Hariri had his first interview since he resigned last night
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I saw the first video with the guy holding the paper yesterday. Not sure what to make of it or what the significance of Saad glancing over at him is.
Also, why would he be held against his will in Saudi since they have been his allies ?
It doesn't make sense really, but I read previously it had something to do with Hariri's meeting with Ali Akbar Velayati of Iran..
A part of it is about the money. Saudi Oger (the construction firm owned by the Hariris) has been doing shit the past few years and there's a lot of chat on the ground about debts in the billions adding up. Add to the fact that Hariri hasn't been perceived as being strong enough on Hezbollah in Lebanon then you can see why the Saudis might not be too happy.
I can understand them not being pleased with the things you mentioned but holding him there against his will seems like they are taking it to an entirely unacceptable level. He is/was after a head of state of another country.
The 'held against his will' is a bit overdone, but he was definitely summoned and there's been some reprimanding done. I'm sure he'd be able to leave if he wanted to relatively soon. However, Lebanon has been controlled by both the Saudis and Iranians for decades. It's just a bit more obvious now.
Where's the audio?
The United States' dereliction of duty has made all this possible. I think a war between Iran and SA is a real possibility.
Unsurprisingly, some posters here have immediately suggested a plot involving Israel for going to war with Hezbollah. But I thought for the past years it was pretty much established that Israel does not actively seek confrontation in the North – which goes for Hezbollah too. Neither side wants to suffer the heavy casualties and devastation an all-out war would surely cause.
So a premise for the speculative war scenarios earlier in this thread would be a recent, quite radical change in that regard. But are there any credible hints for this (beyond just the general situation concerning Iran, KSA and Syria/Lebanon)? So far I can only make out gut feeling and things people say on twitter.
So a premise for the speculative war scenarios earlier in this thread would be a recent, quite radical change in that regard. But are there any credible hints for this (beyond just the general situation concerning Iran, KSA and Syria/Lebanon)? So far I can only make out gut feeling and things people say on twitter.
There are leaked documents from both Israel and the Saudis. I'll dig them out and edit them in here in a bit.
the Saudis cannot attack anyone. They have suffered humiliation against the tribesmen from Yemen. They cannot fight alone any battle against any decent side. That is why they are trying to get the Israelis involved.
Iran is a theocracy and shout death to Israel etc but what actually have they done compared to other there like USA and the Saudis?
Iran is a theocracy and shout death to Israel etc but what actually have they done compared to other there like USA and the Saudis?
My knowledge on this doesn't go very far, but this is how I understand it. It's from one of the Syria threads, about half a year ago:
What can be said in any case is that Iran seeks dominance over the region and engages in proxy warfare all over the Middle East. They have massive leverage in Arab countries and Afghanistan through the local Shia population and they're using it against their Sunni rivals. They are major players in the civil wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, financing, arming, training and/or directing local warring factions as well as sending foreign troops (example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ly-recruits-afghan-soldiers-to-fight-in-syria ). Hezbollah almost can't be called proxies anymore, they are practically Tehran's ground troops in Lebanon and Syria. Iran also massively finances and arms Hamas (not their only sponsor of course) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
In the Afghan Civil War they were the godfathers of the main Shia Mujahideen factions ('Tehran Eight'), as well as sponsors of several infamous Sunni warlords like Dostum and Hekmatyar. They'll remain a major force in Afghan internal affairs.
In short: They take part in every ME civil war they can influence, trying to shift the distribution of power towards their proxies. That does not make them worse than Saudi Arabia and the US, who do the same, but certainly not better by any means - which is what many people think of them for various reasons. At present, Iran is certainly much more successful than the former two in influencing these wars to their strategical advantage.
Since this thread is about Syria, this Wikipedia article is probably a good overview. Can't guarantee for the details and sources of course, but it gives a general idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
In the Afghan Civil War they were the godfathers of the main Shia Mujahideen factions ('Tehran Eight'), as well as sponsors of several infamous Sunni warlords like Dostum and Hekmatyar. They'll remain a major force in Afghan internal affairs.
In short: They take part in every ME civil war they can influence, trying to shift the distribution of power towards their proxies. That does not make them worse than Saudi Arabia and the US, who do the same, but certainly not better by any means - which is what many people think of them for various reasons. At present, Iran is certainly much more successful than the former two in influencing these wars to their strategical advantage.
