zondag 31 december 2017

Iranians chant ‘death to dictator’ in biggest unrest since crushing of protests in 2009



Afbeeldingsresultaat voor the Observer

Iranians chant ‘death to dictator’ in biggest unrest since crushing of protests in 2009

Trump warns Tehran regime to respect freedom of speech as at least two protesters die in demonstrations

Students protested at the University of Tehran yesterday but were outnumbered by pro-government supporters. Students protested at the University of Tehran yesterday but were outnumbered by pro-government supporters. Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images

Iranians took to the streets for a third day of anti-government protests in what appeared to be the biggest domestic political challenge to Tehran’s leaders since the 2009 Green movement was crushed by security forces.
At least two protesters were killed in the city of Doroud, in Iran’s western Lourestan province, as the riot police opened fire to contain a group of people said to have been trying to occupy the local governor’s office. Clashes between demonstrators and the anti-riot police became violent in some cities as the demonstrations spread.
The two men killed in Doroud have been identified as Hamzeh Lashni and Hossein Reshno, according to an Iranian journalist with the Voice of America’s Persian service who has spoken to their families. Videos posted online showed their bodies on the ground, covered with blood. Another video showed protesters carrying their bodies to safety. At least two others were also reported to have been killed in Doroud, but this could not be independently verified.
Elsewhere it appeared that the security forces held people back, with sporadic use of teargas. The number of people joining protests increased as night fell, making it difficult for the authorities to target protesters.
“Death to Khamenei” chants, in reference to the country’s supreme leader, featured in many demonstrations. Videos posted on social media from Tehran and at least one other city – Abhar in Zanjan province – showed protesters taking down banners depicting the images of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Such chants and acts of resistance are unprecedented in a country where the supreme leader holds the ultimate authority and criticising him is taboo.
There were also chants in support of monarchy and the late shah. The scale of protests in the provinces appeared bigger than those witnessed in 2009, although more people went on to the streets of Tehran then than have so far been seen this time.
Earlier, the US president, Donald Trump, used Twitter to warn the Iranian government against a crackdown as thousands of pro-government Iranians also marched in long-scheduled protests in support of the leadership. But, for the third day running, ordinary Iranians, frustrated by the feeble economy, rising inflation and lack of opportunity, defied warnings against “illegal gatherings”.



“Everyone is fed up with the situation, from the young to the old,” said Ali, who lives near the city of Rasht, where there were big protests on Friday. He asked not to be identified. “Every year thousands of students graduate, but there are no jobs for them. Fathers are also exhausted because they don’t earn enough to provide for their family.”
In the capital students gathered near Tehran university chanted “death to the dictator”. Clashes with security forces followed. It was not clear how many were detained in Tehran on Saturday, but scores of protesters are believed to have been arrested in western Kermanshah and eastern Mashhad, the conservative second city of Iran, where the latest unrest began.
Although small-scale economic protests, about failed banks or shrinking pensions, are not unusual in Iran, it is uncommon for demonstrations to escalate across the country or to mix political slogans with other complaints.
“It spread very quickly in a way that nobody had really anticipated,” said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at the University of St Andrews. “It’s the biggest demonstration since 2009. The widespread nature of it and provincial nature of it has been quite a surprise.”
He thinks the protests were originally sanctioned by hardliners seeking to undermine President Hassan Rouhani, but says their apparently spontaneous organisation makes it hard to predict how they will evolve.
“I think they started something and then they lost control of it; it has taken a life of its own. We have to see if it gains traction. The trouble is that there is no organisation. I don’t know what the outcome will be.”
The state broadcaster Irib covered the protests briefly and they featured on the front pages of many newspapers, unlike in 2009, when most news of protests was kept out of official media.
The Revolutionary Guard, whose Basij militia coordinated the 2009 crackdown, warned that it would “not allow the country to be hurt”. But leaders in Tehran, already facing a government in Washington hostile to them and friendly to the regional rival, Saudi Arabia, know they are under close scrutiny.
On Twitter, Trump wrote: “Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime’s corruption and its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad. Iranian govt should respect their people’s rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching! #IranProtests.”
That intervention is unlikely to go down well in Iran, where the US is widely believed to be seeking regime change. In June, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, told the US Congress that America is working towards “support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government”.
There are already deep frustrations that unilateral US financial sanctions have made most banks wary of processing money for Iran or extending credit to its firms. The 2015 nuclear deal led to the lifting of international sanctions so that Iran could sell oil again on international markets but, without access to capital, it is struggling to unleash the growth that Rouhani and his supporters hoped would follow. The economic problems this creates are serious. Youth unemployment stands at about 40%, more than three million Iranians are jobless, and the prices of some basic food items, such as poultry and eggs, have recently soared by almost half.
“This has started from the bottom of the society, from the less fortunate,” Reza, a Mashhad resident, said. “This is not middle-class protesting, this is lower-class demonstrating, people of the suburbs; many are fed up with situation.”

