركاً بأنه «ليست لدينا رغبة في هندسة القيادة الفلسطينية». والظاهر أن فريدمان أراد الإيحاء بأن إصرار رام الله على رفض سياسة التطبيع، وممانعتها إضفاء الشرعية الفلسطينية عليها، سيدفعان واشنطن إلى إطاحة القيادة الحالية التي يرى أنها لا تزال «تتمسّك بنفس الشكاوى القديمة، التي لا أعتقد أنها ذات صلة».

على خطّ مواز، لا تزال واشنطن، ومعها تل أبيب، ترفض توفير مظلّة، ولو شكلية، للإمارات والبحرين، في خياراتهما التطبيعية؛ إذ شدّد فريدمان على أن تأجيل تنفيذ مخطّط الضم ما هو إلا «تعليق مؤقت»، لافتاً إلى أن الإدارة الأميركية الحالية أول إدارة تعترف بشرعية الاستيطان، وتنشر «خطّة سلام» تستبعد إخلاء المستوطنين من منازلهم في جميع أنحاء الضفة، التي سبق أن أشار في الماضي إلى أنها «جزء من إسرائيل».

التطبيع «الإسرائيليّ» الإماراتيّ: من المساكنة إلى الزواج!

د. عدنان منصور

هل كان علينا نحن العرب، ومعنا العالم أن ننتظر الإعلان الرسمي من قبل العراب الأميركي دونالد ترامب، ليبث إلينا «الخبر التاريخي العظيم» عن قرار العدو الصهيوني وحليفه في أبو ظبي، لتطبيع العلاقات بينهما، وليقوم من يقوم في عالمنا العربي، بردود فعل غاضبة لا تُسمن القضية ولا تغني الشعب الفلسطيني من جوع؟! ألم نتعوّد على هذه الردود العقيمة منذ النكبة الكبرى عام 1948، والنكبة الثانية المتمثلة باتفاقية كامب ديفيد، وفيما بعد باتفاق أوسلو ووادي عربة، الذي جمع العدو الإسرائيلي مع مصر والأردن والسلطة الفلسطينيّة !

منذ ذلك الوقت تطلّ علينا من حين الى آخر، وفي المناسبات القوميّة، تصريحات وتنديدات، وتظاهرات وتخوين وحرق أعلام، وخطب، وندوات، وقصائد وأشعار، ومقالات وتحليلات، وبعد ذلك يعود كلّ شيء إلى مكانه، بعد أن تكون أمواج الردود العاتية قد اصطدمت بأنظمة ومواقف حكام، وقراراتهم، وتحوّلت زبداً.

العلاقات الإسرائيلية الإماراتية ليست وليدة الساعة، وإنما تعود الى سنوات، حيث كان الجميع من شقيق وصديق وعدو يعلم بها وبتفاصيلها، ويعلمون كيف نسجت خيوطها. لقد كانت الاتصالات واللقاءات تتقاطع، وتتمّ علناً على قدم وساق. ألم يوجّه عام 2009، كلّ من سفير الإمارات العربيّة المتحدة، وسفير «إسرائيل» في واشنطن، نداء مشتركاً الى الولايات المتحدة من أجل تبني موقف حازم ضدّ إيران؟! ألم يحضر وزير إسرائيلي عام 2010، مؤتمراً للطاقة المتجددة في أبو ظبي؟! ألم يلتق رئيس وزراء الكيان نتنياهو بوزير الخارجية الإماراتي في نيويورك عام 2012؟! ألم تفتح «إسرائيل» بعثة رسمية في أبو ظبي تتعلق بالوكالة الدولية للطاقة المتجددة عام 2015؟! ألم يعلن نتنياهو في كلمة له خلال مؤتمر رؤساء المنظمات اليهودية الأميركية في 16 شباط 2020 في القدس، من انّ «إسرائيل» تقيم علاقات «سرية» مع دول عربية وإسلامية، ثم يؤكد على تطوّر العلاقات مع دول عربية وإسلامية، تتعزز باستمرار، باستثناء دولة واحدة او دولتين او ثلاث منها فقط لا تقيم معنا علاقات. وأكد على أن ما يقوله ليس إلا 10 في المئة فقط مما يحدث من علاقات سرية تجمع «إسرائيل» بدول عربية في المنطقة!

لقد حصلت في السنوات الأخيرة لقاءات إسرائيلية ـ إماراتية على أكثر من صعيد، منها في قبرص حيث ركزت على التعاون ضدّ إيران، وأيضاً زيارة وزير الطاقة الإسرائيلي للإمارات، وتفقده موقع الوكالة الدولية للطاقة المتجددة عام 2016. وفي عام 2017، اجتمع نتنياهو مع سفيري الإمارات والبحرين في واشنطن، ناقشوا أثناءه موضوع إيران. وفي العام نفسه شارك سفير الإمارات العتيبة، وسفير «إسرائيل» ديرمر، في العشاء السنوي للمعهد اليهودي للأمن القومي الأميركي. وفي العام الماضي، وجهت الإمارات دعوة رسمية لـ «إسرائيل» للمشاركة في معرض دبي للابتكار Expo 2020 وفي شهر حزيران من هذا العام هبطت أول طائرة إماراتية في مطار بن غوريون الدولي.

لم يقتصر الأمر على اللقاءات والزيارات، وإنما تشعّب ليشمل مشاركة الإمارات عام 2016، في التدريبات العسكرية الجوية مع «إسرائيل» وباكستان وأسبانيا، التي جرت في الولايات المتحدة. كما شاركت الإمارات عام 2017، بمناورات مشتركة مع اليونان وإيطاليا و»إسرائيل» والولايات المتحدة جرت في اليونان.

وفي شهر تموز من هذا العام تعاقدت شركتان «إسرائيليتان»، منها رفاييل مع شركة «مجموعة 42» الإماراتية لمكافحة جائحة كورونا.

المساكنة بين الإمارات والكيان الإسرائيلي التي كانت مكتومة لحدّ ما، كشفها على الملأ العراب الأميركي، ليعطيه الصفة الشرعية العلنية، وليضع الجميع أمام حقيقة الأمر، وليؤكد بشكل واضح ما كان يردّده نتنياهو من وقت الى آخر، من انّ هناك علاقات قوية تربط «إسرائيل» بدول عربية من دون أن يتردّد عن تسميتها .

طابور التطبيع مع العدو الصهيوني، أسقط أوراق التوت نهائياً. بالأمس كانت مصر والأردن والسلطة الفلسطينية، واليوم الإمارات، وغداً البحرين، وبعد غد عُمان، ويليها السودان، وبعده كلّ الذين أغرقوا فلسطين وقضيتها، بعشقهم المزيّف لها، وحرصهم المخادع عليها، وعلى شعبها، والدفاع الوهم عن أمتهم. هؤلاء ما كانوا يوماً إلا أداة طيّعة بيد سيدهم العراب الأكبر. لقد كشف بعض زعماء العرب أخيراً عن وجوههم، ونزعوا أقنعتهم المثقوبة أمام العدو علناً، من دون خجل، ضاربين عرض الحائط كرامة شعوب الأمة، وحقوقها، ومقدساتها، وتاريخها، ناكثين بالمواثيق، والقرارات، والمبادرات العربية والقوانين الدولية، وأكثر من ذلك طاعنين بقضية الشعب الفلسطيني وحقوقه في قدسه، وأرضه، ودولته، وحقه في العودة الى دياره…

إعلان ترامب ومن أجل تخفيف وطأة الاتفاق على الفلسطينيين، جاء ليبشّرهم بجائزة الترضية التي ستعطيها «إسرائيل» للفلسطينيين وهي، تأجيل العدو في ضمّ أراض في الضفة وغور الأردن إليه! حتى إذا ما امتصت «إسرائيل» اثر ووقع التطبيع في ما بعد، انقضت مجدداً لقضم ما تبقى من الأرض وما عليها.

