Ceylal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 8,577
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Salman, Al-Sissi, Erdogan, Netanyahu, or the quintessence of yet another US plan to compensate for their failure in Syria?
By Nasser Kandil
In August 2013, we translated an article by Nasser kandil titled "Sinai: US Base? "[ 1 ]. We remember this excerpt:
"... It is most likely that the Security Service and the US policy will now focus their efforts on Sinai. This can take months and even years in which they will test several options. These options turn this area into haven for various Al Qaeda networks where US drones could continue their work, or turn it into refuge for the Muslim Brotherhood; which, with their geographical continuity with their other brothers in Gaza would enable them to launch an open war against chaos throughout Egypt.
Another more feasible option would be to use all these open entries to the chaos which allegedly made threatening operations to Israel, including "Elat" so close to justify their direct control of Sinai through gigantic military bases which would become the largest US aircraft carrier in the world.
This seizure of the United States on the Sinai appears to have become the policy objective of the moment. From there, it will be possible to offset the loss of oil and gas wealth due to their failure in Syria. From there, the security of Israel will be under their direct care and that of Asia, Africa and the Gulf countries can not escape their vigilance. Thus, the United States can say they are redeployed but not defeated!
US eyes are fixed on the Sinai. Let us do the same, especially the Egyptians and army, now that the control over the Sinai could threaten the sovereignty of Egypt, which requires sovereignty to free unilateral constraints "the Camp David accords."
Observers and geo-strategists warned to link with this summary of recent analyzes by the same author, in relation to the OIC summit [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation] of 15/16 April, preceded by the "incredible gift of Egypt to Saudi Arabia "[ 2 ], not vice versa, so incredible that anger is brewing in Egypt [3 ], a country would be left with two strategic islands and less, while the Suez Canal would be threatened the very near future, not only in ten years by the Iranian project navigable channel [ 4 ] across the country to link the Caspian sea to the Persian Gulf [NdT].
political offensive of Saudi Arabia
Despite its failures, Saudi Arabia still has three trump cards:
A political confrontation that resulted in an offensive King Salman in several directions:
Truce obliged to Yemen
Concerning Yemen, it must still be noted that this was not their starting position. The Al Saud wanted to just crush the Houthis betting on their financial power and blessing of the USA. Here they have to negotiate with them to admit that they have not managed to enter Sanaa, nor to break the siege of Taiz, and that the maximum they could get is their stranglehold on Aden so that it is now common knowledge that the forces on which they are based are affiliated majority Daech and Al Qaeda.
In Yemen, so we are dealing with a different equation of the situation in Syria, since those negotiating are those who are fighting on the ground, while said Syrian opposition which claims to negotiate in Geneva does not represent much in the military field therefore, can not stop the war against the Syrian Army through Daech and Al-Nosra alias Al Qaeda, both organizations excluded from the ceasefire and political process.
The seizure of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir in the Red Sea
These two uninhabited islands are located in the Strait of Tiran between the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. The Egyptian Army has occupied before the 1967 war Israel preventing borrowing Strait from the Elat port. According to an Egyptian-Saudi story, they would be under the sovereignty of Egypt since 1950, King Abdul Aziz who asked the King Farouk of deploying Egyptian forces to prevent any Israeli attack against the two islands, while researchers, Egyptian diplomats and lawyers, relying on old Ottoman maps, agree that the two islands are part of the Sinai and therefore Egypt.
The question today is not to discuss the sovereignty issue, though it raises serious controversy and violent protests in Egypt [ 5 ]. The question is, why now, when the Camp David Accords, having returned to Egypt two islands occupied by Israel in 1967 provided they are not sold to anyone without his agreement, dating from 1981 and the discussions about them between Saudi Arabia and Egypt last for thirty years without Egypt's consent to part with? Some claim that Israel, either, did not see this assignment favorably judging Saudi Arabia less reliable than Egypt.
Taking account of the Camp David agreements, satisfaction displayed by the diplomatic corps and the Israeli media at the announcement of this sale, the economic distress of Egypt on the verge of bankruptcy, and most of the chronology of events quickly followed one another during the journey ten days of King Salman from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, it becomes clear that this transfer of sovereignty would have been possible without the agreement of the Israelis; even without their [6] planning.