Since this thread is about Syria, this Wikipedia article is probably a good overview. Can't guarantee for the details and sources of course, but it gives a general idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
Some major factors are still left out; for example, I know too little about the Islamic-fundamentalist side to their imperialist ambitions (exporting the 'Islamic Revolution', perhaps Twelver Shia eschatology). @2cents might be able to shed light on this. Another one, for the same reasons, is the regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Regarding the sentence in bold, I'd file being a theocracy (if one cares for what that means in practise) and aiming at Israel's destruction under 'what they have actually done' as well.
Some major factors are still left out; for example, I know too little about the Islamic-fundamentalist side to their imperialist ambitions (exporting the 'Islamic Revolution', perhaps Twelver Shia eschatology). @2cents might be able to shed light on this. Another one, for the same reasons, is the regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Regarding the sentence in bold, I'd file being a theocracy (if one cares for what that means in practise) and aiming at Israel's destruction under 'what they have actually done' as well.
Synco, the Shias I do not think has any ambition of trying to take over the Sunni World. The middle eastern Sunnis look at the Shias as heretics. In fact they hate them more than they hate people of other religions.
The rest of the Sunni world does not care a hoot about the middle eastern Sunnis and the Shias. The Iraq of Saddam also did not care about the Sunnis or the Shias. All he was interested was in his own power. Things were very good socially in Iraq so long as you do not deal in politics you can do virtually what you want to do.
As for Israel's destruction, every one knows it is just bombast and the Israelis would blast them to the stone age if they attack Israel. I also see no reason why they would want the destruction of Israel anyway in a geopolitical or a religious sense. It simply does not make any sense. Now the nuclear weapons is an interesting one but looking at what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi and what is happening to Kim in Korea, no wonder the Iranians want it but I guess for now they have stopped it as the IAEA says they are complying. It is the same in every dictatorship in the middle east. All of them want to remain in power and that is the beginning and the end of it.
Regarding the sentence in bold, I'd file being a theocracy (if one cares for what that means in practise) and aiming at Israel's destruction under 'what they have actually done' as well.
Synco, the Shias I do not think has any ambition of trying to take over the Sunni World. The middle eastern Sunnis look at the Shias as heretics. In fact they hate them more than they hate people of other religions.
The rest of the Sunni world does not care a hoot about the middle eastern Sunnis and the Shias. The Iraq of Saddam also did not care about the Sunnis or the Shias. All he was interested was in his own power. Things were very good socially in Iraq so long as you do not deal in politics you can do virtually what you want to do.
As for Israel's destruction, every one knows it is just bombast and the Israelis would blast them to the stone age if they attack Israel. I also see no reason why they would want the destruction of Israel anyway in a geopolitical or a religious sense. It simply does not make any sense. Now the nuclear weapons is an interesting one but looking at what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi and what is happening to Kim in Korea, no wonder the Iranians want it but I guess for now they have stopped it as the IAEA says they are complying. It is the same in every dictatorship in the middle east. All of them want to remain in power and that is the beginning and the end of it.
Seen lots of tweets along the lines of:
BREAKING NEWS: "Saudi King Salman to hand over the thrown to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon next week."
BREAKING NEWS: "Saudi King Salman to hand over the thrown to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon next week."
If you have any from reputable sources then post them here.
I haven't quite understood the argument here, could you rephrase it? I don't disagree about the Sunni radical's hatred of Shias, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to say about Iran's foreign policy in this context. I think the systematic expansion of Iran's influence in the ME over the last decade or so is plain to see.
All these common notions of 'Ah, they aren't serious about it, it will never happen' mean little to me. Islamists know the region is highly unstable, that no political order is forever, so they figure their time might come some day. I know that too, and therefore take antisemitic explanations of the world and vows to destroy Israel rather literally.
The smile of a free man
Synco, The Islamists as we know them are the Sunnis. Not the Shias. Iran is Shia. They had a potential thriving democracy and had an election and elected a Prime Minister. The CIA and the UK deposed him and put a guy called Pahlavi as their Emperor(Shah). He was a dictator of the highest order and ruled Iran with an iron fist(as usual to all middle eastern dictators) till he got toppled by the Mullahs of Khomeini. The US supported the Shah to the hilt and hence the animosity between Iran and the US. Of course they hijacked the US Embassy and took many hostages too. Eventually they were released. The Iranians are not Arabs but Persians.