إنّ الفلسطينيين اليوم، أمام الاختبار الكبير، وهم أصحاب القضية الحقيقيون، فماذا هم فاعلون! عليهم الآن قبل غيرهم، إعادة حساباتهم من جديد، وان يدركوا جيداً، من يجب الاعتماد والرهان عليه، ويعرفوا مَن يقف بجانبهم ومن يخذلهم ويبيعهم ويتاجر بقضيتهم في سوق العمالة والخيانة الدولية!

على القيادات الفلسطينية كلها، ان تقوم بفرز الشقيق عن العدو، والصديق الداعم عن المتواطئ الغادر، الحليف الفعلي عن الحليف المزيف المتآمر…

على طريق تحرير فلسطين، لا مجال امام الفلسطينيين للمهادنة أو أخذهم الى الفخاخ المدمّرة، ولا الى المراوغة، او الحلول المخزية، والمواقف المخدرة، والوعود الكاذبة.

لا بدّ من إعادة النظر وتقييم مواقف وسياسات زعماء ودول تآمرت وغرزت نصالها وخناجرها في جسد الشعب الفلسطيني وقضية الأمة المركزية، وخذلت في الصميم نضال الشعب الفلسطيني والعربي على مدار عقود، ومنذ النكبة التي حلّت به عام 1948 وحتى اليوم.

طابور المهرولين من أعراب الأمة باتجاه العدو، وتقديم أوراق اعتماد تطبيعهم معه، وخنوعهم لسيدهم العراب الأميركي، لم يتركوا عاراً إلا وارتكبوه بحق أمتهم، وحق شعوبها وقضاياها القوميّة المصيريّة… مَن يظنّ انّ تطبيع العرب مع العدو سيجلب لهم الاستقرار والأمان والقوة والسلام واهم. انّ الذئب الإسرائيلي يستدرج نعاج العرب الواحد تلو الآخر إلى حظيرته، مصوّراً حبه لهم، وغيرته وحرصه عليهم، من دون أن يعلم المغفلون انّ هذا الذئب الذي أنقضّ على أرض عربية وافترس شعبها، سينقضّ عليهم يوماً، طال أم قصر «حبه وغرامه» لهم.

انّ التطبيع مع «إسرائيل» صفحة سوداء في تاريخ الأمة، حيث نشهد طعنة الشقيق للشقيق، فعلى يده تنحر القضية وتغتال أمة بأكملها.

إنها مسؤولية الشعب الفلسطيني، ليقف وقفته بكلّ قوة وحزم، للاعتماد على نفسه أولاً في الداخل، من أجل تطهير مقاومته من كلّ عميل وخائن ومتخاذل ومتآمر، وفي الخارج مدعو للتعاطي بحزم حيال كلّ من يريد أن يبيع القضية الفلسطينية، ويقضي على آمال الشعب الفلسطيني.

فلا مجال أمام المقاومة الفلسطينية للمساومة، أو المهادنة او الركون للوعود الزائفة، التي لم تجلب إليهم منذ أوسلو وحتى اليوم، الا السراب والمزيد من التراجع والنكسات والويلات، لا سيما في ظلّ الانقسام الفلسطيني الذي تريده «اسرائيل»، ومعها واشنطن وحلفاؤها في المنطقة ان يستمر. لأنّ الانقسام سيشجّع العدو ومن يقف بجانبه، على التمادي في سياساته كي يستكمل إجراءات القضم والضمّ، تحت مظلة زعماء وعملاء في الأمة، يلقى منهم الدعم الكامل لدفن القضية الفلسطينية على أيديهم نهائياً.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*وزير الخارجية والمغتربين الأسبق.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Saudi Welcomes Abu Dhabi’s Betrayal: When Is Riyadh’s Turn? ترحيب سعودي بخيانة أبو ظبي: متى يحين دور الرياض؟

Saudi Welcomes Abu Dhabi’s Betrayal: When Is Riyadh’s Turn?

By Al-Akhbar NewspaperTranslated by Staff

There is no need for much effort to deduce the Saudi position regarding the move of its Emirati ally to publicize its relations with ‘Israel’. What the officials do not say publicly is proclaimed by the court media and writers in day and night, to the extent that some of them refused to grant the Palestinians “generosity” without return. Instead, the recompense was “blackmailing” practiced – for 70 years – in the Gulf “in the name of the sanctity of the cause”, according to articles of semi-unified narratives. It is clear now that the temporary royal silence and Riyadh’s reluctance to welcome – unlike Manama and Muscat – is the result of the kingdom not being ready to announce a full normalization with ‘Israel’. Therefore, it is hiding behind its allies [now the Emirates and then Bahrain and later Oman], waiting for a “suitable” day in which its crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, can proceed with the alliance, to consolidate the covenant of his ancestors and their promise.

The way the UAE has created “will form an Arab trend that exceeds all the failed obstacles that prevailed for seventy years.” This will undoubtedly contribute to strengthening the Saudi-‘Israeli’ rapprochement. This is a trend that was reinforced in recent years, under the alliance of the “two Mohammads” [Bin Zayed and Bin Salman]. The two pillars of common hostility toward Iran and the attempts to attract foreign investment to finance the economic transformation plan, Bin Salman’s “2030 Vision”, will unequivocally push the kingdom into an apparent rapprochement with ‘Israel’. Founding the $500 billion-city, “NEOM” – the backbone of this faltering “vision” – requires “peace and coordination with ‘Israel’, especially if the city will have the opportunity to become a tourist attraction,” according to researcher Mohammad Yaghi at the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

The intersections are many, as well as the “interests” that unite the undeclared alliance, in addition to the American pressure that is evident through the Gulf-‘Israeli’ “reconciliation” mediator, Jared Kushner, to compel the kingdom to publicize its “inevitable” relations with ‘Israel’. Kushner said a few days ago “the course of a warship cannot be changed overnight.” He reminded Riyadh yesterday that the normalization of its relations with Tel Aviv would be in the interest of the kingdom’s economy and defense. It would also contribute to limiting Iran’s power in the region. As for ‘Israel’, the “peace agreement” between it and the Emirates represents “the most important cornerstone on the road to achieving the central goal of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia,” the expression belongs to an ‘Israeli’ political official who spoke to Yedioth Ahronoth.

In exchange for Riyadh’s official silence and Washington’s public calls, the Saudi media adhered, as usual, to a unified narrative based on marketing the idea that the kingdom views the normalization of relations between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv as a sovereign Emirati affair, which would “yield good results for the Palestinian cause,” by “suspending the annexation process indefinitely,” despite all that has been said and spoken by ‘Israelis’ about baseless propaganda that the UAE marketed to justify its move. According to what has been written, the declaration “does not involve any interference in the Palestinian affair. It rather sets red lines for any policy that ‘Israel’ might pursue, which involves oppressing the rights of the Palestinian people, excluding the phantom of annexing the Palestinian lands, and the consolidating the two-state solution.”

