Faced with financial, logistical, and geopolitical challenges, Riyadh has been forced to review its ambitious project, The Line, and critically reassess “economic normalization” with Israel.
Launched in 2017, Saudi Arabia’s NEOM, a sprawling high-tech development on the northwestern Red Sea coast, was introduced as the crown jewel of Vision 2030.
This futuristic desert megaproject, extending over some Jordanian and Egyptian territory, was cast as a bold leap toward economic diversification under the leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). But, recent geopolitical setbacks have raised significant concerns about the viability of some of NEOM’s components.
Initially celebrated for its revolutionary design, The Line, a linear city within NEOM, was to redefine urban living. Yet, recent reports suggest a dramatic scaling back. Earlier this month, Bloomberg revealed a massive reduction in the metropolis’ scope – from 105 to 1.5 miles – and a decrease in likely inhabitants from 1.5 million to fewer than 300,000 by 2030. Furthermore, funding uncertainties and workforce reductions indicate a project in jeopardy.
While this adjustment does not signify a wholesale failure of Vision 2030, it does prompt a re-evaluation of the project’s most ambitious elements.
Experts suggest that The Line’s original scale was overly optimistic, lacking the necessary urban infrastructure for such an innovative endeavor. Financial and geopolitical challenges, including regional instability and insufficient foreign direct investment, further complicate NEOM’s future.
The drastic downsizing of The Line “appears to be a reassessment of timeline feasibility,” Dr Robert Mogielnicki, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, tells The Cradle. “There are many experimental, world-first dimensions within the NEOM gigaproject, and some are eventually going to need rightsizing or rethinking.”
Also speaking to The Cradle, Dr Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Baker Institute Fellow at Rice University, believes the project’s contraction to be a good thing:
Reports that The Line may be scaled back significantly is actually a positive move if it injects greater realism into a project whose initial scale appeared fanciful and difficult to translate into reality. Greater pragmatism in designing and delivering the gigaprojects associated with Vision 2030 is a good thing and means there is a greater likelihood of the projects making it off the drawing board.
Given financial and economic factors, The Line was never feasible as initially presented. Ultimately, the amount of wealth the Saudis generate from oil is not enough to finance the most ambitious of MbS’ Vision 2030 projects. And Riyadh has not been able to lure the levels of foreign direct investment needed to make these extremely expensive vanity projects realizable.
“The vast scope of [The Line] always struck me and many other observers as aspirational rather than realistic,” explains Gordon Gray, the former US ambassador to Tunisia.
Speaking to The Cradle, Ryan Bohl, a Middle East and North African analyst at risk intelligence company RANE, says:
I’d argue that the goals for The Line were unrealistic from the start, given that there’s virtually no urban infrastructure in the area, and it’s very difficult for cities to be started from scratch like that, regardless of the amount of investment poured in. Even if Saudi Arabia had, for example, done something extreme like declare NEOM to be their new capital city, it would still probably struggle to attract residents as we’ve seen from other historical examples like Brazil’s shift of its capital to Brasília.
It attracts attention. That sort of discourse – positive or negative – creates a buzz. That buzz was supposed to attract investors who wanted to be a part of this, help Saudi Arabia build a city of the future, and try to do something completely outlandish and absolutely unconventional.
Gaza: a wrench in the works
The leadership in Riyadh has understood that the success of Vision 2030 heavily depends on attracting substantial foreign direct investment into the Kingdom. Ultimately, stability in Saudi Arabia and the wider West Asian region is crucial.
Consequently, Riyadh’s recent foreign policy has been less ideological, focusing instead on maintaining amicable terms with all major players in West Asia to advance Saudi business, commercial, and economic interests.
Within this context, Riyadh has worked to reach a peace deal with Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, made an effort to preserve the Beijing-brokered 2023 Saudi–Iranian détente, restored relations with Qatar and Syria, and mended fences with Turkiye.
Therefore, beyond financial and economic constraints that require a reassessment of the most ambitious Vision 2030 projects, such as The Line, Israel’s brutal six-month war on Gaza and the expansion of that conflict into the Red Sea have created headwinds for Saudi Arabia’s geoeconomic plans.
As Arhama Siddiqa, a Research Fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, explains to The Cradle:
Given the current instability in the Red Sea region, investors may hesitate to support a large-scale project like NEOM due to perceived risks. Even if the direct security threat to NEOM is minimal, the overall instability in the area can deter investors from committing substantial resources to a long-term venture. Additionally, the broader [West Asia] conflict further complicates the situation, adding another layer of uncertainty. Addressing these security concerns could require Saudi Arabia to allocate more resources to regional security measures, potentially diverting funds from the NEOM project.
There is no denying that Saudi Arabia’s economic diversification agenda is vulnerable to naval operations in the Red Sea. NEOM and other Red Sea projects require vessels to be able to freely travel from the Gulf of Aden through the Bab al-Mandab and up to Saudi Arabia’s west coast.
The Gaza war’s potential spillover into this vital waterway continues to raise concerns for Saudi officials about the impact on the Kingdom’s Vision 2030.
These dynamics help explain Riyadh’s frustration with the White House for not leveraging its influence over Israel to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. It has led to Saudi Arabia’s decision to abstain from joining any US-led security initiatives and military operations in the Red Sea and Yemen.
The Israel–NEOM connection
Israel’s geographic proximity to northwestern Saudi Arabia, its technological advancement, and its vibrant startup culture position the occupation state as a promising partner for Vision 2030 and the NEOM project, particularly in biotechnology, cybersecurity, and manufacturing.
Writing in March 2021, Dr Ali Dogan, previously a Research Fellow at the Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient, went as far as arguing that “relations with Israel are necessary for Saudi Arabia to complete NEOM.”
Dr Mohammad Yaghi, a research fellow at Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, similarly stated that NEOM “requires peace and coordination with Israel, especially if the city is to have a chance of becoming a tourist attraction.”
However, Saudi Arabia’s leadership role in the Islamic world, exemplified by the monarch’s title as the “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” makes any formal normalization of relations with Tel Aviv highly sensitive.
Initially, it was thought that while the UAE and Bahrain could establish overt relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia would continue to engage covertly, ensuring essential collaborations like those rumored in the tech sector could progress discreetly.
An example being in June 2020, when controversy arose over Saudi Arabia’s alleged engagement with an Israeli cybersecurity firm, which the Saudi embassy later denied.
Yet, almost seven months into Israel’s campaign to annihilate Gaza, can Saudi Arabia still look to Tel Aviv as a partner in NEOM?
It appears that amid ongoing crises in the region, chiefly the Gaza genocide, Riyadh must be careful to avoid being seen as cooperating with the Israelis in covert ways, and full-fledged normalization seems off the table for the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, after the dust settles in Gaza and the Red Sea security crisis calms down, Saudi Arabia will likely maintain its interest in fostering ties with Israel as part of an “economic normalization” between the two countries. This could be important to Vision 2030’s future, particularly in NEOM.
But Israel’s unprecedented military campaign in Gaza will likely alter West Asia in many ways for decades to come. Even after the current war in Gaza is over, anger toward Israel and the US will continue.
Without a doubt, the Israeli–NEOM connection will be increasingly sensitive and controversial, both in the Kingdom and the wider region – a factor that the leadership in Riyadh cannot dismiss.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Iran’s successful breach of Israel’s highly regarded air defenses, despite the multi-nation alliance that joined those defense efforts, ultimately served as an Iranian political message to Tel Aviv.
Iran’s 13 April retaliatory missile strike on Israel, dubbed Operation True Promise, managed to overcome the occupation state’s integrated air defense systems and external foreign support.
The strike, intended to deter future actions by Israel against Iranian personnel and facilities, was notably executed to avoid casualties and serious damage. The operation was especially bold as it targeted Israel, an undeclared nuclear power.
Open-source intelligence from videos and photographs identified multiple warheads striking Ramon airbase in the Negev, not Nevatim, as previously reported, although the occupation army confirmed strikes on Nevatim and released images showing minor damage. This suggests a systematic failure of Israel’s lauded air defenses against those five missiles that hit their target, one after the other.
A look at the missiles used
As Brigadier-General Ali Hajizadeh, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force’s commander, later stated:
We attacked Israel using obsolete weapons and minimal means. At this stage, we did not use Khorramshahr, Sejjil, Shahid Haj Qassem, Kheibar Shekan[-2], and Hypersonic-2 missiles.
So what missiles did Iran deploy from its significant domestically-produced arsenal, and why?
Ghadr: Despite being 20 years old, this missile proved effective by deploying decoy warheads to exhaust Israel’s Arrow-2 intercept capabilities. While traversing in space, the Ghadr releases about 10 decoy warheads to lure Arrow-2 to launch 10 interceptors each at all 10 Iranian decoys – draining the enemy’s munitions stock.
The images of Israeli interceptors responding to a range of “lights in the skies” were, in fact, often just firing at decoys. The actual Iranian warheads, if not differentiated by Arrow-2’s systems and destroyed by its interceptors, reached their targets.
The missile is still relevant in Iran’s arsenal as it can create additional targets for the enemy’s missile defenses and suppress the operation of large-area assets, such as airbases.
Dezful: A compact, cost-effective missile with a 600 to 700-kilogram payload, apparently used specifically to strike at an Israeli intelligence base in the occupied northern Golan, demonstrating its strategic deployment within its range limits.
This is a low-cost, single-stage precision missile weighing just about 6 tons, yet able to reach Israel – a revolutionary advancement for Iran when Dezful entered service five years ago – but not Nevatim, because its range is about 1,000 kilometers.
Emad: Approximately a decade old, this was used to test Iran’s countermeasures against newer air defense systems like Israel’s Arrow-3 and the American SM-3. It releases inflatable decoys in space to evade interception before re-entry.
Kheibar-Shekan-1: (early model, not the Kheibar-Shekan-2): IRGC’s answer to Israel’s Arrow-3. Kheibar-Shekan-1 entered service with IRGC Aerospace Force in 2022. It counters Arrow-3 by flying on a “depressed trajectory.”
During the terminal phase of its flight, the Kheibar-Shekan-1 performs aerodynamic maneuvers designed to evade interception from multiple defense systems, including Arrow, Patriot, and David’s Sling.
These maneuvers, likened to a boxer dodging punches, complicate the interception process by forcing defense systems to delay their responses or deploy multiple interceptors, reducing their overall effectiveness.
The Kheibar-Shekan-1 forces missile defenses to launch in the “launch-on-remote” mode, meaning several interceptors are required against a single missile. The successful strikes attributed to this missile, as indicated by Israel – with nine confirmed hits – underline its effectiveness and represent a significant evolution in missile technology despite being a generation behind the most recent IRGC models.
Kheibar-Shekan-1’s maneuverability makes it the most likely candidate to have achieved the successful strikes captured by video imagery.
Iranian media has since quoted Hajizadeh saying, “At this stage, we did not use the Khorramshahr, Sejjil, Shahid Haj Qassem, Kheibar-Shekan[-2], and Hypersonic-2 missiles,” which are all part of Iran’s advanced missile arsenal. That does not necessarily preclude Iran’s use of the older Kheibar-Shekan-1 missile, which still appears to be the most likely Iranian missile used to achieve direct hits successively.
‘Weaker than a spider’s web’
Despite Israel’s integrated air defense system, which is bolstered by data from a US monitoring station in the Negev Desert and 36-hour prior notification of the strike from Tehran, multiple Iranian missiles successfully struck their targets.
The US station monitors Iranian missile launches, with the collected data intended to enhance Israel’s defensive response. But despite the support of a multi-nation coalition, which included Jordan defending its airspace and Saudi Arabia and the UAE providing intelligence, Israel’s defenses were breached.
While Israel engaged in GPS jamming before the Iranian attack, its efforts proved futile. Such “electronic warfare” measures cannot counter Iran’s ballistic missiles. Although older drone models are susceptible to this, Iran’s Shahed-136 drone models have been “hardened” against GPS jamming.
This is likely based on Russian experiences in the Ukrainian military theater that were shared with the IRGC Aerospace Force. IRGC’s missiles use “inertial guidance systems,” which rely on built-in guidance systems like gyroscopes and computers.
An inertial guidance system receives input at and just after launch. At this point, it ceases to receive data from the IRGC launch base and relies solely on its onboard systems. That the missiles traveled 1,000 to 1,200 kilometers and struck targets with pinpoint accuracy guided solely by onboard systems is a superlative achievement by Iran.
Israel’s defense credibility at stake
Israel and its allies claim hundreds of missiles and drones were launched by Iran. However, estimates favorable to the Iranian side suggest only 50 to 60 missiles were launched, with 9 to 15 striking their designated targets.
The Israeli military’s propagandist claim of a 99 percent interception rate would fall to about 50 or 60 percent if the above estimate is accurate. The Israeli claim on the number of missiles may be inflated if they are counting the decoys deployed by Ghadr missiles. If so, the picture would look much grimmer for Israel’s missile defense performance.
Hence, to save face and contain escalation, a politically driven inflation of overall launches is evident. This is in line with US interests, which seek to prevent escalation by Israel. Whether Washington’s aim of containing the crisis would allow it to publish the true number is unclear, particularly if the Iranian salvo was small. If it were proven that a relatively small Iranian salvo managed to defeat a complex missile defense system, Israel would lose its aura of invincibility.
Sending a clear message
The types and quantities of missiles Iran chose to use in this strike are not just military tactics but also political messages intended to demonstrate capabilities and expose vulnerabilities in Israel’s air defense systems.
What is evident, though, is that once multiple Iranian warheads penetrate Israel’s air defense systems and strike critical targets, an equation-changing political-military event has occurred. This is to say, Iran made a powerful statement by breaking through Israel’s air defenses and doing so with older ballistic missiles.
In response to threats from Israel about targeting Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, the resilience of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure poses a significant challenge to the occupation state’s conventional capabilities.
Despite the drawbacks, the potential political gains from such an attack might be considered favorable by embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing, nationalist government.
In contrast, Iran’s response to any Israeli attack on nuclear facilities like Natanz or Fordow would likely be intense, drawing on the full capabilities of the IRGC Aerospace Force. It would also – to the horror of Tel Aviv and Washington – potentially lead to a revision of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear doctrine – as was suggested on 18 April by Iran’s Nuclear Centers Protection and Security Corps, Brigadier General Ahmed Haq Talab.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Support for the Palestinian cause, at an all-time high globally, is being actively suppressed by Jordanian authorities, under pressure to keep a lid on anti-Israel displays in the kingdom.
For the past fortnight, thousands of Jordanians have taken to the streets of Amman, besieging the Israeli embassy, condemning the Gaza genocide, demanding the Hashemite Kingdom sever all ties with Tel Aviv – and, in particular, tearing up the country’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel.
Jordanian security forces have met these protests with increasing severity, signaling the government’s unease with too much public criticism of Israel. Amidst the turmoil, Saudi Arabia – Jordan’s biggest Arab patron – watches warily, concerned that a surge in Palestinian solidarity might challenge its own regional dominance and sink all prospects of Riyadh’s normalization with Tel Aviv.
Banning ‘Palestine’
This includes banning Palestinian flags, keffiyehs, and banners from protests – a mirror of the restrictions imposed in several pro-US Arab states. Attendees are also subjected to invasive body searches and identification checks, and select individuals are barred from participating.
The crackdowns seem to change by the day – one day, protesters are seen with their keffiyehs, and the next, they are not. The same goes for Palestinian flags. At times, they are visible in the throngs; with the flip of a switch, protesters resort to flashing the flag only on their mobile phones.
The public demonstrations are mainly confined to the heavily barricaded courtyard of Kaluti Mosque, situated near Amman’s evacuated Israeli embassy, and restricted to a duration of only two hours.
During the month of Ramadan, protests commence at 10 PM, following the conclusion of mass Taraweeh prayers. As one protester relates to The Cradle:
Police insist it needs to be over by midnight, then break it off violently or through intimidation if people refuse to leave. Greater restrictions are a huge deterrent to attending, especially having to show your ID – people worry it’ll somehow be used against them later. Due to the barriers, some people often can’t even get in, and those who do can’t move. It’s meant to demoralize us, trapping us in a cage and preventing us from breaking out into the streets.
The banning of Palestine’s flag is an especially sensitive escalation by Jordanian authorities. A small majority of the Jordanian population is Palestinian by birth. They consist of refugees from Palestine and their descendants, as well as residents of the West Bank during the period of Amman’s administration from 1948 to 1967.
As there is no census in the country, the precise figure is unknown. This may be by design, in order to diminish Palestine’s societal and political influence in the British-created Hashemite Kingdom.
A symbolic struggle intensifies
In a hugely symbolic development, violence towards Palestine solidarity protesters in Amman reached its zenith on 30 March, Land Day, which commemorates a fateful date in 1976 when Zionist authorities first began formally confiscating Palestinian territory for settlement.
Six unarmed Palestinians – including three women – were murdered that day by Israeli occupation forces, with hundreds more injured during subsequent clashes. Ever since then, Jordanian officials have attempted to calm the situation and present themselves as committed anti-Zionists.
In their response to the past week of protests, authorities in Amman have tried to strike a quiet balance. Government Communications Minister Muhannad Mubaidin has claimed that condemning Israel is a core national ethos, affirming Amman’s solidarity with Palestine and the citizens’ right to protest despite “violations” committed by a minority of demonstrators.
Yet, as one anonymous Jordanian activist tells The Cradle, “many of us think this is just talk.” After all, many protesters arrested over the past two weeks remain in “administrative detention,” and formal restrictions on the protests have only ratcheted since 30 March.
The X account of the “Jordanian Youth Gathering for the Support of the Resistance” lists the names and photographs of 54 protesters they allege are currently being detained by Jordanian security forces. For supporting Palestine, they remain behind bars during the official Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday that marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan.
Jordan’s Palestinian identity crisis
In September 1970, in response to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) using Jordan as a highly effective staging ground for strikes upon the occupation state, Jordanian forces began attacking cities, including Amman, with a substantial fedayeen presence.
Commonly known as Black September, events that month spiraled into what was effectively a civil war, with Palestinians and Jordanians on both sides of the divide. Several protesters who spoke to The Cradle note the obvious parallels between then and now, with one saying banning symbols of Palestine solidarity “seems insane,” given the historical context of such actions in Amman.
Activists also say that accusations against Palestine solidarity protesters in Jordan of serving “foreign agendas” and being directed by overseas actors have reached unprecedented levels.
Although blaming the ‘Other’ is an age-old tactic of authorities to dispel dissent among populations, several activists tell The Cradle it has reached “shocking” and unprecedented levels this time round. The cast of characters who stand accused include the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Hamas, and even the west.
Despite these accusations, the protests have a genuine international component, fostering a spirit of unity among Palestine solidarity activists across West Asia, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman.
“People in Cairo were chanting against [Jordan’s King] Abdullah II a few days ago, while we chanted against [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah] al-Sisi. We call on each other to rise!” a Jordanian protester proudly tells The Cradle. Such scenes are absolute anathema to various governments within and outside West Asia.
Israel’s counterstrategy
This growing Arab solidarity with Palestine has not gone unnoticed by Israel, which is acutely aware of the horrendous reputational impact its Gaza genocide is having overseas. A leaked US State Department memo has revealed Tel Aviv is recruiting “influencers to help target social media users” in Europe and North America, and “Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Arab countries” to highlight purported Hamas atrocities.
Accordingly, open-source investigation platform EekadFacts has exposed a number of X accounts, reportedly based in Jordan, posting relentless anti-Hamas messaging.
These cloak-and-dagger activities have done nothing to quell Palestine solidarity in any corner of the world and have thrown pro-US Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, for a loop.
