In the meantime there is less than a month until Election Day and Americans the world over will be casting their vote. So not surprisingly, the campaigns are turning up the heat and starting to get really ugly.

In my personal view, the Obama campaign has been a gentlemanly campaign. He has responded to allegations and attacks by the McCain campaign as well as comparing the McCain campaign to another round of the Bush era…kind of like calling a spade a spade…

The McCain campaign has been going overboard. Instead of giving the American people and rest of the world substance on their views, perspectives, plans and strategies I’m hearing more of why I should not vote for Obama.

Trying to portray Obama as a domestic terrorist due to affiliations with Ayers who was part of the Weatherman when Obama was only eight years old is really stretching it in my view. In fact, watching Orbit news the other night, I think McCain’s tactics to allude that Obama is in bed with terrorists and a closet muslim backfired while campaigning in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Since his supporters were on national TV chanting Obama was a terrorist, an Arab and a muslim, McCain had to publicly come round and correct those misimpressions…even though that has been the not-so-subtle message he has been trying to portray all along of Obama.

However the ugliest of allegations I have read was today when reading another blog which is not only politically oriented but clearly so anti-Obama. This blogger is insinuating that Obama was in fact born in Kenya and therefore ineligible to run for the position as President of the United States. I’ve included the link for those of you who wish to read this lurid albeit fascinating post.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/obama-born-in-kenya-new-information/

At the same time, I not surprised and saddened how Palin continues to show her true colors and continued denial ability or accountability even though she was found to misuse her influence and position as Governor of Alaska. During interviews and campaigning she continues to blow off the fact that Alaskan officials found her guilty of such charges. What does this say of Sarah Palin and what does this say of the judgement of John McCain in choosing her as a running mate? Last but certainly not least, I think it is very telling that NOW (National Organization of Women) officially endorsed Obama as their candidate of choice. Within their endorsement they also made it clear that NOW was against Sarah Palin and that is a bad example for women and women rights.

I agree with NOW… and as we all know, a picture can say a 1000 words and I think this picture speaks volumes on the ethics and values of Sarah Palin and that perhaps she is spending too much time climbing the golden staircase instead of taking care of her family.

I leave this post asking my valued readers how is this election campaign and its tactics presenting America? What do Saudis think of the directions of the campaign and what views do you have on the future direction of the USA-KSA relationship?

Carpetblogger, an American who lives in Turkey but was travelling in Yemen, writes:

Sitting in the lobby of the Burj al Salam hotel about an hour ago,we heard two explosions, but thought little about them. They were close enough to shake the windows a little. About 30 minutes later, reports started coming in that the US Embassy was under attack. Current reports on Yemeni TV say that there was an intial car bomb followed by some shooting. Injuries are reported. Right now, reports attribute the attacks to Al Qaeda, which has been increasingly active in the country. The US Embassy is located near the Sheraton hotel. Reports confirm that it was the Embassy and not the compound.

Her next report says:

Local news is reporting that the embassy is being evacuated by helicopter. I just watched a helicopter head out there. Have photos, no time to load.

From Saudi Arabia, American Stilettos in the Sand rules out Yemen as a ‘good holiday destination' following the attack. She writes:

Not that we were considering heading to Yemen in the near future, but… This means that for SURE we won't be considering Yemen as a vacation destination. Ever. It is not the first time this year that the Westerners have been targeted. And, after reading this article in Gulfnews, I just think it would be best for us to consider
other more inviting countries to head to for short vacations.

Jane Novak, writing at Armies of Liberation has more on the attack here. She adds:

Notably, Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the U.S. Embassy has previously been targeted for attacks […]

The last time we heard from Yemeni Islamic Jihad was last month when they claimed credit for a suicide car bombing in Hadramout, and threatened a future attack in the capital.

Novak, who covers Yemen in her blog, also lists previous suicide car bombings in the country:

September 2006 synchronized attacks on oil facilities in Marib and Hadramout

July 2007 car bombing at tourist facility in Marib killed eight Spanish tourists

July 2008 car bombing a police station in Sayoun Hadrmaout, one killed and 18 wounded

Early in 2008, mortar attacks were launched in Sana’a against western targets including the US embassy, Italian embassy and a western housing complex. After the July 2008 suicide bombing killed one policeman and injured 18 in Sayoun in the southeastern province of Hadramout, authorities rounded up over fifty suspected militants including AAIA leader Khalid Abdul Nabi and Saudi Muhammad bin Nayif al-Qahtani. After the arrests, Yemen announced that it had thwarted an attack in Saudi Arabia targeting oil industries. For history and analysis of al-Qaeda in Yemen, check my al-Qaeda category.