Decided to exploit the truce in Yemen, Salman arranges to be in Egypt at the time of his statement, suggesting that comes as a savior, not a beggar of piétailles to continue its murderous war in Yemen: a total of 25 billion over five years is more than a breath of fresh air for the Egyptian government; however with the planned construction of a land bridge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia at a critical time when we do not see very well its usefulness for Egypt, while Israel openly hope to enjoy trips more direct with Saudi Arabia.
There are reports of an Israeli-Saudi agreement that could explain this point in the acquisition of these two islands by the Saudis. They serve two purposes:
Pressures on OIC
Saudi Arabia has thrown its weight, including financial, to the final declaration of the OIC summit accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and interfering in the internal affairs of Muslim states in the region, and more adding a clause calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
In doing so, Salman continued action taken before traveling to Egypt: pay the price to stop broadcasting Al-Manar TV by the Egyptian operator Nilesat, after having expelled the satellite ArabSat few months earlier.
Before the summit, Salman tried to win over Turkey and Pakistan, taking advantage of the political umbrella US that connects the three countries in Washington. And while the participating countries had decided to create a climate for a Pakistani mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, its foreign minister, Adel al-Joubeir, took care to add to the final declaration of specific clauses to Gulf Countries condemning Iran and Hezbollah, not subject clauses to all heads of state or foreign ministers who are not discussed in assembly [but which are, unsurprisingly, the only retained by the mainstream media, NdT].
Result of this art of managing lost: Al-Sissi has shunned the summit; taking into account their security and commercial best interests, Turkey and Pakistan have decided not conflict with Iran; the Iranian delegation withdrew before the closing meeting; many delegations abstained comments and Turkey conducted a cosmetic operation by a spiel good intentions calling for cooperative relations with Iran. In other words, the company Salman failed.
The fact remains that this summit again failed in the cause of its creation, "the Palestinian cause" barely mentioned, while Saudi Arabia seeks to cover Israel seizing every opportunity to claiming that a solution is on track and their obsession with Iran, Syria, Yemen and Hezbollah.
Pressures on Lebanon
The participation of Lebanon at the OIC summit was an opportunity to measure how far Saudi Arabia would turn it into battle against Hezbollah. Now, it appears to be determined to go further until the explosion, however, if the US and the West, well aware that wherever she went terrorism took root, the left do.
Indeed, the "Michel Samaha Case" seems to have been a preparatory exercise to test the nerves of the Lebanese government and test the loyalty of its local allies like Saad Hariri and Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi ; which, not content with having questioned the judgment of the Military Court of Cassation in Lebanon, had called to translate the former Minister Samaha before the Canadian Justice on the grounds that holds Canadian citizenship even before the CFI [here, the International Tribunal for Lebanon].
Today, some would go in the opposite direction, whereas those who are accused by the ICTY should be tried before the Lebanese judiciary. Those found no better than to accuse Sayed Nasrallah himself of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri; a rumor that the source would be the Prosecutor of the ICTY. The same court that has continued to walk his accusations of Syria in Lebanon and which no one ignores the influence of money on its decisions, as recognized by many who preferred to resign than to continue work there.
Or, at the stage where we are, a simple question arises: Does Al-Qaeda could have developed and used in Syria if Rafiq Hariri was not assassinated?
And by the way, those who wear the accusations against those who fight al Qaeda and avoids that Lebanon gets trapped in the quagmire of their "fitna", do they remember that the first time they heard about "Al-Nosra and Jihad in the Land of the Rising" was precisely when the two organizations said they were responsible for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri?
Do they remember hearing about Al Nosra almost simultaneously by David Petraeus, the former CIA director, saying: "No victory against Daech without cooperation with Al-Nosra! "? Moshe Ya'alon and Netanyahu claiming both that "Al-Nosra does not represent a danger to Israel"? And French President Francois Hollande, calling for "Al-Nosra considered as a potential partner in the political process in Syria"?
Nasser Kandil
11-16 April 2016
MONDIALISATION.CA
By Nasser Kandil
In August 2013, we translated an article by Nasser kandil titled "Sinai: US Base? "[ 1 ]. We remember this excerpt:
"... It is most likely that the Security Service and the US policy will now focus their efforts on Sinai. This can take months and even years in which they will test several options. These options turn this area into haven for various Al Qaeda networks where US drones could continue their work, or turn it into refuge for the Muslim Brotherhood; which, with their geographical continuity with their other brothers in Gaza would enable them to launch an open war against chaos throughout Egypt.
