#Saudi Arabia–United States relations | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emergingpakistan · 1 year

Text

مشرق وسطیٰ میں امریکی زوال اور چین کی نئی سافٹ پاور

رواں ماہ امریکی سی آئی اے کے ڈائریکٹر ولیم برنز کے دورۂ سعودی عرب کے بعد میں سوچ رہا ہوں کہ کیا امریکہ اپنے محدود نقطہ نظر سے ہٹ کر بھی مشرق وسطیٰ کے معاملات سے آگاہ ہے۔ اپنے دورے کے دوران سی آئی اے کے ڈائریکٹر نے مبینہ طور پر سعودی ولی عہد شہزادہ محمد بن سلمان کو بتایا کہ ریاض کی جانب سے واشنگٹن کے علاقائی مخالفین ایران اور شام کے ساتھ تعلقات کی بحالی سے امریکہ کو ’اندھیرے میں رکھا‘ گیا۔ ان ریمارکس کو اوباما انتظامیہ میں ولیم برنز کے کردار اور ایران کے بارے میں نئی امریکی پالیسی کی تشکیل کے تناظر میں انتہائی ستم ظریفی قرار دیا جا سکتا ہے، جس کے نتیجے میں واشنگٹن نے عراق (2003 سے) اور افغانستان (2001-2021) میں غلطیاں کیں۔ 2009 میں ولیم برنز نے وضاحت کی تھی کہ ایران کو ایک اہم علاقائی کھلاڑی تسلیم کرتے ہوئے، ایرانی حکومت کو نہیں بلکہ اس کے رویے کو تبدیل کرنے کے لیے ’ہمارا بنیادی مقصد یہ ہونا چاہیے کہ ایرانی زیادتیوں کو کم کرتے ہوئے ایرانی اثر و رسوخ کے ساتھ رہنے کے لیے ایک طویل مدتی بنیاد تلاش کریں۔‘

ولیم برنز نے 14 سال قبل اس پالیسی کی وکالت کی تھی جو 2023 میں ایران کے بارے میں سعودی نقطہ نظر کے قریب تر ہے۔ فرق صرف اتنا ہے کہ امریکہ کسی بیرونی رکاوٹ کے بغیر رابطے کی پالیسی کے ذریعے ایرانی طرز عمل کو تبدیل کرنے کی اپنی صلاحیت میں درحقیت ناتجربہ کار تھا۔ آج، ایران کے بارے میں سعودی نقطہ نظر سے لگتا ہے کہ ایران کے فیصلہ سازی کے عمل پر چین کا اثر و رسوخ اتنا مضبوط ہے کہ بات چیت کی پالیسی کے لیے راہیں کھول سکتا ہے۔ تاہم، سعودی نقطہ نظر صرف اس امید پر مبنی نہیں کہ روابط ایران کی جوہری، فوجی اور علاقائی پالیسیوں کو تبدیل کرنے کے لیے کافی ہوں گے۔ ڈیموکریٹک اور رپبلکن انتظامیہ کی جانب سے ایران کے متعلق اپنی پالیسیوں میں بار بار تبدیلیوں سے مشرق وسطیٰ میں امریکی ساکھ کو نقصان پہنچا ہے۔ یوکرین جنگ کی معاشی قیمت، مسئلہ فلسطین کے حل میں ناکامی، نام نہاد عرب سپرنگ کی حمایت اور داخلی انتشار نے علاقائی ممالک میں امریکی ساکھ کو مزید نقصان پہنچایا۔

اس کے مقابلے میں مختلف ممالک کے اندر چینی سرمایہ کاری پر غور کریں، جس نے بیجنگ کے لیے سافٹ پاور سے جغرافیائی معاشیات اور جغرافیائی سیاست کی طرف منتقل ہونے کی راہ ہموار کی ہے۔ مشرق وسطیٰ میں چین کے عروج کو تمام علاقائی ممالک کے ساتھ بیجنگ کے اقتصادی شراکت داری کے نقطہ نظر سمجھنا ہو گا۔ یہ اقتصادی نقطہ نظر کمزور علاقائی حریفوں جیسا کہ 2001 میں طالبان اور 2003 میں صدام حسین حکومت کے خلاف فوجی طاقت دکھانے کی امریکی پالیسی سے بہت مختلف ہے۔ جیسا کہ رابرٹ ایف کینیڈی جونیئر نے ٹوئٹر پر وضاحت کی: ’چین نے چالاکی کی بجائے معاشی طاقت دکھا کر امریکی سلطنت کو نکال باہر کیا ہے۔ گذشتہ ایک دہائی میں ہمارے ملک نے سڑکوں، بندرگاہوں، پلوں اور ہوائی اڈوں پر بمباری کرنے میں کھربوں خرچ کیے۔ چین نے اتنی ہی رقم ترقی پذیر ممالک میں ان کی تعمیر پر لگائی۔‘ مزید برآں، اوباما دور (2009-2017) کے بعد سے، مشرق وسطیٰ میں امریکی پالیسی کے رد عمل سے واشنگٹن کے علاقائی شراکت دار الجھن کا شکار ہیں۔

نام نہاد ’عرب سپرنگ‘ کے دوران اپنے علاقائی اتحادیوں کے لیے امریکی حمایت کی کمی اور خطے میں سماجی افراتفری کے وقت تہران کے ساتھ مفاہمت کے خیال نے اس کے خلیجی اتحادیوں کی اکثریت کو خودمختاری اور تنوع پر مبنی ایک نئی خارجہ پالیسی ڈھونڈنے پر مجبور کیا۔ جنگوں کے ذریعے خطے کو تبدیل کرنے میں نیو کنزرویٹو ناکامی اور خطے میں اپنے اتحادیوں اور شراکت داروں کو ترجیح دیے بغیر امریکی اثر و رسوخ کو فروغ دینے کا ڈیموکریٹک نقطہ نظر، دونوں اس کے علاقائی زوال کو تیز کرنے والے عوامل رہے ہیں۔ مزید برآں، براک اوباما کی علاقائی پالیسی جس کی بنیاد خلیجی ریاستوں کے بارے میں تنقیدی نقطہ نظر پر تھی اور ساتھ ہی جارج ڈبلیو بش انتظامیہ کے تحت علاقائی جنگوں نے مشرق وسطیٰ میں امریکی ساکھ کم کی۔ جنگی جنون اور امریکی اخلاقی برتری کے احساس کے علاوہ دنیا بھر، خاص طور پر مشرق وسطیٰ میں امریکہ کے وقار پر وہاں کی داخلی بحثوں کے تباہ کن اثرات پر غور کرنا ہو گا۔