--------------------------------------------------
My Comments :
That intervention [of USA president Trump] is unlikely to go down well in Iran, where the US is widely believed to be seeking regime change. In June, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, told the US Congress that America is working towards “support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government”.
1. This seems to say it all, except from the decisive notion that the claimed peaceful transition, in fact will appear to be an effort of regime change (and geo-political change, by trying to break up the targeted country in different pieces (mostly) along ethnic lines) by way of violence.
2. The classic approach of the USA when they have decided to organise some kind of regime change, is to make contact with opposition groups inside the country of the targeted regime, and try to seduce the opposition to start provocative protest demonstrations.
3. The next step in that scenario is the anticipation of a harsh and violent repression from the regime and most importantly, the necessary steps of calculated escalation of the social unrest into some kind of civil war (!).

4. The calculated initiation of a civil war-scenario, for example by having some imported snipers shooting at the crowd of demonstrators (also to be observed during the western intervention in the Ukraine)  and / or at the Iranian National Guard (only recently proclaimed by the USA to be foreseen to be placed on the list of terrorist organisations) or to have executed a bomb attack on the National Guard.
5. We have seen this pattern of intentionally "organising creative chaos" and "creative destruction" all before (the Condo Rice doctrine) and we all know by now what the strategic aims are supposed to be of waging just another war in the ME.
6. After Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, Iran apparently will be next in line on the list Wesley Clark
7.. However, since the violent USA/UK regime change exercise in Iran in the fifties, that toppled the democratically chosen nationalist leader Mossadeq - and the replacement of Mossadeq by the cruel western orientated dictator calling himself "the Shah of Persia" - the USA has indeed been a national hate-figure under the Iranian population.
8. So it will not be implausible to suggest in this context, that the USA (and their closest ally in the ME) will try to wage a war by proxy against Shiite Iran, most likely by their favourite Sunni proxy SA, with secretive military, logistical and diplomatic (read : intelligence) assistance by the USA and Co.
9. I also do expect Russia to enter into the (potential) USA regime change endeavour in Iran, so one might be well-advised to anticipate some escalation on the USA-Russian front as well.
10. To complete my speculations, I even might suggest, that the coming (USA) SA-Iranian war - notably the second military confrontation after the western supported proxy war between Iraq and Iran some decades ago - maybe will take place under the protective shadow of a cloud, formed by a possible semi-military conflict between the USA and North-Korea, which in its turn might easily seduce / provoke China to step in.
11. Yes 2018 might indeed become a formidable year on the level of military confrontation between the worlds super powers, with the USA guided these days by the highly dangerous loose canon Donald Trump, who not too long ago dared to declare that he did not understand why the nuclear option would not be treated as an ordinary tactical military tool on the battlefield, in stead of the traditional strategic role in the realms of the international military mutual deterrent doctrine.,,,

zaterdag 30 december 2017

Lord Adonis’ resignation letter in full: Government tsar says Brexit bill is 'worst legislation of my lifetime'