So they west sided with the Arabs against the Persians and supported Saddam in the Iran / Irag was to the hilt. Funnily enough Iraq is majority Shia and when the US and the UK toppled Saddam the biggest winners were the Iranians.
To me I see no reason why they should have been threatening Israel. They are not neighbours and there is no geopolitical reason why they should be after Israel. And Israel to them as well. They do not send out terrorists like the Sunnis do. ISIS and Al Queda are Sunnis. If they want to spread their influence they need to do in their immediate neighbourhood and not around Israel.
So they west sided with the Arabs against the Persians and supported Saddam in the Iran / Irag was to the hilt. Funnily enough Iraq is majority Shia and when the US and the UK toppled Saddam the biggest winners were the Iranians.
To me I see no reason why they should have been threatening Israel. They are not neighbours and there is no geopolitical reason why they should be after Israel. And Israel to them as well. They do not send out terrorists like the Sunnis do. ISIS and Al Queda are Sunnis. If they want to spread their influence they need to do in their immediate neighbourhood and not around Israel.
I know this history, but do you really want to say the Iranian regime is not Islamist because it is Shiite?
Apparently they themselves don't agree with you on this, both concerning Israel and limiting their activities to their immediate neighbourhood. Geographically, Lebanon is almost as far away from Iran as possible for the ME, yet it was one of their earliest proxy enterprises, and it remains their tightest link to this day. Yemen is even further away. As I said before, my grasp of the theological issues involved is very limited, but I'm sure Israel is seen as an all-Islamic issue.
You cannot see Israel as an all Islamic issue. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. Now the Saudis and the Israelis are in cahoot with each other. The Egyptians also agree with the Israelis on Hamas. I would say it is a political issue with the ordinary people involved in it thinking this is religious.
They are the cannot fodder or the chaff.
It is all political as far as the leaders are concerned. The poor public is gullible enough to believe what they are told. The Palestinians themselves are not 100% Muslims anyway.
They are the cannot fodder or the chaff.
It is all political as far as the leaders are concerned. The poor public is gullible enough to believe what they are told. The Palestinians themselves are not 100% Muslims anyway.
It doesn't matter how you or I see it, the Iranian regime itself sees it that way.
Just one example, a Khamenei speech from this year:
http://english.khamenei.ir/news/464...p-that-is-steadfast-on-the-path-of-Resistance
The whole speech is worth reading for its mixture of religious zeal, underlying antisemitic conspiracy paranoia, rejection of any political compromise, and the strategical, patient, long-term perspective on bringing about Israel's destruction.
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1199381/saudi-arabia
What the hell is this Ex Pakistani general and spy chief has been made chief of this as well
What the hell is this
Ex Pakistani general and spy chief has been made chief of this as well That's going to be one lonely embassy. Although based on UN voting records on the status of Jerusalem, maybe Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Tuvalu will join them.
Exactly what Israel and Washington needs, more isolation.
Bet this was another of Jared's ingenious ideas to fix the Middle East.
Bet this was another of Jared's ingenious ideas to fix the Middle East.
The Arab and Muslim world leaders will make a few statements over the next few days palatable to their audience. Then it will be all forgotten in a short time and Israel will carry on with their illegal expansion activities.
Similar to the gun lobby US politicians being financially backed by the Zionist movement will not see the error of their ways in destabilising the whole region.
Similar to the gun lobby US politicians being financially backed by the Zionist movement will not see the error of their ways in destabilising the whole region.
ISIS will use this to recruit the angry and cause chaos throughout the world. Unfortunately meaning the number of terrorist activities will increase.
The general narrative will be to then blame Iran, Saudis, Wahhabism, Salafism and Islam.
The general narrative will be to then blame Iran, Saudis, Wahhabism, Salafism and Islam.
Politically it doesn't make sense why he's doing this now.
Was reading over social media posts by Trump supporters and they are happy because it is fulfilling some sort of Christian prophecy. Might be far fetched but anything is possible with Trump, could he be believing the same thing? Or he could be doing this to appease these supporters.
Was reading over social media posts by Trump supporters and they are happy because it is fulfilling some sort of Christian prophecy. Might be far fetched but anything is possible with Trump, could he be believing the same thing? Or he could be doing this to appease these supporters.