Riyadh’s role
As Lebanese daily Al-Akhbarforcefully noted on 4 April, Riyadh has “launched its press and electronic flies to defend the Hashemite throne” – ironic, given that in 2021, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) attempted to overthrow King Abdullah II and install his brother, Prince Hamzah, as regent. The coup plotters, it should be noted, remain on trial in Amman today.
A largely forgotten component of that failed putsch was Israel’s central involvement. As Al-Akhbar observed, Bin Salman is desperate to crush Palestine solidarity, for such activity interferes with his long-term “ambition to normalize relations with Israel, as a way to obtain American guarantees for the security and safety of the Saudi regime.”
This includes US acquiescence to the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Riyadh and US assistance in establishing nuclear infrastructure that includes a nuclear fuel circuit on Saudi territory – both longtime Saudi demands.
Riyadh and Tel Aviv were on the verge of normalizing relations when Operation Al-Aqsa Flood struck, followed by the brutal assault on Gaza.
Israel’s military blitzkrieg made normalization an untenable proposition. While initially, MbS suggested it was off the table, this was clearly an expedient fudge to uphold his claim that the kingdom “represents the heart of the Muslim world” and “senses the hopes and pains of Muslims everywhere, strives to achieve unity, cooperation and solidarity in our Muslim world.”
By January, he had reversed course, openly and repeatedly expressing “interest” in “recognition” of Tel Aviv – provided Israel agrees to advance the two-state solution and build a “renewed” Palestinian Authority that can, presumably, garner the support of actual Palestinians.
Concurrently, Riyadh has been meeting with representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and UAE to hammer out a “joint plan” for Gaza, post-war. It would see the brutal, collaborationist, British-trained Palestinian Authority take over as the territory’s undisputed ruler, with Hamas frozen out of all official offices and agencies.
It is a proposition neither Palestinian freedom fighters nor Palestine solidarity activists the world over are likely to accept.
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, the Commander of the IRGC’s Navy, Alireza Tangsiri discusses Iran’s development as a world power, the efforts of the Axis of Resistance to champion and defend Gaza, and the fate of “Israel” and its allies.
Special coverage | The latest developments in the Al-Aqsa flood epic 04-09-2024
Al Mayadeen conducted an interview, which was broadcast on Tuesday, with the commander of the IRGC’s Navy, Admiral Alireza Tangsiri. You can find the full, translated text of the Admiral’s answers below:
I welcome you here, as well as our dear viewers, and welcome to the city of Bandar Abbas and the Strait of Hormuz.
Following the Islamic Revolution’s victory, Washington imposed a complete embargo on Iran, which did not own any material capabilities at the time. Most of our equipment and arsenal were US-made. Later, they would embroil us in an inadequate war against Saddam’s regime, in addition to an abundance of internal conflicts. However, with the grace of God, we managed to persevere and move forward after eight years of war, which prepared us for the upcoming confrontations.
Despite the embargo, sanctions, and economic predicaments Iran was faced with, it was able to advance in multiple military fields, build up its combat strength, manpower, special military training, and manufacture its own equipment.”
“Right now, we are at a level that allows us to export weapons, including rockets, warships, and radars, to naval forces, defense ministries, and armed forces, and we take pride in this capability, which makes rocket and ship manufacturing possible amid the embargo. We also take pride in the size, speed, assimilation, and resistive characteristics of our home-produced ships, which expedites their abilities throughout maritime battles.”
“Today, after over 40 years, we have emerged as a world power, and are the primary decision-makers in West Asia, whether it’s derived from the quality of our manufactured equipment or the preparedness of our armed forces. Today, we are proud to say that Iran is at the forefrontin regional power, and produces all it needs to defend its sovereignty,” he said.
On ‘Israel’s’ crushing defeat in Gaza
Speaking on the genocide in Gaza, Tangsiri described “Israel’s” extensive war as “heinous crimes against the oppressed yet brave and resilient Gaza”.
He revisited the Israeli war objectives from the war and affirmed that the occupation did not manage to achieve a single one.
In detail, the Rear Admiral said:
“They claim three determinants for their success in Gaza:
1. Defeating Hamas, but Hamas is stronger than ever, and sustained fewer losses.
2. The people’s desperation and hopelessness; but look at the highly spirited people in Gaza, who have lost their homes and their loved ones but remained resilient and faithful. The Zionists failed to break Gaza’s defiant and steadfast spirit.
3. The swift elimination of Gaza; but the entire world opposes the Zionists today. The “army” that claimed to be the strongest in West Asia, and third strongest in the world, being supported by the US military with aid and developed weapons used in modern wars, employed to kill Gazan children, has failed to achieve victory, whether militarily, politically, or socially.”
When asked about how such an entity could be fought, Tangsiri stressed the importance of Muslim unity.
“The only way to fight the Zionists is through the formation of an Islamic power and a coalition of Islamic armies. To quote Imam Khomeini, may his soul rest in peace, If every Muslim poured a bucket of water on Israel, it would be washed away.Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. Here, I speak to all Muslim nations that think they would attain greater glory by counting on the Zionists’ friendship. The solution to removing the corruptive and criminal parasite is the unification of all Muslim nations and their armies. If we were united, we could bring an end to it. But this is not what is happening. The Zionists are not only treating Muslims this monstrously but have also shown our Christian brothers and sisters no mercy.
They destroyed churches and massacred Christians in Lebanon. The Zionists are not merciful towards anyone, not even their own supporters.
Unfortunately, the Zionists are striking Muslims with warplanes loaded with fuel supplied by Muslim nations. This is a disgrace, and the solution remains in unity against Zionism to ultimately remove it from existence.”
Iran advocates security in region
Tangsiri also detailed the West’s interests in the region, specifically the United States, and emphasized that Iran has always sought peace and security in the spirit of good neighborliness. However, he did not shy away from condemning the actions Iran’s neighboring countries have undertaken, particularly inviting Zionists into the region.
During talks with neighboring countries regarding the Strait of Hormuz, our message has always been that of peace and friendliness. Iran suffered under the oppression of a tyrant, so it revolted and offered martyrs in the quest for victory, but since then, we have been faced with the enmity of those same countries, as well as the United States and more. The US Army has now come to the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, but they do not belong in our waters. We previously told our neighbors that the Persian Gulf and Oman’s Sea are national concerns of both them and Iran and that Iran’s security is theirs. We told them the West does not want this region to be stable or secure. The West considers these countries as a “milk cow”, but when the milk runs out, as in oil and gas resources in the region, it would slaughter us.
“Therefore, we have always advocated for the security of the region, and have assured that we can host joint military exercises in the Strait, in collaboration with our brothers from the Persian Gulf’s neighboring countries. We can maintain the region’s peace and security. Our oil and gas terminals are close to those of the neighboring countries. If we really wanted to, we could close these waterways down.
But we do not do this, because as long as we use this waterway and strait, then our neighbors would also have to, and should. But they have to recognize that we will not accept the presence of Zionist supporters in their governments because this is considered a security threat to Iran. We hope they do not make such errors, and reconsider their choices. Should the enemy come and restrain us, and act provocatively in an attempt to incite change in the region, then that is a different issue, to which a different decision would be made, at a later time.
Zionists in countries neighboring Iran
He revealed that Iran is now the main proponent for security of the region and that of the Hormuz Strait, and the constant traffic of more than 85 tankers carrying oil and gas cargo that safely pass through the strait every day.
However, he revealed that the arrival of the Zionists to the region, and their settlement within countries neighboring Iran, does not speak to peace or good neighborliness.
“Iran has relations with Arab countries, and the seven nations of Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, but bringing Zionists to our region… We know full well that they do not come for economic purposes or to establish bilateral relations between those countries and the child-killing criminals the world has begun rejecting.”
“What does it mean for a country to take pride in welcoming Zionists to the region?”, he asked.
“What are we to understand from such a gesture to us, to a country whose sea spans the entire length of the Persian Gulf, to a country that has beaches in the sea of Oman, to a country with such glory and greatness? Should we not consider this a threat? Is bringing Zionists to a neighboring country not a threat? They should acknowledge that if harm comes in our country’s way, then the place they came from will cease to exist. If they [neighboring countries] were indeed looking for security, then they would know that there is no room for Zionists in the region.
“I assure you, once again, that we would not attack a Muslim country unless it attacked us… Before the Islamic Revolution’s triumph, Iran had a Ministry of War. Today, we have a Ministry of Defense instead, which signifies that we would not attack any country if we were not attacked or conspired against. Those who choose to conspire and attack us though, will receive a hard blow, just like Saddam and his movement did.
“Therefore, we do not make threats and do not accept threats. Sometimes, a threat is merely speech. The Zionists’ presence in neighboring countries, which we fully acknowledge is not for economic purposes, but rather military and security ones, is a threat that should not materialize. This is a consideration we should always keep in mind.
US forces present in our neighbors’ waters
On the role of the US in the region, Tangsiri affirmed that it is but a plot to incite rifts and destabilize the region and its peace.
The US forces, he stated, are not present in Iran’s waters or territory. However, they are unfortunately present in Iran’s neighbors’ waters, not international ones.
“The United States should realize that the Persian Gulf is not an international sea, but Iran’s and its neighboring countries’. The US does not sail in international waters strait passing through our islands. We are constantly monitoring them, their movements, actions, and behavior. Our naval mission, under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is to defend our facilities in the Persian Gulf. We believe that if they enter the region, with their nuclear equipment, then the waters would not be viable for use for years after. We would be the ones affected by their presence.
But it is of their nature to create enemies, why? First, for weapons. And for an excuse to sell weapons. If there was no enemy to fight, then the region would not need weapons. Second, to ensure their presence in the region… If they did not claim an enemy was present in the region, then they would not need to remain in it. If they did, then it would be unjustifiable.
“Therefore, the constant sales of arms and weapons and their illegal presence in the region necessitates their claim of Iran being an enemy to its neighboring countries. If one of these countries gets attacked tomorrow, they will set fire to this land, leave it, and leave us affected. Which is why we should all remain careful and wary.”
The Resistance’s Mission
When asked about the Axis of Resistance, its emergence, and its role in the region, the IRGC commander stated that the Resistance’s mission has always been to champion Palestine and its liberation against “Israel” and its allies.
“The Axis of Resistance has always responded to threats in defense of the Palestinian people, because their lands are occupied and because Gaza’s resilient people are oppressed. We had never seen a people as resistant as that of Gaza. Countries backing the Zionists should be ashamed of themselves. The US supplied the Zionists with special bombs, which were dropped on women and children in Gaza. France, Britain, and others rushed to back the criminal, dirty, malicious, and child-killing Netanyahu… I do not know, are they really human? Do they call themselves human? A little child in fear, and shaking like that… a torn up child and a mother holding her children… I saw a father holding his martyred children in his hands… These countries are only helping this criminal. I believe the blood of over 14,000 children and women and all those innocents will seek retribution for their sins and will be the reason for “Israel’s” demise and end.
Their message was clear: Defend the occupation. And they announced the reason for their presence in the region in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. If you recall, in the early days of the war, a US aircraft carrier traveled through the Strait of Gibraltar and remained stationed in the Mediterranean.
What is the message it is carrying? That it intends to defend the Israeli occupation, which marks an eternal disgrace for them [the US]. The United States, in all its might – as it claims – and capabilities, and Britain and its capabilities, as well as France… They all came to murder innocent people. How could they raise their heads high as a moral army? Every army has pride, but it comes from respecting and adhering to the laws of war. But this is not a war. This is a people, in a very small land, surrounded and defenseless. But God is with them, and through Him, they will prevail.
At the start of this interview, I noted that the Zionists are so far defeated, and have not achieved any of their war objectives. Did they retrieve their captives? No. Did they destroy Hamas? No. Were they able to achieve their goal of victory? No, they did not emerge victorious, defeat Hamas, or release the hostages. So, they lost. It has been six months. And we cannot forget that six Arab Muslim nations did not achieve victory in the six-day war,” the leader reiterated.
Yemen, Hezbollah role in war
During the interview, Tangsiri was also asked about Yemen and Hezbollah’s role in the war against “Israel”.
To that, he stated that Hezbollah today is heroic, it is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the war, but until this moment, Hezbollah has not responded to the Zionist enemy, and were it to respond, it would have been an onslaught. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had previously announced that Hezbollah’s response would be fierce. Yemen today is much more solid than before, and Iraq and Iraqi Hezbollah are far stronger than before… The Resistance movements that surround the Zionist entity are the more powerful…
He called for trust in the Resistance, saying, “Do not worry about the Resistance; it is today capable of doing everything, and it is far stronger than it was in the earlier days of the war.”
Attack on Iranian consulate
Commenting on the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, he denounced the deliberate airstrike and highlighted the West’s hypocrisy in that regard.
According to Tangsiri, this crime did not happen in any other war. Embassies are meant to be safe places and are considered the territory of their respective countries. In that embassy, there were not only military advisors, but also women, children, and men.
“This attack is a crime. First of all, if we had done this, which we would never have, they would have strongly condemned us for committing such a crime. Look at the world, at the Europeans who watch these crimes and support themost corrupt people, and at the US which plays a very democratic and liberating role… We expected the United Nations to confront this crime more firmly, but they paved the way for us to do away with this ugliness.”
He also reaffirmed that Iran intends to respond to “Israel” for its crime.
“As our dear leader said, it will be responded to, but we do not act impulsively or hastily. We are not the kind of people who turn the other cheek after being hit. At the appropriate time, the relevant officials will deliver a strong blow, God willing. At the head of our armed forces is a scholar who knows God, is patient, wise, and rational and logically governs the Iranian armed forces. We act and respond when we see fit. But we will definitely respond, and as the leader said, we will not leave the matter unanswered.
“We are a force ready for battle. We are military men. We are ready for any mission they order us to carry out. Do you expect me to say what we will do? That is not correct. We are 100% ready for any order that may be issued. Today, the naval forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and our heroic army are ready to pluck out the eye of anyone who wants to harm our country and will carry out the orders that may be issued at the appropriate time.”
Western powers have brought in their ships to support the occupation, but the brave Yemenis withstood against them. As our leader said, if Yemen was not under siege, we would have certainly aided it. Yemen today produces its own artillery, missiles, and boats, and is standing strong against the enemies, against the US and Britain, in support of the oppressed people of Palestine and Gaza.
Glorious Yemen
Discussing Yemen’s development as a Resistance power as well, Tangsiri said that after eight years of an imposed and harsh war against the country, Ansar Allah, and the Yemeni Army, it has now reached a level where it can confront great powers such as the United States.
He said that Ansar Allah is manufacturing missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and has established a naval force, despite the embargo and sanctions imposed on the country.
Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi affirmed that they could target the West’s ships, even if they were in Southern Africa. Today, Tangsiri said, Ansar Allah is targeting ships 600, 700, and even 1,000 kilometers away. Day after day, Ansar Allah keeps developing its capabilities. There are brave men taking control of the force and defending their country.
He stressed Yemen’s independence from Iran despite being allied and part of the Axis of Resistance, against claims that Resistance factions in the region serve as Iran’s proxies.
“Yemen is an independent country, and the Resistance is an independent force that was born to crush oppression. Yemen and its Resistance do not wait for our orders, but we are indeed concerned with the Resistance.
“We love the Palestinians, and we support anyone who takes a stance against oppression and struggles in the fight for the cause. We saw injustice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and although we did not have common borders with them, and their population included both Muslims and non-Muslims, we helped them and offered them moral support, and never fell short in the help we could offer. We stand with the oppressed. We love and appreciate the men of the Resistance in Yemen, and take pride in them. The Islamic world must take pride in them. They do not need a force that leads them, because they have a leader. Just like Hezbollah has a leader, and Yemen and Iraq have leaders, and they act based on their interests. They have enough wisdom to know when and how to act.”
The Final Message
Before concluding the interview, the IRGC admiral called on Muslim nations, specifically those neighboring Iran, and said ‘Life is fleeting, and if we do not defend those that are oppressed, we will be asked about it on Judgment Day. I am addressing Muslim leaders who own the means of governing. Take the opportunity, because while Christians and followers of other religions protest in solidarity with Gaza, it is a disgrace that Arab countries do not hold such marches and protests.’
I also wish to address the leaders that are fueling the Zionist enemy’s jetplanes… [How can] they take our oil and turn it into fuel for a bomb they drop over the heads of Muslims who say ‘There is no god but God, God is great, and God is sufficient for us’? Are they not the people that are dropping bombs on Gaza’s people? The war will end, and God willing, The people of Gaza will emerge victorious. But what have we offered during this time?
“We ask God to raise the martyrs of Gaza and the Resistance, whether in our dear Lebanon, dear Iraq, or dear Yemen, to where the prophet of God and his holy Imams rest.”
In his last address to the Al Mayadeen crew conducting the interview, he expressed his thanks, saying “I profoundly thank you, particularly for coming here twice. Forgive us for the warm weather, and perhaps the circumstances were more difficult for you, but we fully know that your cameras are important, and powerful, just like Al Mayadeen. It is the voice of the oppressed, and you represent their voices. God willing, He will note what you have done for the oppressed, and you will hold your heads high before the Resistance’s martyrs and the oppressed people of Gaza.”
Related Videps
Special coverage | The occupation massacres continue… Hundreds of martyrs recovered from Al-Shifa Medical Complex
تغطية خاصة | هيومن رايتس ووتش تدعو لفرض عقوبات على “إسرائيل” ووقف إمداداها بالسلاح | 2024
Real estate and land in the occupied West Bank are for sale to extremist Jews in Canada. Western-backed marketing plans fuel the Israeli hunger for settlement and work to demonize the right of Palestinians to return to their motherland. All of this is parallel to the European media’s bias towards the Israeli narrative since the start of the aggression on Gaza. Participating personalities: Bahia Halawi – Dr. Saif Da’na
Special coverage | Ben Gvir threatens to dismiss Netanyahu if he ends the war without attacking Rafah 04-09-2024
I had an interesting discussion last week with a Washington-based political pundit who expressed some what I thought to be eccentric views on possible developments in the presidential campaign over the next six months. He said that that strange little man Jared Kushner is at it again engaged in secret meetings, but this time he is being promoted as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate to run alongside his father-in-law ex-president Donald Trump. Reportedly, he is being pushed by a number of hard right ardently pro-Israel Republican Senators, to include folks like Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz, who are arguing that it would solve the loyalty issue for his father-in-law, a major concern for Trump given the perceived betrayal by ex-VP Mike Pence. Kushner would also be on the right side of a number of issues that Republican conservatives feel strongly about, most certainly including Israel. And, bear in mind, if a seventy-eight year old Donald Trump were to be re-elected and not finish his full term of office, Kushner would be his successor and the first Jewish president of the United States. You can bet that there are some people out there with long memories and deep pockets who might be longing for just that.
Now, given the fact that Kushner was Trump’s Senior Adviser and the one thing that nearly everyone agrees about the Donald was that his judgement on picking senior staff was flawed – one recalls names like Bolton and Pompeo – and would hardly be a credential for moving onward and upward, but it does nevertheless seem that some might actually be considering the possibility. And it is also true that Kushner brings almost nothing beyond name recognition to the ticket, but that is also the case for a number of other possible candidates for the position. Unlike most identified VP candidates, however, Kushner also would arrive with a considerable quantity of baggage. It is reported that when he was first named by Trump it proved to be difficult for him to get a security clearance, even with the president’s highly aggressive endorsement. This was possibly due to the activities of Jared’s father Charles Kushner who was a felon imprisoned in 2005-7 for business fraud to include illegal political contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. The prosecuting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey who handled the case was Chris Christie, later the governor of New Jersey and himself a presidential candidate. The witness tampering charge arose from Kushner’s retaliation against William Schulder, his sister Esther’s husband, who was cooperating with federal investigators against Kushner. Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranged to record a sexual encounter between the two, and had the tape sent to his sister. Donald Trump controversially pardoned Charles after the fact at the end of his term of office in 2020 together with a number of other Jewish businessmen who were on a list compiled by Jared.