The justification of the Emirati moves in terms of “realism” as “constituting an important breakthrough in the peace process … after it suffered from a long stalemate without any progress or success”, had a significant share. In addition to that, the call to “overcome the deadly division based on returning to calling for the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiation”.

Riyadh considers, through its media, that “the policy of estrangement and boycott has not achieved neither the interest of the Palestinians nor the Arabs.” Abu Dhabi chose “another communication and recognition-based approach to address the outstanding problems in a different climate,” because “the just Palestinian cause has remained for more than seventy years without a political solution that satisfies the Palestinians who were insisting on big things, betting on the power of righteousness and forgetting the right to power.” They depend entirely on “aid from the Arab countries, especially the rich Arab Gulf states, for their livelihoods, lives, jobs, authority, embassies, and all their life details.” They speak of “unprecedented emotional and ideological blackmail because of the Palestine issue,” although they are “like all the causes of liberation that the occupied peoples suffered to obtain their liberation from the colonialists, the Palestinians are not better than the Vietnamese, the Algerians, or the rest of nations.” They received peerless indulgence … while all historical documents confirm that they were the ones who sold their lands, not alone, but in villages and sub-districts until they were transformed into Jewish settlements.” Therefore, “there is no real solution of the Palestinian issue except for Palestinians to accept their situation and build a new identity of their own choice… and assuming responsibility is the right way.”

The normalization of relations between the UAE and ‘Israel’ will encourage all the other Gulf states to follow their counterparts and reveal their secret ties with ‘Israel’ not to let Abu Dhabi enjoying alone the combination of its capital and advanced ‘Israeli’ technology in all fields, to become, along with Tel Aviv, the most powerful and wealthy in the Middle East. This is according to Thomas Friedman in “The New York Times”, who in his article talks about another, a stronger and more psychological message addressed to Iran and its proxies, that “there are now two alliances in the region; The first is a UAE-led alliance of those who want the future to bury the past, and the second is an Iran-led alliance of those who wish that the past buries the future.”

ترحيب سعودي بخيانة أبو ظبي: متى يحين دور الرياض؟

الجزيرة العربية 

الحدث الأخبار الثلاثاء 18 آب 2020

ترحيب سعودي بخيانة أبو ظبي: متى يحين دور الرياض؟
ستسهم الخطوة الإماراتية في تعزيز التقارب السعودي – الإسرائيلي (أ ف ب )

لا تزال الرياض تبدي حذراً شديداً إزاء الترحيب العلني بإتمام الاتفاق الإماراتي – الإسرائيلي. حذرٌ، وإن كان لا ينسحب على ما يُنشر في الإعلام (وكلّه رسميّ)، يمكن ردّه إلى حسابات كثيرة لا تزال تتخطّى في أهميتها الراهنة رغبة المملكة في البوحليس ثمّة حاجة إلى كثيرِ جهدٍ لاستنباط موقف السعودية إزاء خطوة حليفتها الإماراتية إشهار علاقاتها مع إسرائيل. فما لا يقوله الرسميّون في العلن، يجاهر به إعلام البلاط وكتّابه صبحَ مساء، إلى درجةٍ أنّ منهم مَن أبى إلّا أن يمنِّن الفلسطينيين بـ»كرمٍ» مِن دون مقابل، بل إنّ المقابل كان «ابتزازاً» مورس ـــــ على مدى 70 عاماً ــــــ في حقّ دول الخليج «باسم قدسيّة القضيّة»، وفق ما تقرأه مقالات بسرديّات شبه موحّدة. لم يعد خافياً أنّ الصمت الملكي الموقّت وإحجام الرياض عن الترحيب ـــــ بخلاف المنامة ومسقط ـــــ مردّهما إلى عدم جاهزية المملكة بعد، للإعلان عن تطبيع كامل للعلاقات مع إسرائيل. لذا، فهيَ تتلطّى خلف حليفاتها (الآن الإمارات ومِن بعدها البحرين ولاحقاً عُمان)، في انتظار يومٍ «مناسب» يمكن فيه وليّ عهدها، محمد بن سلمان، أن يمضي في التحالف، ليرسِّخ عهد أجداده ووعدهم.

الطريق الذي شقّته الإمارات «سيشكّل تياراً عربياً يتجاوز كل الإعاقات الفاشلة التي سادت لسبعين عاماً»، وسيسهم، بلا شكّ، في تعزيز التقارب السعودي ــــــ الإسرائيلي. وذلك اتجّاهٌ تعزّز بالفعل في السنوات الأخيرة، في ظلّ تحالف «المحمّدَين» (ابن زايد وابن سلمان). ركيزتا العداء المشترك تجاه إيران، ومحاولات جذب استثمارات أجنبية لتمويل خطة التحوّل الاقتصادي، «رؤية 2030»، الخاصة بابن سلمان، ستدفعان ـــــ بلا لبس ـــــ المملكة إلى تقارب علنيّ مع إسرائيل. فإنشاء مدينة الـ500 مليار دولار، «نيوم» ـــــ العمود الفقري لهذه «الرؤية» المتعثّرة ـــــ يتطلّب «سلاماً وتنسيقاً مع إسرائيل، خصوصاً إذا كانت المدينة ستُتاح لها فرصة أن تصبح منطقة جذب سياحي»، وفق الباحث في مؤسّسة «كونراد أديناور» الألمانيّة، محمد ياغي.

التقاطعات كثيرة، وكذا «المصالح» التي تجمع الحلف غير المُعلن، مضافاً إليها ضغوط أميركيّة تتبدّى عبر وكيل «المصالحة» الخليجية ــــــ الإسرائيلية، جاريد كوشنر، لحمل المملكة على إشهار علاقاتها «الحتميّة» بإسرائيل. ورغم أنّه «لا يمكن تغيير مسار سفينة حربيّة بين عشيّة وضحاها»، على حدّ تعبير كوشنر قبل أيام، فهو عاد وذكّر الرياض، يوم أمس، بأنّ مِن شأن تطبيع علاقاتها مع تل أبيب أن يصبّ في مصلحة اقتصاد ودفاع المملكة، إلى جانب أنه سيسهم في الحدّ من قوّة إيران في المنطقة. بالنسبة إلى إسرائيل، يمثّل «اتفاق السلام» بينها وبين الإمارات «الحجر الأساس الأهمّ في الطريق إلى تحقيق الهدف المركزيّ المتمثّل في تطبيع العلاقات مع السعودية»، والتعبير لمسؤول سياسي إسرائيلي تحدّث إلى «يديعوت أحرونوت».