Another more feasible option would be to use all these open entries to the chaos which allegedly made threatening operations to Israel, including "Elat" so close to justify their direct control of Sinai through gigantic military bases which would become the largest US aircraft carrier in the world.
This seizure of the United States on the Sinai appears to have become the policy objective of the moment. From there, it will be possible to offset the loss of oil and gas wealth due to their failure in Syria. From there, the security of Israel will be under their direct care and that of Asia, Africa and the Gulf countries can not escape their vigilance. Thus, the United States can say they are redeployed but not defeated!
US eyes are fixed on the Sinai. Let us do the same, especially the Egyptians and army, now that the control over the Sinai could threaten the sovereignty of Egypt, which requires sovereignty to free unilateral constraints "the Camp David accords."
Observers and geo-strategists warned to link with this summary of recent analyzes by the same author, in relation to the OIC summit [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation] of 15/16 April, preceded by the "incredible gift of Egypt to Saudi Arabia "[ 2 ], not vice versa, so incredible that anger is brewing in Egypt [3 ], a country would be left with two strategic islands and less, while the Suez Canal would be threatened the very near future, not only in ten years by the Iranian project navigable channel [ 4 ] across the country to link the Caspian sea to the Persian Gulf [NdT].
political offensive of Saudi Arabia
Despite its failures, Saudi Arabia still has three trump cards:
- Saving a certain influence on the future governance of Yemen since the peace talks, Kuwait, take place between the Houthis and 'Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, "man of the Saudis to Yemen, named vice president by challenged the President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, after dismissal of Khaled Bahah early April.
- Said Syrian opposition through the "Group of Riyadh" made this week in talks between Syrians in Geneva.
- The Future Movement in Lebanon
A political confrontation that resulted in an offensive King Salman in several directions:
- Ad calculated truce in Yemen during his visit to Egypt.
- Grip on both Egyptian islands of Tiran and Sanafir in the Red Sea.
- Pressure on countries participating in the OIC summit to exploit against Iran.
Truce obliged to Yemen
Concerning Yemen, it must still be noted that this was not their starting position. The Al Saud wanted to just crush the Houthis betting on their financial power and blessing of the USA. Here they have to negotiate with them to admit that they have not managed to enter Sanaa, nor to break the siege of Taiz, and that the maximum they could get is their stranglehold on Aden so that it is now common knowledge that the forces on which they are based are affiliated majority Daech and Al Qaeda.
In Yemen, so we are dealing with a different equation of the situation in Syria, since those negotiating are those who are fighting on the ground, while said Syrian opposition which claims to negotiate in Geneva does not represent much in the military field therefore, can not stop the war against the Syrian Army through Daech and Al-Nosra alias Al Qaeda, both organizations excluded from the ceasefire and political process.
The seizure of the islands of Tiran and Sanafir in the Red Sea
These two uninhabited islands are located in the Strait of Tiran between the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. The Egyptian Army has occupied before the 1967 war Israel preventing borrowing Strait from the Elat port. According to an Egyptian-Saudi story, they would be under the sovereignty of Egypt since 1950, King Abdul Aziz who asked the King Farouk of deploying Egyptian forces to prevent any Israeli attack against the two islands, while researchers, Egyptian diplomats and lawyers, relying on old Ottoman maps, agree that the two islands are part of the Sinai and therefore Egypt.
The question today is not to discuss the sovereignty issue, though it raises serious controversy and violent protests in Egypt [ 5 ]. The question is, why now, when the Camp David Accords, having returned to Egypt two islands occupied by Israel in 1967 provided they are not sold to anyone without his agreement, dating from 1981 and the discussions about them between Saudi Arabia and Egypt last for thirty years without Egypt's consent to part with? Some claim that Israel, either, did not see this assignment favorably judging Saudi Arabia less reliable than Egypt.
Taking account of the Camp David agreements, satisfaction displayed by the diplomatic corps and the Israeli media at the announcement of this sale, the economic distress of Egypt on the verge of bankruptcy, and most of the chronology of events quickly followed one another during the journey ten days of King Salman from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, it becomes clear that this transfer of sovereignty would have been possible without the agreement of the Israelis; even without their [6] planning.Decided to exploit the truce in Yemen, Salman arranges to be in Egypt at the time of his statement, suggesting that comes as a savior, not a beggar of piétailles to continue its murderous war in Yemen: a total of 25 billion over five years is more than a breath of fresh air for the Egyptian government; however with the planned construction of a land bridge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia at a critical time when we do not see very well its usefulness for Egypt, while Israel openly hope to enjoy trips more direct with Saudi Arabia.