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the independent



Saturday 30 December 2017 10:55 GMT

Here is the text of the letter sent by Lord Adonis to PM Theresa May:
"Dear Prime Minister,
The hardest thing in politics is to bring about lasting change for the better, and I believe in co-operation across parties to achieve it.
In this spirit I was glad to accept reappointment last year as Chair of the independent National Infrastructure Commission, when you also reaffirmed your support for HS2, which will help overcome England's north-south divide when it opens in just eight years time. I would like to thank you for your courtesy in our personal dealings.
The Commission has done good work in the past 27 months, thanks to dedicated public servants and commissioners. Sir John Armitt, my deputy chair, and Phil Graham, chief executive, have been brilliant throughout. I am particularly proud of our plans for equipping the UK with world-class 4G and 5G mobile systems; for Crossrail 2 in London and HS3 to link the Northern cities; and for transformational housing growth in the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor.
I hope these plans are implemented without delay. However, my work at the Commission has become increasingly clouded by disagreement with the Government, and after much consideration I am writing to resign because of fundamental differences which simply cannot be bridged.
The European Union Withdrawal Bill is the worst legislation of my lifetime. It arrives soon in the House of Lords and I feel duty bound to oppose it relentlessly from the Labour benches.
Brexit is a populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote, a form of associate membership of the EU might have been attempted without rupturing Britain's key trading and political alliances. Instead, by allying with UKIP and the Tory hard right to wrench Britain out of the key economic and political institutions of modern Europe, you are pursuing a course fraught with danger. Even within Ireland, there are set to be barriers between people and trade.
If Brexit happens, taking us back into Europe will become the mission of our children's generation, who will marvel at your acts of destruction.
A responsible government would be leading the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which contributed to the Brexit vote. Unfortunately, your policy is the reverse. The Government is hurtling towards the EU's emergency exit with no credible plan for the future of British trade and European co-operation, all the while ignoring - beyond soundbites and inadequate programmes - the crises of housing, education, the NHS, and social and regional inequality which are undermining the fabric of our nation and feeding a populist surge.
What Britain needs in 2018 is a radically reforming government in the tradition of Attlee, working tirelessly to eradicate social problems while strengthening Britain's international alliances. This is a cause I have long advocated, and acted upon in government, and I intend to pursue it with all the energy I can muster.
Britain must be deeply engaged, responsible and consistent as a European power. When in times past we have isolated ourselves from the Continent in the name of 'empire' or 'sovereignty,' we were soon sucked back in. This will inevitably happen again, given our power, trade, democratic values and sheer geography. Putin and the rise of authoritarian nationalism in Poland and Hungry are flashing red lights. As Edmund Burke so wisely wrote, 'people will not look forwards to posterity who do not look backwards to their ancestors.'
However, I would have been obliged to resign from the Commission at this point anyway because of the Transport Secretary's indefensible decision to bail-out the Stagecoach/Virgin East Coast rail franchise. The bailout will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds, possibly billions if other loss-making rail companies demand equal treatment. It benefits only the billionaire owners of these companies and their shareholders, while pushing rail fares still higher and threatening national infrastructure investment. It is even more inexcusable given the Brexit squeeze on public spending.
The only rationale I can discern for the bailout is as a cynical political manoeuvre by Chris Grayling, a hard right Brexiteer, to avoid following my 2009 precedent when National Express defaulted on its obligations to the state for the same East Coast franchise because it too had overbid for the contract. I set up a successful public operator to take over East Coast services and banned National Express from bidding for new contracts. The same should have been done in this case. Yet, astonishingly, Stagecoach has not only been bailed out: it remains on the shortlist for the next three rail franchises.
The East Coast affair will inevitably come under close scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, and I need to be free to set out serious public interest concerns. I hope the PAC calls Sir Richard Branson and Sir Brian Souter to give evidence. I am ready to share troubling evidence with the PAC and other parliamentary committees investigating the bailout.
As you know, I raised these concerns with the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary as soon as the bailout became apparent from the small print of an odd policy statement on 29 November majoring on reversing Beeching rail closures of the 1960s. I received no response from either Minister beyond inappropriate requests to desist.
Brexit is causing a nervous breakdown across Whitehall and conduct unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. I am told, by those of longer experience, that it resembles Suez and the bitter industrial strife of the 1970s, both of which endangered not only national integrity but the authority of the state itself.
You occupy one of the most powerful offices in the history of the world, the heir of Churchill, Attlee and Gladstone. Whatever our differences, I wish you well in guiding our national destiny at this critical time.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Adonis.