ایران کے بارے میں اوباما کے پالیسی جائزے کے بعد سے واشنگٹن اور اس کے علاقائی اتحادیوں کے درمیان ایرانی مسائل پر کوئی اتفاق رائے نہیں ہو سکا، لہٰذا خطے میں اب یہ خدشہ پیدا ہو گیا ہے کہ ڈیموکریٹس کی علاقائی پالیسی کا تعین ان کی اس خواہش سے ہو گا جو کہ ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ کے اقدامات کے برعکس کرنے کی ہے۔ اس امریکی داخلی تناظر میں ٹرمپ انتظامیہ کے تحت سعودی امریکہ تعلقات کا مثبت ماحول بائیڈن انتظامیہ کے آغاز میں سرد اور مزید کشیدہ ہو گیا۔ اس تعصب پسندی نے اس علاقائی تاثر کو تقویت دی کہ امریکہ کی مشرق وسطیٰ کی پالیسی، علاقائی مسائل اور خدشات کو حل کرنے کی کسی بھی حقیقی ��واہش سے زیادہ داخلی انتشار کی عکاس ہے۔ وہ نقطہ نظر جس کا محور امریکہ ہو، اب اس خطے کے ممالک کے لیے قابل قبول نہیں ہے۔ اس کے برعکس، افغانستان اور عراق میں امریکہ کی ماضی کی غلطیوں کو دیکھتے ہوئے بائیڈن انتظامیہ کو چاہیے کہ اپنے علاقائی شراکت داروں سے مشورہ لے تاکہ امریکی اثر و رسوخ کو بہتر بنایا جا سکے اور جنگوں کے بعد کھوئے ہوئے کچھ وقار کو دوبارہ حاصل کیا جا سکے۔

لہٰذا ایرانیوں اور ڈیموکریٹکس کے لیے یہ پہلے سے کہیں زیادہ ضروری لگتا ہے کہ وہ اپنی اندرونی بحثوں سے نکل کر ایک نئی علاقائی پالیسی تشکیل دیں جو خطے کی سماجی و ثقافتی تبدیلی کے عین مطابق ہو۔ یہ واشنگٹن میں سیاسی دھڑوں کے قلیل مدتی اندرونی مفادات کے بجائے سیاسی استحکام اور اقتصادی فائدہ مند نقطہ نظر کی حمایت میں ہونی چاہیے۔ اگر ایسا نہیں ہوتا ہے تو جغرافیائی سیاست اور سافٹ پاور دونوں کے لحاظ سے چین کا عروج جاری رہے گا۔

اس تحریر کے مصنف ڈاکٹر محمد السلمی بین الاقوامی انسٹی ٹیوٹ فار ایرانی سٹڈیز کے صدر ہیں۔

ڈاکٹر محمد السلمی

بشکریہ انڈپینڈنٹ اردو

#China #International relations #Iran #Middle East #Politics #Saudi Arabia #United States #World

0 notes

foreverlogical · 7 months

Text

How is this changed if the actions taken by Musk caused the deaths of soldiers in the alliance America is part of? And how is this changed if after having calls with Vladimir Putin, Musk starts advocating publicly for Ukrainian surrender? And what if he is making money off this?

And what do we do with the reports that Musk privately acknowledged that he was “in” the Russia-Ukraine War—but not, per the evidence we currently have, on the same side as America?

Is there some reason the House GOP is scared to investigate this? Or DOJ? What am I missing here?

How is all this inflected by the data confirming Musk complies with the demands of hostile foreign governments at a far higher rate than his Twitter predecessors did? And how is that inflected by the fact that his Twitter coowners are autocratic Saudi butchers allied with Russia?

And in the midst of all this he comes out publicly and tells 150 million followers to vote Republican? At a time we know both the Russians and the Saudis have secretly interfered in American elections on behalf of the Republicans? And then he starts making all sorts of changes...

...to what is more or less a public utility (even if it is privately owned) that benefit hostile foreign governments, agents of hostile foreign governments, American disinformation agents operating as “useful idiots” for hostile foreign governments, and anti-American Kremlinists?

And as I recall, didn’t he at one point threaten to stop providing resources to the American government that he’d previously provided *while* he was simultaneously advocating for a Ukrainian surrender following multiple phone calls with Vladimir Putin? Like—that seems really bad?

Again, I’m not an expert in this, but I’m asking at what point Musk runs afoul of FARA? Or the Logan Act? Or something rather more serious that relates to military conflicts in which the United States is involved? All of this seems really serious to me and everyone’s ignoring it.

America just went through an eight-year period in which a narcissistic sociopathic far-right White male billionaire colluded with Russia and the Saudis to interfere in our elections and advance illegal Russian adventurism. Is it just me or is the exact same thing happening again?

(PS) Obviously I’m leaving a ton of things out here, e.g. the fact that Musk, like Trump, has repeatedly been accused of fraud, or that Kremlin policy inside the U.S. is to foment racial and religious divisions to weaken America... and Musk has been doing exactly that on Twitter.

(PS2) Are we sure we’re not in the middle of a national security situation here? Is it wrong to think the Senate Intel Committee should be holding hearings to find out what Musk has been doing secretly with the Russians—and whether or how it’s connected to Twitter and the Saudis?

(PS3) If Elon Musk will do the bidding of Vladimir Putin in terms of disabling Ukrainian military equipment and proposing that Ukraine surrender a good portion of its land area to Putin and his war criminals, what *else* is he doing at the bidding of the Kremlin or Saudi royals?

(PS4) When we see Musk simultaneously pushing the “Ban the ADL” hashtag even as hostile foreign agents intending to cause chaos in the U.S. are doing the same thing, and we know who Musk is holding secret calls with... uh, isn’t that all super concerning from a NatSec standpoint?

(PS5) And not for nothing, but many of you will remember the major media report I just posted in which Musk confesses that he wants to “take over the world’s financial system.”

Uh, for whom? Will he seek to benefit Russia and Saudi Arabia and harm the United States in that, too?

(PS6) Remember how Trump led with racism and antisemitism and other forms of ethnic and religious bigotry that caused *chaos* in the United States, only for us to learn he was in cahoots with Russia and the Saudis?

Does that not feel... familiar, now?

I have some concerns here.

(PS7) I’ve never claimed to be an expert in these particular areas, which are a subspecialization within federal criminal practice that very rarely comes into play. But I certainly—as a citizen and voter—am wondering why the *hell* we’re not having congressional hearings on this?

(PS8) There’s no question whatsoever that Congress has an obligation to exercise its oversight responsibilities very aggressively here—as if I’m understanding correctly Elon Musk has a defense contract. The revelations in the new book about him are therefore very f*cking serious.