في مقابل صمت الرياض الرسمي ودعوات واشنطن العلنيّة، التزم الإعلام السعودي، على جري عادته، سرديّة موحّدة، تقوم على تسويق فكرةٍ مفادها أنّ المملكة تنظر إلى تطبيع العلاقات بين أبو ظبي وتل أبيب باعتباره شأناً سيادياً إماراتياً، من شأنه أن «يسفر عن نتائج جيدة بالنسبة إلى القضية الفلسطينية»، عبر «تعليق عمليّة الضمّ إلى أجل غير مسمّى»، رغم كلّ ما حُكي ويحكى إسرائيلياً عن دعاية لا أساس لها سوّقتها الإمارات لتبرير خطوتها. بحسب ما كُتب، فإنّ الإعلان «لا ينطوي على أيّ تدخّل في الشأن الفلسطيني، بل (هو) حدّد خطوطاً حمراً لأي سياسة قد تنتهجها إسرائيل تنطوي على هضم حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني، وأبعد شبح ضم الأراضي الفلسطينية، وعزّز الحلّ عبر الدولتين».

ذكّر كوشنر الرياض بأنّ مِن شأن تطبيع علاقاتها مع تل أبيب أن يصبّ في مصلحة اقتصادها


تبرير الخطوة الإماراتية من باب «الواقعية» بوصفها «تشكل اختراقاً مهمّاً في عملية السلام… بعدما عانت من جمودٍ طويلٍ من دون أي تقدمٍ أو نجاحٍ»، كان له حصة وازنة، فضلاً عن الدعوة إلى «تجاوز الانقسام القاتل على قاعدة العودة إلى المطالبة بمبادرة السلام العربية كأساس للتفاوض». تعتبر الرياض، عبر إعلامها، أنّ «سياسة القطيعة والمقاطعة لم تحقّق لا مصلحة الفلسطينيين ولا مصلحة العرب»؛ من هنا، اختارت أبو ظبي «مقاربة أخرى تقوم على الاتصال والاعتراف لطرح المشكلات العالقة في مناخ مختلف»، ذلك أنّ «القضية الفلسطينية العادلة ظلّت لأكثر من سبعين عاماً من دون حلٍّ سياسي مُرضٍ للفلسطينيين الذين كانوا يصرّون على أشياء كبيرة، ويراهنون على قوة الحق ويتناسون حق القوة»، ويعتمدون «بالكامل على المساعدات من الدول العربية، وبخاصة دول الخليج العربي الغنية، في معاشهم وحياتهم ووظائفهم وسلطتهم وسفاراتهم، وفي كل تفاصيل حياتهم». إلى جانب كلّ ذلك، يتحدّث هؤلاء عن «ابتزاز عاطفي وأيدلوجي غير مسبوق (مورس) بسبب قضية فلسطين»، رغم أنّها «مثل كل قضايا التحرير التي كابدت الشعوب المحتلة لنيل تحررها من المستعمر، فلا الفلسطينيون أفضل من الفيتناميين ولا الجزائريين ولا بقية الأمم، ومع ذلك حظوا بدلال منقطع النظير… بينما كل الوثائق التاريخية تؤكّد أنهم هم من باعوا أراضيهم ليس بالمفرد بل بالقرى والنواحي حتى تحوّلت لمستوطنات يهودية». لذا، فـ»لا حلّ حقيقياً للقضية الفلسطينية إلا بمصارحة الفلسطينيين لأنفسهم وبناء هوية جديدة تقوم على أكتافهم لا أكتاف غيرهم… وتحمّل المسؤولية هي الطريق الصحيح».
سيشجّع تطبيع العلاقات بين الإمارات وإسرائيل دول الخليج الأخرى جميعها على أن تحذو حذو نظيرتها، وتخرج بعلاقاتها السريّة مع إسرائيل إلى العلن، حتى لا تُترك أبو ظبي وحدها تتمتّع بالجمع بين رأسمالها والتكنولوجيا الإسرائيلية المتطوّرة في كلّ المجالات، وتصبح هي وتل أبيب الأكثر قوّة وثروة في الشرق الأوسط، بحسب توماس فريدمان في «نيويورك تايمز» الذي يتحدّث في مقالته عن رسالة أخرى أقوى وذات بعد نفسي، موجّهة إلى إيران ووكلائها، مفادها أن «هناك الآن تحالفين في المنطقة؛ الأول هو تحالف الراغبين في أن يدفن المستقبل الماضي بقيادة الإمارات، والثاني هو تحالف من يريدون للماضي أن يدفن المستقبل بقيادة إيران».

Normalisation with Israel: Where do Middle Eastern countries stand?

Source

Since the UAE-Israel deal was announced last week, states in the region have felt pressured to declare their stance on establishing diplomatic ties with Israel

An Algerian demonstrator holds a Palestinian flag during a protest against the 2014 Israeli military offensive in the besieged Gaza Strip and in solidarity with Palestinians, on 25 July 2014 in the capital Algiers (AFP)

By MEE staff

Published date: 19 August 2020

Since the UAE and Israel announced last week that they had reached a deal officially establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries, the reaction in the Middle East has been split.

Some Arab countries have expressed support for the UAE-Israel agreement publicly, with BahrainOman and Egypt among the first countries in the world to welcome the deal without reservations.

Bahrain and Oman are expected by Israel to follow in the Emirati footsteps – whereas Egypt has had full diplomatic relations with Israel since 1980.

Others have meanwhile either refrained from commenting or denounced the deal as a normalisation of ties with Israel at the expense of the Palestinian cause, essentially giving Israel a green light to pursue its occupation policies. 

Beyond bilateral ties between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi, the question has now been raised regarding which countries – if any – might follow suit.

The administration of US President Donald Trump, which brokered the deal, has hinted that other Arab states might do so.

But in a region where most countries have abstained for decades from having overt relations with Israel, and where civil society is widely perceived as being opposed to normalisation – where do some states stand? 

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan cautiously welcomed normalisation on Wednesday, saying the deal – which “suspended” Israeli annexation of large parts of the occupied West Bank – “could be viewed as positive.”

“We are committed to the Arab Peace Plan and that is the best way forward to a settlement of the conflict and to normalisation with Israel with all states,” the Saudi foreign minister told reporters in Berlin. “That said, any efforts that could promote peace in the region and that result in holding back the threat of annexation could be viewed as positive.”

The Arab Peace Initiative – sponsored by Saudi Arabia in 2002 – promises Israel full ties with Arab states if a peace settlement is reached with the Palestinians.

Saudi state media has so far published views in favour of the UAE decision, which likely points to Riyadh’s own tolerance to such opinions. The daily Okaz newspaper, for example, published a column that hailed the normalisation deal as reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin wall. 

While Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is largely viewed as favourable to normalisation, his father, King Salman, has so far maintained a more moderate view nominally more supportive of Palestinian statehood.

Trump said on Wednesday that he expected Saudi Arabia to join the UAE-Israel deal.

“I do,” Trump replied when asked at a White House news conference if he expected the kingdom Arabia to join the deal.

The US president called the UAE-Israel accord a good deal and said that “countries that you wouldn’t even believe want to come into that deal.” 

He did not name any other countries besides Saudi Arabia.

Sudan

The Sudanese government on Wednesday sacked a foreign ministry spokesman, following his praise of the UAE-Israel deal. 

Spokesman Haydar Sadig made comments to regional media and confirmed them to news agencies on Tuesday, calling the deal “a brave and bold step” and noting that Khartoum and Tel Aviv already have secret diplomatic contacts.

The foreign ministry said it was “astonished” by Sadig’s comments, and stressed that the government had not discussed the possibility of diplomatic relations.

Israel’s intelligence chief Yossi Cohen, however, contradicted the Sudanese statements later on Wednesday, saying his government is in contact with Sudan and that normalisation is “part of the agenda” of their diplomatic relations. 

Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of Sudan’s ruling council, and reportedly discussed normalisation. 

The meeting at the time was viewed by Sudanese analysts as an attempt by Khartoum to get into Washington’s good graces and obtain the lifting of crippling US sanctions. 

Oman

Oman’s foreign minister, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, spoke with his Israeli counterpart Gabi Ashkenazi on Monday, days after the United Arab Emirates announced plans to normalise ties with Israel. 

The two officially reportedly spoke about the “need to strengthen relations” and “agreed to maintain direct and continual contact” and “continue the important dialogue between the two countries to advance the process of normalisation” in the region, a statement read.

However, bin Abdullah was replaced on Wednesday after 23 years as foreign minister – leading to some speculation. However, analysts have stopped short of saying the move was caused by the call with Ashkenazi, particularly given the fact that bin Abdullah had already publicly called for normalisation in the past.

Lebanon

Lebanese President Michel Aoun initially commented on the deal by saying that “the UAE is a sovereign state” and that he did not rule out future peace with Israel once the roots of the conflict between Beirut and Tel Aviv are settled. 

In other statements, however, he said that he “did not call for peace with Israel” because of the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands, as well as the unresolved issue of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. 

Lebanon and Israel effectively consider one another enemy states, particularly due to Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon for 18 years, and the Israeli war with the Lebanese Hezbollah movement in 2006.

Should the country’s leadership feel tempted to contemplate normalisation with Israel, they would, however, have to contend with further anger from an already incensed Lebanese public in the wake of a stark economic crisis compounded by the devastation wrought earlier this month by a double explosion in Beirut.

Kuwait

While Kuwait has not made an official statement about the deal, an unnamed official told local newspaper al-Qabas  that his country’s long-standing stance against normalisation remains unchanged.

“Our stance on Israel has not changed following the UAE normalisation agreement, and we will be the last to normalise relations,” the senior official was quoted as saying.

In response to the statements, Jared Kushner, senior advisor to the US president, criticised Kuwait’s stance as “not very constructive” and “a very radical view of the conflict in favour of the Palestinians”.

In the absence of an official statement, Kuwaiti non-governmental organisations and MPs have rejected normalisation. More than 30 NGOs described the agreement as “a dagger stuck in the Palestinian cause and in the back of Arab society”.

Algeria

While the Algerian government has not yet issued an official statement, several political parties and civil society organisations have condemned the agreement.

The conservative Freedom and Justice Party dismissed the deal as a “betrayal” and a “crime” against the Palestinian cause.

Similarly, the National Liberation Front described it as “treason” and “a stab in the back” of Palestinians.

Algerians are widely viewed as some of the most staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause in the region.

Morocco

Morocco has yet to officially comment on the deal, but Rabat is one of many governments in the region known to have not-so-secret dealings with Israel.

Earlier this year, Amnesty International revealed that Israeli spyware was used to target Moroccan activists. Meanwhile, Israeli media reported in February that Netanyahu had lobbied the United States to recognise Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara region in exchange for Rabat taking steps to normalise ties with Israel.

Meanwhile, Moroccan writers and scholars nominated for the Sheikh Zayed Book Award – scheduled to be held in the UAE early next year – have announced their withdrawal in protest against the normalisation agreement.

Related

جهر بخيانة مكشوفة

«إسرائيل» متمسّكة بخطّة الضم: في انتظار بقيّة العرب

فلسطين 

وليد شرارة 

السبت 15 آب 2020

أَبلغُ رد على اتفاق الخيانة الإماراتي مع إسرائيل برعاية أميركية جاء من المصلين في المسجد الأقصى، الذين رفعوا صورة محمد بن زايد وعليها كلمة خائن. قد تستخف نخب الارتزاق بهذا الموقف، الذي يعبّر عن اقتناعات الاتجاه الرئيسي بين جماهير الأمّة من المحيط إلى الخليج، بل ومن طنجة إلى جاكرتا، إلا أن المهم في مواجهة مثل هذا التطور هو ليس مناقشة حججها الفارغة ومنطقها المتداعي. المهم بالنسبة إلى المعنيين بمستقبل قضية فلسطين والصراع مع الكيان الصهيوني والهيمنة الأميركية وأذنابها المحليين، من مشيخات وممالك اخترعها الاستعمار في قلب جزيرة العرب، هو القراءة الصحيحة لخلفيات هذا الاتفاق والاعتبارات الفعلية لأطرافه، ولتداعياته على المعركة الدائرة بين قوى المقاومة في الأمة وأعدائها. آلة الحرب الإعلامية-الدعائية للجبهة المعادية تروّج للاتفاق باعتباره حدثاً «تاريخياً»، «زلزال جيوسياسي ضرب الشرق الأوسط»، بحسب عنوان المقال الأخير للمبشّر الأميركي الصهيوني توماس فريدمان.

في الواقع، نحن أمام عملية استعراضية، تكثر مثيلاتها في سياق عالمي تحاول فيه الدول الغربية التعويض عن ضمور هيمنتها وتراجع قدرات وكلائها المحليين بتنظيم مهرجانات مشهدية، يتكفل «التطبيل» الإعلامي الذي يرافقها بتقديمها على أنها دليل حسي على استمرار تحكمها في مجرى الأحداث. اتفاق التطبيع الكامل بين دويلة الإمارات واسرائيل نموذج جديد على هذا الفن الاستعراضي، يجهر بطريقة دراماتيكية بخيانة مكشوفة منذ زمن طويل للقاصي والداني من أبناء الأمّة، لكنه يشي في الآن نفسه بمصاعب وتحديات يواجهها جميع الأطراف المشاركين فيه وحاجتهم إلى انتصارات وهمية، تغطي عجزهم عن تغيير موازين القوى، المتحولة لغير مصلحتهم في الميدان.
سعي الجيل الجديد من النخب الحاكمة في الإمارات والسعودية والبحرين وعمان في الانتقال، بعلاقات أنظمتها بإسرائيل، من التقاطع إلى التحالف، السرّي ومن ثم العلني، تعزّزَ بقوة بعد موجة الانتفاضات الشعبية التي شهدتها المنطقة العربية سنة 2011، وما نجم عنها من شعور بالتهديد الوجودي لدى هذه الأنظمة. قبل هذا التاريخ، منذ بداية ستينيات القرن الماضي، تعاونت هذه الأخيرة مع الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل للتصدي لصعود أي قوة إقليمية مستقلة، مرشحة لأن تتحول قطباً جاذباً لقسم من دوله وشعوبه، ولأن تعدّل موازين القوى فيه باتجاه متناقض مع الهيمنة الأميركية ووكلائها المحليين. الأسباب نفسها دفعت المشيخات والإمارات والممالك الخليجية إلى محاربة مصر الناصرية في الستينيات، والعراق في أواخر الثمانينيات وبداية التسعينيات، وإيران منذ انتصار ثورتها، ولكن بشراسة أكبر منذ بداية الألفية الثانية. قيام هذه الانظمة وبقاؤها ارتبطا بالهيمنة الغربية والأميركية، وهي لم تتورع عن الاندراج في مخططاتها، جنباً إلى جنب مع إسرائيل، لمواجهة أي مشروع استقلالي ذي أفق إقليمي، عربياً كان أو إسلامياً. هذا سرّ عدائها اليوم لإيران وحتى لتركيا إردوغان. لكن مشهد هروب الرئيس التونسي بن علي وسقوط نظيره مبارك وانتشار موجة الانتفاضات الشعبية في طول المنطقة وعرضها في ظل تخبط أميركي وغربي، وعجز عن دعم «الحلفاء» هو الذي أصابها بالذعر. في هذه اللحظة المفصلية بالذات تفتقت عبقرية الجيل الجديد من حكامها عن خيار «ورقة الأمان الإسرائيلية».