vrijdag 29 december 2017

U.S. and Israel reach joint plan to counter Iran


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor axios logo

Barak Ravid of Israel's Channel 10 news


Scoop: U.S. and Israel reach joint plan to counter Iran

12-28-2017

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after delivering a speech during a visit to the Israel Museum on May 23, 2017 in Jerusalem, Israel. Photo: Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images

The U.S. and Israel have reached a joint strategic work plan to counter Iranian activity in the Middle East. U.S. and Israeli officials said the joint understandings were reached in a secret meeting between senior Israeli and U.S. delegations at the White House on December 12th.
What it means: A senior U.S. official said that after two days of talks the U.S. and Israel reached at a joint document which included understandings on countering Iranian actions in the region. The U.S. official said the document goal's was to translate President Trump's Iran speech to joint U.S.-Israeli strategic goals regarding Iran and to set up a joint work plan.
At the table: The Israeli team was headed by national security adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat and included senior representatives of the Israeli military, Ministry of Defense, Foreign Ministry and intelligence community. The U.S. side was headed by national security adviser H.R. McMaster and included senior representatives from the National Security Council, State Department, Department of Defense and the intelligence community.
As part of the understandings that were reached the U.S. and Israel decided to form several working groups according to the joint goals:
  1. Covert and diplomatic action to block Iran's path to nuclear weapons – according to the U.S. official this working group will deal with diplomatic steps that can be taken as part of the Iran nuclear deal to further monitor and verify that Iran is not violating the deal. It also includes diplomatic steps outside of the nuclear deal to put more pressure on Iran. The working group will deal with possible covert steps against the Iranian nuclear program.
  2. Countering Iranian activity in the region, especially the Iranian entrenchment efforts in Syria and the Iranian support for Hezbollah and other terror groups. This working group will also deal with drafting U.S.-Israeli policy regarding the "day after" in the Syrian civil war.
  3. Countering Iranian ballistic missiles development and the Iranian "precision project" aimed at manufacturing precision guided missiles in Syria and Lebanon for Hezbollah to be used against Israel in a future war.
  4. Joint U.S.-Israeli preparation for different escalation scenarios in the region concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Senior Israeli officials confirmed that the U.S. and Israel have arrived at strategic understandings regarding Iran that would strengthen the cooperation in countering regional challenges.
The Israeli officials said:
"[T]he U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals."

-------------------------------------------------

My Comments :

1. The White supremacist Trump (catapulted into the WH by Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer) and the Jew supremacist Netanyahu - devoted follower of the zionist 'we want it all, and we want it all exclusively for ourselves' Zeev Jabotinsky doctrine - are waging war on Shiite Iran and Hezbollah in order to further colonise the Middle East and extend the power of the USA and the Tel Aviv regime in the region.

2. Trump will have realised by now, that Tel Aviv has a respectable amount of leverage (dirty dossiers) on him, in order to be able to dictate him any policy Tel Aviv does want the USA to execute, whether he likes it or not...

3. Do - within the context of would-be regime change in Iran by the racist, fascist and traditionally belligerent USA/Tel Aviv geo-political actors - in particular mark the demonstrative moves of the "spontaneous" opposition from within Iran, that seem to match a classical pattern of subversive tools.

4. Secretive subversive tools from the well equipped tool-kit of the usual suspected secret services, historically initiating a diplomatic playing field within the target country that in the end might "justify" foreign intervention (read : the introduction of a bloody and violent theatre of war).

5. All the way from organising a diplomatic playing field untill the de facto founding of an all too real theatre of war, favourably along the well-trodden pattern of having been "officially invited by the opposition to intervene into the national politics" of the target country.

6. So the West will most probably have planned already in great detail, to go from a (intended) rapidly deteriorating diplomatic playing field towards a full-blown military killing field.

7. Waging another war in the ME (long asked for and anticipated by the neo-conservatives zionists within the USA and beyond) along the path of (intervention in) Iraq, Libya, Syria etc., be it directly or by proxy.