Bahraini Al Rayyash [Ar] believes that Obama will never make it to the White House. He explains:

دار جدل طويل بيني وبين صديق حول إمكانية وصول المرشح باراك أوباما وفوزه في الانتخابات الامريكية لمنصب الرئيس، وبررت عدم فوزه لحقائق بدأت أفهما عن طبيعة الشعب الامريكي واللوبي السياسي الذي يتحكم في مفاصل السياسة الامريكية!! فبعد بحث وتنقيب وجدت أن الادارة الامريكية لا تختلف عن أديولوجية بن لان في تعصبه الى الدين !! فنظرة سريعة على خطابات الرئيس الامريكي الحالي نجدها جميعها إن لم يخني التقدير ترتكز في طرحها على النظرة الدينية المتعصبة والمتنقلة بين التورات والانجيل !! والحقيقة الثانية أن اللوبي الامريكي والذي يتحكم اليهود في إتجاهاته لا يقبل بأن تحكمة إمرأه أو رجل ملون!! هذه حقيقة سوف يكتشفها الناخب الامريكي الذي سوف يتحكم في قراره الاعلام المريكي المدفوع سلفاً من قبل اللوبي اليهودي!! وعلى رغم حبي لبساطة الشعب الامريكي وأريحيته التي عشتها أثاء وجودي في سان فرانسيسكو إلا أني أشفق عليه من سلطة الاعلام التي يقودها ويتحكم فيها أشخاص لايحكمون أمريكا من البيت الابيض!!

A long discussion took place with a friend on the possibility of nominee Barack Obama winning the US elections and becoming president. I explained why he would not win based on realities I started to understand about the nature of American people and the political lobby which controls all aspects of American politics. After research I discovered that the ideology of the American administration does not differ from Bin Laden's ideology when it comes to religious extremism. A quick review of the current US president's speeches will reveal, if I am not mistaken, an extreme religious perspective and references to the Old Testament and the Bible!! The second reality is that the American lobby, which is controlled by the Jews in its direction, will never accept being ruled by a woman or a coloured man!! This is the reality which the American voters who is controlled by the American media, which is paid for by the Jewish lobby, will discover!! Despite my love for the simplicity of the Americans during my stay in San Francisco, I feel sorry for them because of the way they are controlled by the media, which is led by people who don't rule America from the White House!!

Egyptian Tahyyes was not impressed with Obama's address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. She writes:

لم أسمع خطاب أوباما وعليه فإنني لا يمكن أن أحكم على الخطاب دون سماعه كاملا، إلا أن ذكرياتنا مع أوباما منذ أن تم ترشيحه وحتى الآن ليست بالذكريات السعيدة. مجمل القول أن أوباما..فلتعذرني الترجمة الإلكترونية..ح يموت يبقى رئيس، سوف يقتل نفسه ليصبح أول رئيس أسود يدخل البيت الأبيض، ومستعد لارتداء عقل أبيض والتضحية بالعقل والقلب الأسود في سبيل نصرة الجلد، الحقيقة أن ما أورده موقع الجزيرة من مقتطفات لخطاب أوباما لم تكن مشجعة على الأطلاق، بل تنضح بالتهديد والوعيد من جانب، وبالغطرسة والتكبر من جانب آخر

I did not listen to Obama's speech and therefore I cannot judge it without listening to it completely. However, our memories with Obama, since he was nominated until today, have not been happy. In short, Obama will die to become president. He will kill himself to become the first black man to enter the White House. He is ready to wear a white mentality and sacrifice his black mind and heart in order to achieve what he want. The truth is that the excerpts I have read on Al Jazeera from Obama's speech were not encouraging at all. They were full of threats on the one hand, and arrogance on the other.

She also wonders what Obama's American dream is:

أي حلم؟ أنا أريد أن يشرح لي عاقل تفاصيل هذا الحلم,..خير اللهم اجعله
خير؟
بالنسبة لمصرية عربية مسلمة الحلم الأمريكي هو عبارة عن أطعمة سريعة
تصيب المرء بالإمساك، وليل مضاء على شاشات التلفزيون يصور بغداد
وأفغانستان وهما مشتعلتان، ومساكين عزل مقيدة أيديهم وأقدامهم

What dream? I want someone sane to explain to me the details of this dream. I hope it is something good. As for me, an Egyptian Arab Muslim, the American dream is fast food which causes constipation, and bright nights on television screens which show Baghdad and Afghanistan on fire as well as poor people's whose wrists and feet are tied up.

Writing on a Saudi online forum, Sport King says that Arab media already portrays Obama as the presumptive president of the US. He says:

يبدو واضحا مما تعكسه مقالات وأعمدة الرأي في الصحف العربية، أن النفس العربي يميل نحو المرشح الديمقراطي باراك اوباما في سباقه نحو الرئاسة الامريكية ضد الجمهوري جون ماكين، لكن ذلك الدعم الحذر ما يزال يشوبه الشك في نوع التغيير الذي ينادي به أوباما ضمن حملته الانتخابية.