الفرضية الرئيسية التي تأسّس عليها هذا الخيار هي أن إسرائيل تمتلك في الولايات المتحدة منظومة مؤيدة


الفرضية الرئيسية التي تأسس عليها هذا الخيار هي أن إسرائيل تمتلك في الولايات المتحدة منظومة مؤيدة لها، وليس مجرد لوبي، وأن قدرتها على التأثير على سياستها الشرق أوسطية هائلة بكل ما للكلمة من معنى. إضافة إلى ذلك، فإن هذا الجيل الجديد مقتنع بأن إيران وحلفاءها في الدرجة الأولى، تليها في الدرجة الثانية تركيا وحلفاؤها، هم أعداء وجوديون مشتركون لهم ولإسرائيل. أخيراً، فإن هذا الجيل المعولم الذي ينظر إلى روابط العروبة والدين على أنها من مخلفات ماض بائد يرى في الشراكة مع إسرائيل، القوة العسكرية والاقتصادية والتكنولوجية، فرصة لتعظيم قدرات نظمه. عمل هؤلاء على توثيق أواصر الصلة مع الكيان الصهيوني ونخبه لتأكيد أنهم «كنز استراتيجي» لإسرائيل، كما وصف الوزير الصهيوني الأسبق بنيامين بن اليعازر الرئيس المصري المخلوع حسني مبارك بعد أيام من سقوطه. ومن الواضح أنهم نجحوا في هذا الأمر. وحتى دونالد ترامب اعترف لهم بهذا «الجميل» عندما رد على منتقديه على دعمه لمحمد بن سلمانـ بعد فضيحة قتل الصحافي جمال خاشقجي، مذكّراً بدور الأوّل في الوقوف إلى جانب إسرائيل ضد الذين يريدون إزالتها.

التحالف الأميركي-الإسرائيلي-الإماراتي-السعودي لم يعد سراً بالنسبة إلى أحد، لكن الحرص على تظهيره، مع الإمارات بداية، يرتبط بحسابات سياسية داخلية لدى أطرافه الثلاثة، وبرغبتهم في تسجيل نجاح وهمي ضد محور المقاومة عبر الاحتفال بتحقيق مثل هذا «الاختراق»، بينما هم فشلوا في المعركة المركزية معه، المتمحورة حول مراكمته وتطويره لقدرات عسكرية وصاروخية تسهم في تغيير تدريجي ولكن متواصل لموازين القوى في المنطقة لغير مصلحتهم.

ترامب، الذي يرى فرص إعادة انتخابه تذوي، والعاجز عن القيام بأي إنجاز داخلي يحول دون ذلك، يبحث بدلاً منها عن إنجازات خارجية لعلها تساعد في وقف انحدار شعبيته المتسارع. نتنياهو، المتهم بالفساد، والذي يواجه احتجاجات لم يسبق أن واجه رئيس وزراء صهيوني مثيلاً لها منذ إنشاء الكيان، إلى درجة دفعت البعض إلى الحديث عن احتمالات حرب أهلية، يأمل أن يخفف من حدتها عبر إبراز نجاح ما في الخارج. الإمارات امتثلت لطلبات الراعي الأميركي والحليف الإسرائيلي، لكنها بدورها متورطة في نزاع مفتوح مع تركيا وحلفائها، وليبيا أبرز ساحاته حالياً، وهي طرف في المحور المعادي لإيران على رغم محاولاتها لتطبيع خجول معها صدّته الولايات المتحدة. هي تنصاع للطلبات الأميركية والإسرائيلية في مقابل حمايتها من خصومها الأقوياء. أطراف مأزومون، لم يتمكنوا من الانتصار في معركة الصواريخ المركزية ضد محور المقاومة، يحتفون بالجهر بما كان معلوماً. أما محمد بن زايد، فعليه التوقف والتفكير ملياً في ما قد يترتب على تصنيفه خائناً في باحات الأقصى، في القدس، عاصمة الأمّة.

مقالات متعلقة

 التفاوض الإقليمي على صفيح ساخن

 

 –

يشكل الإعلان عن مؤتمر لأمن الخليج بمبادرة عمانية وموافقة كل من السعودية وإيران علامة مهمة على الإتجاه لتفاوض إقليمي لا يمكن حدوثه دون إطار دولي أقله الموافقة الأميركية أو التشجيع الأميركي أو الطلب الأميركي ، هذا إذا لم تتطور فكرة المؤتمر ليشكل كما وصفه وزير خارجية عمان بمؤتمر كل المعنيين بأمن الخليج فاتحا الباب لرعاية أممية وتتيح مشاركة الدول الأعضاء الدائمين في مجلس الأمن  الدولي وتكون طهران وواشنطن على مائدة التفاوض مباشرة.

 إعلان وزير الخارجية السعودي عادل الجبير عن فرص تهدئة تتحول إلى تسوية في اليمن يؤكد التقدم الذي حققته الوساطة العمانية والمعلوم أن اليمن هو الساحة الأهم في المواجهة السعودية مع محور المقاومة بعد الفشل السعودي في الساحات الأخرى وتحول الحرب على اليمن من مشروع تحقيق أرباح غلى مصدر للخسائر .

ما يجري في العراق ولبنان وسورية لا ينفصل عن التفاوض لكنه تفاوض على صفيح ساخن يلعب فيه الأميركي أوراقه على حافة الهاوية فيلوح بدفع الأمور نحو الإنهيار وهو يخشاه كما كان حضوره العسكري في الخليج تلويحا مشابها بالإستعداد للذهاب إلى الحرب وهو يخشاها بينما خصومه الذين أظهروا عدم رغبتهم بالحرب وعدم رغبتهم بالإنهيار أظهروا عندما بلغ التصعيد ذروته أنهم لا يخشون الحرب ولا يخشون الإنهيار.

كما تراجع الأميركي عن التلويح بالحرب يتراجع عن التلويح بالإنهيار لكن صناعة التسوية أصعب من صناعة الأزمة لأن الرأي العام مسرحها وعندما يتم إستفزازه بالجوع وتتم تعبئته بالغضب ويخرج إلى الساحات لا يمكن إعادته كما كان عندما خرج.

التعليق السياسي

Bloomberg: Gulf States Are Backpedaling on Iran

Bloomberg: Gulf States Are Backpedaling on Iran

Source

By Staff, Bloomberg

An expanded soccer tournament, a direct flight, clandestine meetings and a pledge to release prisoners of war; diplomacy is breaking out as Gulf Arab nations back away from a Donald Trump-inspired confrontation with Iran. And the signs are everywhere.

Last week, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain played their first games of the 2019 Arabian Gulf Cup in Qatar after a last-minute decision to take part.

Meanwhile, Oman is quietly hosting high-level meetings, and even Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has hinted at direct channels with the UAE.