8. (War) By proxy with the help from the ultra-orthodox Sunni SA regime for example, which (war) recently happened to be realised in Yemen with disastrous consequences for the population involved. 

9. For more background info on this subject of ever-increasing western neo-colonialism, see for instance my contribution under this next link :



woensdag 13 december 2017

In Jerusalem we have the latest chapter in a century of colonialism




In Jerusalem we have the latest chapter in a century of colonialism



Donald Trump’s intervention is not a mere aberration. It’s part of the continuing story of injustice in Palestine

Palestinian refugees near Haifa in 1948. Palestinian refugees near Haifa in 1948. ‘Patrick Wolfe showed us that events in Palestine over the last hundred years are an intensification of (rather than a departure from) settler colonialism.’ Photograph: Bettmann Archiv

Tuesday 12 December 2017 

One hundred years ago, on 11 December 1917, the British army occupied Jerusalem. As General Allenby’s troops marched through Bab al-Khalil, launching a century of settler colonialism across Palestine, prime minister David Lloyd George heralded the city’s capture as “a Christmas present for the British people”.
In a few months’ time, we mark another such anniversary: 70 years since the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, the catastrophic destruction of the Palestinian polity; the violent dispossession of most of its people with their forced conversion into disenfranchised refugees; the colonial occupation, annexation and control of their land; and the imposition of martial law over those who managed to remain.
The current US president’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel bookends a century of such events: from the Balfour declaration in November 1917 to the partition plan of 1947; from the Nakba of 1948 to the Naksa of 1967 – with its annexation of Jerusalem, the occupation of the rest of Palestine, further mass expulsions of Palestinians including from East and West Jerusalem, and the invaders’ razing of entire ancient neighbourhoods in the city.
Donald Trump’s declaration could easily be read as one more outrage in his growing collection of chaotic and destructive policies, this one perhaps designed to distract from his more prosaic, personal problems with the law. It is viewed as the act of a volatile superpower haplessly endorsing illegal military conquest and consolidating the “acquisition of territory by force” (a practice prohibited and rejected by the UN and the basic tenets of international law). And it is seen alongside a long list of domestic and international blunders.
However, this analysis obscures what happens each day in occupied Palestine, and hides what will surely happen next – unless governments, parliaments, institutions, unions and, most of all, citizens take measures to actively resist it.
Leaders across the world appear incapable of naming what is taking place in Palestine, so their received wisdom on the cause and nature of the conflict, along with the “consensus solutions” they offer, prove futile. This century of events instead should be understood as a continuum, forming part of an active process that hasn’t yet stopped or achieved its ends. Palestinians understand it: we feel it in a thousand ways every day. How does this structure appear to those who endure it day in, day out?
Patrick Wolfe, the late scholar, traced the history of settler colonial projects across continents, showing us that events in Palestine over the last 100 years are an intensification of (rather than a departure from) settler colonialism. He also established its two-sided nature, defining the phenomenon – from the Incas and Mayans to the native peoples of Africa, America, and the Middle East – as holding negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, settler colonialism strives for the dissolution of native societies; positively, it erects a new colonial society on the expropriated land: “Colonisers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event.”
After the British marched into Jerusalem in 1917 and declared martial law, they turned Palestine into an Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). Declaring martial law over the city, Allenby promised: “Every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected.” But what did he say of its people? Allenby divided the country into four districts: Jerusalem, Jaffa, Majdal and Beersheba, each under a military governor, and the accelerated process of settler colonialism began.
At the time of the military takeover, Palestine was 90% Christian and Muslim, with 7-10% Palestinian Arab Jews and recent European settlers. By the time the British army left Palestine on 14 May 1948, the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people was already under way. During their 30 years’ rule, the British army and police engineered a radical change to the population through the mass introduction of European settlers, against the express wishes of the indigenous population. They also suppressed Palestine’s Great Revolt of 1936-39, destroying any possibility of resistance to what lay ahead.
Once any individual episode is understood as part of a continuing structure of settler colonialism, the hitherto invisible daily evictions of Palestinians from their homes assume their devastating significance.
Invisible too has been the force driving the expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Without a framing of settler colonialism, the notion of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, of “spiriting away” the native Arabs “gradually and circumspectly”, makes little sense. In Jerusalem this is how gradual ethnic cleansing is being practised today.
The new US policy on Jerusalem is not about occupation and annexation; the supremacy of one religion over another so “balance” must be restored; the two-state solution or the failures of the Oslo agreement; or the location of an embassy, or division of Jerusalem.
Nor is it even about the soap opera-level conspiracy the Palestinian people have been abandoned to: where the son-in-law of the US president, who has actively funded the rightwing settlement movement in Israel, has been granted absolute power to fabricate a “peace process” with a crown prince who has just locked up his relatives.
In this dystopic vision, the village of Abu Dis outside Jerusalem is proposed as the capital of a future fragmented Palestinian “state” – one never created, given that (along with all US-led peace processes), its eventual appearance is entirely dependent on Israel’s permission. This is named, in “peace process” language, as any solution to be agreed “by the parties themselves”, via “a negotiated settlement by the two sides”.
With colonialism always comes anti-colonial resistance. Against the active project to disappear the indigenous people, take their land, dispossess and disperse them so they cannot reunite to resist, the goals of the Palestinian people are those of all colonised peoples throughout history. Very simply, they are to unify for the struggle to liberate their land and return to it, and to restore their inalienable human rights taken by force – principles enshrined in centuries of international treaties, charters, and resolutions, and in natural justice.
The US has been blocking Palestinian attempts to achieve this national unity for years, vetoing Palestinian parties in taking their legitimate role in sharing representation. Palestinians’ democratic right to determine their path ahead would allow our young generation – scattered far and wide, from refugee camps to the prisons inside Palestine – to take up their place in the national struggle for freedom. The US assists the coloniser and ties our hands.
Former European colonial powers, including Britain, now claim they are aware of their colonial legacy, and condemn centuries of enslavement and the savage exploitation of Africa and Asia. So European leaders should first name the relentless process they installed in our country, and stand with us so that we can unite to defeat it.
 Karma Nabulsi is fellow in politics at St Edmund Hall, and teaches at Oxford University