It is obvious, in the way reflected by opinion columns in Arab newspapers, that Arabs are supportive of Democratic nominee Barack Obama in his race to the US presidency against the Republican John McCain. However, that cautious support, is still not convinced of the type of change that Obama has been calling for throughout his campaign.

And Egypt's New Al Wasat Party's website echoes a similar sentiment in an editorial which says:

لو كان للعالم أن يصوّت في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية التي ستجري في شهر تشرين الثاني (نوفمبر) المقبل، لربح باراك أوباما من دون شك، فثمة رغبة سائدة في أنحاء المعمورة، وعلى وجه الخصوص في أوروبا والعالم العربي، بأن تستعيد الولايات المتحدة عافيتها وسلطتها وسمعتها. إلا أن العالم لن يصوّت.

If the world were to vote in the upcoming US elections, which will be held in November, Barack Obama will win without any doubt. There is a strong desire for this from all over the world, especially Europe and the Arab world, for the US to regain its strength, authority and reputation. However, the world will not vote.

Hillary Clinton

The biggest deficit in our nation’s history. Money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis.

Brian Schweitzer

At the same time, billions of dollars that we spend on all that foreign oil seems to end up in the bank accounts of those around the world who are openly hostile to American values and our way of life.

In the fall of 2002, two academics, John Mearsheimer of Chicago University and Stephen Walt of Harvard (M & W) were commissioned by the Atlantic Monthly to write an article about the influence of the Israeli lobby on American foreign policy. M & W came up with an article that talked of a very powerful Israel lobby in the United States which placed Israeli interests ahead of US interests. After receiving comments from the editors at Atlantic Monthly and incorporating them, the authors were nonplussed to find that Atlantic Monthly no longer wanted to publish their article. Ultimately, it was published by the London Review of Books in early 2006, bringing in its wake a very bitter media row. The authors were accused of Antisemitism and faced blistering attacks from various quarters, including from prominent US commentators. A year later, the article was published in the form of a book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

In their introduction, M & W make a startling prediction which I know to have been proved true very recently. During each presidential election, they explain, the candidates differ on a number of points. But on one topic, they will ‘speak with one voice’, that is on Israel. Five weeks ago, Barack Obama, the Messiah of Change, he-who-is-Audacious-enough-to-Hope, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobbying group, and declared that Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable". John McCain, of course, supports Israel unconditionally. Hilary, when she was in the race, was also an ardent supporter of Israel. This accurate prediction, made almost a year ago, gave me the incentive to read the rest of the book, which is a bit heavy and leaden. However, if you like political statistics and facts being thrown at you continuously for over 350 pages, this book is definitely for you.

Three propositions form the crux of M & W’s book. That the US has placed Israel on a pedestal, giving it more support and aid than any other ally the US has. This unconditional support and aid is a result of the Israel lobby. This uncritical and unconditional support for Israel is not in the US national interest. ‘What about Cuba?’ my brain screamed as soon as I read this. Thanks to extensive lobbying by Cuban émigrés in Florida, the US continues to maintain a trade embargo against Cuba even after Fidel Castro’s retirement. I should however admit that this embargo has not affected US national interest much, unfair and unjust though it might be.

The first proposition advanced by M & W is not particularly controversial. Who can deny that the US has gone out on a limb over Israel? But is the Israel lobby the main reason why it has done so? M & W make it clear that they are not against lobbying, which is bound to happen in a democracy. They also believe in Israel’s right to exist. The US is morally obliged to help Israel if its survival is at stake, they reiterate. The only problem they have is with the unconditional and unwavering support to Israel at a heavy cost to American interests.

Approximately one third of American Jewry, we are told, does not consider Israel to be a prime issue. And so, the Israel lobby consists of not only American Jews, but also Christian Zionists and various neo-conservatives. These lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes and don’t always have the same opinion on all issues. However, they are able to work in tandem, without openly appearing to do so. They are highly effective in attacking any individual or organization which opposes Israel or US support for Israel.

The US provides military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel, This support is much more than what any other country gets. M & W explain how US aid is without any strings attached, which means that Israel is able to use US aid for any purpose whatsoever, including the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip. One would get the feeling from M & W’s book that Israel is the only country which is able to divert US aid for other purposes. However, I can think of at least one other US ally which does this. Yes, Pakistan. US aid to Pakistan earmarked for development or for fighting Islamic fundamentalists is routinely used to buy conventional military hardware meant for use against India. Apologies, I digress yet again.

M & W do not comment on whether the formation of Israel itself was correct, though towards the end, they do say that it involved the violation of Palestinians’ rights. Most of the contentions made by M & W are perfectly acceptable. They say that Israel is not a reliable ally. Israel has double-crossed the US on various occasions. For example, during the Iran-Iraq war, when the US was quietly backing Saddam, Israel provided weapons to Iran. Israel has transferred US technology to China. Israel has spied on the US. The Israel lobby has been and still is pushing the US to go after Iran. This lobby prevented the US from opposing the Israel as it attacked Lebanon in 2006. M & W do make a strong case to show that the Israel lobby influences US policy towards Israel, a policy which does not make sense most of the time. Evidence that the Israel lobby has forced the US to support Israel’s short term interests at the cost of US interests and even long-term Israeli interests, is also compelling.