Or, alternatively, the bad security review might have related to Jared’s family’s the Kushner Foundation which was funding completely illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine among its other activities. Since 2020, Kushner has also reportedly been heavily involved with Saudi Arabia, which has apparently benefited Kushner’s equity firm business interests to the tune of $2 billion.
Kushner and his wife might well be considered a footnote to history, minor players, but for the possibility that Jared might somehow connive his way into a position with real power if Donald Trump is re-elected, but he is in the news right now for other reasons. People forget that quite a lot of what goes on vis-à-vis Israel is driven by what might be called the “profit motive,” which admittedly might be considered a play on the word “prophet.” It all comes down to how much money will be generated once the Palestinians are kicked out of Gaza and the West Bank, just for starters. Kushner has recently revealed his own vision of successful conclusion of the war for Israel in an interview on February 15thplus additional comments and it goes like this: the Gazans should be removed from their homes and those who are still alive and who have not been repatriated to other countries including Sinai in Egypt, might be allowed to reside in a suitable refugee camp style location in the Negev desert, inside southern Israel. How exactly they will survive in a desert is not clear as Israel has no excess water resources to “make the desert bloom” as the expression goes. As Kushner explains how “… getting civilians out of Rafah and potentially into Egypt, might be possible ‘with the right diplomacy,’” suggesting that he “would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there,” adding “I know that won’t be the popular thing to do, but I think that’s a better option to do, so you can go in and finish the job.” In his comments Kushner also demonstrated that he is delusional, commenting that “I think Israel’s gone way more out of their way than a lot of other countries would, to try to protect civilians from casualties.” More to the point, one has to suspect that Kushner’s views might well reflect those of Trump, who has called on Israel to “finish it up [in Gaza] and do it quickly.”
Israel meanwhile, one supposes, can get international donors like the US to pay for the cleanup of Gaza and it could be developed to provide luxurious seafront properties for Israeli and international Jewish buyers, which would produce substantial income for the government and also for investors like Kushner. He said that “Gaza’s waterfront property, it could be very valuable, if people would focus on building up livelihoods.. If you think about all the money that’s gone into this tunnel network and into all the munitions, if that would have gone into education or innovation, what could have been done? It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but I think from Israel’s perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.”
It might seem like a screwy idea but it is certainly not beyond the rapaciousness and cruelty that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly capable of. And it would be a substantial step towards getting completely rid of the pesky Palestinians. There have been independent reports that real estate dealers in Israel are already framing tentative offers for dividing up the more desirable bits of Gaza land, particularly along the Mediterranean Sea. The sales would be for Jews only since part of the desirability of the ethnic cleansing would be to turn Israel into as close as possible an all-Jewish state, which is favored by most Israelis, including expectation of an influx of presumably wealthy diaspora Jews who opt to make their “Aliyah” in a more substantive way.
It is interesting to note how the thinking of Jared Kushner is possibly in sync with the intentions of many Israelis and foreign Jews, but there is also additional evidence that more stolen Palestinian land and houses will soon be up on the auction block for purchase by Jews only worldwide. In early March there was held a so-called “Israeli Real Estate Event” at synagogues and Jewish community centers in Canada, New York state and New Jersey. Though one event was canceled due to fear of demonstrators, the Israeli brokers were selling houses and building lots in Israel, to include the West Bank, most of which were “acquired” by force or through illegal contrivance from their original Arab owners. The advertising for the sales stated boldly that “In a world where uncertainty looms and antisemitism shows its ugly face more boldly than ever, the decision to invest in a home in Israel is not just wise—it’s exhilarating!” The “Events” took place even though it is illegal in the US and Canada to restrict house or land sales to one particular religion or ethnic group.
Finally, the suggestion that a lot of the thinking about whither Gaza is possibly being driven by money comes from the tale of the Ben Gurion Canal Project and the reports of multi-billion dollar oil and gas reserves offshore of Gaza in the Mediterranean Sea. The Ben Gurion project has long been mooted as a way to create an Israel controlled alternative to the existing Suez Canal. It would be a navigable canal connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea that would run through Gaza and down Israel, ending at the Gulf of Aqaba near Eilat. The oil and gas reserves have been verified though they have been inaccessible as long as Gaza has been in Palestinian hands even though the Israelis control the waters, regularly shooting Palestinian fisherman who venture too far from shore. Both the energy resources and total control of a ship canal would be enormous economic assets for Israel. Putting all of that together with the Kushner plan and those business ventures by other Israelis one would be remiss if dismissing the possibility that future development in those areas is really all about money.
Washington DC — (Scheerpost) — Piers allow things to come in. They allow things to go out. And Israel, which has no intention of halting its murderous siege of Gaza, including its policy of enforced starvation, appears to have found a solution to its problem of where to expel the 2.3 million Palestinians.
If the Arab world will not take them, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken proposed during his first round of visits after Oct. 7, the Palestinians will be cast adrift on ships. It worked in Beirut in 1982 when some eight and a half thousand Palestine Liberation Organization members were sent by sea to Tunisia, and another two and a half thousand ended up in other Arab states. Israel expects that the same forced deportation by sea will work in Gaza.
Israel, for this reason, supports the “temporary pier” the Biden administration is building to ostensibly deliver food and aid to Gaza – food and aid whose “distribution” will be overseen by the Israeli military.
“You need drivers that don’t exist, trucks that don’t exist feeding into a distribution system that doesn’t exist,” Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior aid official in the Biden administration and now president of the Refugees International aid advocacy group, told The Guardian.
This “maritime corridor” is Israel’s Trojan Horse, a subterfuge to expel Palestinians. The small shipments of seaborne aid, like the food packets that have been air-dropped, will not alleviate the looming famine. They are not meant to.
Five Palestinians were killed and several others injured when a parachute carrying aid failed and crashed onto a crowd of people near Gaza City’s Shati refugee camp.
“Dropping aid in this way is flashy propaganda rather than a humanitarian service,” the media office of the local government in Gaza said. “We previously warned it poses a threat to the lives of citizens in the Gaza Strip, and this is what happened today when the parcels fell on the citizens’ heads.”
If the U.S. or Israel were serious about alleviating the humanitarian crisis, the thousands of trucks with food and aid currently at the southern border of Gaza would be allowed to enter any of its multiple crossings. They are not. The “temporary pier,” like the air drops, is ghoulish theater, a way to mask Washington’s complicity in the genocide.
Israeli media reported the building of the pier was due to pressure from the United Arab Emirates, which threatened Israel with ending a land corridor trade route it administers in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to bypass Yemen’s naval blockade.
The Jerusalem Post reported it was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who proposed the construction of the “temporary pier” to the Biden administration.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who has called Palestinians “human animals” and advocated a total siege of Gaza, including cutting off electricity, food, water and fuel, lauded the plan, saying, “it is designed to bring aid directly to the residents and thus continue the collapse of Hamas’s rule in Gaza.”
“Why would Israel, the engineer of the Gaza famine, endorse the idea of establishing a maritime corridor for aid to address a crisis it initiated and is now worsening?” writes Tamara Nassar in an article titled “What’s the Real Purpose of Biden’s Gaza Port?” in The Electronic Intifada. “This might appear paradoxical if one were to assume that the primary aim of the maritime corridor is to deliver aid.”
When Israel offers a gift to the Palestinians, you can be sure it is a poisoned apple. That Israel got the Biden administration to construct the pier is one more example of the inverted relationship between Washington and Jerusalem, where the Israel lobby has bought off elected officials in the two ruling parties.
Oxfam, in a March 15 report, accuses Israel of actively hindering aid operations in Gaza in defiance of the orders by the International Court of Justice. It notes that 1.7 million Palestinians, some 75 percent of the Gaza population, are facing famine, and two-thirds of the hospitals and over 80 percent of all health clinics in Gaza are no longer operable. The majority of people, the report reads, “have no access to clean drinking water” and “sanitation services are not functioning.”
The report reads:
The conditions we have observed in Gaza are beyond catastrophic, and we have not only seen failure by Israeli authorities to meet their responsibility to facilitate and support international aid efforts, but in fact seen active steps being taken to hinder and undermine such aid efforts. Israel’s control of Gaza continues to be characterized by deliberate restrictive actions that have led to a severe and systemic dysfunctionality in the delivery of aid. Humanitarian organizations operational in Gaza are reporting a worsening situation since the International Court of Justice imposed provisional measures in light of the plausible risk of genocide, with intensified Israeli barriers, restrictions and attacks against humanitarian personnel. Israel has maintained a ‘convenient illusion of a response’ in Gaza to serve its claim that it is allowing aid in and conducting the war in line with international laws.
Oxfam says Israel employs “a dysfunctional and undersized inspection system that keeps aid snarled up, subjected to onerous, repetitive and unpredictable bureaucratic procedures that are contributing to trucks being stranded in giant queues for 20 days on average.” Israel, Oxfam explains, rejects “items of aid as having ‘dual (military) use,’ banning vital fuel and generators entirely along with other items essential for a meaningful humanitarian response such as protective gear and communications kit.” Rejected aid, “must go through a complex ‘pre-approval’ system or end up being held in limbo at the Al Arish warehouse in Egypt.” Israel has also “cracked down on humanitarian missions, largely sealing off northern Gaza, and restricting international humanitarian workers’ access not only into Gaza but Israel and the West Bank including East Jerusalem too.”
Israel has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam estimates that the population of Gaza needs five times that number. Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in February, a 44 percent reduction from the previous month. Before Oct. 7, 500 aid trucks entered Gaza daily.
Israeli soldiers have also killed scores of Palestinians attempting to receive aid from trucks in more than two dozenincidents. These attacks include the killing of at least 21 Palestinians and the wounding of 150 on March 14, when Israeli forces fired on thousands of people in Gaza City. The same area had been targeted by Israeli soldiers hours earlier.
“Israel’s assault has caught Gaza’s own aid workers and international agencies’ partners inside a ‘practically uninhabitable’ environment of mass displacement and deprivation, where 75 percent of solid waste is now being dumped in random sites, 97 percent of groundwater made unfit for human use, and the Israeli state using starvation as a weapon of war,” Oxfam says.
There is no place in Gaza, Oxfam notes, that is safe “amid the forcible and often multiple displacements of almost the entire population, which makes the principled distribution of aid unviable, including agencies’ ability to help repair vital public services at scale.”
Oxfam blasts Israel for its “disproportionate” and “indiscriminate” attacks on “civilian and humanitarian assets” as well as “solar, water, power and sanitation plants, UN premises, hospitals, roads, and aid convoys and warehouses, even when these assets are supposedly ‘deconflicted’ after their coordinates have been shared for protection.”
The health ministry in Gaza said Monday that at least 31,726 people have been killed since the Israeli assault began five months ago. The death toll includes at least 81 deaths in the previous 24 hours, a ministry statement said, adding that 73,792 people have been wounded in Gaza since Oct. 7. Thousands more are missing, many buried under the rubble.
None of these Israeli tactics will be altered with the building of a “temporary pier.” In fact, given the pending ground assault on Rafah, where 1.2 million displaced Palestinians are crowded in tent cities or camped out in the open air, Israel’s tactics will only get worse.
Israel, by design, is creating a humanitarian crisis of such catastrophic proportions, with thousands of Palestinians killed by bombs, shells, missiles, bullets, starvation and infectious diseases, that the only option will be death or deportation. The pier is where the last act in this gruesome genocidal campaign will be played out as Palestinians are herded by Israeli soldiers onto ships.
How appropriate that the Biden administration, without whom this genocide could not have been carried out, will facilitate it.
Feature photo | Israel’s Trojan Horse | Mr. Fish
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR. He is the host of show The Chris Hedges Report.
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
The project was initially announced in September 2023 but was later delayed due to the outbreak of the war on Gaza.
Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing Indian diplomat Sunjay Sudhir, that India and the UAE have begun to work on the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), an initiative that aims to establish an alternative trade route from India to Europe.
“India and UAE being the first two countries in the corridor, it is very important for us to take the lead,” Indian Ambassador to the UAE, Sunjay Sudhir, told Bloomberg.
A significant portion of India’s trade with Europe passes through the Red Sea, he said, noting that the creation of alternative routes is essential given the present geopolitical context.
During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the UAE from February 13-15, India and the UAE signed a framework agreement to initiate work on the IMEC, Sudhir said.
He added that India’s government ministries responsible for ports and shipping commenced discussions with the port authorities in Abu Dhabi regarding this initiative.
This comes against the backdrop of heightened tensions between China and India. Observers have argued that the construction of the corridor is explicitly aimed at containing China in global trade.
A report by Politico in December 2023 detailed that the purpose of the project is to create an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, from which India, as well as the US, will benefit.
“American interest in exploring and developing Indian supply chains has intensified under Biden,” a senior Indian diplomat based told Politico. “The US is committed to making this a success; it’s a big part of their design,” he said.
The genocide has sparked several resistance movements across the region to initiate operations targeting “Israel” or Israeli-linked elements.
Among them are the Ansar Allah resistance movement in Yemen. Since the start of the Gaza genocide, they have been actively targeting Israeli-linked vessels.
Besides Israeli-linked vessels, transit through the Red Sea is normally safe for all commercial ships and vessels.
However, due to aggressions perpetrated by US-UK naval forces on Yemeni positions, the Red Sea route has become difficult to access.
The construction of the IMEC corridor will thus bypass the Red Sea route by building a trade route stretching from India to Europe and will involve both sea routes and rail routes.
Starting from India, the corridor will first transit through the UAE, followed by Saudi Arabia, the occupied territories, to finally reach Europe.
There is a fundamental contradiction between the goals of KSA and “Israel” and the end that each of them seeks for this genocide despite their opposition to the aspirations of the Palestinian people (Illustrated by Mahdi Rteil to Al Mayadeen English)
A realist analysis attempting to shed light on the complications of Israeli-Saudi normalization in light of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, and the discrepancies in the aims of each party.
The Israeli war on Gaza has entered its fourth month. The occupation regime faces an open case in the International Court of Justice for carrying out genocide on the one hand and is exposed to activism against the crimes it is committing by all humanitarian organizations around the world, as well as many countries. Despite all of this, and in contradiction to all logic, there is still strong talk about normalizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with the Israeli regime.
This may seem utterly illogical at first glance, given that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia markets itself as one of the most important Arab and Islamic powers, and thus positions itself as a defender of the interests of this group. How, then, does it extend its hand to those who not only commit these crimes against humanity but also those whose leaders make genocidal statements? This in addition to a clear and unequivocal rejection of the two-state solution that Saudi Arabia has set as a condition for normalizing relations makes the situation more bizarre.
Answering these questions requires an analysis of the geopolitical reality in the region, alongside a short historical overview, and a presentation of the interests and concerns of each party, as well as their political and security goals.
US hegemony and its goals in the war in Gaza
Despite the sharp transformations that have affected the international system in the recent period, which mainly affected the unilateral dominance of the United States after the Cold War, Washington still maintains the role of the primary hegemon who is trying to prevent the system from turning into fully multipolar.
US hegemony depends on a military power represented by the world’s first military budget, which is equivalent to about 40% of all global military spending, as well as a large number of military bases around the planet. In addition to military power, the United States has an unparalleled ability to influence the global economy due to countries using the US dollar as a trusted currency for exchange. US military power punishes countries that do not respect its hegemony, or in most cases use sanctions linked to its banking and monetary system.
As a hegemon, the United States works to prevent the formation of regional powers that oppose it, whether alliances or sovereign states. Here we turn to the series of alliances undertaken by the United States, which rely mainly on focal points around the planet to prevent powerful countries from challenging its hegemony. Former US State Secretary Mike Pompeo defines these entities or states as “beacons of democracy,” although they are more akin to land-based aircraft carriers. These entities are Taiwan, “Israel” and Ukraine.
The United States is using Taiwan, in addition to Japan and South Korea, mainly to prevent China from becoming an absolute regional hegemon in East Asia or as a method to contain its power projection. It is using Ukraine in Europe to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon in Eastern Europe and to also prevent Germany from becoming a hegemon in Western Europe. On the other hand, “Israel” represents an exception to American policy. Aside from the ideological aspect, “Israel” plays the role of the region’s policeman par excellence for the United States either by destroying or deterring all countries with sovereign national projects. “Israel” here is the focus of the fight against the axis of resistance in West Asia, led by Iran, to prevent this axis from turning into a regional hegemon and anti-American force.
In light of this, any weakening of the Israelis, or threat to them, from a geopolitical standpoint poses a risk to the hegemony of the United States in one of the most important spots in the world from a geographical standpoint, as well as the one richest in fossil energy resources. In this context, the United States is more concerned about “Israel’s” security than “Israel” itself. But, as an absolute hegemon, it faces dilemmas that are radically different from those faced by “Israel”. Such discrepancy is what is putting the two parties on opposite sides with time, and this is what we will discuss in more detail in the section related to the Israelis of the article.
Balance of power in the Middle East
“Israel”, Saudi Arabia, and most of the Gulf states belong to the American axis in the West Asia region, and despite the Chinese breakthrough in economic investment, US-Western hegemony over these countries is still at its height. Because of Saudi Arabia’s self-proclaimed Islamic authority, it faces difficulty in normalizing its relations with the Israeli entity due to the so-called “Arab street’s” continued opposition to such a step, and the genocide in Gaza has contributed to reviving the Palestinian cause in an important part of this street.
From its inception, Saudi Arabia has primarily benefited from or fought national states in traditional centers of power, such as Nasser’s Egypt, or initially cooperated with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq before sacrificing him in the US-led coalition invasion in 1991. Finally, it financed the destruction of Syria and added fuel to the fire of the war that has been raging since 2011. As a non-traditional power with fewer population that only owns holy places and oil wealth, it benefits mainly from neutralizing the positions of traditional powers in the region, which has a larger population. Without absolute American protection for the Gulf states, and an Israeli military role in the subjugation process, Saudi Arabia’s role will be incomplete or unachievable.
Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Saudi Arabia has been hostile to it, not only because it was presenting an Islamic sovereign counterweight that was exclusive to Saudi Arabia in the previous stage, but because it threatens the existing dependency structure in the region as it is the main element in the axis of resistance.
Following Yemen entering the Resistance Axis, the war on Syria’s failure to change the regime, and the loss of Israeli deterrence on October 7, normalization and direct military cooperation became more necessary for the American Axis members to confront the dangers of the liberation process led by the Resistance Axis. “Israel”, which was supposed to be the leader of this axis militarily, technologically, and financially, is still reeling from the wounds of October 7. What makes matters worse nowadays is that the United States is facing a crisis in Ukraine, and it needs to move to confront China in East Asia as quickly as possible.
Why does Saudi Arabia act the way it does?
At a point before October 7, and according to press leaks, one of Saudi Arabia’s conditions for normalizing relations with “Israel” was its direct association with the United States through a defense treaty similar to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. This condition indicates the primacy of security for Saudi Arabia. The primacy of security has been greatly enhanced after the failure of the Saudi coalition to impose its will on Yemen, and Yemen has turned into an essential and effective pillar in the current war in support of Gaza.
Normalization in this context was a necessity for Gulf security, which since 1991 has been closely linked to the Western security concept through the stationing of more than 40,000 American soldiers in the region. Normalization, then, was not a transitional and pivotal point as former US President Trump tried to market, but merely a shift in the level of security and military relations that already existed, even if no direct diplomatic and trade relations existed.
Both Saudi Arabia and the United States here are accelerating toward normalization while the blood has not yet dried in Gaza, as each of them is aware of the problem that may be imposed by the shift of hegemonic focus from West Asia to East Asia. Normalization between Saudi Arabia and “Israel” here aims primarily to bridge any potential gap in military power to confront the axis of resistance in the future.
The problem here is that Saudi Arabia stipulated a two-state solution as the condition for the peace and normalization process. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken exposed the Saudis when he announced that a mere commitment to this solution by the Israelis is sufficient and not its immediate implementation. The Saudis certainly objected and denied the announcement, but based on the course of events, it would not be unlikely that they made such a pledge.
The two-state solution here is not presented by Saudi Arabia because it embraces the Palestinian issue nor that it is particularly fond of the Palestinian people and its ambitions, but in an attempt to bury the main point of conflict between the Arabs and the Zionists, in preparation for its leadership of this future Arab-Israeli alliance.
The two-state solution proposed by Saudi Arabia, despite its meager demands, and even though it is giving up most of historical Palestine, is rejected by the Israeli entity in all its sects, right, and left, above and below.
Saudi Arabia, then, faces a major dilemma. On the one hand, it sees normalization as a future security necessity, since there are no guarantees about the future of the region after the Arab uprisings in 2011 if they are to occur again in the context of the massacre taking place in Gaza. In other words, no one can guarantee that the normalization will not be rejected by the Arab street and lead to the situation exploding in the region if the Saudis are unable to obtain something that they can market as a solution to the Palestinian issue.
In conclusion, normalizing relations with the Zionists who insist on ethnic cleansing and the policy of apartheid and treating the Palestinians as if they were sub-humans may be a step that carries dangers to Saudi Arabia and its Axis that are greater than the danger of the Axis of resistance. Here, Saudi Arabia, led by Mohammed bin Salman, sees itself as being forced to bet on one of two losing horses.
An Israeli checkmate
The Zionist project, as the last settler colonial project, depends on many ideological foundations supported by material strength for survival. The Al-Aqsa flood operation on October 7 demonstrated the extent of the Israelis’ fateful dependence on American support, not only in terms of weapons, technology, and international diplomatic backing in the UNSC, but also through the presence of Direct military action for the first time, represented by sending two aircraft carriers and a nuclear submarine.
“Israel” in this context is a land-based aircraft carrier for the US hegemon in the region. On another note, “Israel” must show the Arabs surrounding it that it is omnipotent. Most of these Arabs have come under states ruled by elites who marketed their legitimacy through some sort of a liberal dream and the absurdity of resistance to the US. Therefore, these elites also derive their legitimacy from “Israel” itself, in one way or another, and from its chieftain, the United States. “Israel” must also convince the settlers to reside by planting the idea of its invincibility and its capability to deter everyone at the same time at all spectrums through disproportionate punishment.
Any shaking of these concepts exposes this Western fortress in West Asia to the dangers of collapse, disintegration, or rolling a downhill path. Internally, the combination of the extremism and racism of the Zionist doctrine and the settlers’ belief in “Israel’s” invincibility succeeded in greatly complicating the scene. Due to the continuous pivoting of Israeli politics towards the extreme right, it is natural that exaggeration in setting and inflating war goals is the daily bread of politicians. This means that achieving a total and comprehensive victory becomes not an option, but rather a necessity to preserve this mythical self-image that Israeli society has, or it will simply disintegrate and enter into an internal conflict that unleashes reverse migration.
As a result, most Israelis believe, according to opinion polls, that some sort of complete victory over the resistance in Palestine should be the goal, as crazy and unachievable as this goal is. Most Israelis believe that “voluntary migration” a.k.a ethnic cleansing is something that should be encouraged and carried out in Gaza, not to mention the genocidal statements made by Israeli officials, which alerted them to one of the most clear genocides in history, not only in action but in intent. Which is unambiguous.
In light of the above, the goals of Israeli politics and society here contradict those of Saudi Arabia. Here Israeli exceptionalism appears. There is no one like “Israel”. Normal countries win without having absurd conditions of their victory being the genocide of the other party. Racist colonial entities on the other hand need that.
Because of the high and unachievable conditions for victory, “Israel” has placed itself in a checkmate, either an internal conflict, or destruction that will have a disastrous impact not only on its international reputation and relations, but at the expense of sabotaging the path of normalization and its law, and even the risk of revolutions erupting in the Arab world, endangering the pro-US Saudi leadership.
US-sponsored Israeli-KSA ties between a rock and a hard place
Although Saudi Arabia and “Israel” largely agree on the goal of eliminating resistance in Gaza, they differ sharply in the way and outcome each side prefers for the war to lead to.
Given the primacy of the Chinese challenge to American hegemony, the United States wants, in any way, to freeze the current situation in West Asia and maintain its policeman there, i.e. Israel, as it pivots east. The failure to weaken Russia and push its political system to collapse has strengthened the United States’ desire to avoid a war that it sees as secondary in West Asia while China grows stronger.
There is no doubt that America wants to eliminate the resistance movements, thus a victory of the Israelis in Gaza is essential to the US more than “Israel” itself, but it fears that the genocide in Gaza will lead to the eruption of a war in the region led by the resistance axis on the one hand, and on the other hand, it fears a political collapse and revolutions in the fabric of its allied countries. Its allies in the region are mainly Jordan, Egypt, and then Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Therefore, the ideal outcome is a two-state solution, and an alliance of Arab-Israeli regimes to confront the axis of resistance while reducing the cost of US presence in the region.
The Saudi view here is very close to the American one, as it wants to end the resistance movements in the Arab world as a continuation of its victory over the national projects of the last century, but it fears that the shedding of Palestinian blood might push its current leadership of the Arab world, ensured by subjugating Egypt and destroying Iraq and Syria, to the abyss. Therefore, it prefers to end the Palestinian cause through a two-state solution, establish a Saudi-Israeli alliance with US support, and deter the Axis of resistance.
The Israelis, based on the above, are in a completely different place. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza and eliminate the resistance, no matter how much it costs in human losses, and they do not intend to back down, even if it means dragging the United States into a regional war that is not one of its current priorities.
Indeed, the dog is following here and not the opposite. It is not that the Israelis are craving for a regional war for their own sake, but rather because they, as the last settler colonial entity and the last of the “exceptional peoples” in the international system, believe that they are entitled to what no one else is entitled to, to ensure the survival of their racist regime.
In light of the racist and superior nature of their regime, they are forced to show those whom they see and treat as sub-human who are the bosses here, otherwise, the social and political cohesion of the Israeli colonial entity will be in danger.
Conclusion
There is a fundamental contradiction between the goals of each party and the end that each of them seeks for this genocide despite their opposition to the aspirations of the Palestinian people. These differences appear incompatible, even if the interest is common, as any concession from any party here means that it exposes its other future ally to a future existential threat.
It is unlikely that the United States will be able to reconcile the two parties without one of them giving up what it declares to be its core interests and putting its fate in jeopardy. Another option would be that the already existing war expands and blows the chessboard and all the pieces away. What is certain is that the coming days will bring radical and pivotal changes to the nature of international and regional relations in West Asia, if they do not lead to the collapse of some states and regimes.
As Vladimir Lenin said: “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen,” and it appears we are living such an era.
Related Videos
On what basis did Saudi Arabia restructure its foreign policy? Why Saudi Arabia wish to defeat Hamas?
Evening | Netanyahu’s plans for the post-war…or war 02-23-2024
The visit of former Lebanese PM Saad Hariri to Beirut has tongues wagging. Will the impetus of the expanding Gaza war force a Saudi–Syrian settlement that can once more impose stability in Lebanon?
The visit of former Lebanese PM Saad Hariri to Beirut has tongues wagging. Will the impetus of the expanding Gaza war force a Saudi–Syrian settlement that can once more impose stability in Lebanon?
On 21 February, a Syrian website, citing sources in Damascus, broadcasted news that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) would shortly pay a visit to Syria, causing an uproar in regional political circles. Despite government-aligned newspaper Al-Watan denying the report, the prospect of a top Saudi visit evoked memories of an era past when Syrian–Saudi understanding secured Lebanon’s internal balances, which are shaken or resolved based on the tempo of West Asia’s hegemons and the status of their relations with one another.
عاجل – مصدر سوري مطلع لـ"الوطن": لا يوجد أي شيء رسمي حول زيارة محتملة لولي العهد السعودي الأمير محمد بن سلمان إلى سورية.
A decisive response to rumors of an impending MbS visit remains elusive. A Syrian diplomatic source would only confirm to The Cradle that “Syrian–Saudi communication is gradually developing, and the discussions have become more detailed about the mutual common interests of the two countries” concerning the “post-war scene in Gaza.”
While the source did not deny or confirm Bin Salman’s visit, he suggested that the development of communications might reach the stage of “mutual visits” not only with Saudi Arabia “but also with Egypt.”
While the improvement in relations between Syria and Arab states is not limited to Saudi Arabia, discussions with Riyadh have become more significant recently – to the extent that an Arab foreign minister, believed to be the Emirati FM, made an effort in mid-February to persuade members of the US Congress to retract its Syrian boycott law, which US-based anti-Syria activists insist on upholding. A source tells The Cradle that these activists “train with a US agency, alongside the Iranian opposition, on formulating and marketing these lobbying projects and forming pressure groups” to halt any policy reversals in Washington.
But the discussion about reopening relations with Damascus is no longer only taking place in Arab corridors. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides, in an announcement following talks last week with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, revealed “the work of the Republic of Cyprus in cooperation with other member states” to advance European–Syrian ties.
The EU, in general, shares that view about opening up member-states’ relations with Damascus, in discussionswhich the Syrian source says are also progressing, especially in the matter of identifying “the parts of Syria that are sufficiently safe” for the return of refugee populations.
On 16 February, on the sidelines of the 60th Munich Security Conference in Germany, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met with EU Foreign Affairs Chief Josep Borrell to discuss several regional issues, including Syria, reports Anadolu Agency, which quotes Turkish Foreign Ministry sources as saying “both sides” stressed the need to involve Damascus “in the political process.”
As for the Americans, the White House is engaged in difficult negotiations with many Arab states “in search of a diplomatic achievement” for the Joe Biden administration as his re-election campaign heats up. Washington is busy seeking mechanisms to consolidate its interests in West Asia within the significant barriers created by the Chinese-brokered Saudi–Iranian rapprochement agreement, which, for the US, has been maddeningly stable thus far. Indeed, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan went to bat in Munich for his “Iranian neighbors,” saying the Iranians “do not want escalation in the region.”
As US–Iraqi negotiations over US troop withdrawal pick up pace, a Syrian source tells The Cradle that an American delegation “visited northeastern Syria, to discuss the possibilities of maintaining a US presence there in the event of withdrawal from Iraq.” Interestingly, the head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, Faleh al-Fayyad, visited Turkiye on 20 February to discuss “the future of the process of securing the borders from Kurdish organizations in the event that the US–Iraqi negotiations lead to the dismantling of the US military bases and the retention of officers as advisors only,” according to an Iraqi journalist source.
Where does this leave Lebanon?
There is no doubt that the recent Beirut visit of former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri – who currently resides in Abu Dhabi, which enjoys friendly relations with Syria – resonated deeply in Lebanon. It was viewed as a harbinger of the return of “Hariri-ism,” which comes laden with regional political settlements and top-level shuttle diplomacy – and reflected a tacit sign of new Saudi approval.
During his visit, Hariri spoke in the language of his father – former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, assassinated in Beirut on 14 February 2005 – about “peace and stability” in Lebanon and its neighborhood, and even invoked, during an interview with Saudi news channel Al-Hadath, his father’s key political role in Lebanon’s civil war in paving the way to the Saudi-brokered Taif Agreement that settled the 15-year conflict.
It is important to note that Riyadh–Hariri relations have been estranged for years – unlike the close Saudi relations his father enjoyed. Tensions between them grew during the war in Syria, with Hariri’s inability or unwillingness to curb Lebanon’s Hezbollah from defending the Syrian state from a Saudi-backed war.
While Hariri said during his Beirut stopover that the time was not yet ripe for him to return to Lebanon’s muddy political arena, he offered his “intervention” if he “felt that the Sunni community in Lebanon was leaning toward extremism.” Many have linked his comments to the trial of 84 civilians in the UAE last week, charged with membership in “Muslim Brotherhood” (MB) organizations – a group banned in the UAE – as well as Turkiye’s remarkable withdrawal of MB leading figure Mahmoud Hussein’s citizenship amidst Ankara’s thrust to mend ties with Abu Dhabi.
A Lebanese source who accompanied Hariri on his visit hints to The Cradle that “concern over the Muslim Brotherhood may pave the way for the return of Hariri’s relations with Syria.” In other words, the former PM could gain support from the anti-MB Saudis, Emiratis, and Syrians if he toes this political line within Lebanon. Interestingly,a Lebanese figure close to pro-MB Qatar attacked Hariri immediately upon his arrival at the airport via X (formerly known as Twitter).
Regional winds appear to be shifting direction, in large part because the Gulf’s traditional “guarantor” of security, the United States, is knee-deep in fanning an untenable crisis by unconditionally supporting Israel’s assault on Gaza. In Munich, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry sought a “Palestinian consensus” that would pave the way for a “two-state” settlement, in which, according to him, Hamas is excluded. The Arab–Islamic consensus is currently seeking a long-term Palestinian solution after the dust in Gaza settles, which would necessarily include luring “Hamas” and “Fatah” into a national consensus government.
In Beirut, former President Michel Aoun senses this consensus and has made a show of opposing any links of “Lebanon’s fate to Gaza.” Aoun, who once opposed the Taif Agreement, awaits the opportunity to oppose it again. This is, of course, a domestic play mainly to ensure the country’s minority Christian voice is heard in whatever political arrangements lie over the horizon.
But Gaza remains unavoidable in Lebanon, with Israel waging war against Hezbollah on the country’s southern border, which reached 45 kilometers into the country this week when Tel Aviv struck civilian sites near Sidon. The Gaza war is now being played out in multiple theaters – in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Yemen – and has the potential to expand and deepen further. It is this war waged by Israel and its US ally that is rapidly drawing Arab states to recalibrate the region’s direction from within and amongst themselves.
This begs the question now frequently heard in Beirut: What if Damascus, Riyadh, and Tehran agree this time? Everyone is waiting for that moment to reserve their seats in West Asia’s latest theater.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
As the world increasingly reacts with alarm at Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s declared goal of leveling the southern Gaza city of Rafah to the ground, the spotlight has fallen on Egypt.
Will the North African heavyweight stand idly by, allowing the Tel Aviv regime to intensify its ongoing genocide in Gaza, or make good its threat to annul the so-called “peace treaty”?
Authorities in Cairo would know that plans by Israel to populate Gaza with Jewish settlements require Egypt’s collaboration to absorb Palestinian refugees into parts of the Sinai.
What it translates to is that Gaza is ethnically cleansed of 2.3 million Palestinians and replaced with an exclusively Jewish settler colony.
However, the sticky point is Rafah, where more than a million and a half Palestinians who were violently forced to evacuate their homes in the North are huddled in tents and makeshift shelters, facing death from relentless air strikes, hunger, cold and thirst.
In addition, the dire need for essential medical supplies has spawned the worst humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, something the world has never seen in the modern era.
So, the big question is, how will Egypt respond to these developments?
Egypt, of today, under the military rule of General Abdel Fateh el-Sisi, is a far cry from the leadership of Mohamed Morsi.
During the exciting but short-lived era of the Arab Spring, tens of thousands of protesters across Cairo flooded Tahrir Square demanding the removal of Hosni Mubarak from his thirty-year reign.
Following the popular mass revolt against his brutal dictatorship, Mubarak was forced to resign. It marked a period that saw the country transitioning from tyranny to democracy when Morsi was elected to lead Egypt in its first free and fair democratic election.
The change of fortunes did not sit well with Western powers that began a series of dirty tricks to oust him, notwithstanding the fact that Morsi had acquired a comfortable majority during the elections.
A classic case of a regime-change plot began to be engineered when a number of countries connived to unseat him through a bloody military coup.
America, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia’s candidate for regime change was the head of Egypt’s notorious secret service/intelligence unit – el-Sisi – who was also in charge of the military.
In an elaborate scheme, a rebellion against Morsi was orchestrated as a prelude to the coup. Reports subsequently revealed that the UAE government funded the uprising.
These regimes shared common misgivings about Morsi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikhwan Al Muslimeen) and were reluctant to have the Arab world’s most powerful nation-state in the hands of the Ikhwan.
Chatham House reported that recordings leaked from the Egyptian Ministry of Defence and confidential testimony from US officials fingered the UAE as having provided funds to support the activity of Tamarrod, the movement that organized the rebellion against Morsi.
As soon as el-Sisi stepped in to take Morsi’s seat, Saudi Arabia and the UAE made no effort to conceal their approval. Both Western-backed oligarchs gleefully displayed their support with transfers of huge chunks of money.
The background to the massacre is well documented. According to media reports, tens of thousands of Egyptians were out in the streets and city squares to demand the reinstatement of Morsi.
To illustrate the brazeness of the UAE, its Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed led a delegation to Cairo in solidarity with coup leader el-Sisi, less than a fortnight after the horror of the Muslim Brotherhood, when around a thousand people were mowed down.
On August 14, 2013, as the protests had entered their sixth consecutive week, thousands staged a sit-in at the Rabaa al-Adawiya Square, one of Cairo’s busiest thoroughfares, as they had for more than a month.
Sisi’s forces moved in using armored vehicles and bulldozers, in addition to ground troops and snipers on rooftops carrying live ammunition, to attack the square from all sides and close off safe exits, according to witnesses and human rights organizations, as reported in media.
Morsi, the elected president, was jailed where he subsequently died, while el-Sisi has now been in power for just over a decade. To date, there has been no accountability for the Rabaa massacre.
From Rabaa to Rafah, el-Sisi’s dismal human rights record does not hold any promise that he will deter Netanyahu’s planned incursion into Rafah or stop him from expelling Palestinians from there.
Egypt under el-Sisi has been reduced to a mere spectator, observing the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians as the genocide intensifies in Gaza without any effort to flex its muscles.
Iqbal Jassat is an executive member of Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa.
(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Palestine’s Arab neighbors seem to have taken a bold stance on Israel’s genocide of Gaza in a public show of solidarity with Palestinians. But behind those strong words, states like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are quietly assisting Israel.
These four nations are working together to circumvent the actions of one of the few regional actors who are challenging Israel concretely: Yemen’s Ansar Allah. In a bid to alleviate pressure on Israel from the Ansar Allah (a.k.a the Houthi) blockade of the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan have established land corridors, ensuring cargo destined for the apartheid state arrives safely in Israeli hands.
According to Hebrew Channel 13, Israeli-linked cargo ships arrive in the UAE to unload goods. Trucks then transport these goods through UAE and Saudi highways to Jordan. They eventually reach Israel via the Jordan River Crossing.
German shipping company Hapag-Lloyd announced that it was working with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to create a land route “bypassing the Houthis,” which connects ports in the UAE and the Saudi port of Jeddah facilitating cargo movement to Israel through the Suez Canal.
Egypt has also joined the effort, operating container ships from its ports to the Israeli port of Ashdod, further supporting the land bridge initiative and assuring Israeli commerce is not interrupted amid its genocidal campaign in Gaza.
But that is just the start of their complicity.
Take Turkey, for example. Around 40% of Israel’s energy needs are met by an oil pipeline running through Turkey. President Erdoğan could simply shut the flow of oil off to Israel, which would shut down the economy and the military assault in days. But he continues not to do so, despite offering strong condemnation of Israel in words.
Morocco, meanwhile, is building a military intelligence base for Israel near its border with Algeria. The site will be utilized for collaboration for military training, intelligence and security.
Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems also recently announced the establishment of two weapons factories in Morocco, helping to diversify Israel’s weapons production capabilities, as activists in other countries shut the factories down.
In 2021, Morocco also signed the Abraham Accords – a normalization treaty with Israel that Bahrain and the UAE had already agreed to. The Emirates has long been a hub for Israeli intelligence, and it is now well established that the two nations aid each other on intelligence matters.
Moreover, last year, Edge Group, a UAE state-owned corporation, invested $14 million in Israeli drone manufacturer Highlander Aviation. So the Israeli police employ their airspace management system, which was tested by the Israeli Air Force.
The relationship between the UAE and Israel has grown now that Elbit Systems established an entire subsidiary organization – Elbit Systems Emirates – in order to establish what it called “long term cooperation” with the UAE military.
Meanwhile, despite its rhetoric, Saudi Arabia has been quietly collaborating with Israel for some time. The Saudi-backed group Affinity Partners owns a stake in the Israeli company Shlomo Group.
During the conflict in Gaza, the Shlomo Group contributed trucks and military equipment to the Israeli military’s Shaldag and Maglan units, as well as food packages to the IDF.
Saudi Arabia is well-known to be one of the Israeli intelligence industry’s best customers. Saudi security forces have used Israeli tech provided by NSO Group and Cellebrite to spy on people and hack their phones, including for the infamous murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
These states could do so much besides empty rhetoric to help the people of Palestine and blunt the Israeli attack on Gaza, including arms embargoes, sanctions on trade and travel, and halting the military and intelligence collaborations.
The people of the Arab world are dead against the genocide in Gaza and collaborating in it. They have come out in mass across their countries protesting Israel’s war and have even vowed to march through their borders to Gaza to defend their Palestinian brethren.
But it is clear, for these leaders – their actions speak louder than their words.
Mnar Adley is an award-winning journalist and editor and is the founder and director of MintPress News. She is also president and director of the non-profit media organization Behind the Headlines. Adley also co-hosts the MintCast podcast and is a producer and host of the video series Behind The Headlines. Contact Mnar at mnar@mintpressnews.com or follow her on Twitter at @mnarmuh
The ongoing genocide in Gaza, which has caused extensive damage to “Israel’s” global reputation, is raising questions about Saudi Arabia’s openness to normalize relations.
Why is Saudi Arabia open to normalize relations with ‘Israel’?
The world is presently bearing witness to the harrowing events of a genocide. Across television and mobile screens, individuals are observing the tragic spectacle of men, women, and children perishing in some of the most appalling circumstances conceivable. While the genocide may indeed have inflicted significant harm upon “Israel’s” global reputation, it is imperative to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia remains committed to pursuing normalization of diplomatic relations with the regime. Why is this so? Has the death of more than 27,000 not been sufficient to dissuade Saudi Arabia from considering such a move?
Before delving into the underlying causes, it is worth recalling that prior to the start of the war, Saudi Arabia openly signaled its intent to normalize relations with “Israel.” The progress on this front was unfolding at such a remarkable pace that even the general populace struggled to keep abreast of the proximity to striking a deal.
The significance of this advancement became apparent when Saudi Arabia extended an offer to reinstate financial support for the Palestinian Authority following a complete cessation of aid in 2021.
In September 2023, a report by The Wall Street Journal disclosed that a delegation from the Palestinian Authority visited Riyadh to engage in negotiations concerning the terms for endorsing Saudi Arabia’s initiative to normalize ties with “Israel.” These conditions encompassed the reopening of the US consulate in occupied Al-Quds, securing US backing for comprehensive Palestinian representation at the United Nations, and attaining increased control over territories within the occupied West Bank. This diplomatic strategy represented a notable departure from the Palestinian Authority’s previous responses to Bahrain and the UAE normalizing relations with “Israel” in 2020, during which it denounced the Gulf states for betrayal.
In contrast to the occupied West Bank, Gaza has historically faced harsher blockades. Often likened to an “open-air prison,” Gaza has endured extensive restrictions on the movement of goods and people for many years, severely limiting access to basic necessities such as food, water, and electricity. Compounding these challenges is the regime’s imposition of quotas on the issuance of work permits to Gazans. While the regime may perceive an opportunity to improve relations with the residents of the Strip, the approach more closely resembles breadcrumbing, as it offered minimal concessions without addressing the fundamental issues at hand.
Everything seemed to be progressing smoothly until the events of October 7 transpired. The resistance initiated Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, capturing hundreds of Israelis and requesting that thousands of Palestinian hostage-prisoners be released. The operation was executed with remarkable precision, leading to the humiliation and scrutiny of the entire Israeli security apparatus, renowned as one of the world’s most advanced.
Despite the subsequent shedding of Palestinian blood, these events served as a significant wake-up call. The urgency of the matter lies in that a potential normalization agreement would not only exacerbate the already dire living conditions of Gazans but also would have shifted the regional balance of power back in favor of the US. For some time now, China has been increasing influence in the region, particularly after brokering a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. As the US perceived its diminishing influence, the pursuit of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal became increasingly logical. This issue was deemed a top priority for the US, to the extent that Secretary of State Tony Blinken declared it a “national security interest.”
Saudi Arabia wields significant influence in regional affairs for several compelling reasons. Firstly, its geopolitical positioning establishes it as a key regional player in the Middle East. Bolstered by a formidable military and its custodianship of two of Islam’s holiest sites, Saudi Arabia also boasts one of the world’s largest proven oil reserves and serves as a major exporter of petroleum. As a key member of OPEC, the nation plays a pivotal role in shaping global oil markets. Decisions regarding oil production directly impact the strategies and policies of the cartel, thereby influencing the dynamics of the energy sector on a global scale.
However, there is a downside to Saudi Arabia’s regional influence. A large portion of the Gulf’s wealth and oil-generated revenues are invested in US Treasury bills. This reliance implies that their financial resources are heavily dependent on the economic policies and stability of the US, limiting possibilities for diversification—a significant obstacle for Mohammed Bin Salman’s Vision 2030. But some efforts appear to be surreptitiously made. A report by the Financial Times in August 2023 revealed that Saudi Arabia decreased its holdings of US Treasuries to the lowest level in over six years, selling down to $108.1 billion in June from $119.7 billion at the end of the previous year. The reduction marked the third consecutive monthly drop and effectively reflects the kingdom’s shift towards foreign equity and domestic investments. Nevertheless, Saudi wealth continues to be heavily invested in treasury bonds, and it remains uncertain whether it intends to further decrease its holdings.
Beside T-bills, the US provides the highest military aid to the Gulf region. Between 2000 and 2016 alone, the US spent an astounding $123 billion worth of military technology and services to the GCC and the latter placed $215 billion in new orders during the same period. From 2008 to 2015, the majority of Saudi and UAE purchases, totaling $80.2 billion out of a total of $119.2 billion, were motivated by their access to advanced US arms and technology.
Moreover, the longstanding alliance between Saudi Arabia and the US has promoted free-market and Salafist ideologies, overshadowing once-progressive Arabist movements that fell victim to US-led imperialist aggressions. Petrodollar remittances to non-Gulf Arab countries have led to distorted exchange-rate regimes, akin to the effects of Dutch disease, particularly impacting the highly protected economies of Syria and Egypt. Despite their destabilizing geopolitical-rents component in imperialist intervention, these remittances carried the ideological influence of colonially and American-groomed political Islam. Capital outflows from most non-Gulf Arab countries, on the other hand, hold little to no global significance. These flows are evaluated not only monetarily but also for their impact in destabilizing national states and, conversely, strengthening the position of US-led imperialism regionally and globally.
Many would perhaps describe this scenario as examplary of a win-win situation, where Saudi Arabia’s influence grows in tandem with that of the US. However, the increasing emergence of resistance movements has led Riyadh to reconsider its position, where Saudi Arabia’s reliance on US security assistance transforms from an asset to a liability.
The primary objective of the Israeli-Saudi agreement is for Riyadh to acquire a civilian nuclear program, accompanied by security guarantees and potentially undisclosed provisions. While Saudi Arabia could have pursued this technology from China or Russia, its preference for the US underscores its vulnerability to potential sanctions, indicating the difficulty of breaking free from this dependency. As previously established, US imperialism historically extends its global influence through wars of encroachment, militarism, and by sowing discord among populations. For years, it has exploited sectarianism to stoke regional conflicts funded by Wahhabism. With unparalleled military supremacy, the US could feasibly wipe out the entire monarchy if it so desired—simply because it possesses the unrivaled capability to do so.
Hence, as paradoxical as it may sound, security for Saudi Arabia unavoidably entails the hefty price of regional instability, a situation likely to persist as long as it maintains its current trajectory. This challenge is further exacerbated by rising nuclear tensions, illustrated not only by intensified threats against Iran but also by significant deployments of forces and nuclear arsenals across Europe. While the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons are often accompanied by the assertion that their use is never intended, primarily due to the catastrophic potential for human existence to cease, it indisputably bolsters a country’s strategic leverage.
On a final yet crucial note, recent developments in relations between Saudi Arabia and Russia carry significant implications for global oil markets. Their decision to uphold oil production cuts not only exerts considerable pressure on commodity prices worldwide but also poses a threat to the US’s grip on Saudi assets. Furthermore, the recent announcement of Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s accession to the BRICS organization adds momentum to global de-dollarization efforts. It is plausible that nations may outwardly maintain positive relations with the US while covertly pursuing de-dollarization objectives. However, amidst these geopolitical shifts, the grim reality persists: the human cost endured by Gazans, with devastating consequences for civilian infrastructure, essential services, and loss of human lives, continues to mount unabated.
The Gaza war and renewed US–UK strikes on Yemen are shattering what remains of the UAE–Saudi-led coalition. Now Yemenis of all stripes are flocking to embrace the Sanaa government and its resistance stance.
While the Red Sea military operations of Yemeni resistance movement Ansarallah have shaken up geopolitical calculations of Israel’s war on Gaza, they have also had far-reaching consequences on the country’s internal political and military dynamics.
By successfully obstructing Israeli vessels from traversing the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Ansarallah-led Sanaa government has emerged as a powerful symbol of resistance in defense of the Palestinian people – a cause deeply popular across Yemen’s many demographics. Sanaa’s position stands in stark contrast to that of the Saudi and Emirati-backed government in Aden, which, to the horror of Yemenis, welcomed attacks by US and British forces on 12 January.
The US–UK airstrikes have offended Yemenis fairly universally, prompting some heavyweight internal defections. Quite suddenly, Sanaa has transformed into a destination for a number of Yemeni militias previously aligned with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, now publicly declaring their allegiance to Ansarallah.
One such figure, Colonel Hussein al-Qushaybi, formerly with the Saudi–UAE coalition forces, announced in a tweet:
I am Colonel Hussein al-Qushaybi, I declare my resignation from my rank and my defection from the Legitimacy Army [army backed by Saudi-led coalition] that did not allow us, as members of the Ministry of Defense, to show solidarity with Palestine. My message to army members: Go back to your homes, for our leaders have begun to protect Zionist ships at sea and support the [Israeli] entity, even if they try to deceive, but their support has become clear and it is still there.
Qushaybi claims he was incarcerated in Saudi prisons for 50 days – along with other Yemeni officers – for his outspoken defense of Gaza, during which he endured torture and interrogation by an Israeli intelligence officer.
Major Hammam al-Maqdishi, responsible for personal protection of Yemen’s former Defense Minister in the coalition-backed government, has also arrived in Sanaa, pledging allegiance to Ansarallah.
Simultaneously, a leaked ‘top-secret’ document from the Saudi-backed, UN-recognized Yemeni Ministry of Defense instructs military leaders to suppress any sympathy or support for Hamas or Ansarallah, as “this might arouse the ire of brotherly and friendly countries” – an implicit reference to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Defections and dissent
The wave of defections within the ranks of Saudi–Emirati coalition forces is not limited to officers. Many regular troops have openly rebelled against their commanders – abandoning their positions and pledging allegiance to Ansarallah – following the recent airstrikes on Yemen. Dozens of these soldiers have been arrested and detained for displaying solidarity with Gaza.
Yemeni news reports claim the US government, in a missive to the coalition’s Chief of Staff Saghir bin Aziz, expressed “dissatisfaction” with the lack of solidarity among his forces and demanded action.
While this trend of defections in the Saudi–Emirati coalition is not entirely new, it has acceleratedconsiderably since the onset of the war in Gaza and the recent US-UK strikes on Yemen.
Last February, high-ranking coalition officers, including brigade commanders from various fronts, began a series of defections, though none as significant as the current rebellion.
These earlier defections were primarily driven by financial conditions and dissatisfaction with Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their dismissal ofmilitary commanders associated with the Islah Party (Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen), who were replaced by members of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) militias and those commanded by Tariq Saleh, nephew of pro-Saudi former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Most of these defections were by officer and troops associated with the Islah Party during a time when the foreign coalition began marginalizing the party’s military and political leadership, and dismantling several military sectors under their control – in favor of the UAE-controlled STC.
Now, the Gaza war has the Islah Party leadership fully breaking with its old alliances. As party official Mukhtar al-Rahbi tweeted upon the launch of US-UK strikes:
Any Yemeni who stands with the US, UK, and the countries of the coalition protecting Zionist ships should reconsider their Yemeni identity and Arab affiliation. These countries protect and support the Zionist entity, and when Yemen closed the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea to the ships of this terrorist entity, this dirty alliance struck Yemen and punished it for its noble stance towards Gaza and Palestine.
In stark contrast, the UAE-backed STC and the Tareq Saleh-led National Resistance Forces expressed readiness to protect Israeli interests. On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, STC President Aidarus al-Zoubaidi reaffirmed his support for the British attacks against Yemen, conveying this stance to British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.
Following these statements, an entire battalion under Saleh’s command defected to Ansarallah, while many other fighters now refuse his authority because they reject supporting US–UK strikes against Sanaa and its resistance leaders.
A shift in public sentiment
In response to the latest western aggression against Yemen, media outlets affiliated with the STC and its supporters have launched a campaign against Ansarallah and the Palestinian resistance, casting doubt on the Yemeni resistance movement’s capabilities and motives. But, their efforts have backfired badly, instead leading to widespread public fury in the country’s southern regions controlled by the UAE and Saudi-backed government.
Map of areas controlled by Ansarallah and Saudi-led coalition
Their anger is directed at the Aden-based government‘s perceived alignment with Israel’s regional projects, sparking both protests and symbolic acts, such as burning pictures of UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed and the Israeli flag.
According to Fernando Carvajal, a former member of the UN Security Council’s Yemen expert team, Ansarallah have managed to leverage – to their benefit – the untenable position of Abu Dhabi, which normalized relationswith Israel as part of the 2020 US-brokered Abraham Accords. This, he argues, has helped them gain widespread support both within Yemen and internationally.
In the wake of this unexpected public outrage, the STC has experienced a further wave of defections within its ranks. Several leaders have joined the Southern Revolutionary Movement, and openly expressed their objective of liberating southern Yemen from what they see as “Saudi–Emirati occupation.”
Amidst the wave of military realignments, prominent Al-Mahra tribal Sheikh Ali al-Huraizi – arguably the most influential figure in eastern Yemen – has come out to praise Ansarallah’s military operations against Israel-bound shipping in the Red Sea, hailing its actions as a resolute and national response to the suffering of the Palestinian people.
Huraizi stressed that the US and British aggression against Yemen was launched to protect the Zionist state, because Ansarallah’s targeted strikes were negatively impacting Israel’s economy. Calling for unity among Yemenis, the tribal leader urged steadfast resistance against Israeli influence in the country. He also called on other Yemeni factions to follow the bold leadership of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi as a means to halt the genocide taking place in Gaza.
Countdown to the coalition’s collapse
Yemen’s deteriorating economic conditions,currency collapse in coalition-ruled areas, and ongoing conflicts among southern militias have left many Yemenis disillusioned with Emirati and Saudi proxies, whom they had hoped would bring – at the very least – economic prosperity.
In contrast, the Ansarallah-led Sanaa government has managed to maintain a relatively stable economic situation in the areas under its control, despite the foreign-backed war aimed at toppling it. This disparity has led to a growing sentiment among UAE-aligned soldiers that they are merely pawns fighting for the interests of Persian Gulf Arab rulers, without receiving due recognition from these governments.
The contrasting stances on Palestine between the coalition and Ansarallah have deepened the Yemeni divide since the events of 7 October. Sanaa’s support for the Palestinian cause has significantly boosted its domestic standing, while US–UK strikes on the country have complicated their Persian Gulf allies’ position by prioritizing Israeli interests over all other calculations.
Disillusionment with the coalition will have profound political and military implications for Yemen, reshaping alliances, and casting the UAE and Saudi Arabia as national adversaries. Palestine continues to serve as a revealing litmus test throughout West Asia – and now in Yemen too – exposing those who only-rhetorically claim the mantle of justice and Arab solidarity.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Since Israel’s assault on Gaza began, three separate polls show that Arab and Muslim populations are shifting their support away from Washington’s regional allies toward West Asia’s Axis of Resistance.
It could be a clean sweep. Decades of western-led narratives crafted to exploit differences throughout West Asia, create strife amid the region’s myriad communities, and advance western foreign policy objectives over the heads of bickering natives are now in ruins.
The war in Gaza, it transpires, has blown a mile-wide hole in the falsehoods and fairytales that have kept West Asia distracted with internecine conflicts since at least the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Shia versus Sunni, Iran versus Arabs, secular versus Islamist: these are three of the west’s most nefarious narrative ploys that sought to control and redirect the region and its populations, and have even drawn Arab rulers into an ungodly alliance with Israel.
Facts are destroying the fiction
It took a rare conflict – uncooked and uncontrolled by Washington – to liberate West Asian masses from their narrative trance. Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza also brought instant clarity to the question of which Arabs and Muslims actually support Palestinian liberation – and which do not.
Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi resistance factions, and Yemen’s Ansarallah – maligned by these western narratives – are now visibly the only regional players prepared to buttress the Gaza frontline, whether through funds, weapons, or armed clashes that aim to dilute and disperse Israeli military resources.
The so-called ‘moderate Arabs,’ a misnomer for the western-centric, authoritarian Arab dictatorships subservient to Washington’s interests, have offered little more than lip service to the carnage in Gaza.
The Saudis called for support by hosting Arab and Islamic summits that were allowed to do and say nothing. The Emiratis and Jordanians trucked supplies to Israel that Ansarallah blockaded by sea. The mighty Egypt hosted delegations when all it needed to have done was to open the Rafah Crossing so Palestinians can eat. Qatar – once a major Hamas donor – now negotiates for the freedom of Israeli captives, while hosting Hamas ‘moderates,’ who are at odds with Gaza’s freedom fighters. And Turkiye’s trade with the Israeli occupation state continues to skyrocket (exports increased 35 percent from November to December 2023).
Palestine, for the pro-west ‘moderate Arabs,’ is a carefully handled flag they occasionally wave publicly, but sabotage privately. So, they watch, transfixed and horrified today, at what social media and tens of millions of protesters have made crystal clear: Palestine remains the essential Arab and Muslim cause; it may ebb and flow, but nothing has the power to inflame the region’s masses like this particular fight between right and wrong.
The shift toward resistance
It is early days yet in the battle unfolding between the region’s Axis of Resistance and Israel’s alliances, but the polls already show a notable shift in public sentiment toward the former.
An Arab barometer poll taken over a six-week period – three weeks before and three weeks after the Al-Aqsa Flood operation – provides the first indication of shifting Arab perceptions. Although the survey was restricted to Tunisia, the pollsters argue that the country is “as close to a bellwether as one could imagine” and that it represents views similar to other Arab countries:
“Analysts and officials can safely assume that people’s views elsewhere in the region have shifted in ways similar to the recent changes that have taken place in Tunisia.”
The survey results should be of paramount concern to meddling western policymakers: “Since October 7, every country in the survey with positive or warming relations with Israel saw its favorability ratings decline among Tunisians.”
The US saw its favorability numbers plummet the most, followed by West Asian allies that have normalized relations with Israel. Russia and China, both neutral states, experienced little change, but Iran’s leadership saw its favorability figures rise. According to the Arab barometer:
“Three weeks after the attacks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has approval ratings that matched or even exceeded those of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed.”
Before 7 October, just 29 percent of Tunisians held a favorable view of Khamenei’s foreign policies. This figure rose to 41 percent according to the conclusion of the survey, with Tunisian support most notable in the days following the Iranian leader’s 17 October reference to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide.”
The Saudi shift
Prior to the 7 October operation by the Palestinian resistance to destroy the Israeli army’s Gaza Division and take captives as leverage for a mass prisoner swap, the region’s main geopolitical focus was on the prospects of a groundbreaking Saudi normalization deal with Tel Aviv. The administration of US President Joe Biden flogged this horse at every opportunity; it was seen as a golden ticket for his upcoming presidential election.
But Operation Al-Aqsa Flood ruined any chance for Saudi Arabia – home to Islam’s holiest sites – to seal that political deal. And with Israeli airstrikes raining down daily on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Riyadh’s options continue to shrink.
A Washington Institute poll conducted between 14 November and 6 December measures the seismic shift in Saudi public sentiment:
A whopping 96 percent agree with the statement that “Arab countries should immediately break all diplomatic, political, economic, and any other contacts with Israel, in protest against its military action in Gaza.”
Meanwhile, 91 percent believe that “despite the destruction and loss of life, this war in Gaza is a win for Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.” This is a shockingly unifying statement for a country that has adhered closely to western narratives that seek to divide Palestinians from Arabs, Arabs among themselves, and Muslims along sectarian lines – geographically, culturally, and politically.
Although Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the few Arab states to have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, favorable views of Hamas have increased by 30 percent, from 10 percent in August to 40 percent in November, while most – 95 percent – do not believe the Palestinian resistance group killed civilians on 7 October.
Meanwhile, 87 percent of Saudis agree with the idea that “recent events show that Israel is so weak and internally divided that it can be defeated some day.” Ironically, this is a long-stated Resistance Axis refrain. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah was famously quoted as saying “Israel is weaker than a spider’s web,” upon its defeat by the Lebanese resistance on 25 May, 2000.
Prior to 7 October, Saudis had strongly favored economic ties with Israel, but even that number dropped dramatically from 47 percent last year to 17 percent today. And while Saudi attitudes toward the Resistance Axis remain negative – Saudi Arabia, after all, has been the regional epicenter for anti-Iran and anti-Shia propaganda since the 1979 revolution – that may be largely because their media is heavily controlled. Contrary to the observations of the Arab masses, 81 percent of Saudis still believe that the Axis is “reluctant to help Palestinians.”
The Palestinian shift
Equally important to the discussion of Arab perceptions is the shift seen among Palestinians themselves since 7 October. A poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in both the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip between 22 November and 2 December mirrors Arab views, but with some nuances.
Gazan respondents, understandably, displayed more skepticism for the ‘correctness’ of Hamas’ Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which triggered Israel’s genocidal assault on the Strip in which over 22,000 civilians – mostly women and children – have so far been brutally killed. While support for Hamas increased only slightly in the Gaza Strip, it tripled in the West Bank, with both Palestinian territories expressing near equal disdain for the western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs from Ramallah.
Support for acting PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party was hit hard. Demands for his resignation are at nearly 90 percent, while almost 60 percent (the highest number recorded in a PSR poll to date in relation to this matter) of those surveyed want a dissolution of the PA.
Over 60 percent of Palestinians polled (closer to 70 percent in the West Bank) believe armed struggle is the best means to end the occupation, with 72 percent agreeing with the statement that Hamas made a correct decision to launch its 7 October operation, and 70 percent agreeing that Israel will fail to eradicate the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.
Palestinians have strong views about regional and international players, who they largely feel have left Gaza unprotected from Israel’s unprecedented violations of international law.
By far the country most supported by respondents is Yemen, with approval ratings of 80 percent, followed by Qatar (56 percent), Hezbollah (49 percent), Iran (35 percent), Turkiye (34 percent), Jordan (24 percent), Egypt (23 percent), the UAE (8 percent), and Saudi Arabia (5 percent).
In this poll, the region’s Axis of Resistance dominates the favorability ratings, while pro-US Arab and Muslim nations with some degree of relations with Israel, fare poorly. It is notable that of the four most favorable countries and groups for mostly-Sunni Palestinians, three are core members of the “Shia” Axis, while five Sunni-led states rank lowest.
This Palestinian view extends to non-regional international states, with respondents most satisfied with Resistance Axis allies Russia (22 percent) and China (20 percent), while Israeli allies Germany (7 percent), France (5 percent), the UK (4 percent), and the US (1 percent) struggle to maintain traction among Palestinians.
The numbers depend on the war ahead
Three separate polls show that Arab perceptions have shifted dramatically over Israel’s war on Gaza, with popular sentiment gravitating to those states and actors perceived to be actively supporting Palestinian goals, and away from those who are perceived to support Israel.
The new year starts with two major events. The first is the drawdown of Israeli reservists from Gaza, whether because Washington demands it, or due to unsustainable loss of life and injury to occupation troops. The second is the shocking assassination of Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri and six others in Beirut, Lebanon, on 2 January.
All indications are that Israel’s war will not only continue, but will expand regionally. The new US maritime construct in the Red Sea has drawn other international actors into the mix, and Tel Aviv has provoked Lebanon’s Hezbollah in a major way.
But if the confrontation between the two axes escalates, Arab perceptions will almost certainly continue to tilt away from the old hegemons toward those who are willing to resist this US-Israeli assault on the region.
There will be no relief for Washington and its allies as the war expands. The more they work to defeat Hamas and destroy Gaza, and the more they lob missiles at Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, and besiege the Resistance Axis, the more likely Arab populations are to shrug off the Sunni-versus-Shia, Iran-versus-Arab, and secular-versus-Islamist narratives that have kept the region divided and at odds for decades.
The swell of support that is mobilizing due to a righteous confrontation against the region’s biggest oppressors is unstoppable. Western decline is now a given in the region, but western discourse has been the first casualty of this war.
The new US-led coalition in the Red Sea will struggle to overcome Yemen’s naval blockade on Israel, as Ansarallah’s domestically-produced and inexpensive drones and missiles have leveled the technological playing field.
Given the renewed focus on Yemen’s de facto government led by Ansarallah and its armed forces, it is time to move beyond the simplistic and dismissive characterization of the Houthis as merely a ‘rebel’ group or a non-state actor.
Since the start of the war by the Saudi-led coalition against Ansarallah in 2015, the Yemeni resistance movement has transformed into a formidable military force that has not only humbled Saudi Arabia but is also now challenging Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza as well as the superior firepower and resources of the US Navy in the world’s most important waterway.
Economic fallout of Yemen’s naval operations
In response to Israel unleashing unprecedented violence on Gaza, killing over 20,000 people, predominantly women and children, Yemen’s Ansarallah-led armed forces announced on 14 November their intent to target any Israeli-linked ship passing through the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea. This crucial waterway serves as the gateway to the Suez Canal, through which approximately 10 percent of global trade and 8.8 million barrels of oil travel each day.
On 9 December, Ansarallah announced it would expand its operations further to target any ship in the Red Sea on its way to Israel, regardless of its nationality. “If Gaza does not receive the food and medicine it needs, all ships in the Red Sea bound for Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality, will become a target for our armed forces,” an Ansarallah Armed Forces spokesperson said in a statement.
To date, Ansarallah has successfully targeted nine ships using drones and missiles, and managed to seize one Israeli-affiliated ship in the Red Sea, according to their official statements. These operations have prompted the largest international shipping companies, including CMA CGM and MSC, and oil giants BP and Evergreen, to re-route their Europe bound ships around the horn of Africa, adding 13,000km and significant fuel costs to the journey.
Delays, transit times, and insurance fees for commercial shipping have skyrocketed, threatening to spark inflation worldwide. This is especially worrisome for Israel, which is already contending with the economic repercussions of its longest and deadliest conflict with the Palestinian resistance in history.
Additionally, Ansarallah has launched multiple missile and drone attacks on Israel’s southern port city of Eilat, decreasing its commercial shipping traffic by 85 percent.
The disruption in the Red Sea directly undermines a key element of the White House’s 2022 National Security Strategy, which unequivocally states that the US will not permit any nation “to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East’s waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab.”
Coalition of the unwilling
On 18 December, in response to Sanaa’s operations, Secretary of State Lloyd Austin declared the establishment of a naval coalition named Operation Prosperity Guardian, with some 20 countries called to counter Yemeni attacks and ensure safe passage of ships through the Red Sea.
Austin announced the new maritime coalition would include, among others, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, the Seychelles, and Bahrain.
Map of the US-led Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) in West Asia and North Africa.
In response to the announcement, Ansarallah politburo Mohammed al-Bukhaiti vowed that Yemen’s armed forces would not back down:
“Yemen awaits the creation of the filthiest coalition in history to engage in the holiest battle in history. How will the countries that rushed to form an international coalition against Yemen to protect the perpetrators of Israeli genocide be perceived?“
The embarrassment for Secretary Austin and White House advisor Jake Sullivan was swift. Shortly after the coalition’s announcement, key US allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt declined participation. European allies Denmark, Holland, and Norway provided minimal support, sending only a handful of naval officers.
France agreed to participate but refused to deploy additional ships to the region or place its existing vessel there under US command. Italy and Spain refuted claims of their participation, and eight countries remained anonymous, casting doubt on their existence.
Ansarallah has therefore destroyed another pillar of the White House National Security Strategy, which seeks “to promote regional integration by building political, economic, and security connections between and among US partners, including through integrated air and maritime defense structures.”
Revolutions in naval warfare
The Pentagon plans to defend commercial ships using missile defense systems on US and allied naval carriers deployed to the region.
But the world’s superpower, now largely on its own, does not have the military capacity to counter attacks from war-torn Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia.
This is because the US relies on expensive and difficult to manufacture interceptor missiles to counter the inexpensive and mass-produced drones and missiles that Ansarallah possesses.
Austin made his announcement shortly after the USS Carney destroyer intercepted 14 one-way attack drones on just one day, the 16th of December.
The operation appeared to be a success, but Politico swiftly reported that according to three US Defense Department officials, the cost of countering such attacks “is a growing concern.”
The SM-2 missiles used by the USS Carney cost roughly $2.1 million each, while Ansarallah’s one-way attack drones cost a mere $2,000 each.
This means that to shoot down the $28,000 worth of drones on 16 December, the US spent at least $28 million in just one day.
Ansarallah has now launched more than 100 drone and missile attacks, targeting ten commercial ships from 35 countries, meaning the cost of US interceptor missiles alone has exceeded $200 million.
But cost is not the only limitation. If Ansarallah persists with this strategy, US forces will quickly deplete their interceptor missile stocks, which are needed not only in West Asia but in East Asia as well.
As Fortis Analysis observed, the US has eight guided missile cruisers and destroyers operating in the Mediterranean and Red Seas, with a total of 800 SM-2 and SM-6 interceptor missiles for ship defense between them. Fortis Analysis further notes that production of these missiles is slow, meaning any ongoing campaign to counter Ansarallah will quickly deplete US interceptor missile stocks to dangerously low levels. Meanwhile, the US weapons manufacturer Raytheon can produce less than 50 SM-2 and fewer than 200 SM-6 missiles annually.
If these stocks are diminished, this leaves the US Navy vulnerable not only in the Red Sea and Mediterranean, where Russia is also active, but also in the Pacific Ocean, where China poses a significant threat with its hypersonic and ballistic missiles.
Fortis Analysis concludes by observing that the longer Ansarallah continues “throwing potshots” at commercial, US Navy, and allied maritime assets, “the worse the calculus gets. Supply chains win wars – and we are losing this critical domain.”
And Ansarallah has not yet tried a drone swarm attack, which would force US ships to counter dozens of incoming threats at one time.
“A swarm could tax the capabilities of a single warship but more importantly, it could mean weapons get past them to hit commercial ships,” Salvatore Mercogliano, a naval expert and professor at Campbell University in North Carolina observed.
Moreover, US warships would also face the question of how to replenish their missile inventory.
USS John Finn and USS Porter missiles capacity
“The only site to reload weapons is at Djibouti (a US base on the Horn of Africa) and that is close to the action,” he said.
Other experts suggest that the ships would either sail to the Mediterranean Sea to reload from US bases in Italy and Greece, or to the Gulf island of Bahrain which holds the Naval Support Activity and is home to US Naval Forces Central Command and United States Fifth Fleet.
The ‘great equalizer’
As a result, Abdulghani al-Iryani, a senior researcher at the Sanaa Center for Strategic Studies, described the situation in Yemen as a case where technology acts as a “great equalizer.”
“Your F-15 that costs millions of dollars means nothing because I have my drone that cost a few thousand dollars that will do just as much damage,” he told the New York Times.
While the US military is successful at producing expensive, technologically complex weapons systems that provide excellent profits for the arms industry, such as the F-15 warplanes, it is not capable of producing enough of the weapons needed to actually fight and win real wars on the other side of the world, where supply chains become even more critical.
In Yemen, the US is heavily challenged by the same problem it faced while fighting a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, which after almost two years, US officials acknowledge is all but lost.
Moscow has the industrial base and the supply chains in place to produce hundreds of thousands of the low-cost, rudimentary 152mm artillery shells – two million annually – needed for success in a multi-year war of attrition fought largely in trenches. The US, quite simply, does not. Washington’s war industrial complex is currently, at best, manufacturing 288,000 shells annually and seeks to manufacture one million shells by the year 2028, still only half of the Russian manufacturing ability.
Additionally, one Russian 152mm artillery round costs $600 dollars according to western experts, whereas it costs a western country $5,000 to $6,000 to produce a comparable 155mm artillery shell.
Enter Iran
The security situation will only get worse for the US should Iran enter the conflict in support of Ansarallah, the signs of which are emerging already.
On 23 December, the US openly accused Iran of targeting commercial vessels for the first time since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza, claiming a Japanese-owned chemical tanker off the coast of India was targeted by a drone “fired from Iran.”
The same day, Tehran denied the allegations but threatened the forced closure of other crucial maritime shipping lanes unless Israel halts its war crimes in Gaza.
“With the continuation of these crimes, America and its allies should expect the emergence of new resistance forces and the closure of other waterways,” Mohammad Reza Naqdi, an official in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned.
As a reminder, Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in West Asia, with thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, some capable of striking Israel.
On 24 December, Iran announced its navy had added “fully smart” cruise missiles, including one with a 1,000km range that can change targets during travel, and another with a range of 100km which can be installed on warships.
With US and Israeli forces already under pressure from the Axis of Resistance forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and now Yemen, the possible entry of Iran in the conflict is even more ominous for Washington, especially in an election year.
Genocide as a foreign policy
So, how far are President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan willing to go to facilitate Israel’s ongoing carnage in the Gaza Strip?
The trio’s commitment to military aid packages for Israel and Ukraine, despite looming debt concerns, raises questions about their priorities.
The potential risk to the security of the US Navy in the Pacific Ocean may force a re-evaluation of the situation soon. This leaves the US with the option of direct military intervention in Yemen, a course of action with its own ethical and geopolitical consequences.
Recognizing the difficulty of countering Ansarallah from a defensive posture, at least some in the US national security establishment are demanding US forces go on the offensive and strike Yemen directly.
On 28 December, former vice admirals Mark I. Fox and John W. Miller argued that “deterring and degrading” Iran and Ansarallah’s ability to launch these attacks requires striking the forces in Yemen responsible for conducting them, “something no one has yet been willing to do.”
Yemen itself has just emerged from an eight-year, US-backed Saudi and UAE war that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Both Persian Gulf nations used US bombs to kill tens of thousands of Yemenis, while imposing a blockade and siege that led to hundreds of thousands of additional deaths from hunger and disease.
According to Jeffrey Bachman of the American University, Saudi Arabia and the UAE carried out a “campaign of genocide by a synchronized attack on all aspects of life in Yemen,” which was “only possible with the complicity of the United States and United Kingdom.” And yet Ansarallah emerged stronger militarily from that conflict.
If US support for two genocides in the Arab world are not enough, maybe the third will be the charm.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
The US-led Red Sea coalition’s shaky start reveals the Persian Gulf’s vastly divergent views on the maritime force’s utility, with differences set to intensify as aggressions kick off.
More than a week has passed since US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin unveiled the multi-national naval task force Operation Prosperity Guardian to counter operations by Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces in the Red Sea to blockade Israel-bound vessels in response to the war on Gaza.
However, the mission’s nature, objectives, and members – including Bahrain – have become increasingly ambiguous. While Manama announced its participation, the absence of fellow Gulf Coorporation Council (GCC) members Saudi Arabia and the UAE raises intriguing questions.
Even Bahrain’s motives are hazy, given that it lacks any naval fleet of military significance, and relies on small vessels and combat forces for its own maritime defenses. As such, skepticism surrounds the extent of the tiny Persian Gulf emirate’s actual military contribution.
Bahrain has Israel’s back
One Bahraini opposition leader, speaking to The Cradle on the condition of anonymity, describes Manama’s participation as “the necessity of what is not necessary.” The leader points to Bahrain’s complex loyalties to the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel, in addition to its GCC membership as likely reasons for its odd decision.
The Bahraini government’s stance, especially amid Israel’s genocidal onslaught in Gaza, has shocked many within the country, in spite of its unpopular decision in 2020 to normalize relations with the occupation state. Under pressure, however, Manama did recall its ambassador from Tel Aviv and temporarily suspended economic relations on 2 November – though the Israelis claim they had not been officially informed of the withdrawal of the Bahraini ambassador and say relations between the two countries are stable.
A well-informed Bahraini source informs The Cradle that this detached position aligns with the government’s policy since signing the UAE-led and Washington-brokered Abraham Accords. The government, he says, has sought to adopt a neutral stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not recognizing it as a struggle against occupation and overlooking its significance to Arab national security.
“This policy, first, was expressed by the Bahraini Crown Prince and Prime Minister Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, when he described what Hamas has done as a terrorist act, and at the same time condemned the Israeli massacres in an attempt to maintain a neutral center.”
The source further points out that Bahrain’s alignment with Abu Dhabi’s policy reflects a shift towards “the Emirati orbit over the Saudi one.” This is evident in its delayed reconciliation with Qatar, initiated by Riyadh but met with hesitation in Manama. Likewise, the UAE had a slower approach to restoring relations with Doha than the Saudis.
Submissive stance to US influence
Bahrain has a historical role as a key US military ally since 1995, when it opened large areas of its small territory to establish regional headquarters for the US Fifth Fleet. Today, those facilities include an aircraft carrier, several submarines, naval destroyers, dozens of fighter jets, thousands of American soldiers, and their residential headquarters within this military base, which is considered one of the largest centers of the US military outside the United States.
According to the aforementioned Bahraini source, the Manama-based US naval force serves as “an advanced American base to carry out Washington’s intelligence and military work in the region, and its presence reflects the latter’s dominance over the political decision in the Kingdom when the need arises.”
Bahrain is also the headquarters of the Joint Maritime Force, established in 2001 to confront the so-called “threat of international terrorism.” The force includes 39 countries, including Britain, which has established an expanded military occupation on the territory of Bahrain, specifically at Juffair Naval Base since 2018, which represented Britain’s first military base in West Asia in four decades.
The Bahraini source explains that while the US and UK have all the resources they need in the Persian Gulf to run the new anti-Yemen maritime themselves, what they really needed was Arab cover for these hostile activities:
“In essence, Washington does not need Bahraini forces to secure navigation in the region while it has more than 30,000 soldiers in the Gulf and it can manage these operations from its various military bases, but it needs Arab cover after many Gulf countries, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, rejected Arab and Gulf legitimacy (publicly) for this alliance.”
It is a risky move for Manama. Bahrain’s participation in the naval coalition is unlikely to yield positive outcomes for the state and could pose threats to its strategic security, particularly if Yemen’s Ansarallah forces decide to retaliate against Prosperity Guardian’s strikes.
Targeting Bahrain would be “low-hanging fruit” for the Yemenis, not just because it is small and largely defenseless on its own, but also because it hosts bases for leading western aggressors – the US and UK.
As the opposition leader explains to The Cradle:
Manama also “risks facing further isolation and internal separation, given that the people of Bahrain are unanimous in rejecting the Israeli occupation, covering for it, or working to achieve its interests at the expense of the Palestinian people.”
Bahrain’s decision to participate in the US-led coalition, despite GCC leaders Saudi Arabia’s own refusal over security concerns, only goes to show the extent of Bahrain’s submission to US hegemony and its new ally Israel. Says another Bahraini source:
“There is no justification for Bahraini participation at a time when Saudi Arabia, its major neighbor, for security considerations rejects confronting Ansarallah and maintains its position on the massacres committed against the Palestinians.”
Riyadh’s recalibration
The absence of Saudi Arabia from the coalition is especially noteworthy. Disillusioned by past US policies, including the Arab Spring and the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Riyadh now seems inclined towards a reconciliation with Tehran and has ratcheted up relations with US adversaries Moscow and Beijing, marking a shift in its regional and global strategic considerations.
Rather than deeply engaging in efforts against Israeli aggression or the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, Saudi Arabia appears more focused on dialing down regional conflicts, particularly its own eight-year war against Yemen. The kingdom has welcomed the UN’s road map for peace and Omani-brokered negotiations with Sanaa, indicating a desire to exit the devastating war and shift its focus away from a heavy reliance on US support.
For the Saudis, the ongoing war in Gaza and Yemen’s prominent role in the regional resistance axis present an opportunity to extricate itself from the war against its southern neighbor, in which it is emphasizing a local settlement between Yemeni parties and the Sanaa government led by Ansarallah.
Riyadh showed its direction early, in November, by hosting the Arab-Islamic summit to “dutifully”show solidarity with Gaza without actually taking meaningful action. The Saudis appear uninterested in engaging too heavily in the fracas, whether to halt Israeli aggressions or to confront the “axis of resistance” in whose ranks Yemenis are a vital player.
Stability after all, is crucial for Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s Vision2030 and its ambitious projects such as NEOM, Expo 2030, and the 2034 FIFA World Cup, prompting a reconsideration of its involvement in yet another US-led regional aggression that offers little upside.
UAE’s geostrategic considerations
The UAE, known for its strategic calculations, appears to be treading much more cautiously in the regional confrontation, and is playing a strong role behind the scenes. When Ansarallah threatened sea lanes, the UAE moved to develop a land bridge through Saudi and Jordanian territories to Israel for the transportation of goods from East Asia.
Although risky for Abu Dhabi to so openly aid Israel’s economy while Tel Aviv imposes a draconian siege on Palestinians in Gaza, by doing so, the UAE has significantly boosted its economic and political value to the occupation state. In this, the Emiratis have displayed a steadfastness to normalization that could trigger dangerous repercussions should regional confrontation escalate.
Considering the potential backlash, the Emiratis are hesitant to openly support Israel through military naval power, fearing Yemeni and broader Arab and Muslim resentment. Abu Dhabi prioritizes its image as a safe and stable oasis, mindful of Ansarallah’s missile and drone attacks from just a year ago.
Essentially, the Persian Gulf state aim to avoid jeopardizing their security interests by engaging in ambiguous military actions that could undermine their carefully crafted narrative of stability and progress.
The fate and feasibility of Operation Prosperity Guardian is currently shrouded in uncertainty, particularly in light of recent setbacks and the withdrawal of crucial western allies from participating under a US command.
The divisions among Persian Gulf states regarding the maritime coalition further highlight a region awakening to the realization that Washington’s dominance is no longer as unassailable as it once seemed. The emerging awareness suggests that Yemen and other members of the Resistance Axis possess the capability to impose a new equation against Israel.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
While Israel has dropped the equivalent of two nuclear bombs on Gaza – and mulls over the prospect of deploying an actual one – normalized Arab regimes are quietly protecting their commitment to support Tel Aviv over Tehran.
“The world cannot see another Hiroshima. If the world sees 100,000 people dead, that means you are in a war with the rest of the world.”
So spoke Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in a first-ever English-language interview with Fox News, as recently as September, 2023.
Yet in what can only be described as the “another Hiroshima,” the Gaza Strip is now the target of a genocidal onslaught that the Saudi royal explicitly stated should be avoided for world peace.
Normalization still on the Saudi table
For over a month now, Israel’s aggression has resulted in the deaths and injuries of more than 40,000 people in the densely populated enclave. In fact, the US-backed occupation army has dropped over 25,000 tons of explosives on the Gaza Strip since 7 October, the equivalent of two nuclear bombs.
In a press release issued by Euro-Med Monitor on 2 November, the Geneva-based NGO said: “This means that the destructive power of the explosives dropped on Gaza exceeds that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.”
Despite this, MbS has not backtracked from his controversial statement about Riyadh’s increasingly close ties to Israel’s most right-wing government: “Every day we get closer.” This was most recently confirmed by Saudi Minister of Investment Khalid bin Abdulaziz al-Falih, who said, “This matter [normalization] was on the table, and it is still on the table.”
It is important to note, however, that the MbS interview was aired just two weeks before the 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood operation by the Palestinian resistance. Also interesting is that the crown prince’s statement wasn’t directed at Israel; it was in response to a question about the dangers of Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.
What becomes clear is that not only Saudi Arabia, but also the five other Arab states – Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco – that already have peace treaties with Tel Aviv have shown no signs of reconsidering these agreements, even in the face of mounting public pressure against Israel’s ongoing massacres in Gaza. Although reports suggest that some lawmakers in Bahrain are calling for a reversal of Manama’s normalization agreement, amid suspended economic ties and the recalling of its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
Arab countries that have pursued “peace treaties” with the occupation state have long marketed these agreements to their people as pathways to security, prosperity, and regional stability. MbS himself has touted these benefits when he told Fox News that a potential Saudi-Israeli deal brokered by the Biden administration would be a historic milestone, potentially the largest since the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Resistance delaying Riyadh’s moves
US President Joe Biden, the official protector of Israeli aggression, believes that the Hamas-led operation was an attempt to disrupt his negotiations with Saudi Arabia about normalization. His Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been even more direct in his assessment, stating that one motive behind the Hamas attack was to hinder efforts to bring Saudi Arabia and Israel closer, “along with other countries that are not interested in it,” likely referring to key resistance supporter Iran.
Though there hasn’t been an official Saudi position from either MbS or his foreign ministry, carefully leaked reports by “informed sources” and a “source in the Saudi government” were published by Reuters on 13 October and then by AFP the following day, suggesting that Saudi Arabia had decided to freeze or suspend normalization talks and had communicated this to US officials.
Publicly, Israel seemed unfazed by this implicit threat. As for Saudi Arabia, following its initial call for immediate de-escalation and civilian protection, it continues to emphasize its condemnation of civilian targeting. The Saudis use careful phrasing to placate Washington, which demands that its regional allies condemn the killing of Israeli “civilians” despite evidence of direct Israeli military responsibility for many of those deaths.
Because Saudi Arabia hasn’t yet entered into a normalization agreement with Israel, this theoretically frees it from any diplomatic obligations with Tel Aviv. However, what raises eyebrows is Riyadh’s clear hesitation to leverage its significant political and oil influence to pressure for a ceasefire in Gaza. If anything, the Saudis dilly-dallied until 30 October to announce an “emergency” Arab summit scheduled for 11 November in Riyadh.
This inaction may suggest that the path of normalization with Israel has progressed further than we’re aware, considering that in September, Saudi Arabia hosted Israeli Tourism Minister Haim Katz and Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, the latter even broadcasting himself performing the Jewish morning prayer and celebrating Sukkot in Riyadh just days before Al-Aqsa Flood unfolded.
Arab ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ peace with Israel
The UAE, which helped spearhead the Arab normalization drive, has been far more vocal in its support for Israel.Reem al-Hashemi, the Emirati minister of state for international cooperation, delivered a stinging speech at the UN Security Council in New York, in which she condemned the “barbaric and heinous attacks” launched by Hamas.
Hashemi called for the immediate and unconditional release of “hostages” and an end to the ongoing bloodshed, while also criticizing “Israel’s policy of collective punishment toward the Gaza Strip.”
Alongside its neighbor Bahrain, the UAE has maintained two peace agreements with Israel since the September 2020 signing of the Abraham Accords. The status of the Israeli embassy in Abu Dhabi remains unchanged, and the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not even bothered to summon the Israeli ambassador for a perfunctory dressing down, which is the most minimal form of diplomatic censure expected – especially given the expanding bombing of Gaza.
Egypt holds the distinction of being the first Arab country to openly normalize relations with Israel in 1978, a peace brokered by the Americans. In the years following, Washington has relentlessly taken the global lead in advancing normalization with Tel Aviv, succeeding in the signing of the 1994 Wadi Araba Agreement with Jordan, and then in 1993 with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
However, since the 2020 Trump administration-sponsored Abraham Accords between Israel and Morocco, the UAE, Sudan, and Bahrain, questions persist about the motivation behind normalization for Arab states that are neither immediate neighbors to Palestine nor directly involved in the conflict. Particularly vexing for detractors is the trend among some Arab regimes to formalize peace deals with Israel without connecting this concession to demands for Palestinian rights.
Opposing another Nakba
The peace talks with Palestinians, the principal party in conflict with Israel, have been at a standstill since April 2014 due to various factors, including the suffocating Gaza siege and the gradual expansion of settlements in the West Bank, rendering the “two-state solution” dead for all practical purposes.
In Jordan, where Palestinians make up a slight majority of the population, public anger over Gaza has been palpable. Authorities in Amman initially coordinated with their counterparts in Cairo, both strongly rejecting Israeli proposals to displace Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan and from Gaza to Egypt.
Under significant domestic fire, Amman later took the significant step of recalling its ambassador from Tel Aviv and refusing to welcome back the Israeli ambassador who had left the kingdom. Jordan is faced with a heightened sense of danger: Israel’s Gaza offensive coincides with a sharp spike in Israeli army and settler attacks on West Bank Palestinians, which fuels Amman’s long-standing fears that Israel aims to ethically cleanse and annex the West Bank.
Jordanian Prime Minister Bisher Khasawneh has gone so far as to explicitly state that any attempt to displace Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza will be viewed as a declaration of war.
The Kingdom of Morocco – which, unlike other Arab states, “resumed” pre-existing relations with Israel in 2020 – has issued statements condemning the Gaza bombings and criticizing western inaction, but has otherwise taken no concrete actions. This is despite King Mohammed VI’s role as the head of the “Al-Quds Committee,” established in 1975 by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and headquartered in Rabat.
Normalizing genocide, but facing resistance
As the “emergency” Arab summit convenes in Riyadh today, it remains to be seen whether countries like Saudi Arabia, along with other Arab states and those engaging with the genocidal government in Israel, will attempt to address their political and public failures during the month-long war against Gaza.
This situation has given rise to an unsettling reality in which the “other Hiroshima” that MbS once feared – from, ironically, Iran – has instead been threatened by Israel in Gaza when Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested the possibility of nuclear strikes.
What is clear at this stage is that those Arab states that have normalized with Tel Avivl show no inclination to reverse these agreements. Their pacts, after all, were not peace treaties ending a state of war that never existed with Israel; they are alliance agreements encompassing various facets of diplomacy, military cooperation, security, finance, and trade.
If anything, following the 7 October events, the normalization Arab regimes look to be banking on their Israeli alliance to prevail over their regional adversaries in the Axis of Resistance. They perceive the events in Gaza, much like the US and Israelis, as a threat to Israel and, by extension, their own regional interests.
Their goal is to transform this threat into an opportunity to eliminate resistance in Gaza – much as they redirected the 2011 Arab uprisings to cripple their Resistance Axis foes. If their bet on Tel Aviv succeeds, they can tuck away the thorny Palestinian issue and pave the way for a new regional order with Israel at its core.
This vision has been articulated by MbS and other officials supporting normalization, culminating in discussions at the G20 summit in New Delhi last September when a project was announced to enhance transportation and communication between India and Europe via the Persian Gulf states, with Israel as a central hub.
The US-Israeli alliance, along with the Arab normalization states, is actively pursuing this regional rearrangement while Gaza burns. However, their progress is hindered by the fact that Israel faces significant challenges in defeating the resistance in Gaza, and potentially, the entire Axix of Resistance in West Asia.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
London — (Craig Murray) — October 23 saw the most violent bombardment of Gaza until that point, notably concentrated on precisely the areas where Israel ordered the population to evacuate. I find it almost impossible to believe that this genocide is underway with the active support of nearly all Western governments.
I want to examine two questions — what will happen internationally, and what is happening in Western societies?
Israel is on the course of further escalation and intends to kill thousands more Palestinians. More than 2,000 Palestinian children alone have now been killed by Israeli aerial attacks in the last fortnight.
Gaza has no defense from bombs and missiles, and there is no military reason why Israel cannot keep this up for months and simply rely upon aerial massacre. We are perhaps within a week of thirst, starvation and disease, killing even more people per day than bombardment.
The population of Gaza is simply defenseless. Only international intervention can stop Israel from doing whatever it wishes, and those countries that have influence with Israel are actively abetting and encouraging the genocide.
The question is, what is Israel’s aim? Do they intend to reduce the Gaza Strip further, annexing half or more of it? Will starvation and horror enable the international community to force Egypt to accept the expulsion of the population of Gaza into the Sinai Desert as a “humanitarian” move?
That appears to be the end game: the expulsion of population and territorial expansion into Gaza.
That would require a ground invasion, but probably not until after even more intense aerial bombardment to eliminate all resistance.
This territorial ambition, of course, accords with the violent expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank, which is currently underway, with the world paying almost no attention. It is challenging indeed to comprehend the passivity of Fatah and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, at the moment.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political stock within Israel is so low that he can only recover by making a significant step towards the complete genocide of the Palestinian people and the achievement of Greater Israel.
Netanyahu now knows that there is no violence against Palestinians so extreme that the Western political elite will not support it under the mantra of “Israel’s right to self-defense.”
I do not see any salvation for Gaza coming from Hezbollah. If Hezbollah were to employ its vaunted missile strike capabilities, the moment to do it would be now when the Israeli armor is drawn up in massive parks outside Gaza, a perfect target even for longer-range missiles of limited accuracy. Once dispersed into Gaza, the armor would be far more challenging for Hezbollah to hit at range.
Hezbollah is better equipped now to fight a defensive war in Lebanon than when it defeated the Israeli advance in 2006. But it is not configured or equipped to fight an aggressive ground war in Israel, which would be a disaster.
It also has to worry about hostile militias at its rear. If Hezbollah can provoke an Israeli incursion into Southern Lebanon, it could inflict substantial casualties. Still, Israel will not do that in a way that detracts from its capabilities in Gaza.
Iran has dramatically improved its diplomatic position in the last year. The Chinese-brokered lessening of hostility with Saudi Arabia has the potential to revolutionize Middle Eastern politics, and Tehran will not lightly lay aside the benefits of this. Iran had also made real progress with the Biden administration in overcoming the blind hostility of the Trump years.
Iran has no desire to throw away these gains. That is why it seems highly improbable that Iran endorsed the October 7 attacks by Hamas. Iran is now restraining Hezbollah.
But there are limits to the patience of Iran. The extraordinary truth is that Iran is probably the only state under discussion here with a genuine humanitarian concern for the lives of Palestinians. If the genocide unfolds as horribly as I anticipate, Iran can be pushed too far.
That said, I offer just a cautionary footnote that Saudi Arabia is not, under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, quite the reliable U.S./Israeli puppet it has historically been. I do not have much time for MBS, as readers know, but his high opinion of the importance of the House of Saud and its leadership role among Arabs makes him a different proposition from his predecessor.
Saudi Arabia has leverage. The Biden administration has gone all in on regional domination, sending two aircraft carrier groups into a situation which, if it escalates, could send oil prices to highest-ever levels, with Russia blocked from the market. U.S. President Joe Biden risks a massive gas price hike in an election year.
Biden’s calculation, or that of his security services, is that nobody can or will intervene to save the Palestinians. They judge the genocide as containable. That is an extraordinary gamble.
There has been an extraordinary amount of vitriol aimed at Qatar by pro-Israel commentators for hosting the Hamas office and leadership. This is extraordinarily ignorant.
QATAR’S DIPLOMATIC VENUE
Qatar hosts Hamas, just as Qatar hosted the Taliban Information Office at the direct request of the United States. It provides a means of dialogue between the United States and Hamas (exactly as it did with the Taliban) both at a deniable level and through third parties, including, of course, the government of Qatar.
Thus, when U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Qatar one day and the Iranian foreign minister the next, these were, in fact, “proximity talks” involving Hamas.
How do I know? Well, at Julian Assange’s request, I visited Qatar about five years ago to discuss whether Julian and WikiLeaks might potentially relocate to Qatar, which Julian had described as “the new Switzerland” in terms of being a neutral diplomatic venue.
It was explained to me by the Qataris, at a very senior level, that Qatar hosted the Taliban Information Office and Hamas because the United States government had asked them to do so. Qatar hosted a significant U.S. military base and depended on U.S. support against a Saudi takeover.
I was told that they would do so if I could generate a request from then-U.S. President Donald Trump for Qatar to host WikiLeaks. Otherwise, no.
So, I know what I am talking about.
One tiny but good result of this brokering in Qatar was the release of two American national hostages. British diplomats have told me that discussions in Qatar have held back the Israeli ground offensive, but I am not convinced that Israel wishes to do this yet. They are having sadistic fun shooting children in a barrel.
Qatar has also been the origin of deals allowing a tiny amount of aid into Gaza, but this is so small as to be almost irrelevant. It is performative humanitarianism by the West.
CHINA AND RUSSIA
I have frequently praised China for the fact that its economic dominance has been unaccompanied by any aggressive desire for world hegemony, but this also has its downside. China sees no benefit in assisting the Palestinians in practice.
Hopeful reports of China sending warships refer simply to pre-planned exercises, largely in the Gulf. That China is carrying out such joint exercises with Gulf states is indeed part of a long-term increase of influence but is irrelevant to the immediate reality.
Russia, of course, has its hands full in Ukraine. It is allowing its Syrian bases to be used as a conduit following increased Israeli bombing of Syrian airports, but there is not a great deal more that it can do.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is genuinely furious at what is happening in Gaza but is struggling to find any way to apply pressure, barring linkage to Ukraine shipping issues (which Erdogan is considering).
That is a very rough and ready tour d’horizon, but the net effect is that I see no current hope for averting the atrocity unfolding before our horrified eyes.
Most of our eyes are indeed horrified. The gap between the Western political and media elites and their people on this issue is enormous.
Western leaders have not only failed to restrain Israel; they have almost unanimously egged Netanyahu on, with the continued repetition of the phrase “Israel’s right to self-defense” as justification for the mass bombing, removal and starvation of an entire civilian population.
The Western leadership’s glee in vetoing every attempt at a ceasefire resolution at the U.N. is astonishing.
Massive demonstrations have been taking place across Europe against this unspeakable massacre, and the knee-jerk reaction of politicians at their isolation from public opinion has been to try to make such shows of dissent illegal.
Almost every politician in power in the West is being forced to row back a little from their open pro-genocide position, because public opinion has terrified them. Really fascinating.
In the U.K., people have been arrested for displaying Palestinian flags. In Germany, pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been entirely banned. Something similar has been attempted in France, with predictable failure.
I have attended pro-Palestinian demonstrations in three countries, and the most striking thing on each occasion was the strong support of passers-by and the number of people spontaneously coming out to join the demo as it passed.
A wave of racism has been unleashed in the U.K. and elsewhere. I am astonished by the Islamophobia and racial hatred released online, with no apparent comeback.
U.K. ministers claim to be alarmed at the “terrorist sympathies” of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Yet, it is perfectly legal to call for Palestinians to be exterminated, to compare them to different types of animals and vermin, and to suggest they should be driven into the sea. That does not horrify ministers at all.
It has also become dangerous to suggest that Palestinians, too, have a right to self-defense and may offer armed resistance to genocide — a right they enjoy beyond doubt in international law.
Remember, Israel has formally declared war. Is it the position in British law that the only belief it is legal to hold and express is that in this war, the Palestinians must simply line up quietly to be killed?
The step change in Western authoritarianism is likely to be met by blowback.
After 20 years, we had finally come through the vicious cycle of the “War on Terror,” where terrorism, repression and institutionalized Islamophobia all boosted each other across the Western world.
Outrage at the appalling genocide in Gaza is likely to result in isolated incidences of, also appalling, Islamist-inspired violence in Western countries, including the U.K., mainly because of the U.K.’s military support of Israel.
The political elite will cite that consequential terrorism in itself as justifying their stance. And so the vicious cycle will restart. This will, of course, be welcome to the agents of the security state, whose power, budgets and prestige will be boosted.
Once again, we must be on the lookout for radicalization and real terrorism, but also for agent-provocateur-led terrorism and false flag terrorism.
If we descend back into that nightmare again, the direct cause will be elite support for the genocide of the Palestinian people and the Islamophobic narrative. The primary cause of terrorism here is Israel, the terrorist apartheid state.
MY OWN ‘TERRORISM’ INVESTIGATION
My phone is not being returned to me by police as I am now formally under investigation for terrorism. Whether this relates to support for Palestine or WikiLeaks was not made clear.
💥INDEPENDENT JOURNALISTS
🔴"The treatment of @CraigMurrayOrg – and others – under the TERRORISM ACT concerns us greatly as independent journalists and should concern us all."
What follows is, unspun and unvarnished, my account of my interview under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act as given to my lawyers:
I arrived from Keflavik airport, Iceland, to Glasgow airport at about 10 a.m. on Monday, October 16. After passport control, I was stopped by three police officers, two male and one female, who asked me to accompany them to a detention room.
They seated me in the room and told me:
I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act”
I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.”
I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.”
I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.”
Credit | Craig Murray
They searched my baggage and my coat, going through my documents and taking my phone and laptop. They did not look at one document from Julian Assange’s lawyers that I told them was privileged.
They asked me about boarding cards for Brussels and Dublin they found and what I had been doing there. I replied I was at a debate at Trinity College in Dublin, while in Brussels, I had attended a human rights meeting focused on the case of Julian Assange.
They asked me to identify individuals on visiting cards I had from the Brussels meeting (one was a German member of Parliament).
They asked me the purpose of my visit to Iceland. I told them that I was attending a coordinating meeting of the campaign to free Julian Assange. I said I had also attended a pro-Palestinian rally outside the Icelandic Parliament, but that was not a prior intention.
They asked how I earn my living. I said from two sources: voluntary subscriptions to my blog and my civil-service pension.
They asked what organizations I am a member of. I said the Alba Party. I said I worked with WikiLeaks and the Don’t Extradite Assange campaign but was not formally a “member” of either. I was a life member of the FDA union [for professionals in public service]—no other organizations.
They asked if I received any money from WikiLeaks, Don’t Extradite Assange or the Assange family (separate questions). I replied no, except for occasional Don’t Extradite Assange travel expenses. In December, I had done a tour of Germany and received a fee from the Wau Holland Foundation, a German free speech charity.
They asked what other campaigns I had been involved in. I said many, from the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-Apartheid movement. I had campaigned for Guantanamo inmates alongside Caged Prisoners.
They asked why I had attended the pro-Palestine demo in Iceland. I said one of the speakers had invited me, Ögmundur Jónasson. He was a former Icelandic interior minister. I said I did not know what the speeches said as they were all in Icelandic.
They asked whether I intended to attend any pro-Palestinian rallies in the U.K. I said I had no plans but probably would.
They asked how I judged whether to speak alongside others on the same platform. I replied I depended on organizers I trusted, like the Palestine Solidarity Committee or Stop the War. It was impossible to know who everyone was at a big rally.
They asked if anyone else posted to my Twitter or blog. I replied no, it was all me.
They asked how considered my tweets were. I replied that those that were links to my blog posts were my considered writing. Others were more ephemeral, and like everyone else, I sometimes made mistakes and sometimes apologized. They asked if I deleted tweets, and I said very seldom.
The treatment of @CraigMurrayOrg – and others – under the Terrorism Act concerns us greatly as independent journalists and should concern us all. https://t.co/wgLSpeIaWf
I volunteered that I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of Twitter, [now X]. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defense from genocide.
That was more or less it. The interview was kept to exactly an hour, and at one point, one said to another, “18 minutes left.” They did not tell me why. At one point, they did mention protected journalistic material on my laptop, but I was too dazed to take advantage of this and specify anything.
They took my bank account details and copies of all my bank cards.
This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning, which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.
I have, to date, not been arrested and not charged. Contempt of court is therefore not in play, and you are free to comment on the case (although, in the current atmosphere, any kind of free thought is liable to vicious state action). I am safe and currently in Dublin. I intend to travel to Switzerland to discuss this with the United Nations.
My legal team has already submitted against this outrage to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and is looking at the possibility of judicial review in the U.K. We also have to prepare the defense against possible terrorism charges, ludicrous as that sounds.
I am afraid this all costs money. I am grateful for the unfailing generosity of people in what seems like a continual history of persecution.
While some Russian heavyweights push to recast Israel as a hostile state, the Kremlin is unlikely to budge. Instead, Moscow will stay ‘neutral’ to maximize its West Asian influence, all while edging closer to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Is it possible that the philo-Semitic Russian President Vladimir Putin is slowly but surely re-evaluating his geopolitical assessment of Israel? To call this the key riddle in Moscow’s corridors of power is actually an understatement.
There are no outward signs of such a seismic shift – at least when it comes to the officially “neutral” Russian position on the intractable Israel-Palestine drama.
Except for one stunning statement last Friday at the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Summit in Bishkek, when Putin blasted Israel’s “cruel methods” employed to blockade Gaza, and compared it with “the siege of Leningrad during World War Two.”
“That’s unacceptable,” declared the Russian president, and warned that when all of Gaza’s 2.2 million civilians “have to suffer, including women and children, it’s hard for anyone to agree with this.”
Putin’s comments may have been one hint at the changes underway in the frustratingly opaque Russia-Israel relationship. A close second is this very important article published last Friday on Vzglyad, a security strategy website close to the Kremlin, diplomatically titled “Why Russia remains neutral in the conflict in the Middle East.”
It’s crucial to note that only six months ago and mirroring a near consensus among Russia’s intelligence community, Vzglyad editors were calling for Moscow to shift its considerable political weight toward supporting the number one issue for the Arab and Islamic worlds.
The article noted the key points Putin voiced in Bishkek: there’s no alternative to negotiations; Tel Aviv was subjected to a brutal attack and has the right to defend itself; a real settlement is possible only via an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.
The Russian president favors the UN’s original “two states” solution and believes that a Palestinian state should be established “by peaceful means.” But, as much as the conflict was “a direct result of the failed policy of the United States in the Middle East,” Putin rejects Tel Aviv’s plans to launch a ground operation in Gaza.
This qualified hedging is certainly not evidence of Putin swinging to what is a near consensus among the General Staff, the siloviki in several intel agencies, and his ministry of defense: They consider that Israel may be a de facto enemy of the Russian Federation, allied with Ukraine, the US and NATO.
Follow the money
Tel Aviv has been extremely cautious not to frontally antagonize Russia in Ukraine, and this may be a direct consequence of the notoriously cordial relations between Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet way more consequential than Israel on the geopolitical chessboard are Moscow’s evolving relations with Arab states today, especially OPEC+ partner Saudi Arabia which has helped thwart western efforts to control oil prices.
Also highly central to Russia’s regional policymaking is its strategic partnership with Iran, which has reaped dividends in Syria and the Caucasus, and which helps contain US expansionism. Finally, Moscow’s complex, multi-layered, back-and-forth with Ankara is crucial to Russian economic and geopolitical ambitions in Eurasia.
All three West Asian powers are Muslim-majority states, important affiliations for a multipolar Russia that hosts its own sizable Muslim population.
And for these three regional actors, without distinction, the current collective punishment of Gaza transgresses any possible red line.
Israel is also not that significant anymore in Moscow’s financial considerations. Since the 1990s, immense quantities of Russian funds have been transiting to Israel, but now, a substantial portion is returning right back to Russia.
The notorious case of billionaire Mikhail Friedman illustrates this new reality well. The oligarch quit his home in the UK and moved to Israel a week before the launch of Al-Aqsa Flood – which in turn had him hastily grab his Russian passport and head to Moscow for safety.
Friedman, who leads the Alfa Group with major interests in telecom, banking, retail, and insurance, and is a wealthy survivor of the 1998 financial crisis, is suspected by the Russians of “contributing” as much as $150 million to the enemy regime in Kiev.
The reaction by Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin could not have been sharper – or less concerned about Israel’s sentiments on the matter:
“Anyone who left the country and engaged in reprehensible acts, celebrating gunfire on Russian territory and wishing victory to the Nazi Kiev regime, should realize they are not only unwelcome here, but if they do return, Magadan (a notorious transit port to the gulag in the Stalin era) is waiting for them.”
Russophobia meets collective punishment
As the collective west resorted to a monomaniacal “We are all Israelis now,” the Kremlin’s strategy is to visibly position itself as the mediator of choice in this conflict – not only for the Arab and Muslim worlds but also for the Global South/Global Majority.
That was the purpose of this week’s Russian draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which was predictably shot down by the usual suspects.
Three permanent Security Council members – US, UK and France, plus their neo-colony Japan – voted against it. To the rest of the world, this looked like exactly what it was: irrational western Russophobia and US puppet states validating Israel’s genocidal bombardment of civilian-dense Gaza.
Off the record, intelligence analysts point to how the Russian General Staff, the intel apparatus, and the ministry of defense seem to be organically aligning with global sentiments on Israel’s excessive aggressions.
The problem is that official and public Russian criticism of Netanyahu’s serial, psychotic incitation to violence, alongside his rightwing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, has been non-existent.
Moscow insiders insist that the Kremlin’s official “neutral” position is frontally clashing with its defense and security agencies – especially GRU and SVR – which will never forget that Israel was directly involved in the killing of Russians in Syria.
That view has strengthened since September 2018 when Israel’s Air Force used an Ilyushin-20M electronic reconnaissance plane as cover against Syrian missiles, causing it to be shot down and killing all 15 Russians on board.
This silence in the corridors of power is mirrored by silence in the public sphere. There has been no debate in the Duma about the Russian position on Israel-Palestine. And no debate at the Security Council since early October.
Yet a subtle hint was offered by Patriarch Kirill, the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, who stressed that “peaceful coexistence” has a “religious dimension” and requires “just peace.” This does not exactly align with the announced ethnic cleansing of “human animals” (copyright Israeli Defense Ministry) in Gaza.
Along some corridors close to power, there’s an alarming rumor of an intricate shadow play between Moscow and Washington, wherein the Americans will deal with Israel in exchange for the Russians dealing with Ukraine.
While this would seal the west’s already ongoing process of throwing the sweaty sweatshirt actor in Kiev under the bus, the Kremlin is highly unlikely to trust any American deal, and certainly not one that would marginalize Russian influence in strategic West Asia.
This two-state solution is dead
Russia’s “neutrality” ballet will continue. Moscow is impressing on Tel Aviv the notion that even within the framework of its strategic partnership with Iran, weapons that could threaten Israel – as in, ending up with Hezbollah and Hamas – will not be exported. The quid pro quo of this arrangement would be that Israel also not sell anything Russian-threatening to Kiev either.
But unlike the US and the UK, Russia will not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov has been very forthright on this issue: Moscow keeps its contacts with both sides; its “number one priority” is “the interest of the country’s (Russian) citizens who live both in Palestine and Israel”; and Russia will remain “a party that has the potential to participate in the settlement processes.”
Neutrality, of course, may reach a dead end. Overwhelmingly, for the Arab and Muslim states actively courted by the Kremlin, the dismantlement of Zionist-led settler-colonialism should be the “number one priority.”
This implies that the two-state solution, for all practical purposes, is fully dead and buried. Yet there’s no evidence anyone, not least Moscow, is ready to admit it.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
In 1945, Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi Arabia’s first king, signed an “oil-for-security” agreement with former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, marking the transfer of leadership of the Western project in the Middle East from Britain to the US. Thus, the mission of protecting the Gulf kingdoms, emirates, and sheikhdoms was shifted from British to American control. At that time, the usurping Israeli entity was under construction. It arose under British and then American protection, similar to prior kingdoms, emirates, and sheikhdoms but with a different system and tasks. Even at the peak of Arab opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestine, Abdul Aziz seemed apathetic about it, implying that he effectively sold Palestine at the time.
US Ancient Dominance over the Gulf
Since its inception, the relationship between the West – led by Britain and then the US – and the Gulf and Israel has been a structural one. It was so even before the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, which the Gulf played a crucial role, where Abdul Aziz fought the Ottomans until he ousted them from the Arabian Peninsula.
In fact, the US tracks almost every succession change in the Gulf states, whether from one ruler to another or from one generation to the next. However, this is the missing element in the issue of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al-Saud inheriting the Saudi throne. Therefore, any defense agreement discussed between Saudi Arabia and the US primarily prioritizes protecting Bin Salman from his internal opponents before external ones by adopting his reign and settling any power dispute with American assurance and blessing. Following in the footsteps of Britain, the US favors one group over another within a single family or tribe, ensuring the fulfillment of its schemes and dominance over the reign. Hence, when concerns developed about the probability of any change, it was because the US sought to cut the cost of this protection, or possibly withdraw it entirely in recent years, rather than because the Gulf regimes no longer required it.
East Asia Replaces the Gulf
Strategic analysts in the West, who have early knowledge of what is being planned, have spoken extensively about how the Middle East is no longer a top priority for Washington. This analysis negates the justification for the presence of American forces there, at least in their current massive numbers, and justifies better utilization of these capabilities in East Asia, where China represents an imminent threat due to its economic growth and global expansion, reaching the Middle East, specifically the Gulf, which is now one of the world’s fastest-growing regions.
In a clearer sense, the Chinese threat has shifted to the Middle East, where the US must tackle it. Thus, there is no longer any necessity for American military forces to be transferred to East Asia. Furthermore, the Ukraine war, which is draining and exhausting the West, necessitates staying in areas from which Russia has traditionally been besieged, namely the Middle East, prompting some Russian officials to accuse the US of planning to return to Afghanistan after only two years of fleeing it.
This is the framework in which the US-Saudi-Israeli agreement is usually crafted; the rest is details. Whenever Riyadh, with its new regime, is confident in American security, it no longer matters to Bin Salman whether or not Israel makes so-called “concessions” with the Palestinians. That is, according to the crown prince, Saudi Arabia and even the Saudi regime come first and foremost.
A Defense Treaty to Protect Bin Salman
Also, regardless of the details of the security or military treaty being discussed between the US and Saudi Arabia and regardless of its form, there is one fundamental element that will not be officially included in any treaty. This element is deemed a prior American acknowledgment of Bin Salman’s “legitimacy” to legally succeed his father when the time comes, whether in life or after death, although the Americans were to reject, not embrace.
Hence, it makes no difference whether the treaty is created in the South Korean, Japanese, or Bahraini styles, with some added features, because these are the models that the US accepts and they are the ones that allow Washington to avoid defending another country when it desires, facilitating its passage by the Congress.
As a result, no treaty proposal would bind Washington to the same obligations as NATO member states, especially in light of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which considers assaulting one of its members to be attacking all of its countries. Even if the Saudi Kingdom could become a primary non-Atlantic ally of the US, such as `Israel`, it is doubtful that it could gain the latter’s advantages. This is because the standards of this classification are Israeli, not Atlantic, and the Israeli occupation forces don’t adhere to what Atlantic forces adhere to when it comes to attacks. However, the actual American commitment to Israel’s security is stronger than Washington’s commitment to any other country, whether inside or outside the Atlantic.
Consequently, Saudi normalization with `Israel`, which could be announced at any time, will merge all the US agents in the region, a scenario that has been impossible for the last seven decades due to Arab popular hostility to Israel. Given the Arab world’s state of division and turmoil, the normalization step has now become achievable.
Saudi Popular Stance on Normalization
Evidently, this is what the US is planning. On the other hand, according to those in the region who disagree, what will happen between Saudi Arabia and Israel is the fall of another key Arab regime into the pit of normalization in exchange for the illusion of “American security.”
Just like the Arab people, whose regimes normalized ties with `Israel`, the Saudi people also had their say. They tried to express their rejection of normalization and refusal to give up the rights of the Palestinian people, who clearly will not receive anything under the expected agreements.
Israelis witnessed this rejection as well. According to Ohad Hemo, Channel 12’s correspondent for Arab and Palestinian affairs, who prepared a report from Jeddah on “New Saudi Arabia,” the Saudis are not eager for normalization. This conclusion was based on interviews he conducted with several Saudis without them knowing that Hemo is Israeli.
Despite its danger, the new Saudi turn will not change much in the world or even within the region, neither in terms of readjusting the balance of power in favor of the US, nor in terms of reversing the Saudi relationship with Iran or the path of peace in Yemen, nor in trade relations with China or oil with Russia.
In a nutshell, it is a barter deal in which Bin Salman draws inspiration from his ancestor’s history by normalizing ties with `Israel` and selling Palestine again, believing that it’s the closest way to obtaining the American guarantee and even passing it through all the necessary channels within the US.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 