zondag 10 december 2017

Has Kushner given Riyadh carte blanche?

image-from-the-document-manager

Has Kushner given Riyadh carte blanche?





WASHINGTON, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have found themselves at odds of late with US State Department diplomats and Defense Department leadership, taking provocative actions by blockading Qatar; summoning Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh earlier this month, where he abruptly resigned; and blockading since Nov. 6 major Yemeni ports from desperately needed humanitarian aid shipments in retaliation for a Nov. 4 Houthi missile strike targeting Riyadh's international airport.
The State and Defense departments have urged Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to ease their pressure campaigns on Qatar and Lebanon and improve aid access in Yemen to avert catastrophic famine. But Saudi and Emirati officials have suggested to US diplomatic interlocutors that they feel they have at least tacit approval from the White House for their hard-line actions, in particular from President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who Trump has tasked with leading his Middle East peace efforts.
Kushner has reportedly established a close rapport with UAE Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba, as well as good relations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Kushner met in Riyadh in late October.
But growing US bureaucratic dismay at perceived Saudi/Emirati overreach, as well as Kushner’s mounting legal exposure in the Russia investigations, has many veteran US diplomats, policymakers and lobbyists urging regional players to be cautious about basing their foreign policy on any perceived green light, real or not, from the Kushner faction at the White House. They warn the mixed messages could cause Gulf allies to miscalculate and take actions that harm US interests. And they worry US diplomacy has often seemed hesitant, muted and delayed in resolving recent emerging crises in the Middle East, in part because of the perceived divide between the State Department and the Department of Defense on one side and the White House on the other, making US mediation efforts less effective and arguably impeding US national security interests.
When the Saudis and Emiratis were about to launch the blockade of Qatar in June, then-US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones got a call in the middle of the night from UAE Ambassador Otaiba to inform him of the impending action. Jones’ reaction was “extremely harsh. ‘What are you guys doing? This is crazy,’” a former US ambassador to the region told Al-Monitor. “And … Yusuf [Otaiba]'s response was, ‘Have you spoken to the White House?’”
Jones, contacted by Al-Monitor, confirmed the conversation took place but declined to characterize it, saying it would be inappropriate and unfair to Otaiba.
But the example of Qatar is instructive because the State and Defense departments ultimately prevailed over the initially perceived White House green light to the Saudis and Emiratis for their blockade, said former US Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein.
“Initially, of course, the White House very clearly and dramatically was not on the same page as State and Defense,” Feierstein, now with the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor. “But I think that over the course of time, State and Defense have won that fight. And my sense is if [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson and [Secretary of Defense James] Mattis are together and pushing hard, they can win those arguments. … Clearly, when the two of them are together, they can successfully push back on the White House.”
The perception that the White House is giving the Saudis and Emiratis carte blanche is magnified by the Trump administration’s desire to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE to buy into and achieve deliverables in a relaunched Israeli-Palestinian-Arab peace process.
"It just is stunning how sublimated our policy has become to one or two things,” a former senior US administration official speaking not for attribution told Al-Monitor. “Fundamentally, we want to go after Iran, [and] we want to go after that ‘outside-in’ Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. And the Trump administration appears to believe that this requires giving the Saudis a huge amount of space in order to get what we want vis-a-vis Israel. … My guess is they are prepared to trade virtually anything in order to get that 'outside-in' deal."
But the Saudis and the Emiratis risk miscalculating and getting caught in mixed messages coming from the White House versus the State and Defense departments.
“It works, until reality intervenes,” the former senior US administration official said. “Right now, they have … a very strong, effective relationship with the White House that has been reliably supportive of their activities. But they have limited or no broader foundation for that support in the interagency; their support in the interagency beyond the White House is much more brittle. And were they to do anything that damages the support at the White House, either accidentally or with their decisions, they may not have a safety net because the rest of the agencies were not brought along in their chosen course of action."