However, as they connect various dots, M & W make a few contentions which don’t appear to be tenable. For example, it is said that the Israel lobby influenced the US in its decision to invade Iraq. M & W do not claim that the Israel lobby was the main reason for the US decision, but they do say that without this lobby, there would have been no war. Apparently the Israel lobby has been trying to nudge the US into attacking Iraq since the days of Bill Clinton. They were unsuccessful, even though Clinton adopted the general goal of ousting Saddam. However, things became easier for them after 9/11 when stories of Iraq’s nuclear programme began to find greater acceptance.

I find it difficult to believe that the Israel Lobby was the prime mover behind the Iraq war. I agree with M & W that the Iraq war was not about oil. But was it mainly to make Israel more secure? I think not. I think the Iraq invasion was the result of Dubya’s and Tony’s desire to remake the map of the middle-east. Look at it from George’s and Tony’s point of view. Both are extremely religious men who believe that God has sent them to earth for a reason. They want to bring peace and democracy to the middle-east. How do they go about it? They need to start somewhere. Where should they start? With Saudi Arabia? No. The people there are hardcore Wahhabis who will not easily accept democracy. Also, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are good friends of America. Iraq on the other hand was ripe for democracy. Its population is relatively secular. Its ruler was an enemy of the West. Its army looked formidable on paper, which was good, but was very weak after many years of western sanctions. The majority of Iraqis are Shias who hate Saddam. Iraq was the perfect target, Blair and Bush believed. So they got a few intelligence reports ‘sexed’ up, whipped up public opinion and started the war.

M & W also say that the Israel lobby has forced the US to be confrontational towards Syria and seek a regime change in Syria even though the Syrian government had provided important intelligence about al-Qaida after 9/11. According to M & W, if it were not for the Israel lobby, the US would not be so antagonistic towards Syria; there would be no Syria Accountability Act; there might be a peace treaty between Israel and Syria; Syria might not be backing the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Here I ask - can’t there be an different explanation for this? Ever since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has been in earch of new enemies. The arms lobby needs the US to have enemies in order to justify weapons sales to the US armed forces. Couldn’t this lobby have played a role in demonising Syria?

Which brings me to another point. There are various lobbies - the arms lobby, the oil lobby, and other special interests - who would be interested in skewing US policy on the middle-east. Maybe these lobbies have played as big a role as the Israel lobby in getting US foreign policy towards Israel to the point it is now.

To conclude, I would say that M & W have an interesting theory, but I was not fully convinced that the picture they formed by connecting various multi-coloured dots is not a red herring.

The countries that he is going to visit are : Iraq “to meet with the troops”, Israel “to calm down the Jewish lobby” , to Saudi Arabia “to discuss the oil prices and strategic alliance” , to Turkey and to Jordan but not to Egypt !!??

It is not the first time in this campaign that Egypt is being neglected by the candidates , if You remember Cowboy McCain ignored us in his latest visit to the region, well he hates those rulers of Egypt , I wonder if Obama shares him the same reason.

It seems that we are losing more and more power in the region , Mubarak on the contrary of what he thinks he nothing new to present .

For God sake Obama and McCain are much important than that New Mexico Governor whom with my all respect to him the official media highlighted his visit every where .

This is another achievement of Mubarak’s

From the archives : Obama on the Nile

Not long after Iraq was discovered to be a colossal blunder, war drums began to pound for Iran. A not so democratic place with an oppressive regime who’s a danger to its neighbors and the U.S. as well as being a state sponsor of terror, blah blah blah, etc etc. Well I’ve heard this story before and I didn’t like how it turned out.

Who really wants war with Iran? Pat Buchanan once answered that question with…”Only Dick Cheney, Senator Joe Lieberman and the Israeli Lobby”

But what are the reasons for wanting war with Iran? You’ve heard it an endless number of times, nuclear weapons, desire to wipe Israel off the map, funding Hezbollah, working with Syria, etc. Somethings off about that though, there are many countries who hate Israel, fund terrorism and probably wouldnt mind if Israel didnt exist anymore. Ironically the U.S. wants to give them a nuclear program. One being Egypt and the other, the biggest terrorist state in all the world…Saudi Arabia.

So why would the U.S. and Israel feel so comfortable allowing these countries to have nuclear energy while threatening Iran’s destruction over it? There are two reasons.