Spooked by the prospect of a catastrophic war with Iran and its allies across the region, Gulf monarchies are in the midst of a strategic rethink. The UAE, whose economic model relies in large part on its international links, quickly realized it had most to lose from a military escalation. It had pulled out most of its troops from Yemen by the end of a turbulent summer that saw oil tankers targeted and a US drone downed in the Gulf without significant American response.

While the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by the war on Yemen trained an unwelcome spotlight on Saudi Arabia, it took a brazen strike on Saudi oil installations – which knocked out half the country’s crude production – to ram home the risks and prove that Trump was not about to ride to his allies’ rescue.

“The attacks shattered any illusion of this magical US security umbrella,” said David Roberts, an assistant professor at King’s College London who studies the Gulf. “It burst the bubble and showed that Iran had the willingness to both do something astonishing like the attack on Aramco facilities and the capability to carry it out.”

In the meantime, the Trump administration withdrew last year from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA], known commonly as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions that have crippled its oil exports.

Rolling back Iran’s power remains a priority for the Gulf Arab leadership. There’s an increasing recognition, however, that no one stands to gain from a military escalation in the world’s top oil-exporting region.

In search of a breakthrough, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, shuttled between Tehran and Riyadh in October. He met Leader of the Islamic Revolution His Eminence Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Sheikh Hassan Rouhani, as well as Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman [MBS], describing talks as “encouraging.”

As they explore ways forward, Gulf States are moving at different speeds.

The UAE broke with the US and Saudi Arabia by not naming Iran as the culprit behind attacks in May and June on oil tankers as they sailed toward the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s foremost oil shipping chokepoint.

It sent coast guard officials to Iran for the first time in six years and Rouhani hinted at other meetings with senior UAE officials. “We’re moving toward improved relations,” he said Oct. 14. Saudi Arabia is catching up.

However, where the US holds back, others are crowding in. Russian President Vladimir Putin has forged a partnership with Iran, created an oil alliance with Saudi Arabia and built ties with Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, who was warned by the US last month against plans to purchase Russian jets.

Putin traveled to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in October after visits by the Saudi king and the UAE’s de-facto leader Mohammad bin Zayed to Moscow. The two Gulf countries and Russia have signed deals valued at billions of dollars.

For Iran’s Rouhani, the case for regional engagement is obvious.

“Don’t you know that Iran is going to stay here and we will remain neighbors throughout history?” he has said, referring to Iran’s Arab neighbors. “Trump will only be around for a few years and will go back to whatever it was he was doing.”

Related Videos

Related News

Why countries are reluctant to join U.S.-led maritime coalition

TEHRAN – The U.S.-led naval coalition to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf formally was launched in Bahrain on Thursday. But the notable point is that countries have not welcomed this plan. Only a few countries with ineffective naval power have joined the coalition.

*By Mohammad Ghaderi

On July 2019, the U.S. proposed a coalition plan to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf. Mike Pompeo, the U.S. secretary of state, invited U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Australia to join the coalition. Although the U.S. has persuaded its allies on various occasions and even applied pressure on them to join the coalition, it was not warmly welcomed. In August, Britain joined the U.S. military coalition in the wake of a conflict with Iran over oil tanker seizures first in Gibraltar and later in the Strait of Hormuz.

Later the Zionist regime and Australia joined the coalition.

Launch of the U.S.-led marine coalition

The coalition, which reportedly aims to “protect shipping in the Persian Gulf”, was launched on Thursday. The U.S. stated that through the coalition it intends to safeguard region’s oil supply against possible threats. Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet, has joined the coalition along with the UEA and Saudi Arabia.

James Malloy, commander of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, has claimed that the goal of the coalition is defensive. Malloy said the coalition will last as long as necessary.

Some European countries, including France, has not joined the coalition to avoid escalating tensions in the region. Japan has decided to dispatch its naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz independently, rather than joining the coalition.  It is said that Japan made this decision because it has an amicable relationship with Iran and does not like to be seen as an important country and power in the U.S.-led coalition.

In this regard, the London-based Raialyoum wrote that the announcement of formal launch of the U.S.-led maritime coalition to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf with the participation of only 6 countries reminds the old Arab proverb saying “the mountain was in labor but gave birth to a mouse”. Raialyoum added the limited number of countries joining the coalition reveals that the U.S. influence has been reducing not only in the Persian Gulf region but also all around the world. It seems that the current and former U.S. administrations cannot any longer form coalitions like the ones that launched wars in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan with the participation of 30 or 60 countries.

The Arab world digital news and opinion website said that it is noteworthy that three Persian Gulf states namely Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar are absent in the coalition. They have refused to join the coalition not because they have taken a neutral stance toward U.S. controversial measures against Iran, but because they do not trust the U.S. and its current government. The source added that the U.S. government has adopted rash policies that can lead to regional and probably international war; furthermore, the coalition can be an element of “tension” not a guarantee for defense and stability.

Raialyoum stated that we do not believe these six countries – Britain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Australia, and Albania – will be able to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf because most of them, except the U.S. and Britain, do not have effective naval power.

However, the marine coalition is a dramatic and hypocritical show and the U.S. is trying to milk the three states of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. By its presence, the U.S. only disturbs the region’s security. Washington only takes care of its interests.

The security in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf will only be achieved through the reconciliation between regional countries since they are neighbors and they cannot change their geography. The intervention of countries outside the region will only make the situation more complicated.

* Author: Mohammad Ghaderi , Tehran Times editor in chief 

His page on Twitter : @ghaderi62 – and Gmail address : m.ghaderi62@gmail.com

ما حقيقة المفاوضات السرية بين أميركا وحركة أنصار الله؟

سبتمبر 9, 2019

د. حكم أمهز

د.حكم أمهز: ابن سلمان نيرون العصر.. مهر عرشه “القدس المحتلة”
تمويهاً للواقع والحقيقة، كان الإعلان من قبل الخارجية الأميركية بأنها تخوض محادثات سرية مع حركة أنصار الله اليمنية بهدف إيجاد حلّ للأزمة اليمنية. توقيت ومكان تصريحات مساعد وزير الخارجية الأميركي لشؤون الشرق الأوسط، ديفيد شينكر، جاءا خلال زيارته الى المملكة العربية السعودية، ما يعكس دلالات فرض القرار الأميركي على السعودية المتخبّطة بالهزائم في المستنقع اليمني.

حاول شينكر ان يحدّد ماهية المحادثات أكثر، بقوله بدأنا إجراء محادثات بقدر الإمكان مع الحوثيين في محاولة لإيجاد حلّ تفاوضي مقبول بالنسبة للجميع بشأن النزاع .

ثم أردف يقول نحن نعمل مع المبعوث الأممي إلى اليمن، مارتن غريفيث، ونقيم اتصالات مع شركائنا السعوديين .

تصريح فيه من الغموض ما يدفع الى طرح الكثير من الأسئلة، هل هي محادثات أو مفاوضات؟ وكيف تجري؟ ومَن يُجريها؟ وأين؟ وكيف؟ وما هي الشروط المطروحة؟

وفقاً لمصادر متابعة، فإنّ المحادثات الجارية هي غير مباشرة بين الأميركيين وحركة أنصار الله، ساحتها سلطنة عُمان، ويديرها رئيس الوفد اليمني المفاوض والناطق الرسمي باسم الحركة محمد عبد السلام، بمساعدة عضده الأيمن عضو الوفد المفاوض عبد الملك العجري.