"I think they could struggle or founder if Jared [Kushner] suddenly disappeared,” the former senior US administration official said. “Because there is no one who has that camaraderie with the crown prince and has the instinctive desire to find common ground that Jared does. If something happens to Jared — he gets distracted or is no longer on the scene — what happens to [their] critical relationship with the White House?"
Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, on a Nov. 13 panel at the Emirates Policy Center in Abu Dhabi, was described as urging US Gulf allies to broaden their outreach in Washington from one narrowly focused on the Trump White House to the US government institutions and the Democrats in Congress. “I made the point that lobbying efforts and Washington should not ignore the Democrats in Congress and that they may be coming back in one house or another in 2018,” Rogers told Al-Monitor by email.
Some veteran US policymakers doubt that Kushner is giving Prince Mohammed the green light for all his actions.
“My guess is it is vague,” Bruce Riedel, a long-time CIA and White House official and Saudi specialist, told Al-Monitor. “Jared doesn’t know details.”
“Much more specific is the input from UAE Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed, who eggs on Mohammad bin Salman,” Riedel, a contributor to Al-Monitor, said.
A spokesman for Kushner did not respond to Al-Monitor’s query on whether Kushner discussed with Prince Mohammed the latter’s plans for countering Hezbollah in Lebanon or would speak to the perception that Kushner may be giving Gulf allies a sense of permission for recent hard-line actions. In an Oct. 29 statement, a senior White House official confirmed that Kushner, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategy Dina Powell and special representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt “recently returned from Saudi Arabia.” Kushner “has also been in frequent contact with officials from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia,” the White House official said.
Former US Ambassador Feierstein wondered if the recent Saudi recall of Hariri to Riyadh was part of the Kushner peace chessboard.
“Is this a peace process play?” Feierstein wondered. “Is this somehow a US/Israel/Saudi Arabia kind of strategy that is playing out, aimed at isolating Hezbollah and basically destabilizing the Hezbollah-dominated government in Beirut in exchange for some Israeli concession on the peace process with the Palestinians? … What exactly is the full deal out there?”
The State Department was blindsided by Saudi Arabia’s decision to summon Hariri from Lebanon on Nov. 4 and the reported push for him to resign, Levant expert Randa Slim said.
“I know … that the Americans were totally surprised by what the Saudis did,” Slim, head of the Track II Dialogues initiative at the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor. “They were taken aback. [The Saudis] did not coordinate with people at State.”
“Part of Mohammed bin Salman’s strategy to curry favor … and ingratiate himself with the Americans is to [call out] Hezbollah as being a primary culprit and roll it back,” Slim said. “I think there is where the green light comes from. … The Saudis are doing things without consulting; they are misinterpreting and over-reading” tough White House rhetoric on Iran and Hezbollah, while the State and Defense departments are saying they want stability.
On Yemen, the White House needs to firmly press the Saudi-led coalition to lift its blockade of key Yemeni ports, which is exacerbating one of the largest famines in the world, said former US Foreign Disaster Assistance chief Jeremy Konyndyk.
“The problem is that the Saudis think Trump and Kushner are the only ones whose views matter,” Konyndyk told Al-Monitor. “And they're probably right.”
“I doubt [Kushner would] give an explicit green light on [the Yemen] blockade,” Konyndyk added. “But the Saudis were champing at the bit to crack down on the place, and the only thing holding them back was the United States saying no repeatedly. In that situation, you don't have to say ‘yes.’ Just have to stop saying ‘no.’ [I] suspect that's what happened.”
The US administration has renewed its efforts to prevent the Yemen humanitarian crisis from getting worse, including engaging the Saudi-led coalition to demand improved access, a current senior US official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor Nov. 20.
But the US administration will need to be more forceful in its conversations with the Saudi leadership to avert catastrophic famine in Yemen.
"It is clear that some senior Saudis understand how truly dire the humanitarian situation is, but it is unclear whether they will ultimately influence Saudi decision-making on Yemen and whether the United States will weigh in as well forcefully enough to have a significant impact on the humanitarian crisis,” the former senior US administration official said.