(PS9) And remember how Trump always accuses others of what he has just done or is about to do? Just as concerns that Musk could be doing the bidding of hostile foreign nations arise, he starts threatening to sue others for “controlled speech.” We have seen this playbook before...

(PS10) I would think the FBI, DOJ, FTC, FCC, NSA, SEC and *many* others would want to be all over this situation right now. Instead we are getting radio silence. Or, not radio silence, but Musk and his allies pushing racial and religious division inside the U.S. on a daily basis.

281 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 5 months

Text

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi arrived in Saudi Arabia on Saturday to attend a summit on Gaza, making him the first Iranian president to visit the Gulf kingdom in years, after a thaw between the longtime rivals earlier this year saw them restore diplomatic ties.

Raisi was seen greeting Saudi officials after landing at the airport. He donned the traditional Palestinian keffiyeh scarf.

President Ebrahim Raeisi of Iran says the Israeli regime must be brought to justice in international courts over its genocide of the Palestinian people in the besieged Gaza Strip. Raeisi made the remarks while addressing the joint emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on the issue of Gaza in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, on Saturday.[...]

“Now that the international assemblies under the influence of the United States are suffering from indecisiveness, and lack of character and identity, we must take the field.” The president said the Arab and Muslim countries shoulder the responsibility towards the issue of Palestine and the oppressed people of Gaza. Raeisi proposed Iran’s 10 urgent solutions and suggestions for the benefit of the Palestinian nation. The president urged Muslim leaders attending the summit to take a “decisive and swift” decision in favor of Palestinians. Raeisi said the United States and Israel must be obliged to accept an immediate halt to the war machine. The Iranian president gave primacy to the complete lifting of the human blockade of Gaza and immediate and unconditional reopening of the Rafah border crossing in cooperation with Egypt to send humanitarian aid to people in Gaza as Iran’s second proposal.

The president said the pressure exerted by the US and its Western allies is by no means an excuse to close borders. As Iran’s third offer, Raeisi urged Israel’s immediate military withdrawal from Gaza, saying the Gazan territory belongs to Palestinians and not those who act under the command of the US and Israel. He warned all countries, including Muslim nations, to be cautious about any American-Zionist plot under the pretext of ensuring security in Palestine. Raeisi said Iran’s fourth proposal urges all Muslim countries to terminate any political and economic relations with Israel. He said economic sanction, particularly in the energy sector, against the regime must figure high on the agenda. As Iran’s fifth offer, the president called on all Muslim countries to label the Israeli regime’s army a terrorist organization. He stressed the importance of establishing an international court to prosecute the criminal leaders of Israel and the US, particularly those who have played a role in the genocide in Gaza. The president called for the establishment of a special fund for the immediate reconstruction of Gaza with the acceptance of the Muslim countries attending the summit

Referring to an Israeli airstrike on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in the besieged Gaza Strip, which killed at least 500 Palestinians, the president said October 18 should be named as the day of genocide and crime against humanity.

If Israel keeps its crimes going in the “unequal war,” Raeisi said, Muslim countries must arm the Palestinian people and help them fight the occupying warmonger. The president undercored the importance of the liberation of Palestine “from the river to the sea” as a permanent and democratic solution.[...]

The president said the US is the main perpetrator and accomplice in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Israel is the “illegitimate child of America,” Raiesi said. “It is America that has preferred support it over the sacred lives of thousands of oppressed Palestinian children. By immediately forming its security cabinet in the occupied territories, America encouraged the Zionist regime to carry out criminal operations against the helpless people of Gaza and called it legitimate defense,” the president said. The claim of legitimate defense is “one of the bitter ironies of history, which goes against any established legal rules and international standards,” the president said. He said the US sent its warship to the region to effectively enter the war on behalf of Israel. “The all-out support of the Zionist regime in the UN Security Council and preventing the adoption of a resolution to stop the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza was another service of America to the aggressors, allowing them to conduct war crimes more than ever,” Raeisi stated.

11 Nov 23

#huge

78 notes · View notes

capybaracorn · 3 months

Text

Some background on the Houthis what is happening

Following weeks of Houthi-led attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, the United States and United Kingdom have launched military strikes in Yemen in response, which the Houthis have described as “barbaric”.

The Houthis are an Iran-aligned group based in Yemen and have said their attacks are a response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and the international community’s failure to put an end to it.

[...]

Who are the Houthis?

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (supporters of God), are an armed group that control most parts of Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa, and some of the western and northern areas close to Saudi Arabia.

The Houthis emerged in the 1990s but rose to prominence in 2014, when the group rebelled against Yemen’s government, causing it to step down and sparking a crippling humanitarian crisis.

The group then spent years, with Iran’s backing, fighting a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia. The two warring sides have also repeatedly tried to hold peace talks.

However, analysts say the Shia group should not be seen as an Iranian proxy. It has its own base, its own interests – and its own ambitions.

What’s the status of Yemen’s civil war?

Yemen has been in a decade-long civil war as the Houthis maintain control of parts of the country. The group has been in ceasefire talks with Saudi Arabia while Yemen’s official government is based in Aden and led by President Rashad al-Alimi.

Al-Alimi came into office in 2022 after the country’s exiled president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi ceded power to him. Relations between Hadi and the Houthis were especially fraught.

Yemen’s civil war has plunged the country into what the United Nations called “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis”, in March 2023.An estimated 21.6 million people or two-thirds of Yemen’s population are “in dire need of humanitarian assistance and protection services”, according to the UN.Fighting between Houthis and the military coalition, however, largely subsided last year. In 2023, the Yemeni rebels and government forces also exchanged about 800 prisoners over three days.The Houthis have been engaging in Omani-mediated talks with Saudi officials to negotiate a permanent ceasefire. Saudi Arabia also restored relations with Iran in 2023, raising hopes for the Yemen peace process.

Why have the Houthis attacked Red Sea ships?

The attacks began after the start of the Israel-Hamas war on 7 October.

The Houthis declared their support for Hamas and said they would target any ship travelling to Israel. It is not clear that all of the ships attacked were actually heading there.

In November they seized what they said was an Israeli cargo ship.

They since have attacked several commercial vessels with drones and ballistic missiles.

58 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 4 months

Text

by Robert Williams

In 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, made 13 demands of Qatar: "to cut off relations with Iran, shutter Al Jazeera, and stop granting Qatari citizenship to other countries' exiled oppositionists." They subsequently cut ties with Qatar over its failure to agree to any of the demands, including ending its support for terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Jazeera.

The Saudi state-run news agency SPA said at the time:

"[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS [Islamic State] and al-Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly,"

This is the kind of influence that US universities and colleges are more than happy to see on their campuses in exchange for billions of dollars in Qatari donations. According to ISGAP:

"[F]oreign donations from Qatar, especially, have had a substantial impact on fomenting growing levels of antisemitic discourse and campus politics at US universities, as well as growing support for anti-democratic values within these institutions of higher education."

In November 2023 ISGAP published a report, "The Corruption of the American Mind: How concealed foreign funding of higher education in the United States predicts the erosion of democratic values and antisemitic sentiment on campus." It found that there is a direct correlation between antisemitism and censored speech on campus and undocumented contributions from foreign governments, notably Qatar. According to the report:

"At least 100 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on approximately $13 billion in undocumented contributions from foreign governments, many of which are authoritarian. "In institutions receiving such undocumented money: "Speech intolerance—manifesting as campaigns to investigate, censor, demote, suspend, or terminate speakers and scholars—was higher at institutions that received undocumented money from foreign regimes."

Qatar makes it possible for Ivy League universities to claim that they receive no funds from the Qatari state, because the donations are funneled through the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development, a not-for-profit organization established in 1995 by the Emir of Qatar. This ensures that the foundation can identify itself as a private organization, which enables Qatar to conceal its state funding as private donations.

#qatar #dark money #ivy league #ivy league universities

56 notes · View notes

argyrocratie · 3 months

Text

(...)

"What is the Houthi movement?

The Houthi insurgency is a Zaydi Shiite Islamist political movement established in 1992 to challenge Yemen’s longtime, and increasingly corrupt, leader Ali Abdullah Saleh. Following massive street protests, Saleh resigned his post in 2011. After the resignation, a national unity dialogue was held in Yemen’s capital Sana’a to try to resolve a host of Yemeni political conflicts. However, those talks eventually broke down, prompting the Houthis to advance on Sana’a with the goal of taking power. This sparked Saudi Arabia’s deadly US-backed air, ground, and naval invasion of Yemen, which lasted for seven years and killed an estimated 9,000 civilians, as well as significant numbers of Houthi forces, in repeated airstrikes. Despite the overwhelming force used by Saudi Arabia, however, the Houthis gained control over roughly a third of Yemen’s land—and two-thirds of its population—over the course of the war.

In April 2022, Saudi Arabia and the Houthis negotiated a truce that has nearly eliminated the fighting in Yemen. The truce halted offensive military operations, allowed fuel ships to enter Yemeni ports, and restarted commercial flights from Sana’a airport. However, it did not offer a comprehensive political settlement, leaving open the threat of renewed hostilities.

How have the Houthis become involved in the war?

After Israel began bombing Gaza on October 7th, the Houthi movement—which has long held what Yemen expert Helen Lackner called a “fundamentalist foreign policy position against the US and Israel”—announced that it was ready to intervene in solidarity with Palestinians. “There are red lines in the situation related to Gaza, and we are coordinating with our brothers in the jihad axis and are ready to intervene with all we can,” the Houthis’ leader said. As part of this effort, the movement has carried out 27 attacks in the Red Sea between November 19th and January 11th, most of them on commercial ships linked to Israel (although some of the attacks have targeted ships without a clear connection to Israel). The movement has also tried to fire on American warships and on Israel itself.

In the attacks on commercial ships, the Houthis have mostly fired missiles at them, though on November 20th, the group’s fighters seized a cargo ship and detained the crew members onboard. These attacks have discouraged shipping companies from traversing the Red Sea, the fastest route from Asia to Europe; many are instead sailing around the Horn of Africa, which adds $1 million to the typical cost of a roundtrip. On January 11th, the White House cited this trade disruption as a key motivating factor for the US’s bombings in Yemen, noting that “more than 2,000 ships have been forced to divert thousands of miles to avoid the Red Sea—which can cause weeks of delays in product shipping times.”

The Houthi movement’s attacks in the Red Sea, as well as the retaliation the attacks have generated, have revitalized the group’s power within Yemen. Prior to October 7th, the Houthis were facing discontent due to their authoritarian rule, their failure to pay salaries, and their control of aid in the face of spiraling poverty. Their confrontation with Israel, however, has seen “their popularity suddenly skyrocket, including in areas in Yemen where they don’t rule and in stark contrast to other Arab [states] who are at best being silent, or at worse, helping the enemy,” Yemen expert Helen Lackner told Jewish Currents. After incurring significant losses in their conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Houthis’ firm opposition to Israel has also helped them to recruit more young men to their military who believe they will have the opportunity to fight in Palestine, according to Lackner.

In this context, experts say it is unlikely the spate of Western bombings will end the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea—and such attacks could even contribute to the group’s bolstered popularity. “They’re willing to live with some level of retaliation because they can then position themselves as having been targeted by this Western alliance that is serving the interests of Israel,” said Mohamad Bazzi, director of New York University’s Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies. Other experts have also warned that the US strikes risk provoking further escalations: For instance, the Houthis could decide to attack Saudi Arabia in a bid to up the pressure on American allies.

(...)

What is Iran’s role in the regional escalation?

While the groups responding to Israel’s bombing of Gaza—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iraqi and Syrian paramilitaries—are spread out across the region, they are all supported by Iran, which has armed and financed them as part of an overall strategy to contest US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. This Iran-supported network is often called the “axis of resistance,” and the alliance’s close collaboration reflects an approach developed by Qassem Soleimani, who was a key Iranian military leader until he was assassinated by the US in January 2020. “A big part of his strategy in the region was for the groups to get to know each other, and to share training and expertise—and that continued after the assassination in Baghdad,” said Bazzi.

Experts emphasize that Iran does not have full control over the groups it funds and arms, which often pursue their own agendas. For example, the relationship between the Houthis and Iran, according to Lackner, “is a bit like Netanyahu’s relationship to Biden. If they agree, and they want to do the same thing, then they do it. But they are not afraid to diverge either,” said Lackner. For instance, the Houthis ignored Iran’s orders to halt their advance on Sana’a in 2014, which sparked the years-long civil war and the conflict with Saudi Arabia. In the current conflagration, Bazzi said, Iran is unlikely to be directing the various forces to pursue “specific attacks,” but Iranian military leadership is “probably involved in larger-scale conversations about the division of responsibilities of different parts of the axis of resistance.”

According to Bazzi, at this moment Iran is carefully calculating how to maintain regional credibility by showing support for Hamas, while not going far enough to provoke a war with powerful foes like the US and Israel. “The primary Iranian calculation is about regime survival, and they don’t want to do anything that seriously jeopardizes their survival,” said Bazzi. Parsi said that so far, Iran has benefited from avoiding risky moves—in contrast to Israel, which has diminished its own “global standing” with its operations in Gaza. “Israel’s pariah status globally—at least outside of the West—is something that the Iranians are drawing benefits from. But that only works to the point that this doesn’t escalate into a larger conflict,” he said.

How is the US responding to the regional conflict?

Since October 7th, the US has repeatedly said that it wants to prevent more fighting in the region. Early on, the US dispatched warships and fighter jets to the Mediterranean to deter Hezbollah from entering the fray. Biden administration officials have also ramped up diplomatic efforts to halt a regional conflagration: The president sent envoy Amos Hochstein to Lebanon to try to negotiate a solution to the fighting around the blue line, and reportedly warned Israel against escalation with Hezbollah in private conversations. In October, when Israel had made plans to pre-emptively strike Lebanon, President Biden called Netanyahu to tell him to “stand down” on the attack plans, and ultimately, Israel did not launch a wide scale attack, according to a December Wall Street Journal report. “The priority for the Biden administration is to limit or prevent the broadening of the conflict,” said Schenker.

At the same time, the US has carried out repeated bombings in Iraq, Syria, and now Yemen, even as officials continue to talk about de-escalation. “We’re not looking for conflict with Iran. We’re not looking to escalate and there’s no reason for it to escalate beyond what happened over the last few days,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said last Friday, after the first US bombings of Yemen. But yesterday, the US military again bombed Houthi targets for the third time in a week, and then designated the Houthis as a terror organization, blocking the group’s access to the global financial system. By targeting Yemen, experts say the US is significantly expanding the regional war—“escalating regional tensions and adding fuel to a conflict,” as Bazzi wrote in a recent column published in The Guardian. “The conflagration could spiral out of control, perhaps more by accident than design,” he noted.

Many Middle East analysts say the Biden administration’s attempt to avert regional war is failing for one main reason: its refusal to couple a plea for de-escalation with advocacy for a ceasefire in Gaza. “Seeing the wider regional conflict as something that can be managed separately from Gaza is the source of the dissonance [in the administration’s strategy],” Bazzi told Jewish Currents. “You can’t prevent the wider regional war effectively without addressing the core immediate issue, which is the Israeli assault on Gaza. It’s just wishful thinking in the Biden administration that somehow it can separate the two.”

#the houthis #yemen #iran #israel hamas war

45 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 4 months

Text

Since these questions were sent at about the same time, I'm going to answer them together in the same post.

There's actually a great book that came out in 2020 about the geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran that really heated up following the Islamic Revolution in Iran that overthrew the Shah in 1979 in favor of the theocracy of the Ayatollah Khomeini: Black Wave: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion, and Collective Memory in the Middle East by Kim Ghattas (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO). It's one of the better books that I've read in the past few years and the ideal book to pick up if you're interested in the two most powerful Islamic nations of the Middle East.

Another good book that focuses on both countries is Andrew Scott Cooper's 2012 book The Oil Kings: How the U.S., Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO).

SAUDI ARABIA (I've read A LOT of books about Saudi Arabia over the past few years, so I could go on-and-on, but I'll try to limit myself to just a few recommendations!) •The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa'ud by Robert Lacey (BOOK | AUDIO) •Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia by Robert Lacey (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Ibn Saud: The Desert Warrior Who Created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by Barbara Bray and Michael Darlow (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine by Yaroslav Trofimov (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Saudi Arabia in the Nineteenth Century by R. Bayly Winder •King Faisal of Saudi Arabia: Personality, Faith and Times by Alexei Vassiliev (BOOK | KINDLE) •Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States Since FDR by Bruce Riedel (BOOK | KINDLE)

IRAN •The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis and the Final Days of Imperial Iran by Andrew Scott Cooper (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present by John Ghazvinian (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Iran-Iraq War by Pierre Razoux (BOOK | KINDLE) •A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind by Michael Axworthy (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Iran: A Modern History by Abbas Amanat (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer (BOOK | KINDLE) •Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam by Mark Bowden (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran by David Crist (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

I'll stop there for now. I could list scores of books because I'm fascinated by the history of both countries, their place in the world, and their relations with one another and with the United States. I probably read a lot more about Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and their leaders -- than most people would expect. So I have even more suggestions if you need them...but hopefully this is a good start!

#Books #Book Recommendations #Book Suggestions #Iran #Saudi Arabia #History #Politics #Geopolitics #Middle East #Islam #Books about Iran #Books about Saudi Arabia #House of Saud #Iranian Revolution #Islamic Revolution #Shah of Iran #Ayatollah Khomeini

38 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 3 months

Text

B-1 bomber accident in the USA. Crew ejects safely

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 05/01/2024 - 08:56in Aeronautical, Military Accidents

A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber crashed on the night of January 4, while trying to land at Ellsworth Air Base, South Dakota.

All four crew members were able to safely eject from the aircraft and survived, Ellsworth Air Base said in a statement.

The incident occurred during bad weather and sub-zero temperatures, with dense fog limiting visibility, according to local weather reports. Radio traffic from local rescuers said there was an "active fire" after an "explosion".

“An Air Force Lancer B-1B designated for Ellsworth Air Base crashed at approximately 5:50 p.m. today while trying to land at the facility,” the base said. "At the time of the accident, he was on a training mission."

The news began to circulate on social networks and local news that some kind of incident was occurring at the base, with some reports claiming that a B-1B had fallen there. The base was later closed to air traffic. The weather at the base is currently bad, with dense freezing fog present.

The air base was closed for flight operations, according to a Notice to Aviators/Air Mission Notice (NOTAM) issued shortly after the incident.

Located in Black Hills, South Dakota, Ellsworth Air Base is close to Rapid City. It is one of only two B-1 bomber bases. The 28ª Bomber Wing, which is there, operates more than 20 B-1 aircraft, according to the base. USAF has 45 B-1 jets in its inventory

A typical B-1 crew consists of two pilots and two weapons system officers, all with ejectable seats.

The aircraft was initially designed to operate as a supersonic bomber with nuclear capacity and variable sweeping wings. But the fleet has been widely used in the last two decades in the Middle East, after being converted into a purely conventional bomber. The aircraft is known to have a low mission capacity rate.

Ellsworth is scheduled to receive the first operational B-21 Raider stealth bombers, which are scheduled to fully replace the B-1.

“A council of officers will investigate the accident,” Ellsworth's statement said.

Tags: Aeronautical AccidentsMilitary AviationB-1B LancerUSAF - United States Air Force / U.S. Air Force

Sharing

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Will Pakistan acquire Chinese fighters FC-31?

05/01/2024 - 08:42

MILITARY

VIDEO: Ukrainian saboteurs set fire to Su-34 fighter bomber in eastern Russia

04/01/2024 - 23:10

EMBRAER

Saudi Arabia should replace 42 Lockheed C-130 with 33 Embraer C-390

04/01/2024 - 20:07

MILITARY

Lockheed Martin delivered less F-35 in 2023 than planned

04/01/2024 - 16:00

MILITARY

General Atomics completes fatigue test in NATO certification for the MQ-9B drone

04/01/2024 - 14:00

MILITARY

China releases new images of its next-generation aircraft carrier

04/01/2024 - 11:00

21 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 6 months

Text

The shocking Hamas assault on Israel has precipitated a beginning and an end for the Middle East. What has begun, almost inexorably, is the next war—one that will be bloody, costly, and agonizingly unpredictable in its course and outcome. What has ended, for anyone who cares to admit it, is the illusion that the United States can extricate itself from a region that has dominated the American national security agenda for the past half century.

One can hardly blame the Biden administration for trying to do just that. Twenty years of fighting terrorists, along with failed nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, took a terrible toll on American society and politics and drained the U.S. budget. Having inherited the messy fallout from the Trump administration’s erratic approach to the region, President Joe Biden recognized that U.S. entanglements in the Middle East distracted from more urgent challenges posed by the rising great power of China and the recalcitrant fading power of Russia.

The White House devised a creative exit strategy, attempting to broker a new balance of power in the Middle East that would allow Washington to downsize its presence and attention while also ensuring that Beijing did not fill the void. A historic bid to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia promised to formally align Washington’s two most important regional partners against their common foe, Iran, and anchor the Saudis beyond the perimeter of China’s strategic orbit.

In tandem with this effort, the administration also sought to ease tensions with Iran, the most dangerous adversary the United States faces in the Middle East. Having tried and failed to resuscitate the 2015 nuclear deal with its elaborate web of restrictions and oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, Washington embraced a Plan B of payoffs and informal understandings. The hope was that, in exchange for modest economic rewards, Tehran could be persuaded to slow down its work on its nuclear programs and step back from its provocations around the region. Stage one came in September, with a deal that freed five unjustly detained Americans from Iranian prisons and gave Tehran access to $6 billion in previously frozen oil revenues. Both sides were poised for follow-on talks in Oman, with the wheels of diplomacy greased by record-level Iranian oil exports, made possible by Washington’s averting its gaze instead of enforcing its own sanctions.

As ambitious policy gambits go, this one had a lot to recommend it—in particular, the genuine confluence of interests among Israeli and Saudi leaders that has already generated tangible momentum toward more public-facing bilateral cooperation on security and economic matters. Had it succeeded, a new alignment among two of the region’s major players might have had a truly transformative impact on the security and economic environment in the broader Middle East.

WHAT WENT WRONG?

Unfortunately, that promise may have been its undoing. Biden’s attempt at a quick getaway from the Middle East had one fatal flaw: it wildly misperceived the incentives for Iran, the most disruptive actor on the stage. It was never plausible that informal understandings and a dribble of sanctions relief would be sufficient to pacify the Islamic Republic and its proxies, who have a keen and time-tested appreciation for the utility of escalation in advancing their strategic and economic interests. Iranian leaders had every incentive to try to block an Israeli-Saudi breakthrough, particularly one that would have extended American security guarantees to Riyadh and allowed the Saudis to develop a civilian nuclear energy program.

At this time, it is not known whether Iran had any specific role in the carnage in Israel. Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Tehran was directly involved in planning the assault, citing unnamed senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group. That report has not been confirmed by Israeli or U.S. officials, who have only gone so far as to suggest that Iran was “broadly complicit,” in the words of Jon Finer, the deputy national security adviser. At the very least, the operation “bore hallmarks of Iranian support,” as a report in The Washington Post put it, citing former and current senior Israeli and U.S. officials. And even if the Islamic Republic did not pull the trigger, its hands are hardly clean. Iran has funded, trained, and equipped Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups and has coordinated closely on strategy, as well as operations—especially during the past decade. It is inconceivable that Hamas undertook an attack of this magnitude and complexity without some foreknowledge and affirmative support from Iran’s leadership. And now Iranian officials and media are exulting in the brutality unleashed on Israeli civilians and embracing the expectation that the Hamas offensive will bring about Israel’s demise.

WHAT’S IN IT FOR TEHRAN?

At first glance, Iran’s posture might appear paradoxical. After all, with the Biden administration proffering economic incentives for cooperation, it might seem unwise for Iran to incite an eruption between the Israelis and the Palestinians that will no doubt scuttle any possibility of a thaw between Washington and Tehran. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, however, the Islamic Republic has used escalation as a policy tool of choice. When the regime is under pressure, the revolutionary playbook calls for a counterattack to unnerve its adversaries and achieve a tactical advantage. And the war in Gaza advances the long-cherished goal of the Islamic Republic’s leadership to cripple its most formidable regional foe. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has never wavered in his feverish antagonism toward Israel and the United States. He and those around him are profoundly convinced of American immorality, greed, and wickedness; they revile Israel and clamor for its destruction, as part of the ultimate triumph of the Islamic world over what they see as a declining West and an illegitimate “Zionist entity.”

In addition, in the Biden administration’s entreaties and conciliation, Tehran smelled weakness—Washington’s desperation to shed its 9/11-era baggage, even if the price was high. Domestic turmoil in both the United States and Israel likely also whet the appetites of Iranian leaders, who have long been convinced that the West was decaying from within. For this reason, Tehran has been committing more strongly to its relationships with China and Russia. Those links are primarily driven by opportunism and a shared resentment of Washington. But for Iran, there is a domestic political element as well: as more moderate segments of the Iranian elite have been pushed to the sidelines, the regime’s economic and diplomatic orientation has shifted to the East, as its power brokers no longer see the West as a preferable or even a viable source of economic and diplomatic opportunities. Closer bonds among China, Iran, and Russia have encouraged a more aggressive Iranian posture, since a crisis in the Middle East that distracts Washington and European capitals will produce some strategic and economic benefits for Moscow and Beijing.

Finally, the prospect of a public Israeli-Saudi entente surely provided an additional accelerant to Iran, as it would have shifted the regional balance firmly back in Washington’s favor. In a speech he delivered just days before the Hamas attack, Khamenei warned that “the firm view of the Islamic Republic is that the governments that are gambling on normalizing relations with the Zionist regime will suffer losses. Defeat awaits them. They are making a mistake.”

WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE?

As the Israeli ground campaign in Gaza gets underway, it is highly unlikely that the conflict will stay there; the only question is the scope and speed of the war’s expansion. For now, the Israelis are focused on the immediate threat and are disinclined to widen the conflict. But the choice may not be theirs. Hezbollah, Iran’s most important ally, has already taken part in an exchange of fire on Israel’s northern border, in which at least four of the group’s fighters died. For Hezbollah, the temptation to follow the shock of Hamas’s success by opening a second front will be high. But Hezbollah’s leaders have acknowledged that they failed to anticipate the heavy toll of their 2006 war with Israel, which left the group intact but also severely eroded its capabilities. They may be more circumspect this time around. Tehran also has an interest in keeping Hezbollah whole, as insurance against a potential future Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program.

For now, therefore, although the threat of a wider war remains real, that outcome is hardly inevitable. The Iranian government has made an art of avoiding direct conflict with Israel, and it suits Tehran’s purposes, as well as those of its regional proxies and patrons in Moscow, to light the fire but stand back from the flames. Some in Israel may advocate for hitting Iranian targets, if only to send a signal, but the country’s security forces have their hands full now, and senior officials seem determined to stay focused on the fight at hand. Most likely, as the conflict evolves, Israel will at some point hit Iranian assets in Syria, but not in Iran itself. To date, Tehran has absorbed such strikes in Syria without feeling the need to retaliate directly.

As oil markets react to the return of a Middle East risk premium, Tehran may be tempted to resume its attacks and harassment of shipping vessels in the Persian Gulf. U.S. General C. Q. Brown, the newly confirmed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was right to warn Tehran to stay on the sidelines and “not to get involved.” But his choice of words unfortunately suggests a failure to appreciate that the Iranians are already deeply, inextricably involved.

For the Biden administration, it is long past time to shed the mindset that shaped prior diplomacy toward Iran: a conviction that the Islamic Republic could be persuaded to accept pragmatic compromises that served its country’s interests. Once upon a time, that may have been credible. But the Iranian regime has reverted to its foundational premise: a determination to upend the regional order by any means necessary. Washington should dispense with the illusions of a truce with Iran’s theocratic oligarchs.

On every other geopolitical challenge, Biden’s position has evolved considerably from the Obama-era approach. Only U.S. policy toward Iran remains mired in the outdated assumptions of a decade ago. In the current environment, American diplomatic engagement with Iranian officials in Gulf capitals will not produce durable restraint on Tehran’s part. Washington needs to deploy the same tough-minded realism toward Iran that has informed recent U.S. policy on Russia and China: building coalitions of the willing to ratchet up pressure and cripple Iran’s transnational terror network; reinstating meaningful enforcement of U.S. sanctions on the Iranian economy; and conveying clearly—through diplomacy, force posture, and actions to preempt or respond to Iranian provocations—that the United States is prepared to deter Iran’s regional aggression and nuclear advances. The Middle East has a way of forcing itself to the top of every president’s agenda; in the aftermath of this devastating attack, the White House must rise to the challenge.

25 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 6 months

Text

The US has used its veto at the UN security council to block a resolution calling for Israel to allow humanitarian corridors into the Gaza Strip, a pause in the fighting and the lifting of an order for civilians to leave the north of the besieged territory.

The text – supported by 12 of the 15 members of the security council on Wednesday – contained criticism of “heinous terrorist crimes by Hamas” and made no direct reference of Israel. In an attempt to win US support, the draft resolution did not explicitly call for a ceasefire, instead referencing a “humanitarian pause”.

But the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said the resolution, carefully crafted by Brazilian diplomats, was unacceptable because it made no mention of Israel’s right to self-defence. The UK abstained, saying the resolution lacked mention of the way Hamas was using ordinary Palestinians as human shields.

The US ambassador said she was horrified and saddened by the loss of life, but that the actions of Hamas had brought about the humanitarian crisis. She also called for time to let Joe Biden’s diplomacy play out.

Israel thanked the US for using its veto. China described the move as “nothing short of unbelievable” while Russia said it was an example of US double standards.

Two members of the G7 on the council – Japan and France – broke with the US by backing the motion.

The draft resolution also called for “humanitarian pauses to allow full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for United Nations humanitarian agencies”. Its failure to pass represented another blow to the authority of the world body.

Meanwhile, a meeting of the 59-strong Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Riyadh accused Israel’s forces of targeting al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza.

Tuesday’s explosion, which killed hundreds, was blamed by Palestinian officials on an Israeli airstrike. Israel said it was caused by a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant group, which denied responsibility.

Israel has been using media and diplomatic channels to try to convince leaders of Arab countries that blast was caused by militants, after even its regional allies rushed to blame it for the explosion.

In the only sign of a reassessment by Arab states, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the UN, Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, called for an independent investigation into the hospital strike and said anyone found guilty should be held to account. But she said regardless of the culprit, the death toll of Palestinians was unacceptable.

The dispute over responsibility may have little resonance among the Arab public. A former French ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, said: “The truth about who was responsible for the Gaza hospital strike is now irrelevant. Public opinion has decided: Israel is the culprit. All the explanations won’t do anything. This is a major defeat for Israel. It will have political consequences.”

Arab state foreign ministries have issued individual statements condemning Israel for the explosion, including Bahrain, which established ties with Israel in the Abraham Accords of 2020.

Morocco, another country that recognised Israel in 2020, also blamed it for the strike, as did Egypt, which became the first Arab country to normalise relations in 1979.

Saudi Arabia, which has ended talks on potential ties with Israel since the Israel-Hamas war flared, called the blast a “heinous crime committed by the Israeli occupation forces”.

The rapid apportioning of blame coincided with angry rallies across the region, with more planned on Wednesday after calls for a “day of rage”.

A mini-summit between Joe Biden and Arab states, as well as the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was due to be held in Amman on Wednesday, but has been cancelled. The Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said the summit would be held only “when the decision to stop the war and put an end to [the] massacres” was taken.

The authority of most Gulf monarchies is secure, but they know what they risk if they are seen to be siding with Israel’s version of events at present. The popularity of Abbas, seen as a security subcontractor for Israel by some Palestinians, was already at a low ebb.

Years of patient work trying to build a new relationship between Israel and some Arab states looks set to be undone, a trend that will delight hardliners in Iran, Lebanon and Palestine. Some extremists in the Israeli government also have no interest in a relationship with Arab states if it involves compromise over the Palestinian question.

The Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, issued a warning that he could unleash protests inside Egypt if Israel did not back down.

He again said Israel was seeking to expel Palestinians over the Gaza southern border into the Sinai peninsula and said to Israel: “The Negev Desert [about 4,500 sq miles of land in southern Israel] is before you if you want to displace Palestinian citizens, but not Sinai, and then Sinai will not become a base to attack you and for you to use it as an excuse to attack Egypt.”

He has been demanding Israel allow aid into Gaza through the Rafah crossing into Egypt, but only with US-backed Israeli assurances that Israel will not attack the convoys. Israel fears the convoys will contain ammunition for Hamas, a central issue in the talks between Israel and the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken.

#un security council #us foreign policy #israel palestine conflict #organization of islamic cooperation #al ahli baptist hospital

19 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 5, 2024

The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee today released a 156-page report showing that when he was in the presidency, Trump received at least $7.8 million from 20 different governments, including those of China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia, through businesses he owned.

The Democrats brought receipts.

According to the report—and the documents from Trump’s former accounting firm Mazars that are attached to it—the People’s Republic of China and companies substantially controlled by the PRC government paid at least $5,572,548 to Trump-owned properties while Trump was in office; Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422; Qatar paid at least $465,744; Kuwait paid at least $300,000; India paid at least $282,764; Malaysia paid at least $248,962; Afghanistan paid at least $154,750; the Philippines paid at least $74,810; the United Arab Emirates paid at least $65,225. The list went on and on.

The committee Democrats explained that these payments were likely only a fraction of the actual money exchanged, since they cover only four of more than 500 entities Trump owned at the time. When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2023, Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) stopped the investigation before Mazars had produced the documents the committee had asked for when Democrats were in charge of it. Those records included documents relating to Russia, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil.

Trump fought hard against the production of these documents, dragging out the court fight until September 2022. The committee worked on them for just four months before voters put Republicans in charge of the House and the investigation stopped.

These are the first hard numbers that show how foreign governments funneled money to the president while policies involving their countries were in front of him. The report notes, for example, that Trump refused to impose sanctions on Chinese banks that were helping the North Korean government; one of those banks was paying him close to $2 million in rent annually for commercial office space in Trump Tower.

The first article of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument [that is, salary, fee, or profit], Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The report also contrasted powerfully with the attempt of Republicans on the Oversight Committee, led by Comer, to argue that Democratic Joe Biden has corruptly profited from the presidency.

In the Washington Post on December 26, 2023, Philip Bump noted that just after voters elected a Republican majority, Comer told the Washington Post that as soon as he was in charge of the Oversight Committee, he would use his power to “determine if this president and this White House are compromised because of the millions of dollars that his family has received from our adversaries in China, Russia and Ukraine.”

For the past year, while he and the committee have made a number of highly misleading statements to make it sound as if there are Biden family businesses involving the president (there are not) and the president was involved in them (he was not), their claims were never backed by any evidence. Bump noted in a piece on December 14, 2023, for example, that Comer told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that “the Bidens” have “taken in” more than $24 million. In fact, Bump explained, Biden’s son Hunter and his business partners did receive such payments, but most of the money went to the business partners. About $7.5 million of it went to Hunter Biden. There is no evidence that any of it went to Joe Biden.

All of the committee’s claims have similar reality checks. Jonathan Yerushalmy of The Guardian wrote that after nearly 40,000 pages of bank records and dozens of hours of testimony, “no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current or previous role.”

Still, the constant hyping of their claims on right-wing media led then–House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to authorize an impeachment inquiry in mid-September, and in mid-December, Republicans in the House formalized the inquiry.

There is more behind the attack on Biden than simply trying to even the score between him and Trump—who remains angry at his impeachments and has demanded Republicans retaliate—or to smear Biden through an “investigation,” which has been a standard technique of the Republicans since the mid-1990s.

Claiming that Biden is as corrupt as Trump undermines faith in our democracy. After all, if everyone is a crook, why does it matter which one is in office? And what makes American democracy any different from the authoritarian systems of Russia or Hungary or Venezuela, where leaders grab what they can for themselves and their followers?

Democracies are different from authoritarian governments because they have laws to prevent the corruption in which it appears Trump engaged. The fact that Republicans refuse to hold their own party members accountable to those laws while smearing their opponents says far more about them than it does about the nature of democracy.

It does, though, highlight that our democracy is in danger.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#corrupt GOP #corruption #letters from an american #heather cox richardson #Emolument

17 notes · View notes

foreverlogical · 8 months

Text

On Thursday, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, urged the committee’s chairman, James Comer, to “compel Jared Kushner to comply with document requests he has ignored and defied for over a year.” Those requests came in 2022 from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform when Democratic representatives were using the committee to investigate the very real “appearance of a quid pro quo for your foreign policy work during the Trump Administration.” The billions (with a “B”) that Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, has received from various Gulf monarchies, as well as the $2 billion (with a “B”!) he got from Saudi Arabia is orders of magnitude more than what Comer’s unsubstantiated claims against Hunter Biden are.

Raskin’s letter to Comer comes just weeks after the House committee chairman went on CNN and acknowledged when pressed, “I think that what Kushner did crossed the line of ethics.” Raskin writes that with Comer’s “recent acknowledgement” of Kushner’s ethical failures, along with the chairman’s “repeated assertions that our Committee is ‘investigating foreign nationals’ attempts to target and coerce high-ranking U.S. officials’ family members by providing money or other benefits in exchange for certain actions,’” Raskin thought it was a good time to ask Comer to put his money where his mouth is.

Comer, a man whose ethical standards seem to lie somewhere between a dungeon and a hole in the ground, responded through a spokesperson, saying, “Ranking Member Raskin’s letter to Chairman Comer is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the mounting evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling schemes.” What is that evidence? Nobody knows.

RELATED STORY: House Republican admits he can't find any Biden crimes

To put things into perspective, the circumstantial evidence of corruption on the part of Jared Kushner—who unlike Hunter Biden was literally a top adviser to the president of the United States—is mountainous. Meanwhile, after subpoenas and the full power of his committee, Comer has not been able to produce any evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. In fact, the only evidence Comer has provided seems to prove that then-Vice President Joe Biden, with all of his responsibilities, was trying very hard to be a supportive father to his son.

On the other hand:

Jared Kushner received his top-secret clearance over the objections of two White House security specialists because of how dubious his connections with foreign money were.

Back in 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) reportedly bragged that Kushner was “in his pocket.”

The more details that come out about Kushner’s Affinity Partner fund, the more obvious it becomes that it is an entirely Saudi investment fund that manages “roughly $3 billion.” Committee Democrats say “99% of [that] was ‘attributable to clients who are non-United States persons.’”

Every accusation is a confession with the conservative movement. While Comer, Rep. Jim Jordan, and others hold three-ring-circus-style investigations into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, the real organized swamp, including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, continues to profit off of their corrupt behavior.

Sign the petition: Demand transparency about Jared Kushner’s Saudi business dealings.

Trump’s continuing legal problems, the car crash of a Republican debate, and the polling numbers defy the traditional media’s narrative that the Republican Party is even above water with voters.

#republicans #us news #politics #jared kushner #donald trump #corruption

28 notes · View notes