There are reports of an Israeli-Saudi agreement that could explain this point in the acquisition of these two islands by the Saudis. They serve two purposes:
- The first: Remove the Saudi pipelines to Europe following a path through the Sinai Peninsula and the port of Haifa; which would make the "Rotterdam of the Mediterranean", a role he had escaped following the failure of Israel in its war against Lebanon in 2006 thanks to the heroic resistance of Hezbollah when it was planned to build a connection to the Nabucco network from Kazakhstan via the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Haifa pipeline was extended to the port of Ashkelon and the Red Sea to ensure oil supplies to China and India, should a war of the US against Iran would lead the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
- The second: Serve cooperation between the two countries in the deployment of military intervention units of information by satellite and high-performance radar, obviously after agreeing common standards for identifying friends and enemies .
Pressures on OIC
Saudi Arabia has thrown its weight, including financial, to the final declaration of the OIC summit accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and interfering in the internal affairs of Muslim states in the region, and more adding a clause calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
In doing so, Salman continued action taken before traveling to Egypt: pay the price to stop broadcasting Al-Manar TV by the Egyptian operator Nilesat, after having expelled the satellite ArabSat few months earlier.
Before the summit, Salman tried to win over Turkey and Pakistan, taking advantage of the political umbrella US that connects the three countries in Washington. And while the participating countries had decided to create a climate for a Pakistani mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, its foreign minister, Adel al-Joubeir, took care to add to the final declaration of specific clauses to Gulf Countries condemning Iran and Hezbollah, not subject clauses to all heads of state or foreign ministers who are not discussed in assembly [but which are, unsurprisingly, the only retained by the mainstream media, NdT].
Result of this art of managing lost: Al-Sissi has shunned the summit; taking into account their security and commercial best interests, Turkey and Pakistan have decided not conflict with Iran; the Iranian delegation withdrew before the closing meeting; many delegations abstained comments and Turkey conducted a cosmetic operation by a spiel good intentions calling for cooperative relations with Iran. In other words, the company Salman failed.
The fact remains that this summit again failed in the cause of its creation, "the Palestinian cause" barely mentioned, while Saudi Arabia seeks to cover Israel seizing every opportunity to claiming that a solution is on track and their obsession with Iran, Syria, Yemen and Hezbollah.
Pressures on Lebanon
The participation of Lebanon at the OIC summit was an opportunity to measure how far Saudi Arabia would turn it into battle against Hezbollah. Now, it appears to be determined to go further until the explosion, however, if the US and the West, well aware that wherever she went terrorism took root, the left do.
Indeed, the "Michel Samaha Case" seems to have been a preparatory exercise to test the nerves of the Lebanese government and test the loyalty of its local allies like Saad Hariri and Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi ; which, not content with having questioned the judgment of the Military Court of Cassation in Lebanon, had called to translate the former Minister Samaha before the Canadian Justice on the grounds that holds Canadian citizenship even before the CFI [here, the International Tribunal for Lebanon].
Today, some would go in the opposite direction, whereas those who are accused by the ICTY should be tried before the Lebanese judiciary. Those found no better than to accuse Sayed Nasrallah himself of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri; a rumor that the source would be the Prosecutor of the ICTY. The same court that has continued to walk his accusations of Syria in Lebanon and which no one ignores the influence of money on its decisions, as recognized by many who preferred to resign than to continue work there.
Or, at the stage where we are, a simple question arises: Does Al-Qaeda could have developed and used in Syria if Rafiq Hariri was not assassinated?
And by the way, those who wear the accusations against those who fight al Qaeda and avoids that Lebanon gets trapped in the quagmire of their "fitna", do they remember that the first time they heard about "Al-Nosra and Jihad in the Land of the Rising" was precisely when the two organizations said they were responsible for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri?
Do they remember hearing about Al Nosra almost simultaneously by David Petraeus, the former CIA director, saying: "No victory against Daech without cooperation with Al-Nosra! "? Moshe Ya'alon and Netanyahu claiming both that "Al-Nosra does not represent a danger to Israel"? And French President Francois Hollande, calling for "Al-Nosra considered as a potential partner in the political process in Syria"?
Nasser Kandil
11-16 April 2016
MONDIALISATION.CA