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/11/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-carte-blanche-destablize-region.html#ixzz50oARHlhk


---------------------------------------

My Comments : 

1. One can not clearly understand the true dimensions of Kushner's violently geo-political machinations in the ME without realizing the basic and crucial; fact, that Trump has been catapulted into the WH by his main zio-Jewish financial backers Robert Mercer and Sheldon Adelson..

2. Kushner and his father in law - since the super PACs of Mercer and Adelson effectively took over the Trump election campaign and provided richly for the post-inauguration procedures) are completely dependent on the detailed instructions that the Adelson-Mercer clans have been dictating to them on the level of USA policy making ( in general and regarding the ME in particular) and on the personnel occupation of the crucial political posts.

3. Especially the Adelson clan has been renowned for both his close connections with the belligerent Jabotinsky orientated Tel Aviv regime and the GOP neo-conservatives, that, for a considerable time now,  have been plotting a series of regime change initiatives in the ME and beyond, ultimately meant to diminish the role of (firstly the) Shiite influence in the ME and, at the very same time, propel the role and enlarge the status of the western colonial project called Israel in the ME as the main regional entity.

4. Within that geo-political power play, the Sunni orientated Saud clan has been served the role of proxy warrior for the USA and their Israeli colony, in order to eliminate various Shiite orientated regimes in the ME, like Syria , Lebanon, Yemen and Iran.

5. All this long term colonial activity in the context of course, as has been extensively described in public by someone like former USA general Wesley Clark, who - already in the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attack - received crucial information on that specific subject from one of his former colleagues at the Pentagon.

6. Since 'special USA peace mediator for the ME', Jewish Jahred Kushner is under fire from the Mueller investigation, he and his fellow plotters do realise, that their most favourite time-frame to act according to the Yinon-plan and  the Clean Break project most probably will be highly limited.

7. Also the position of  White supremacist Trump - in this case evidently a marionette of aforementioned Jew supremacists annex Super-PAC-men - might be at risk in the near future which might threaten as well the entire geo-political projects that have been set into motion for the ME region so far by his predecessors.

8. This limited time frame might be the main reason behind the recent frantic "diplomatic" initiatives that Kushner (totally at the service of the political marionette player Netanyahu et al.) and his fellow ME plotters seem to be forcing upon the ME, and which at the same time may be the main reason that these "diplomatic" initiatives at the end, might be back-firing heavily and even might be exploding into their own faces...