وللتوضيح أكثر، فإنّ ما يجري هذه الأيام، ترتيبات لمفاوضات محتملة، مع مناقشة شروط حركة أنصار الله للقبول بالمفاوضات، فإنْ أذعن الأميركي لها، يبدأ التفاوض وإلا فلا.

تتولى سلطنة عُمان بشكل أساس، المحادثات التمهيدية غير المباشرة، بين الحركة وواشنطن، وتجري الحركة على جنباتها، اتصالات، مع دول أوروبية، تمثل بعضها في لقاء السفراء الأوروبيّين الذي عقد في الخارجية الإيرانية في طهران وقيل إنه يأتي في إطار مشاورات الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية بغية الحلّ السياسي لأزمة اليمن، وشارك فيه وفد إيراني برئاسة مساعد وزير الخارجية في الشؤون السياسية الخاصة علي أصغر خاجي وهو من كبار الدبلوماسيين الهامين ووفد من أنصار الله برئاسة المتحدث بإسم أنصار الله محمد عبد السلام وسفراء ورؤساء ممثليات أربع دول أوروبية هي بريطانيا وفرنسا والمانيا وايطاليا.

أعقب ذلك تعيين صنعاء ابراهيم الديلمي، سفيراً فوق العادة ومفوضاً في الجمهورية الاسلامية الإيرانية.

أحداث لا تنفصل عن بعضها لا سيما إذا ربطناها، بلقاء عبد السلام، بنائب وزير الخارجية الروسي ميخائيل بوغدانوف، وإجرائه اتصالاً بالسفير الصيني لدى اليمن، ثم لقاء بسفير بريطانيا في اليمن مايكل آرون.

اذن، نفي عضو المكتب السياسي لحركة أنصار الله محمد البخيتي لوجود مفاوضات مع الأميركيين، كان صحيحاً، لأنه ليس هناك من مفاوضات مباشرة فعلاً، اما التصريح الأدق بهذا الشأن، فجاء من العجري، بقوله إنه بـ فرض حصول أيّ حوار مع الولايات المتحدة فسيكون باعتبارها جزءاً من الحرب وتملك الكثير من مفاتيح إيقافها ، مضيفاً «إننا ننظر للدعوات الأميركية بنوع من الريبة ونشك في جديتها ودوافعها سواء انتخابية أو للتخلص من ضغوط الرأي العام أو لإبراء الساحة الأميركية».

المهمّ في الأمر، أنّ طلب اجراء مفاوضات سرية مباشرة بين السعودية من جهة وحركة أنصار الله من جهة ثانية، جاء بطلب من الولايات المتحدة الأميركية وليس من صنعاء، لأسباب ابرزها:

وصول الإدارة الأميركية الى قناعة بأنّ الحلّ لن يكون عسكرياً في اليمن، وكلما طال الوقت كانت الهزيمة الكبرى للسعودية في الساحة اليمنية أقرب. وترامب يريد إخراج نفسه وأتباعه السعودية والامارات من مأزق اليمن بعد ان بدأت صواعق اليمنيين تحرق المطارات والمواقع العسكرية والمحطات النفطية السعودية والإماراتية، ما يهدّد بإسقاط نظاميهما، وتكون أميركا و اسرائيل الخاسر الأكبر.

الرئيس دونالد ترامب يعمل على ترتيب أوضاعه تمهيداً للانتخابات الرئاسية وهو لا يريد أن يفاجَأ بأيّ طارئ، لذا هو يعمل على إيجاد تسوية «هرب» من أفغانستان مع طالبان، ويكثف جهوده للحصول على نتيجة مع نظيره الكوري الشمالي كيم جونغ اون، ويكثف الضغوط على طهران، لإخضاعها، ويسرّع في العمل لطرح «صفقة القرن».

أهداف تدركها صنعاء جيداً، ولا تريد أن تبيع لترامب إلا بالأغلى، خاصة أنّ الطلب الأميركي بالمفاوضات يأتي في أعقاب هزائم السعودية في اليمن، وتصدّع وتشقق تحالف العدوان وآخره صراع النفوذ الإماراتي السعودي في جنوب اليمن، وتحوّل اليمنيين من موقع الدفاع الى موقع الهجوم.

أمام هذه الحقائق فإنّ اليمنيين يشترطون قبل بدء المفاوضات:

1 – التأكد من انّ الأميركيين، جاهزون لإنهاء العدوان.

وقال عضو الوفد المفاوض عبد الملك العجري في اتصال أجريته معه شخصياً ، نحن نعتبر التفاوض معهم الأميركيين طبيعي، لأنهم القيادة الفعلية للعدوان مع الرياض، لكن لم تتأكد لدينا جدّيتهم بعد، بأنهم جاهزون لإنهاء العدوان، وليس فقط لإبراء ساحتهم ، وعندما سألته، وإنْ تأكدتم من جديتهم هل تبدأ بعدها المفاوضات؟ أجاب عندها لكلّ حادث حديث .

2- وقف العدوان ورفع الحصار عن اليمن بما فيه مطار صنعاء، قبل البدء بالمفاوضات.

3 – التفاوض لا يكون مع السعوديين بل مع الأميركيين.

4 – توفير مظلة دولية للمفاوضات، دورها، تأمين الضمانات لتنفيذ ما يتمّ الاتفاق عليه، لأنّ ترامب والسعوديين لا يفون بالتعهّدات . وهناك رأي عند بعض مسؤولي حركة أنصار الله أن يُصادق على أيّ اتفاق محتمل في مجلس الأمن الدولي.

بكلّ الاحوال وبمجرد ان تجبر أميركا الراعي الرسمي للعدوان على اليمن منذ خمس سنوات على طلب مفاوضات مع أنصار الله، فهذا يعني:

1 – اعتراف أميركي بحركة أنصار الله كقوة شرعية يمنية، وبأنها قوة تفاوض بشكل ندّي مع الأميركيين لا من موقع ضعف.

2 – إقرار أميركي بأنّ من انتصر في العدوان على اليمن هم اليمنيون وحركة أنصار الله، ولو كانت الغلبة لتحالف العدوان لما اضطر الرئيس ترامب على طلب المفاوضات بل كان أكمل العدوان حتى أكمل القضاء على اليمن وأهله، والدليل انه حصلت مفاوضات عدة مرات سابقاً، وأسفرت عن اتفاقات، وكان ينقضها الأميركي واتباعه في التحالف العدواني.

3 – فشل منظومات الدفاع الجوي الأميركية الأكثر تطوّراً في صدّ وكشف صواريخ أنصار الله البالستية وطائراتهم المسيّرة التي وصلت الى أقصى الأراضي السعودية والإماراتية، واستهدفت مطارات ومواقع نفطية وعسكرية حيوية. وفي المقابل انتصرت وتفوّقت التقنية البالستية اليمنية، والطائرات المسيّرة المحلية الصنع.

اذن حركة أنصار الله لن تبدأ مفاوضات الا إذا ضمنت الحق اليمنيين وإعادة الحق الى أهله.

خبير في شؤون إيران والشرق الأوسط.

Related Videos

Related News

%d bloggers like this: