Photo from AP
Last month, we were among the first to analyze critically Saudi Arabia’s emerging strategy for “counter-revolution” in the Middle East and that strategy’s anti-Iranian focus. Today, in the Washington Post, we received powerful confirmation for our analysis, in the form of an op-ed Nawaf Obaid, a well-connected Saudi national security analyst and adviser.
As we wrote last month (full text, here):
“We return from a recent trip to the region persuaded that the main question engaging people with respect to the “Arab spring” is no longer, “who’s next”, but rather “how far will Saudi Arabia go in pushing a counter-revolutionary agenda” across the Middle East?…
[Saudi Arabia’s national security strategy] is in crisis, first of all, because of Riyadh’s plummeting confidence in the reliability and competence of the United States as a security partner. This dynamic is not, per se, new. The Kingdom grew increasingly disenchanted with various aspects of America’s Middle East policy during the 1990s—disenchantment intensified by the various traumas that fallout from the 9/11 attacks inflicted on U.S.-Saudi relations. (The militancy associated with the religious ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia over decades has generated a number of significant security problems for the United States.)
But the Saudi leadership—including, it would seem, King Abdullah himself—is both enormously angry and deeply unsettled by what it sees as Washington’s abandonment of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is a critically important state for the Saudi—and it has not always been a friendly one. Mubarak’s predecessors, Nasr and Sadat, both challenged Saudi Arabia, in diametrically different but powerful ways. And now that Egyptian political order, the orientation of which is so strategically consequential for Saudi Arabia, is again up for grabs. So, while Western assessments have tended to criticize President Obama and his Administration for being too slow in supporting “forces of change” in Egypt, from a Saudi perspective the Obama Administration dropped Mubarak much too quickly, squandering opportunities to support him in pushing back against those demanding his removal.
On the regional front, the Saudis are discombobulated by what they see as a rising tide of Iranian influence across the Middle East. The Islamic Republic’s allies have been winning, politically, in key venues—Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine. Historically, the Saudis have never been big fans of pan-Arabism. But, in recent years, senior Saudi princes have, with increasing frequency, denounced what they have come portentously to call Iranian “interference” in “Arab affairs”. Now, with the Arab spring, the Saudis are alarmed that the influence of the Islamic Republic and political forces friendly to it will rise even more dramatically. The Saudis are even more alarmed about the potential geopolitical consequences of these developments—e.g., the high likelihood that post-Mubarak Egypt will enjoy improved relations with the Islamic Republic.
So, as the Saudi state sees itself increasingly “encircled” by multiple and expanding threats, Saudi leaders are doubling down on the fundamentals of their traditional national security strategy—military force to ensure its dominance on the Arabian peninsula, the use of religious ideology to raise sectarian concern about rising Shi’a influence, and putting enormous financial resources on the table (e.g., $30 billion for Bahrain) to further its goals…”
Nawaf’s piece in the Washington Post effectively and authoritatively confirms every sentence in our analysis. As a window into current Saudi thinking, every word of Nawaf’s article from the Washington Post, see full text here and highlighted below, is worth reading:
“A tectonic shift has occurred in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Despite significant pressure from the Obama administration to remain on the sidelines, Saudi leaders sent troops into Manama in March to defend Bahrain’s monarchy and quell the unrest that has shaken that country since February. For more than 60 years, Saudi Arabia has been bound by an unwritten bargain: oil for security. Riyadh has often protested but ultimately acquiesced to what it saw as misguided U.S. policies. But American missteps in the region since Sept. 11, an ill-conceived response to the Arab protest movements and an unconscionable refusal to hold Israel accountable for its illegal settlement building have brought this arrangement to an end. As the Saudis recalibrate the partnership, Riyadh intends to pursue a much more assertive foreign policy, at times conflicting with American interests.
The backdrop for this change are the rise of Iranian meddling in the region and the counterproductive policies that the United States has pursued here since Sept. 11. The most significant blunder may have been the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in enormous loss of life and provided Iran an opening to expand its sphere of influence. For years, Iran’s leadership has aimed to foment discord while furthering its geopolitical ambitions. Tehran has long funded Hamas and Hezbollah; recently, its scope of attempted interference has broadened to include the affairs of Arab states from Yemen to Morocco. This month the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Gen. Hasan Firouzabadi, harshly criticized Riyadh over its intervention in Bahrain, claiming this act would spark massive domestic uprisings.
Such remarks are based more on wishful thinking than fact, but Iran’s efforts to destabilize its neighbors are tireless. As Riyadh fights a cold war with Tehran, Washington has shown itself in recent months to be an unwilling and unreliable partner against this threat. The emerging political reality is a Saudi-led Arab world facing off against the aggression of Iran and its non-state proxies.
Saudi Arabia will not allow the political unrest in the region to destabilize the Arab monarchies — the Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco. In Yemen, the Saudis are insisting on an orderly transition of power and a dignified exit for President Ali Abdullah Saleh (a courtesy that was not extended to Hosni Mubarak, despite the former Egyptian president’s many years as a strong U.S. ally). To facilitate this handover, Riyadh is leading a diplomatic effort under the auspices of the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council. In Iraq, the Saudi government will continue to pursue a hard-line stance against the Maliki government, which it regards as little more than an Iranian puppet. In Lebanon, Saudi Arabia will act to check the growth of Hezbollah and to ensure that this Iranian proxy does not dominate the country’s political life. Regarding the widespread upheaval in Syria, the Saudis will work to ensure that any potential transition to a post-Assad era is as peaceful and as free of Iranian meddling as possible.
Regarding Israel, Riyadh is adamant that a just settlement, based on King Abdullah’s proposed peace plan, be implemented. This includes a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. The United States has lost all credibility on this issue; after casting the sole vote in the U.N. Security Council against censuring Israel for its illegal settlement building, it can no longer act as an objective mediator. This act was a watershed in U.S.-Saudi relations, guaranteeing that Saudi leaders will not push for further compromise from the Palestinians, despite American pressure.
Saudi Arabia remains strong and stable, lending muscle to its invigorated foreign policy. Spiritually, the kingdom plays a unique role for the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims — more than 1 billion of whom are Sunni — as the birthplace of Islam and home of the two holiest cities. Politically, its leaders enjoy broad domestic support, and a growing nationalism has knitted the historically tribal country more closely together. This is largely why widespread protests, much anticipated by Western media in March, never materialized. As the world’s sole energy superpower and the de facto central banker of the global energy markets, Riyadh is the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, representing 25 percent of the combined gross domestic product of the Arab world. The kingdom has amassed more than $550 billion in foreign reserves and is spending more than $150 billion to improve infrastructure, public education, social services and health care.
To counter the threats posed by Iran and transnational terrorist networks, the Saudi leadership is authorizing more than $100 billion of additional military spending to modernize ground forces, upgrade naval capabilities and more. The kingdom is doubling its number of high-quality combat aircraft and adding 60,000 security personnel to the Interior Ministry forces. Plans are underway to create a “Special Forces Command,” based on the U.S. model, to unify the kingdom’s various special forces if needed for rapid deployment abroad.
Saudi Arabia has the will and the means to meet its expanded global responsibilities. In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong U.S. partner. In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. With Iran working tirelessly to dominate the region, the Muslim Brotherhood rising in Egypt and unrest on nearly every border, there is simply too much at stake for the kingdom to rely on a security policy written in Washington, which has backfired more often than not and spread instability. The special relationship may never be the same, but from this transformation a more stable and secure Middle East can be born.”
We will leave it to others to comment on the wisdom of Saudi Arabia’s strategy, as Nawaf has outlined it. As Americans, we want to underscore how the deterioration of the U.S.-Saudi relationship over the last few years is one of the most dangerous consequences of the strategic malpractice committed by the George W. Bush administration and then—against many people’s expectations and hopes—perpetuated and made even worse by the Obama Administration. President Obama personally returned several individuals who contributed enormously to the egregious mishandling of Middle East policy, including the U.S.-Saudi relationship, during the Clinton Administration to positions of even greater influence on these issues in his Administration. The results have been devastating for strategic stability in the Middle East and for U.S. interests in the region.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Custodians of the holy cities…. drunkard buffoons!!!
Based on Sura Maeda verse 51 and 57 things are very clear.
Sakineh,
Good point: what exactly was “botched” about the 2009 Iranian presidential election? Maybe Lynch means that the vote counting was compromised to some degree, though surely he does not argue that Ahmadinejad was not the winner.
Dang submit button. Rather — says
Well, better not skim. He say at one point: “Iran’s botched 2009 elections are the single greatest reason for its declining appeal to the Arab public”
I just skimmed this rather lengthy report by Marc Lynch in FP. He appears to get it mostly right and tries to stay away from the inflammatory language such as “stolen” elections, but with a view that we (US) own the world. I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions.
Read more here: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/19/upheaval_us_policy_towards_iran_in_a_changing_world
Saudi Arabia offers the usual reeking hypocrisy, which – like US hypocrisy – meddles endlessly in world affairs, while decrying the (mostly fictional) “meddling” of others.
Another week, another ‘ally’ says bye bye …
Pakistan and China are expected to sign an agreement today (Thursday) for the provision of 50 JF-17 thunder aircraft to Pakistan on emergency basis
from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20115\19\story_19-5-2011_pg7_28
Russia has expelled Israel’s military attaché to Moscow over alleged espionage charges, saying he has passed sensitive information to Tel Aviv.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180613.html
Anne,
Yes, that seems all-too-likely. Grovelling before Aipac is an essential proceeding for any American hoping to get into the White House, or to stay there. Sadly.
Jerry,
People all round the world should be concerned at the degree of control Aipac and its allies have achieved over US foreign policy.
obama have put his date for a important speech about the middle east 1 day before netanyahu arrives, it is obvious that this speech will be israeli-friendly and worked out with the israelis. also this weekened there will be a big aipac meeting in washington. Every speech will push the same topics.
US politics have been hijacked, do something americans!
A minor oversight, Bent, surely.
Nawaf says:
“Saudi Arabia remains strong and stable, lending muscle to its invigorated foreign policy. Spiritually, the kingdom plays a unique role for the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims — more than 1 billion of whom are Sunni — as the birthplace of Islam and home of the two holiest cities.”
He forgot to add that it is run by a clique of geriatric pedophiles and terrorist financing drunken misogynists.
James Canning:
Exactly this is how the whole thin will evolve.
nuttyahoo: “Iran is a threat and must be dealt with by the world community, more sanctions, this regime is nuts bla bla bla”
“israel wants peace but palestinians dont, palestinians are proxies of Syria and Iran bla bla, Hamas refuse to recognize israel bla bla”
zionist crowd= cheer, applaude
result= more economic aid, more sanctions on Iran.
…
so pathetic but true…
Iran FM: Bushehr plant operational
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180509.html
fyi,
Thanks. The jailing of debtors is also a problem in Dubai and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. In the US, filing for bankruptcy by a lawyer meant cancellation of his license to practice his profession, not so many years ago.
BiBiJon,
Ahmadinejad has made enough comments on the record to make clear he is very well aware of enormous crimes committed in Europe during the Second World War, and to me it seems to sum up the situation to say the Iranian president likes to stir things up.
James Canning says: May 18, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Yes, Islamic Banking is another fantasy project, this time of Muslims.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has tried to put more oil-money in the hands of Iranian private sector with mixed results.
A major problem is the absence of (private or public) commercial banks with risk analysis capbaility and appetite for risk.
Another impediment is the Iranian Bankruptcy law that puts debtors in jail.
This is one area that Iranians could, in my opinion, benefit from studying the 200-year old US Bankruptcy code.
Anne,
I too expect Netanyahu to rant about the Palestinians, especially Hamas. And hundreds of stooges of the ISRAEL LOBBY in the US Congress will cheer.
fyi,
The Financial Times had an interesting special section recently on the problems of Islamic banking and finance, that arise due to religious factors bearing on the nature of the instruments with which the banks can deal. Very complicated, to say the least.
Iranian state tv just announced Ahmadinejad will be attending the OPEC meeting in place of the Oil minister who he fired last week (in teh ongoing “merging” of teh ministries saga). It should be interesting as he will not only be attending but chairing the meeting, as the OPEC presidency is currently in Iran’s hands.
Fyi: Re-read my post. They cannot do that because they (the corrupt leaders) are US-friendly, US doesnt want development and there can be no development with those people in charge, thats is the dictators.
I think that if the situation in Bahrain becomes more stable, the previous Saudi effort to improve relations with Iran will have a better chance of being revived.
Castellio says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
UU… the “hall of mirrors” is, I propose, a limit in your own mind, rather than a necessary limit in society. Competing subjectivities are weighed within the course of history. There is no moment when the weighing is “over”.
*
Aha! An interesting critique adn challange. But I wonder if we can have a fruitful discussion of teh subject at hand on such a forum. It seems to me that there are so many diverse presuppositions (some of which we share and some that we do not) that it will be difficult to communicate properly without going over those adn establishing the common grounds.
But I guess we can try. My position is that the ambit or jurisdiction or efficacy if you will of reason and dialectical (Arestotalian/ sylogistic) logic (either/ or) is not sufficiently broad to be able to cover all of the needs not just of man as individual, but the family of man, including the various social and religious formations therein. For order to obtain, for man and society to be in sync with Nature or Reality, another episteme altogether is required, and another faculty of gnosis or knowledge, and that is Revelation.
Now, with the “death of God” and all that, this necessary compass has been lost to “post-Christian” man. So I don’t agree with what I interpret your presupposition to be, namely that by the death of God or objectivity, we are left with a subjective world in which we can come to accords with which to run society.
My critique is (1) that God is only dead in the minds of moderns such as yourself (?), (2) that this formation is itself a synthetic religious phyle of (spiritually) degenerate thetes (aestheticism being the refuge of all non-foundational ethical systems), (3) that competing subjectivities have their place, but only within the context of a society that shares sufficinet inter-subjective common ground, and that (4) the nature of reality is pluralistic, so that each inter-subjective formation (religion) has its own ontic objectivity.
Fiorangela says:
May 18, 2011 at 8:52 am
“Iran took a courageous step in putting its citizens in harm’s way in the effort to allow truth to emerge. that so many israeli & American jewish organizations reacted to the conference so viscerally and viciously is an indictment of their position, not of Iran’s. Someone who is not afraid of the truth would welcome exploration of it.”
I agree with you completely, and I am sure that I speak for the whole forum when I say we appreciate your pushing the envelope (and thereby widening the horizons of our vision. Merci, as we Iranians say ;o)
Castellio says: May 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Correct, no strategic vision for the economy and its centrality to Iranian security.
Iran must have the ability to rent Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Armenia, and Syria.
The current economic arrangements in Iran does not support that type of policy.
FYI…
A productive use of resources is important, but the highest rate of return can also be accomplished through force and theft. Those robbers and thieves who offer the highest rate of return as an “efficiency” are often simply disguising their own crimes. See actions of Goldman Saks as an example.
The society must choose its values, then attempt to be efficient within those values. Iran seems to be doing that.
Anne says: May 18, 2011 at 11:57 am
And whose fault it is that they do not have that economic power but their own?
One would hope that Iranian leaders will someday understand that their pesudo-socilaistic distributive economic policies are a mjor security threat to the Iranian state and change course.
Look at the last 20 years where the state invested (infused cash) in unproductive factories that at best returned 3% while the global rate of return on capital was 8% or higher.
If they took that money and parked in India, they would have quadrupled their money in 15 years.
Or take a look at the 40 or so airports in the provinces not a single one of which is profitable.
UU… the “hall of mirrors” is, I propose, a limit in your own mind, rather than a necessary limit in society. Competing subjectivities are weighed within the course of history. There is no moment when the weighing is “over”.
Red Alert: Iran to build rocket bases in Venezuela
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/red-alert-iran-to-build-rocket-bases-in-venezuela/
Fyi: They cannot do that becuase they dont have any economic power and also because the major arab states are loyal to US interest.
Anne I bet fyi will bet on it :))
Anne says: May 18, 2011 at 11:30 am
Americans are renting Jordan for the sake of Israel.
Why doesn’t the Islamic Republic of Iran take out her cheque book and rent the Kingdom of Jordan instead?
Why don’t Muslim states that are members of OIC create an institution such as the World Bank or IMF to help other Muslim states?
I tell you why: incompetence, lack of strategic vision, and absence of education to ven know what they clearly do not know.
Isnt this pathetic
“Obama Increasing Aid to Jordan, Other Muslim States ”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132131
There is widespread uprising the the mideast and obama (because of the zionist lobby) give huge aid to the dictators people want to get rid off. All made to save the zionist regime.
Also on friday nuttyahoo will speak in front of congress, what will he say? The obvious pouplistic, racist demagogue’ic rant namely:
“Iran is a threat, US must intervene in Iran”
“israel is pro-peace, but the palestinians are terrorists and doesnt want peace”
Any one wanna bet?
Fiorangela says: May 18, 2011 at 8:52 am
Up until middle of 1930s at least, in rural parts of England, you would find people whose bond was their word, who had work ethic, and paid their debts, were honest, and their houeses were not locked.
Many of the same type of people emigrated from England to US and their character had a decisive influence on the way life and business were conducted in the United States; mostly trust-based.
Up until late 1970s, in US Public Libraries, you could find accessible the technical specifications of the Bell System; that is how the hacker culture started; abusing public trust in the United States. [A few years later, all that technical material was removed from public libraries in order to prevent hack attacks.]
Up until late 1970s or early 80s you could walk into the airplane cabin with your passenger and set her up and no one there would give it a second thought.
That culture of Mutual Trust in the United States was abused by many people; by recent immigrants who thought Americans were fools to Jewish anc Christian Partisans of Israel who took advantage of US’s trust culture to push the interests of an alien people and a foreign state.
The last group of people who abused the Trust Culture of US and almost destroyed it were the perpetrators of the 9/11/2001 attack on the United States.
Damn them all to hell.
Obama’s mideast speech has been leaked!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160736/middle-east-speech-obama-ought-give
Fyi: Well why dont link to AIP*C too then while you are on it.
Arnold Evans says:
May 17, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I regret very much if if I’ve caused any hurt. To put matters in context, I have a lot of time for you (and Eric) who routinely come up with thought provoking comments. I would say the same about a great many other regulars on this thread, however, this one is just for you (and Eric).
I recommend folks should re-read your comment (link below), which I found to be the most probing analysis of the core meaning of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust thrust I have come across.
http://www.raceforiran.com/what-might-martin-luther-king-say-about-u-s-policy-in-the-middle-east-today#comment-34221
I don;t want to justify my use of “private/public”, or “patronizing” adjectives as it would detract from my saying whoops, sorry at the beginning. By way of explanation, however, many posters came up with contextual aspects of this whole AN saga which at the time I felt you and Eric did not adequately address in your conclusions/synthesis.
In particular, I found your allusion to a “cultural/religious gap” unworthy of your proven capacity to delve into depths out of reach of most.
I’ll conclude with this thought. Many tried to bridge the “gap” Samuel Huntington had identified and labeled clash of civilizations. Some denied civilization has a central role in people’s sense of identity. Others objected to “clash” and strived to replace it with “dialogue”.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has welcomed the “gap” as an ideal field to stage a battle, and rolled up his sleeves to participate in the “clash”, rather than shirk from it.
Once again though, sorry to have caused umbrage.
would discussion of the holocaust be open to the extent is is today were it not for the conference in Tehran? The Tehran conference was not Ahmadinejad’s private tea party, it was a state sponsored event. Further, recall that in his November 2010 interview with Charlie Rose, Mohammed Larijani endorsed Ahmadinejad’s position on holocaust.
Iran took a courageous step in putting its citizens in harm’s way in the effort to allow truth to emerge. that so many israeli & American jewish organizations reacted to the conference so viscerally and viciously is an indictment of their position, not of Iran’s. Someone who is not afraid of the truth would welcome exploration of it.
If we really mean “Never Again” when we say Never Again, then it is absolutely essential that we understand what caused the first event to occur. The fact that Americans and Israelis are enacting holocausts on the people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, suggests to me that we have NOT understood that lesson of history.
with gratitude to Unknown Unknowns for expressing sensitivity to Prof. Hillary Mann Leverett and respect for her Jewish identity and heritage. I acknowledge that I push the envelope on Jewish-American interactions, and I’m grateful to persons on this forum who subtly and not so subtly maintain boundaries.
Jerry says: May 18, 2011 at 7:48 am
I have read that assessment and I did not find anything wrong with it.
fyi: middle east forum is a right-wing zionist organisation, you sure you want to give them free pr here?
All:
On various Koranic translations into English
http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran
Bussed-in Basiji says: May 18, 2011 at 7:14 am
I avoided the war just like some many members of the Muslim Student Society (Persian-Speaking Group) abroad.
I did, on my own, gathered books and sent them to Tehran University Library; that was when US Mail had such a thing called “Sack Mail”.
Several hundred books is all I could.
I tried to get the Muslim Student Society (Persian Speaking Group) to do likewise; but they never seemed to be enthused about that idea.
M.Ali says: May 18, 2011 at 2:36 am
And Isrsel imports pistachio nuts and washing machines, until at least a few months ago. Before Americans realized that Israel has not sanctioned Iran and forced her to do so.
fyi,
One single chador-wearing basiji sister is more of a “real man” than many of us “real men” put together…
You know I forgot to ask you, if you are Iranian as some have said on this forum, what were you doing during the war? I mean how exactly did you contribute to the defense of our homeland…you know, as a “real man”?
You know they are corrupt when they blame Iran for everything going on in the region, so pathetic.
*We know who intervened in Bahrain to crush peaceful demonstrators. And it was not Iran. It was Saudiarabia, UAE, Qatar.
*We know who intervened in Libya and it was not Iran. It was saudi-allies, France, US, UK/NATO.
*We know who refused to urge Mubarak to step down, it was on behalf of of saudi – the united states.
*We know who refuse to sanction Bahrain, Saudiarabia, Yemen, and its not Iran, its united states on behalf of the same gulf council (saudiarabia).
*We know who instigate the riots in Syria, and its not Iran. Its saudimoney and US-NED-fundings.
*We know who destabilize the region, and its not Iran.
Its 1. israeli warmongering, occupation, annexation and the refusal to recognize palestinians and their right to their pre-1967-borders-state. Its 2. Saudiarabia, that crack down on protesters in Bahrain, and their own protesters inside saudiarabia. Its the warmongering, deception against Iran. Its the arms-race (remember saudiarabia made the biggest weapon-deal ever with the US last year).
Also funny that US and the west support Saudiarabia, a nation where the money to sunni-terrorists flow like no tommorow and goes to same people US are fighting in Iraq and Pakistan, but doesnt dare to probe it, they rather live in denial. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml
“”US Army prosecutors have charged a sixth soldier with direct involvement in what has been described as the SPORT KILLING of three Afghan civilians”"
http://www.presstv.com/detail/180483.html
One commentator writes the following regarding this article :
“No sympathy for West!
5/18/2011 6:37:16 AM ..All I want to read now is some pathetic “Christian” US-rapist-military say “don’t hate us if we rape and kill you”. The western rapists/thieves/murderers would go on: “Understand, we are poor and have to have fun and you have to accept it, OK?”. At the same time the savage westerners would cheer and chitter like baboons if innocents in say Iran, or Japan for that matter, would die because of an earthquake. Sympathy is only due to the victims of West’s innumerable crimes.
A friend just asked me about a “good translation” of the Koran, and this is how I responded. I thought I’d share it with my favorite forum:
I’ve been meaning to get around to publishing this reader that I put together for precisely the reason that there is no good book that I am aware of that treats teh subject with the seriousness and respect that it deserves. I should have most if not all of the books included in the reader here in Tehran (or Karaj), if you would like to borrow or browse them.
[The reader's Table of Contents was attached as a Word file, which I reproduce here with its formatting limitations:]
Islam – An Introductory Reader
Book 1 – Background: Text and Context
Martin Lings – Muhammad – His Life Based on the Earliest Sources
1 The House of God
2 A Great Loss
Yusuf Ali, translator – The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary
3 Excerpts from the Introduction
Muhammad ‘Ataur-Rahim – Jesus, A Prophet of Islam
4 The Unitarian View and Christianity
5 An Historical Account of Jesus
6 The Gospel of Barnabas
7 The Shepherd of Hermas
8 Barnabas and the Early Christians
Maurice Bucaille – The Bible, the Qur’an & Science
9 The Old Testament
1 General Outlines
2 The Books of the Old Testament
3 The Old Testament and Science: Findings
4 The Position of Christian Authors with Regard to Scientific Error in the Biblical Texts
5 Conclusions
10 The Gospels
1 Judaeo-Christianity and Saint Paul
2 The Four Gospels: Sources and History
1 The Gospel According to Matthew
2 The Gospel According to Mark
3 The Gospel According to Luke
4 The Gospel According to John
3 The Gospels and Modern Science
4 Contradictions & Improbabilities in the Descriptions of the Passion
5 Conclusions
Muhammad ‘Ataur-Rahim – Jesus, A Prophet of Islam
11 Early Unitarians in Christianity
Ulfat Aziz us-Samad – A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam
12 Varous Excerpts
Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi – Hadith Literature: Its Origin and Development
13 The Event of the Hadith
14 The Companions
15 After the Companions
16 Categories of Hadith Collections
Book 2 – Islamic History
Reza Aslan – No god but God
1 The Sanctuary in the Desert
Pre-Islamic Arabia
2 The Keeper of the Keys
Muhammad in Mecca
3 The City of the Prophet
The First Muslims
4 Fight in the Way of God
The Meaning of Jihad
5 The Rightly-Guided Ones
The Successors to Muhammad
Moojan Momen – Shi’i Islam
6 An Outline of the Life of Muhammad and the Early Hostory of Islam
7 The Question of the Succession to Muhammad
Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri – The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam
8 Conceptual Foundations
9 Saqifa: The First Manifestatons
10 Ali and the First Two Caliphs
Wilferd Madelung – The Successon to Muhammad
11 Introduction
12 Abu Bakr: the Successor to the Messenger of God and the Caliphate of Quraysh
13 Conclusion: Restoration of the Community and Despotic Kingship
14 Excursus 1: The Burial of Muhammad
15 Excursus 2: The Inheritance of Muhammad
16 Unknown Unknowns – The Saqifa: Prelude & Aftermath
Book 3 – Islamic Belief and Thought
Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick – The Vision of Islam
1 The Five Pillars
2 The Historical Embodiment of Islam
3 Tawhid
4 Angels
5 The Measuring Out
6 Prophecy
7 The Message of the Prophets
8 Stages of Life and Death
9 The Unfolding of the Soul
10 The Koranic Roots of Ihsan
Seyyed Hossein Nasr – Ideals and Realities of Islam
11 Islam, the last religion and the primordial religion – its universal and particular traits
12 The Quran – the Word of God, the Source of knowledge and action
13 The Prophet and prophetic Tradition – the last prophet aned universal man
14 The Shari’ah – Divine Lwa, social and human norm
15 The Tariqah, the spiritual path and its Quranic roots
Afterword: Marshall G. S. Hodgeson – The Venture of Islam
The Impact of the Great Western Transmutation: The Generation of 1789
*
As far as good translations of the Koran, I think it depends on what values you are looking for in a translation. i personally like those of Sales, Yusuf Ali and Arberry. The important thing to remember about teh Koran is that IT IS NOT A BOOK! It is a collection of REVELATIONS that occured in time during a period of 23 years, each of which (revelations) served a specific purpose in the development of the nascient Moslem community. thus, the CONTEXT (sorry to keep raising my voice!) is as important as teh text, and one cannot understand the contect without reading several different interpretations (tafasir). Mir Ahmad Ali’s translation is truly horrible, I mean abysmal, but his running (Shi’a) commentary is essential to counter the weight of the mu’tazilite, ‘Ash’ari, Maturidi, Zaheri, sunni, sufi adn worst of all salafi-modernist tafasirs. An acceptable modernist translation with running interpretation can be found in Muhammad Asad’s (,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad) The Message of the Quran. That said, a good source for translations is: ,http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
And as if that was not complicated enough, one has to read both Sunni and Shi’a books of ahadith, together with their respective commentaries before one can BEGIN to understand the meaning and significance of a SINGLE ayah.
In short, therefore, I would strongly recommend against anyone who wants to get an understanding of Islam THROUGH A LINEAR, COGNITIVE PROCESS to do so by reading the Koran. (Start with my Reader instead.) Now I hasten to add that this is not to say that one cannot get an understanding of Islam through a non-cognitive process by reading it (through some sort of emotional/ psychic/ spiritual osmosis, for which the Koran is specifically designed (and which constitutes its miraculousness). But for this process, in this day and age, I would recommend listening to a recitation by a classic qari such as Abdul Basit, or by a stelar new talent such as Abu Bakr ash-Shatri. Here is one of his most divine recitals: ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ivk7NoXxUA
When you work in Iran (specially, as I do, in a logistics company), you see interesting economic on-the-ground things all around. It is the Iranian habit to be always act gloomy about business (I think its because no one wants to “chesh bekhoreh” (receive the evil eye)) so Iranian diasporas who talk to their uncles and aunties in Iran get the wrong idea. I’m only bringing this up, because we’ve just sent 700kgs of laundry detergant from a prominent detergant company to Spain. This is one tiny example from one company at one time, but it shows that if Spain sees a need to import detergant from Iran, goes to show that Iran has become a manufacturing company in fields which have nothing to do with its traditional industries.
Rehmat:
Indeed! I did not know that about Hanna Ardent, the person credited with coining the word Totalitarianism. I reproduce from your excellent article the money quote from Ardent’s book, Eichman in Jerusalem. The truth is that the Zionists and the Nazis (two equally vicious ideological formations) cooperated with each other in bringing about their mutual goal, which was the evacuation of Jews from the bowels and ghettos of Europe. Becuase this BM (Bantustani Migration) was too slow for the liking of the Nazis (and the Ziionists, of course, who obtain not get British cooperation on the issue), the Jews, who had declared war on Germany and as such were verboten, were interned in slave labor camps.
http://www.debatingtheholocaust.com/
See also: onethirdoftheholocaust.com, a well researched documentary on the “Transfer Camps”
I want to apologize in advance for any offense or anguish this post might cause to Hillary Mann and all the other Jews (such as Rabbi Yisroel Weiss’s group in Brooklyn, NY) who see through the lies and recognize Zionism for the disaster it is. The reason I (and I cannot speak for our esteemed President, Dr. Ahmadinejad) bring up this emotionally charged issue in a forum hosted by our esteemed Jewess Hilary [Jeez, why is it that you can't even say Jewess anymore without feeling some negative vibe???], si that I believe the two lies to be intimately connected, and that undermining one will undermine the other and vice versa (as they “undergird” one another, to use a BiBiJon word which I too am fond of.
Ardent:
“Of greater importance for Eichmann were the emissaries from Palestine, who would approach the Gestapo and the S.S. on their own initiative, without taking orders from either the German Zionists or the Jewish Agency for Palestine. They came in order to enlist help for the illegal immigration of Jews into British-ruled Palestine, and both the Gestapo and the S.S. were helpful. They negotiated with Eichmann in Vienna, and they reported that he was ‘polite,’ ‘not the shouting type,’ and that he even provided them with farms and facilities for setting up vocational training camps for prospective immigrants. (‘On one occasion, he expelled a group of nuns from a convent to provide a training farm for young Jews,’ and on another ‘a special train was made available and Nazi officials accompanied’ a group of emigrants, ostensibly headed for Zionist training farms in Yugoslavia, to see them safely across the border. According to the story told by Jon and David Kimche, with ‘the full and generous cooperation of all the chief actors’ (The Secret Roads: The ‘Illegal’ Migration of a People, 1938-1948, London, 1954), these Jews from Palestine spoke a language not totally different from that of Eichmann. They had been sent to Europe by the communal settlements in Palestine, and they were not interested in rescue operations: ‘That was not their job.’ They wanted to select ‘suitable material,’ and their chief enemy, prior to the extermination program, was not those who made life impossible for Jews in the old countries, Germany or Austria, but those who barred access to the new homeland; that enemy was definitely Britain, not Germany. Indeed, they were in a position to deal with the Nazi authorities on a footing amounting to equality, which native Jews were not, since they enjoyed the protection of the mandatory power; they were probably among the first Jews to talk openly about mutual interests and were certainly the first to be given permission ‘to pick young Jewish pioneers’ from among the Jews in the concentration camps. Of course, they were unaware of the sinister implications of this deal, which still lay in the future; but they too somehow believed that if it was a question of selecting Jews for survival, the Jews should do the selecting themselves. It was this fundamental error in judgment that eventually led to a situation in which the non-selected majority of Jews inevitably found themselves confronted with two enemies—the Nazi authorities and the Jewish authorities. As far as the Viennese episode is concerned, Eichmann’s preposterous claim to have saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, which was laughed out of court, finds strange support in the considered judgment of the Jewish historians, the Kimches: ‘Thus what must have been one of the most paradoxical episodes of the entire period of the Nazi regime began: the man who was to go down in history as one of the arch-murderers of the Jewish people entered the lists as an active worker in the rescue of Jews from Europe.’”
FYI… thanks.
Unknown Unknowns – PITY, Hannah Arendt (1906-75), a committed Zionist-Jewish journalist and author is not alive any more otherwise she could how the Jewish elite themselves created the Holocaust.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/hannah-arendt-and-eichmanns-show-trail/
Arnold:
I did not then and do not now think of your comments on the HollowCo$t or any other issue to be patronising. As a matter of fact, if I were there where you are, I would give you a nice 5, no, make that 10-minute shoulder rub :o)
By the way, if anyone comes across a bust of Herr Fuhrer made by the hands of the good volks in the work camps (for a little extra cash on teh side to pay for a visit to the Auschwitz brothel), please let me know. I’d like to display it in my mother’s art gallery for a couple mumfs.
Obama holds secret talks with Taliban
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/obama-holds-secret-talks-with-taliban/
Arnold,
Didn’t a Republican take Obama’s former seat in the US Senate, thanks to the Israel lobby? Kirk won a close race, thanks in part to $115,000 given him by the Israel lobby. This helps explain why Obama is unable to act in the best interests of the American people, regarding the ME.
One more: The people of every Arab country polled believe their government cooperates too much with the United States:
Government Cooperation With the U.S.
Too much – Not enough – About the right amount – Don’t know
% % % %
Jordan 57 16 22 6
Lebanon 54 18 25 3
Pakistan 54 13 10 23
Egypt 39 24 31 6
Turkey 26 26 32 15
Indonesia 19 18 54 9
Another poll is available
http://pewglobal.org/files/2011/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Arab-Spring-FINAL-May-17-2011.pdf
While Obama has unfavorable personal ratings in every measured country except Indonesia, the unfavorability of his policies are even more striking.
[Do you approve or disapprove of]
Obama’s Handling of…
1) Calls for political change in Middle East
Approve Disapp
% %
Turkey 8 65
Egypt 45 52
Jordan 31 65
Lebanon 41 52
Palest. ter. 33 63
Indonesia 30 49
Pakistan 5 40
2) Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Approve Disapp
% %
Turkey 6 68
Egypt 15 82
Jordan 17 82
Lebanon 12 85
Palest. ter. 13 84
Indonesia 26 57
Pakistan 6 45
3) Afghanistan
Approve Disapp
% %
Turkey 5 70
Egypt 18 76
Jordan 12 87
Lebanon 23 71
Palest. ter. 15 81
Indonesia 28 56
Pakistan 9 52
4) Iran
Approve Disapp
% %
Turkey 5 68
Egypt 27 68
Jordan 21 77
Lebanon 40 55
Palest. ter. 16 80
Indonesia 23 56
Pakistan 10 50
These results are why the United States supports colonial stooge dictatorships over the Middle East in Egypt (hopefully ending), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others and why Israel as a politically majority Jewish state may not be viable if the US was to stop.
On the subject of “Saudi” Arabia “leading” the “Arab World” against Iran, every single Arab country polled, usually by large or even overwhelming majorities do not approve of Barack Obama’s policies regarding Iran.
A person connected to the foreign policy apparatus of an independent Republic of Arabia would have written a vastly different op-ed than what we got from Nawaf Obaid.
Actually the conversation about Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust spanned multiple threads around mid-January before news of the Egyptian protests. Some of it is here:
http://www.raceforiran.com/what-might-martin-luther-king-say-about-u-s-policy-in-the-middle-east-today#comment-34221
I don’t think a fair reader would find my comments from the time patronizing. None of the participants except UU whose comment I somehow missed back then made any statement to that effect.
BiBiJon says:
May 17, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I’m glad you brought the link. If anyone is interested, I wrote hundreds and hundreds of words on the subject of Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust that are available at that link.
I think the statement you quote is correct on its face and that it is explained in much more detail in the original. I’m not exactly sure what you take issue with and why you take issue now rather than then but I’m comfortable letting my earlier words stand for themselves.
Bring down,
It seems unlikely that Turkey will not continue its effort to quadruple Turkish-Iranian trade. I wouldn’t worry too much about a “Sunni” alliance against Iran, unless Iran does something really stupid.
BiBiJon says: May 17, 2011 at 2:51 pm
You are correct about the motivation behind Dr. Ahmadinejad’s comments on Shoah; the semni-religion of the Axis Powers.
He stated as much himself a few years ago and explained his motivations.
I agree with his assessment.
Saudi Arabia does not act on her own. Saudi Arabia is directed by the US and Israel.
Why Leveretts do not say it. Why are you protecting the war criminals in Washington and Tel Aviv. The US/Israel is helping Turkey, yes Turkey and imposter Erdugon, to form a ‘sunni’ camp with Saudi Arabia and Egypt against shiite Iran. Please inform the ignorant people, because we know it all.
Lest anyone doubt that the American commercial spirit is alive and well, I read on the TV screen of my office elevator this morning that the Disney company has applied for a trademark on “Seal Team 6″ (the US Navy Seals team that killed Osama bin Laden), for use on such products as children’s clothing, toys and small gift items.
Reproduced
http://www.raceforiran.com/the-strategic-consequences-of-economic-reform-in-iran#comment-34412
On the question of Ahmadinejad’s poor judgment regarding the Holocaust, I do not agree with Arnold’s comment:
“There are two communication gaps between Ahmadinejad and Western audiences. There is a language gap and there is a cultural/religious gap. The cultural/religious gap is that the phrase “the Holocaust” just means something different to a person who was not raised in the West than it does to Ahmadinejad, apparently in ways that most Westerners are not consciously aware of.”
Iranians for centuries have been exposed to western cultural/religious memes and products. Ahmadinejad has no shortage of advisors to tell him what will or will not get under a Westerner’s skin. Even if he were just throwing pasta at the ceiling to see if it sticks (i.e. cooked) then the frequency with which Western reporters bring up a particular topic would confirm for him he has hit on a particularly foundational meme. He cultivates notoriety because he calculates it is instrumental to his carving out space for Iran’s continued independence.
Furthermore, Ahmadinejad uses the opportunity to play to that segment of Western society who may question the relevance of the Holocaust to be deserving of so much debate and air time – nauseating repetition is an effective way of diluting the emotional impact of any topic.
Eric’s entire argument is based on a conjecture that Ahmadinejad’s ONLY purpose is to highlight the wrongful mistreatment of Palestinians. It would be interesting to find out how Eric knows this.
As Maverick says:
“whatever position Ahmadnijad takes on the Holocaust, nobody can accuse him of actually causing it or being a part of it. It takes a lot to either start a genocide of that magnitude or to stop it.”
I would also add, that nobody can deny that during World War II, the Iranian government of a predominantly Shia’ Muslim country saved the lives of the 150,000 Iranian-Jews by convincing Nazi ‘race experts’ that they were fully assimilated and Iranian diplomats throughout Europe readily issued visas to European-Jews, facilitating their escape from the Nazi killing machine.
Nor is it possible to refute Roger Cohen’s observation that “the reality of Iranian civility toward [Iranian] Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.”
I could not say it any better than Liz who said :
“President Ahmadinejad’s questions about the holocaust were made to show an example of how freedom of speech in specific areas is severely limited in western countries. He also shows that while you can choose any narrative about Islam and Muslims, for example, in the west and get away with it, when it comes to western accepted narratives there is no tolerance.”
RSH’s valid points is well worth repeating:
[Ahmadinejad] can’t refer to the historical justification for Zionism and Israel WITHOUT mentioning The Holocaust – and therefore he cannot follow your prescription not to talk about it. I might agree that he probably shouldn’t bother discussing the historical accuracy of the concept since it is peripheral to his main point. But that doesn’t matter – because the instant he compares the Holocaust to the Nakba, the media is going to spin him as anti-Semitic.
So he might as well talk as he does. He’s going to be demonized either way and he knows it. Everything he says is spun incorrectly, including his “off the map” reference and his comments on 9/11. There’s no way he’ll ever be quoted correctly in the Western media.
I find Empty’s take to be spot on:
“If one believes, as most Iranians seem to believe, that a psychological war is going on between Iran and the U.S., Israel, and their most ardent admirers that goes beyond all other technological, economic, covert, and overt operations, then, one must evaluate Ahmadinejad’s statements about the holocaust and the like as a strategic and appropriate tool at the time of war. If viewed in that light, then one can easily see the strategic benefits of his statements have surpassed their costs by a wide margin. Just to be clear, I have not seen any evidence that he has ever said in any of his speeches or interviews that killing of any innocent person was acceptable. He has always insisted that the death of an innocent Jewish person should not be held to a higher standard than that of other people.”
Ditto fyi, Persian Gulf, and Kooshy.
Bussed-in Basiji says: May 17, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Real men, like me, do not care one bit about enforcing hejab on unwilling Muslim women.
We have extremely and extraordinarily more important things on our minds; such as safeguarding of the Iranian state, articulating a positive vision of the future that is credible to the people of the Middle East, and outlining a course of intellectual and spiritual development that can address the great spiritual hunger of the current age which obtains among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Unknown Unknowns says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I think you are both closer to the mark than Eric and Arnold.
Huh??
I have no idea what impression you have of what Eric and I discussed months ago, but there was nothing private about it, it was entirely here in this comments section and you should then have felt free to ask for any clarifications or state any disagreements then.
I’m not going to search through the archives for the discussion, but unless you disagree with a specific statement of mine, it would only be fair of you to make any points you have to make without referencing me and also Eric.
If you do disagree with one of my specific statements, please reproduce it here. I’m guessing you probably misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
nahid,
Yes, the Iranian economy is profiting from the western intervention in the Libyan civil war. Maybe oil is $20 higher (per barrel) as a result?
Jonathan Flack,
An excellent source of information not otherwise readily available, regarding events in ME, is the “Deep Background” column Philip Geraldi writes for the American Conservative magazine. I recommend it highly.
The Iranian economy, rather than being in crisis as Tehran’s critics claim, is earning positive comments from the World Bank as subsidies are cut and job growth is pursued. Bureaucratic infighting remains a drag, and continued high oil prices remain essential if the country is to achieve its goals. – Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME18Ak01.html
Bussed-in Basiji says:
May 17, 2011 at 1:00 pm
“” in other words the real Iranian economy is around 1.2-1.3 trillion…”"
BiB , I definitely agree with you on above number , thus Iran could be among the top 10 economies worldwide , latest by 2015.
Turkey is a ‘ allied ‘ and respected competitor of Iran , however I do not see ANY reason , why Iran should not be able to exceed Turkey in terms of GDP by at least $500 billion within the next few years.
M. Ali,
I agree with you it was a blunder for Iran to cancel the invitation to King Abdullah II of Jordan.
b,
Interesting story you linked. Did the Washington neocons arrange for Nawaf’s piece as part of their effort to persuade G W Bush to ignore the policy recommendations of the Irag Study Group? James Baker and Lee Hamilton had urged Bush to make deals with Iran and Syria and pull all US troops out of Iraq. This was the best course to follow, but Bush stupidly kept US troops in Iraq and failed to make deals with Syria and Iran. This course cost the US taxpayers at least $1 trillion.
Jonathan Flack,
I will see if I can find a good source for you, regarding the deal the G W Bush administration made with then Crown Prince Abdullah for use of Saudi bases on condition Iraqi army etc would be kept intact. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and the rest of the Bush administration people who set up the invasion of Iraq agreed the Iraqi army etc would be kept intact.
fyi,
Wearing hijab and kicking Ale Saud in the balls are not mutually exclusive. Iranian economy is 18th largest GDP PPP which I have argued is an underestimation by 400-500 billion, in other words the real Iranian economy is around 1.2-1.3 trillion… And yes helping Pakistan get its shit together is definitely Iran’s national interest.
You know you’ve reached peak oil when the your masters start making noises about “human rights” abuses and the need to intervene on “humanitarian” grounds, as a prelude to freezing (read stealing) hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Saudi petrodollars. Slow Train Coming.
BiBiJon & BiB:
I think you are both closer to the mark that Eric and Arnold. But I would add that the reason he likes to harp on these things is the same reason why the west is hypersensitive to them, and the reason is that western political narrative is nothing but a pack of lies, from the bullshit about their concern about democratic values and their desire to export them, to the whole bs about the HollowCo$t, 9/11, and now, the most rediculous fairy tale of them all, the supposed killing of Osama bin Dead About a Decade Now. When someone holds to these truths in teh west, s/he is considered a nut of some sort, whereas people the globe over appreciate that there is finally a voice of sanity giving the lie to the western narrative which they recognize as nothing but a hypocritical and self-serving pack of lies.
My only problem with him adn the good defense minister is that if they have the supposed proof they speak of, then let’s have out with it. Let’s hit Uncle Sam when he is down, kick him in the teeth to help return the once-great republic to its rightful owners – the people – back from the claws of teh oligarchs. And if they don’t, they should know that empty talk just lowers their standing in the eyes of the world.
BiB is right: all teh West has to offer are lies and more lies to cover up those lies, whereas the Islamic Republic is the only political formation in the Abrahamic tradition that offers a potential way out of the double bind of modernity, which is nihilism or the hall of mirrors.
CYRUS says: May 17, 2011 at 10:58 am
Where they can, such as in Bahrain, they will fight the Iranian shadows by military force.
Where they cannot, such as in Pakistan and in Jordan, they will take out their checque books.
A poverty-stricken Pakistan is a major stragetic threat to all of her neighbours, including Iran.
That is why it is imperative for Iranians to develop their economy so that they can displace Saudi Money from Pakistan.
At the moment, per Bussed-in-Basiji and others like him, it is more impoertant to give full reign to imposition of hejab laws of Iran.
Iran must be wealthy enough to rent Pakistan for the indefinite future. There is no other way.
CYRUS says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Saudi Arabia is going to ‘lead’ against Iran, eh? What, from their villas Monaco or the casinos along the Spanish Gold Coast?”
It’s probably going to be a classic pincer maneuver from both locations.
Saudi Arabia is going to ‘lead’ against Iran, eh? What, from their villas Monaco or the casinos along the Spanish Gold Coast?
For Castellio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pyzS1kE-ts
Bussed-in Basiji says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:15 am
I agree with you on both points, and add:
Ahmadinejad’s direct assault on western ‘meme’ pillars that under-gird Western justification for their mid-east policies can only be deliberate. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is calculated to have resonance in the region and undercut western Iran-bashing. To the extent that AN’s bombast effects western soft power in the oil-rich region, then he is helping Russia and China in their rivalry with the West. Frankly, the more westerners are offended, the more Ahmadinejad figures he has found the right topic to cast doubts and dispersions about.
On Nawaf’s balloon/threat/plan, I’d echo Arnold’s take that the gentleman is essentially saying that US/Israel’s entire wishlist is the Saudi’s command, and they will spend $100 billion of their own money, and are willing to accept full flack for their ‘independent’ policies, thereby shielding US/Israel from any future accounting.
If there were a ‘butler of the year’ award, I vote for Saudi Arabia.
”The old will die and the young will forget (Nakba).” David Ben Gurion, first Zionist prime minister said in 1948. However, like the European Jews, Native Palestinian Muslims and Christians refuse to forget their Holocaust after 63 years.
Israel: ‘Only Jews have the right to infiltrate Arab lands’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/israel-only-jews-have-the-right-to-infiltrate-arab-lands/
UU, BibiJon,
What Ahmadinejad et al. say is primarily intended for domestic and regional audiences. They don’t give a crap if westerners think they are crazy and it’s a good thing they don’t give a crap. That’s the actual message.
b,
What Nawaf has written is part weather balloon, part threat and part policy plan.
Nawaf
- earlier worked for WINEP, the Zionist lobby
- then banded together with Prince Turki, the Wahabbi ambassador to the U.S.
- wrote an op-ed in 2006 that threatened Saudi invasion of Iraq should the U.S. retreat
- was fired for that by Turki on demand of Abdullah
- Turki was fired himself a week later
- Nawaf still works for Turki
- What Nawaf writes is NOT Saudi policy
more here: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/05/the-saudi-us-special-relationship-will-not-change.html
Unknown Unknowns says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:29 am
Why do you suppose Ahmadinejad latches onto topics that US/West is hypersensitive about?
The Holocaust, 9/11, Bin Laden, etc. seem to establish a pattern. Arnold & Eric, in one their private/public discussions had come to a conclusion that it is ignorance of Western cultural sensibilities. I wonder if they still hold to that patronizing view.
I find it interesting/instructive that neither China nor Russia seem to jump out of their seat and vilify AN’s remarks.
To continue on my previous post:
On the other hand, Saudi has no experience at all in effective leadership. By allowing Jordan and Morrocco into their midst, they could very easily causing the near future collapse of their bloc. Imagine Jordan in the GCC, heavy protests, what will the GCC do? Jordan is not Bahrain’s size, a few amateur soldiers from Saudi and UAE will only cause havoc in a big country like Jordan.
Readers might be interested to know that the GCC seems to be welcoming Jordan and Morroco as part of their group. They have always denied access to new members, but it seems the Leveretts are on the right track. The Saudis seem to be taking a proactive approach in their geopolitical tactics and pulling the Arab countries closer to them.
US influence will continue to be less significient in this region, as countries are starting to pull themselves up on their boot straps. However, all is not good news to me, because the region will soon have two seperate blocs of powers. The Saudis on one side and the Iranians on the other, and countries will start choosing one of them.
All blame can’t be put on the Arabs. Iranians will not accept this, but Iran has not done enough to make the Arabs at ease. They need to stop being so confrontational all the time.
Iran’s handling of the Bahrain situation was wrong. The excessive propaganda against Bahrain is what the west does against Iran, and it is not something we should emulate. I recently went to the Tehran Book Fair and in the Internation section, I found a “Bahrain” booth. Unfortunately, the Bahrain booth seemed to the “martyrs” of Bahrain, with the banner being the picture of a dead Bahrani protestor. Frankly, this is a shameful behaviour from Iran and I was personally embarrassed as an Iranian to see that. One can be critical of another country, but not to this extent. When Iran does things like this, not only are the ruling elites suspicious of Iran’s true motivations, but their non-free media reportings on their public, will change the perspective of Iran.
Ahmadenijad has done a lot to present a better image to the Arab public (I know from personal experience among various Arabs that Ahmadenijad is liked), but Iran needs as a whole to make them feel that Iran is a better ally to them than other countries. Iran’s cancelling of Jordan’s King’s invitation was one of the stupidest moves they have done recently in foreign affairs. A strong relationship with Jordan might not have pushed them in Saudi’s welcoming arms. Ahmadenijad has done a lot, but stale dinasours in the government with the inability to see the big picture are holding him back. I hope he fires the lot of them.
VoT:
Nice post about the power vested in the individual by God’s unfailing attention to his or her grievances (aaahhh). If this were not the case, the musical genre known as blues in the West would not have come into existence. And of course, what isn’t “blues” in traditional (non-mobtazal) Iranian music is “madh” (praise/ glorification).
Bussed-in Professor:
Kindly tell your people not to talk shit unless they have the goods to back up what they say. First it was the Defense Minister, now we have Ahmadinejad mouthing off about Osama bin Dead. Either put out or shut up, I say.
By the way: am working on the procurement of a large consinement of Sundis and am trying to make a deal with a local sandwhich maker in order to entice you to join VoT and myself for one of those free snacks that you like so much. We might even bus you in (although you are probably in walking distance).
Bin Laden was a US prisoner before being killed: Iran
(AFP) – 1 day ago
TEHRAN — Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was a prisoner in US custody for “sometime” before he was killed by the American military, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday.
“I have exact information that bin Laden was held by the American military for sometime… until the day they killed him he was a prisoner held by them,” the hardline president said in a live interview on Iranian state television.
“Please pay attention. This is important. He was held by them for sometime. They made him sick and while he was sick they killed him,” Ahmadinejad added.
He accused US President Barack Obama for announcing the Al-Qaeda leader’s death for “political gain.”
“What the US president has done is for domestic political gain. In other words, they killed him for Mr Obama’s election and now they are seeking to replace him with someone else,” Ahmadinejad said without elaborating.
Bin Laden was shot dead on May 2 in a US commando raid on a heavily fortified compound near Islamabad, Pakistan.
On May 4, Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi too had cast doubt on bin Laden’s death, saying there were “ambiguities” over the way he was killed.
The Americans “said they threw his body in the sea. Why did they not allowed an independent expert to examine the body to say if it was bin Laden or not?” Vahidi said.
Castellio, you’re right and regular readers could probably write my comment just as well as I can.
Is the story that the Saudis are so angry with the United States that they are doing exactly what the United States would want them to do?
Really?
Saudi Arabia is working to ensure that “Iran” doesn’t threaten the bases the US holds in Bahrain that likely would not be tolerated by a representative government of that country.
Would an official in the foreign service of a Republic of Arabia accountable to its people list, as a grievance!, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah?
Obaid claims that to punish the United States, Saudi Arabia is not going to press Abbas to make more compromises given Israel’s refusal to halt settlement construction. What a punishment. Rest assured, a government whose leaders could be removed by the people of the country would do a lot more to support the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel than the US’ colonial stooge is doing.