First, a good share of Israeli ministers and Knesset members are crazy, bold and brazen, much more than Ahmadinejad. They believe they can fight the whole world, they want to punish people who dont like Zionists and who dislike Israel and they would like the U.S. to do the job for them. They are nuts! Even in the U.S. which is so heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby, these guys are pushing their luck and wielding more power than they poses. On top of all that the most staunch “bomb Iran” members of Israeli Government are Iranians themselves. Jews born and raised in Iran or whose parents immigrated from Iran and who desperately want revenge on a country they feel bitter towards. In short, they have an axe to grind.

The most recent and loudest anti-Iran mouth piece in Israel is Shaul Mofaz an Iranian Jew born in Tehran in 1948. His words, “”If Iran continues its nuclear arms program — we will attack it”, buzz like a fly in my ear.

The U.S. has its own reason which comes in two parts. First because Israel is crying in their ear about it and they feel obligated to comply but two because of something monetary, surprise surprise. In actuality the U.S. will give Nuclear power to anyone, on one condition, that they buy the enriched uranium from them. Ah, now this smells familiar. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and India all have to buy enriched uranium from the U.S. which is extremely expensive as you can imagine. Iran however wants to enrich their own uranium, thats a big no, no and when you are siting on an oil gold mine, thats enough to go to war over. Its not hard to understand or believe. We already know that Iran hasn’t had anything close to a weapons program since 2003, we know that the enrichment of Iran’s uranium is not enough for weapons use and we know that we’ve been sold this type of fear mongering and propaganda before, so don’t look so surprised.

Is punishing an oppressive government reason for war? No, if the U.S. is feeling so heroic they can stop ignoring the rest of the world transgressions.

Is Iran a severely oppressive regime…Yes! Is Iran a supporter and funder of groups deemed terrorists by much of the world…Yes! Is Ahmadinejad a little crazy…Yes! (even though I think hes more stupid and antagonistic than crazy). Is Iran going to attack Israel unprovoked…No! Don’t think for a second that the leaders of Iran would dare threaten their own power by attacking Israel.

However if Israel doesn’t want to wait for the U.S. to attack Iran and they want to do it themselves I say go ahead. Fight your own war, see if you can handle it, see if your people will put up with it, see if it doesn’t threaten your existence more than Iran’s nuclear program ever did. I don’t believe Israel has much hope against Iran unless they intend to use a nuke of their own.

Remember that Iran is a country with half a million active troops, 350 thousand reserve and 11.4 million paramilitary. Making them the largest military force in the world. So go ahead, show them what you got, keep talking the tough talk and fight your own battles.

Share This

In the last 20Th century Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the leading the countries in the Middle East, Egypt was the first then Saudi Arabia was the second , then in the last 27 blessed years the roles were switched especially in the last two years , Saudi Arabia became the leader and we are the follower , of course both were following the American Orders blindly. Saudi Arabia was always the faithful ally for the United States ,so it is not a surprise , Egypt has its own ups and downs with America since the revolution or the coup of 1952 "it was actually the first one to be backed by the American administration then in the region"

Any how it seems that the United States got bored from these two dictatorship corrupted countries and wanted new faces ;new countries to lead the Arab world . It got bored from Egypt first and let Saudi Arabia the one who plays the leader and mediator role whether between the Iraqis or the Palestinians . Of course the meditation did not work and those enemy brothers are still fighting

And thus the New Qatar was born " before I complete speaking I want to add that I was born in Doha and so I do not hate Qatar or the Qatari people on the contrary I love them"

The prince of Qatar Hamad said in the opening of the Doha Conference that he knew very well the position and the place of his country in the Arab world as small one and that he did not want replace any major Arab force or clash with any major Arab forces , well he meant Saudi Arabia for Sure not Egypt , already the Prince had very rocky relations with the Saudis , ever since they hosted his exiled father , who  is also their in law .

I do not think that he meant Egypt , well Egypt is no so different from Saudi Arabia , also the relations with Qatar are not that good especially that Al Jazeera from time to time attacks Cairo and upsets it.

By the way I notice that Al Jazeera became some how neutral towards Cairo and Riyad lately.

Anyhow , Qatar somehow succeeded in what Saudi Arabia and Egypt had failed from months or even for two years now , to become a so- called mediator between the Lebanese opposite parties , making the impossible to convince the opposition to end their strike down town Beirut and to revive the Lebanese parliament again to elect a president in a historical move the Arab people not used to have. We were all amazed and we admired Qatar , considering it independent than Egypt and KSA from the American control. We were all happy that the two countries were away from the crisis this time.

I am really amazed by the role of Qatar in Lebanon , they won so easily the confidence of Hezbollah that they are the bridge “I think” between the Israelis and Hezbollah in the POWs exchange and  I believe that Qatar may take from Egypt the sole contract of negotiation between Hamas and Israel for Captured Galid, I read news about this still there is no confirmation about it.

Well think again  Qatar is not that independent from the United States !!

Qatar that hosts the biggest American base in the Gulf ??

Qatar that has the best relations with the Israelis ?? for God Sake did you see how their FM welcomed his Israeli counterpart from couple of weeks ?? Qatar exports to Israel gas before Egypt does !!

Prince Hamad is not that heroic as he seems , he also works according to American orders. It is a long plan since he took the role of his father. Yes he developed his country so much but I do not know ,it is more than development !!??

Look the United States administration is smart enough to know that sometimes you need to listen to the other side to win their confidence , Egypt and Saudi Arabia are no longer trusted , they are viewed as American puppets just like Jordan

I am sorry but I do not buy easily this role of Doha it is trying to play and I had to spend some time to understand what has gone in the past three weeks till I figure it out , this is another move towards the new Middle East

Just look at this report on the Qatari newspaper Al-Watan which explains that The U.S. is reviewing its plan and policies against Syria saying:

The U.S. policy of blockade, punishments and isolation of Syria brought negative results and were counterproductive, American policy advisors think that it is the time to negotiate with Syria…

I just read on an Arabic forum that Hezbollah is right now interested to find a solution for the Lebanses crisis than ever, to block the Saudi prince Bandar [head of the Saudi national security and Bush's close friend] attempts to wage a sectarian tension between Lebanese factions.

Egyptian No1 writer Fahmi Hawaidi wrote a good article today called “An attempt to understand what happened in Lebanon“, with an excellent start:

What happened in Lebanon is bad, but the worst is how the Arabs approached the crisis on the both fronts; politically and the media….with the pro-government teams suddenly brought the question of Hezbollah communication network that exists for 20 year..and suspicious Americans military movement at the Lebanese shores .. [These reasons] pushed Hezbollah to engage in a preemptive attack…

Also in his weekly program on Aljazeera [part-1, part-2], Mohamed Hassanein Heikal revealed few secrets about the assassinated Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri [in part-2] saying:

Hariri was a Saudi nationality and never had a Lebanese nationality because the Saudi law prevents the citizens from obtaining double nationality…. I met him in house in Paris and he told me that being the Lebanese prime Minister cost me 1 milliard dollar.

As for Azzaman report, quoting Syrian sources that Arab nationality arrested in Syria with connection to Mughniyah’s assassination, I said that before, he is a Saudi nationality.

Meanwhile, look who he's been hanging out with:
bush_saud.jpg

Don't they look cute together, holding hands like that?

The collapse and humiliation of the U.S.-backed Lebanese government after it had foolishly threatened to curb Hizballah’s ability to fight Israel was simply the latest example of a failed U.S. policy of cajoling allies into confrontations with politically popular radical movements that the U.S. and its allies simply can’t win. And picking fights that you can’t win is not exactly adaptive behavior. Indeed, as I noted earlier this week, recovering alcoholics in America are taught the adage that repeating the same behavior and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity — but by measure of what we’ve seen in Gaza, Basra, Sadr City, that’s one lesson that appears to have eluded this particular administration. The Lebanese showdown was initiated by Washington’s closest allies threatening to close down Hizballah’s internal communication network, and it’s hard not to suspect that such a provocative move could only have been taken with Washington’s encouragement. And to put it unkindly, paper tigers should not play with matches.

The result was predictable, because in terms of popular support, organization, and arms in the field, the militias backing the U.S.-backed government are no match for Hizballah, which quickly seized control of Beirut, and also of other key locations. But Hizballah made abundantly clear that it had no intention of taking over the country, it was simply underlining its intention to maintain its capacity to fight Israel — and to resist any attempt to trim that capacity, regardless of whether such trimming is required by UN Security Council resolutions. That’s why it took control over key Druze-controlled towns in the Chouf — because they’re strategically valuable in any confrontation with the Israelis.

President Bush sounded like a man lost in his own fantasies when he vowed, in response, to “beef up” the Lebanese army to help it disarm Hizballah. The Lebanese Army, Bush appears not to have noticed, enjoys the trust of Hizballah, which is why the Shi’ite militia immediately handed over areas it captured to the Army. And the reason the Army enjoys Hizballah’s trust is its scrupulous neutrality in the civil conflict between the government and the Hizballah-led opposition (i.e. in the clash between the U.S.-Saudi backed bloc and the Syrian-Iranian backed bloc) — the Lebanese Army has no intention of disarming Hizballah. On the contrary, it appears willing to cooperate with the movement’s efforts to steel itself for a new battle with the Israelis.

Rami Khouri, the Daily Star editor at large whose analyses are essential reading, is optimistic over the potentials for a new Middle East political order revealed in the unfolding of events in Lebanon.

Herewith an excerpt of his analysis:

1. When the government decided to challenge Hezbollah last Tuesday, by announcing it was sacking the Shia army general in charge of airport security and dismantling Hezbollah’s underground security telecommunications network, Hezbollah saw this as the first serious attempt by the government to try and disarm it.

Hezbollah immediately challenged the government, warned it against these decisions, and made a show of force to protect its security and telecommunications system. When street clashes started in several parts of Beirut, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah-led opposition alliance quickly and roundly asserted its dominance over the U.S.- and Saudi-backed government alliance. Put to the test, the new balance of power in Lebanon affirmed itself on the street for the first time in less than 24 hours.

2. All the Lebanese parties repeatedly indicated a preference for political compromise over communal war, but also showed they were prepared to fight if forced to. The persistent negotiations via the mass media included critical agreements on naming armed forces commander Michael Suleiman as the new president, resuming the national dialogue, forming a government of national unity, and revising the electoral law before holding parliamentary elections next year…

3. The newly vulnerable government effectively backed down Saturday and reversed its two decisions, as Hezbollah had demanded. The street balance of power was translated into a new political equation inside Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies had achieved on the street that which they had been asking for politically: the capacity to veto government decisions that were seen as threatening Hezbollah’s security and resistance activities.

4. By immediately handing over to the armed forces those few buildings and strategic locations that they had taken over in Beirut, Hezbollah and its allies sent the signal that they did not want to rule the entire country, and that they trusted the army as a neutral arbiter between the warring Lebanese factions.

Prime Minister Siniora sent the same message when he asked the armed forces and their commander Michele Suleiman to decide on the fate of the two contested government security decisions that had sparked Hezbollah’s move into West Beirut. The armed forces emerged as the powerful political arbiter and peace-keeper, effectively forming a fourth branch of government, and the only one that is credible and effective in the eyes of the entire population.

All factions have agreed to get armed gunmen off the streets and leave only the army and police as public security guardians. Now they are expected to follow up quickly by formally naming Suleiman as president (to which they have all agreed already), agreeing on a transitional national unity government of technocrats, and drawing up a new election law. The precise sequence of those events is one of the disputed points that must be agreed, but agreement may be easier now that the army has emerged as a pivotal arbiter and political actor.

The new domestic political balance of power in Lebanon will reflect millennia-old indigenous Middle Eastern traditions of different and often quarreling parties that live together peacefully after negotiating power relationships, rather than one party totally defeating and humiliating the other.

The idea that the Lebanese Army is now going to accept U.S. tutelage and “beefing up” is simply fanciful. Someone ought to tell the Bush White House the bad news: It lost Lebanon.

But as much as I respect Rami’s analysis, I’m not sure I share his optimism over the idea that the manner in which this round was settled could become a model for the Middle East. Here I would heed the warnings of another fine analyst and sometime Rootless Cosmopolitan contributor Alastair Crooke, writing specifically about the increasingly vacuous efforts by Western countries to “save” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “In the region — beyond the Ramallah hothouse — there is no ‘what if?’ The failure of the two-state solution is expected, and discounted, as thinking has evolved in a different direction: The cheer-leaders among Europeans desperate to ‘rescue’ it are stuck in denial from this perspective.”

The point holds for Pax Americana more generally in the Middle East. Crooke writes:

Israel has become so accustomed to Palestinian negotiators running to talks with Israel — irrespective of the deaths of Palestinians or new announcements of further illegal settlement construction — that Israel and the US Administration … believe that an Israeli ’signal of peace’, however cynical its motive, is enough to placate the region — and to allow Israel and the US the quiet with which to continue with their plans.

But if this is what they think, then it is little wonder that the West so regularly misreads the ground in the region: Not all Palestinians are ‘desperate’ for hope from Israel. Far from it, many are making ready against the possibility of conflict.

The feeling among Islamists, many secularists, Christians, and a number of states is of being at the cusp of fundamental change. Change is coming; and the region will not again be what it is today: This major current does not foresee the coming era to be the one that Europe or the US envisages; but something very different. Islamic movements and states such as Syria and Iran increasingly are concerned to judge the evolving strategic shifts accurately. This is more important to them than to make some tactical and short term political accommodation with western powers — no one wants to be caught on the wrong side of events.

Underlying this psychological mood-shift is the realisation that neither Israel nor the US seems able to come to terms with the key outcome from the two Gulf conflicts: the inevitable emergence of Iran as a pre-eminent regional power. Similarly, the consensus is that the US is incapable also of coming to terms with the prospect of Islamist empowerment; and therefore of adjusting its secular, free-market vision for the region. And there is no sense that Europe or Israel or the US understands the nature or the energies being released by the growing forces of ‘resistance’. … there is no real sense that Israel or its US and European friends possess the political resources to make a strategic change of direction; or even to come to terms with Iranian or Islamist empowerment.

Crooke sees in this inability by the Bush-led Western alliance to grasp the reality of the changes that have occurred in the Middle East a growing likelihood of war:

The dynamic of waning western power to shape events as the West would like, is that sooner or later, the risk of a clash between the polarised forces of the West with some part of the ‘axis-of-resistance’ becomes much greater. When Annapolis, Iraq and the current Israeli overtures to take Syria out from the ‘axis’ fail; when western options narrow; and when its ‘peace initiatives’ come-up empty, logic argues that a frustrated West is likely to resort to military means to weaken or break the ‘resistance’.