Every single other policy he outlines is consistent with the US aim of insulating Israel from the people of its region most of whom (including and especially the people of “Saudi” Arabia) do not consider Israel legitimate.
Every single other policy he outlines is inconsistent with the values of the people ruled by this dictatorship and would not be pursued by a government of his country that was accountable to his own people instead of the US generals and staff of the US embassy in his country.
The United States has an unconscionable relationship with the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is no different from its relationship with Mubarak and maintained for the exact same reasons.
US reaches $14tn debt limit and cuts investments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13416475
Over the last 6 or 12 months there seems to be a consensus among the usual suspects (neocons, US’ Persian Gulf client states, etc.) to promulgate the notion of Iran as a powerful military force objectively to be regarded as a mortal threat to all and sundry.
As the Leveretts say, of course, Iranian military might is essentially defensive. It stands to reason — given US’ policy of ensuring Iran’s neighbors be endowed with strategic edge over Iran, profligate military spending will accrue no security advantage to Iran. So, why bother?
However, I was wondering if ‘the powerful menace’ label is not in fact bolstering Iran’s soft power efficacy? Every day that Iran refrains from attacking her foes (with force she does not possess to project) does Iran not appear more ‘patient’ and ‘restrained’ — qualities that if you lack, no amount of military expenditure will compensate for, as proven by Bush.
Only, asking.
I’m waiting for Arnold’s comment. Given SA’s thoroughly entangled relationship to the US, how is this “independence” possible? Or are we watching a positioning of “independent” action by SA which, in fact, will co-ordinate with American-Israeli anti-Iranian actions? Right now, I’d bet the latter, as the counter-revolution picks up speed.
Sarkozy’s opponent hits the bucket
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/sarkozys-opponent-hits-the-bucket/
I remember Pakistan’s first military dictator Field Marshal saying that Pakistan’s one military regiment can destroy any of Arab Army. Saudi Arabia is a pussy-cat and like Israel – depends on the US military protection.
Saudi Arabia is the largest spender on arms in the Middle East. It’s estimated that the kingdom has spent more than US$200 billion on arms purchases from the UK, Britain, France, China and India. In 2007, Bush administration agreed to sell US$20 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia while promising Israeli a US$30 billion arms deal (mostly in aid).
Islamic Iran’s military budget (6 billion) is fraction of what Israel or Saudi Arabia spend on their Armed Forces – but are still paranoid of Iran’s emergying power in the region.
The pro-Israel think tank, The Middle East Institute, in its 2008 propaganda hoax titled Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy ring the alarm bells that in the event Islamic Iran develop nuclear arsenal – Saudi Arabia, the so-called leader of the Sunni world – would not be able to produce its own nuclear arsenal to maintain its leading-edge position in the Arab world due to country’s lack of industrial and technical base required to develop nuclear weapons on its own – and might not be able to acquire a nuclear devices from its western protectors due to opposition from Israel. That would leave Saudi Arabia no other alternative but “an accommodation with Iran and progress towards its long-stated goal of making the entire region a zone free of nuclear weapons”. This could tantamount to ‘anti-Semitism’, because that would require Israel to destroy its 240-400 nuclear bombs, which the Zionists leaders have been using to scare the hell out of its Arab neighbours and Israel’s supporters in the West.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/zionists-saudi-iran-puzzle/
@ James Canning: “US to use Saudi bases for invasion of Iraq in 2003 on express agreement Iraqi army etc would be kept intact to preserve public order after overthrow of Saddam Hussein.”
That’s a pretty interesting new fact for me. Where can I read more about it?
If this really is a turning point in Saudi Arabia where the Princes truly do decide to pursue their peoples’ interest rather than the American interests (are they admitting now they have been lackeys all along?), then sooner rather than later they will realize that Iran is a much better ally than enemy. The Iranian bogeyman is a creation of Israel, if the Saudis do grow a spine they will soon see that.
Nawaf Obaid is quite right to underscore the blunder of the Obama administration in vetoing the UNSC resolution supported by the other 14 members of the Council (condemning further growth of illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank).
King Abdullah wanted to avoid civil war in Iraq, as did the Iranians (who advised the US against invading).
I think Obama has blundered by not correcting the failure of George W. Bush to endorse the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Obviously, Obama is under heavy pressure from Democrats to allow Israel to continue to grow its illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.
As Crown Prince, Abdually allowed the US to use Saudi bases for invasion of Iraq in 2003 on express agreement Iraqi army etc would be kept intact to preserve public order after overthrow of Saddam Hussein. G W Bush apparently forgot this agreement existed.
“The shah wanted Iran to be a regional power, and to be a regional power, he needed a mighty army. He needed a fleet of Boeing 747s .. . I know that he was also thinking of nuclear weapons.
“The deal called for Israel to supply Iran with its Jericho missile, which is based on an old French design. Though Israeli censorship doesn’t allow publication of specifics about the Jericho, according to non-Israeli media, it can carry a nuclear warhead . . .In addition to the Jericho missiles, the projects included plants for the manufacture of 120mm mortars and artillery pieces; the develoopment of a modern sea-to-sea missile called Perah. . .and a warplane originally called the Lion . . .
“A very senior source in the Israeli Ministry of Defense reveals that the weapons deal with Iran was fraudulent. With each of the six joint projects, the Israelis planned to deceive the Iranians by providing them only an outdated version of the weapons in question, while using Iranian money to build a new generation for Israel’s exclusive use.” -Ronen Bergman, “The Secret War with Iran;” p. 6
Surely the US would not have sold dysfunctional or outdated technology to the Saudis, not at the top-tier prices Saudi is paying. Surely not.
It is a mistake to read too much in acts of petulance, frenzy, and panic. Saudi’s pouring money into armaments, bribing various actors in the region, and invading Bahrain are all inconsequential in the trajectory of the region, even though, as tantrums go, Saudi’s fireworks are rather spectacular.
Much as the US has found out in attempting to bribe India and Pakistan, chastise Turkey, and declare Hosni Mubarak not to be a dictator have had little effect in the organic course of things, Saudis too will quickly find that folks will gladly accept their money but, ultimately will not do anything against their own natural interests.
It is what gets decided in Tehran, Cairo and Ankara that counts. As for the Nawaf’s threat of estrangement from the US, I have news for him. For most level-headed Americans, the US-Saudi relationship has besmirched the US. One less unsustainable liability will not be cried over.
Saudis will quickly retreat from Bahrain. Tehran-Ankara-Cairo will treat Saudi arabia as Italians treat the Vatican, and treat the other GCC countries as China treats Hong Kong.
Goldberg is wrong…two hours max.
If the Saudis have given up on US, isn’t it time the US gives up on the Saudis?
In the struggle between Najdi absolute monarchy, Zionist apartheid state and Iranian Islamic republic…guess who wins? Now guess who the idiots among the US elites are supporting?
It’s more than a historical irony, it’s treason of everything the America republic ever stood for once.
Tell George Washington foreign entanglements did their damage. Tell Ben Franklin they couldn’t keep the republic.
Jeff Goldberg: “I would give the muscled-up Saudi Arabia at least six hours before it totally collapsed in the face of an Iranian onslaught. The pre-muscled up Saudi Arabia I would only give four.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/does-this-mean-we-wont-have-to-save-saudi-arabia-anymore/238964/
will Saudi partner w Israel to counter Iranian “aggression,” and is settlement of Palestinian conflict the price Bibi will have to pay to join that partnership? The emotional logic seems obvious.
An important post. Your analysis is being proven correct. Too bad the Anglo-American world is so clearly on the wrong side of this…. Continued information and informed opinion is ever more vital.
Nawaf sounds like he’s in a panic, over a real (as opposed to previously hoped for) “birth pangs of a new Middle East.”