Syria and the Lebanese understand that they are in the frontline in this event — as much as Iran; and all are mentally stiffening themselves against this prospect. The region is not ‘desperate’ for peace: It would welcome it, of course; but much of it is also preparing and judiciously expecting the worst. It is the West’s lack of recognition of the strength and rigour of this new psychology of resilience towards prospective conflict, and of lack of understanding why western policies are seen as so dangerously inadequate and misconceived, that pushes many in the region to believe that a West, sunk in deep denial, carries with it the probability of conflict — whether inadvertent or deliberate. Unless it is understood that it is this strategic focus that preoccupies Iran, Syria, Hesballah and Hamas, their thinking cannot begin to be judged accurately — and grave mistakes may occur.

Crooke’s description of a hardening in preparation for war, to my mind, offer the best explanation for what drove Hizballah’s handling of the most recent crisis. If the choice facing the punch-drunk Bush Administration is between responding sensibly and creatively to the changed reality — as Rami Khouri suggests they ought to — and lashing out militarily in the hope of reversing the new balance of forces, as Alastair Crooke suggests they will, I’m afraid my money is on the Bush Administration maintaining its dismal record.

According to the posting, members of a pro-Al-Qaeda cell from a Gulf country have undergone sniper training in a Western country, and “will lie in wait during [Bush's] upcoming visit [to Saudi Arabia].”

Read the whole thing.

The real question is why the President is going to Saudi Arabia in the first place. He says he is going to discuss oil prices, something that was futile in January. It's time for Bush to ratchet things up with the Saudis. If they want all those fancy weapons he promised to sell them, they ought to bring back the million barrels of oil per day they cut from production two years ago.

Yemen:

Yemeni Omar Barsawad is outraged at the indignity suffered by Spitzer's wife and family. He writes:

For a man who espoused high morals and a man who seemed to have a solid and impeccable integrity; for a politician who rose on a sword of righteousness and who went after official corruption and malfeasance with a vengeance, Eliot Spitzer has not only fallen, but made a big fool of himself. And enormously betrayed his wife and children. I fail to understand how American politicians have no consideration at all for their spouses; Spitzer could at least have spared his wife the public humiliation of dragging her to stand by him when he announced his resignation.

For a married man to fall in love with another woman or be swayed by the charms of another woman - I can understand. But for a married man - especially in Spitzer's position - to seek the services of a prostitute, and several times, I utterly fail to comprehend. I never knew there were such grotesquely expensive prostitutes! America is truly a land of extremes and excesses.

Barsawad further explains:

Of hypocrites, few can match Spitzer. He went along fooling every one that he was special and is no common American politician. In the end, he has made a big fool and a buffoon of himself. Very unfortunately, he is married. And that's what I find most sad: his hurting his family so deeply and as terribly as he has done.

Palestine:

Al Falasteenyia too cannot hide her disgust with the way Mrs Spitzer was paraded by the side of her fallen husband. She also draws a parallel of how the situation would have been described had Spitzer been “someone” else. She writes:

“I don't know why she stood up with him on that platform.”
” i would not have done it.”
“Oh yea, I would be up there with him, alright, chocking him!”

…the conversation continued among these three women as I stood in the elevator with them. And then occur ed to me, had this happened at another time, in another place- if Spitzer's name was ‘different', if his wife ‘looked different', then the conversation would sound different.

I imagine it would sound something like this

“those poor women over there.”
“it's such an oppressive culture- the way they stand in the shadow of their husbands like that. “
“seriously. if only they could come here and see the way we live- how liberated we are.”

Though many do not agree with Silda Spitzer and criticize her for standing with her husband, no one has said that she is oppressed. I'm not saying she is- I am simply questioning the use of the word here. It's funny how easily people label other people in other places as oppressed; as if oppression (of any form) does not exist in the US.

Israel:

From Israel, Sharvul too can't understand why Mrs Spitzer was seen besides her husband.

I watched a few seconds of the press conference at which Eliot Spitzer resigned. There's something I don't understand: why was his wife there, besides him? Given the circumstances, wouldn't she have preferred to stay home? What is it with politicians insisting that their wives be there in this moment of public humiliation? After all, it's not like there are any doubts and she's standing there to show support for some baseless accusations, right? I can't figure it out.

Saudi Arabia:

And last but not least, Dotsson, who lives in Saudi Arabia, turns his attention to the 22-year-old prostitute Eliot Spitzer was caught with. He adds:

Ashley has a MySpace profile and several pictures that I've already uploaded to a safe place in case she decides to make her profile private…Not bad. Not bad at all. Ashley beats Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky but I'm not convinced she is worth $4,300 an hour. I see a book deal in Ashley's future and hopefully a couple of poses for Playboy.

* This article has been cross-posted at Global Voices Online.