Not Guitar, Mr President, but Qatar!

[Stavros]

Following his visit to Middle Eastern dictatorships, the President of the USA is taking credit for Saudi Arabia's decision to sever political and commercial ties to the Emirate of Qatar, tweeting that
Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/w...abia.html?_r=0

Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates followed Saudi Arabia's moves on Monday (5th June 2017) but the decision prompts more questions than answers. The NY Times and most of the rest of the world is fairly certain that Saudi Arabia is the least innocent party in funding and supporting in other ways the international terrorism that has slaughtered thousands of people from the Pentagon to Kashmir, but why let a few grisly details get in the way of the one thing this President does best -manipulate other people's money.

Oddly, and in spite of the fact that the Pentagon has expressed deep concern about this move, the largest US military base in the Middle East, its regional 'Central Command' is in -yep, you guessed it, Qatar. Or is it odd at all? One wonders if the President has any knowledge of the region other than the location of its golf courses and his investments, and one assumes he at least knows the difference between a Milk Shake and Tribal Sheikh because one of them comes with a straw.

As to the background, Qatar is the only Wahabi state in the region other than Saudi Arabia, the result of a pact that was made in the early 20th century between Ibn Saud and the founder of Qatar Mohammed el-Thani. At the time it was constituted, the population of Qatar was around 30,000, it is now around 2.3 million, most of them immigrants from South Asia, the Philippines and other parts of the world. Qatar like its neighbours thrived briefly on the pearl trade before the trade went belly-up in the 1930s when synthetic Japanese pearls flooded world markets (the Japanese were also accused of dumping cheap cotton products across the Middle East at this time). Although oil was discovered in the 1930s the war prevented its development until the 1950s, and as it has turned out, Qatar now has the third largest gas reserves in the world after Russia and Iran, with which Qatar is developing the colossal South Pars field.

The Iranian connection is clearly one of the key issues for Saudi Arabia, and one can only assume that having been told the President can only deal with issues presented in concise and simple terms, he would have been told, probably by Crown Prince Mohammed (King Salman's barmy son), Qatar is Close to Iran. Iran is the enemy, we need to do something about Qatar, securing the full approval of the USA.

But it goes deeper than this. Although a Wahabi state in formal terms, when Qatar began to develop in the 1960s, as with the other Gulf Sheikhdoms, it lacked teachers indeed, lacked any qualified professionals, hence the immigration of Palestinian engineers, and in particular, Egyptian teachers. As a result relations between Qatar and Egypt became close, yet such was the gratitude of the al-Thani they were not bothered that a leading teaching associate who has since become an influential Dean/cleric in Qatar University is Yusuf Qaradawi, a long-time member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, after the Arab Spring, Qaradawi and Qatar welcomed the election of Mohammed Morsi, and thus incurred the wrath of Egypt and Saudi Arabia when voicing their concern at the coup which removed Morsi from power. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a 'terrorist organization', something that would also have been impressed on the President of the USA.

This move is designed to weaken Iran, by putting pressure on Qatar to reduce its relations with the Islamic Republic, but it is hard to see how Qatar can respond. Apart from the South Pars development, trade between Iran and Qatar is constant (as is also the case between Iran and the UAE) and many Iranians and Shi'a descendants of Iranians live in Qatar. Add into the mix the 'liberal' Al Jazeera media outlet, the FIFA World Cup, Christian churches and the availability of booze in Doha hotels, and you can understand why the Puritans of Saudi Arabia are much displeased with Qatar, even those wealthy Saudis who take their Filipino toy boys for a wet weekend in Doha every so often when they get bored with Dubai, but ma'alesh, let's cut them some slack, what happens in Doha stays in Doha.

But what does the USA get from this except the problem of condemning the state which hosts its largest military base in the region? Is the US going to move 10,000 personnel to Dubai? Qatar for the time being is not retaliating in any way, but the opportunity for Saudi Arabia to work more mischief has been taken, and the President of the USA has swallowed the bait.

Some background:
http://www.thenational.ae/world/qata...-a-gcc-dispute

http://www.economist.com/news/middle...ours-well-iran

[sukumvit boy]

Thanks for that Qatar primer so that even I can almost understand it .

[Stavros]

I wonder what Frank Zappa would make of all this. I saw the Mothers three times in their glory days, and what a fabulous sound they made. Whereas now there is just the sound of nervous, hysterical laughter as the USA yet again makes a mess of its Middle Eastern policy, whatever that is. Unfortunately I suspect that what passes for policy is a determination By Saudi Arabia and its American poodle to attack Iran, not directly as Daesh did today, but indirectly, and as that perpetuates violence and fear in the region, it would mean that as the so-called Caliphate falls apart with the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa, the focus of violence just shifts somewhere else, to nobody's benefit other than the arms industry, which may be what this is all about anyway.

[sukumvit boy]

Some are saying that the Saudis played Trump like Frank played that Qatar .

I envy your having seen the Mothers 3 times!
I followed him at a distance. Now recognized as a 'serious' musician , The Father of Invention .
I also loved his movie and early work in clay animation in "Baby Snakes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Zappa

[sukumvit boy]

Good interview with Sheik Hamid bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani , former prime minister of Qatar on Charlie Rose Show 6/12/17.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30589

[sukumvit boy]

An addition to my last post ,the Qatar crisis and the apparent rift in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The 2017 rift with Qatar is discussed late in the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council

[Stavros]

Good interview with Sheik Hamid bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani , former prime minister of Qatar on Charlie Rose Show 6/12/17.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30589

Interesting at times, but also an exercise in deception. Qatar was the primary backer of various Syrian rebel groups along with Saudi Arabia and when he says Qatar and others 'made mistakes' in Syria that is an understatement. His claim they were fighting terrorism to prevent it being imported into Qatar is odd because if anything by -allegedly- fighting terrorists -and Qatar was actually supporting terrorists as defined by the Syrian and Russian governments- Qatar was inviting any group in the al-Qaeda or Daesh franchise to do just that.

The simple point here is that Saudi Arabia and Qatar got stuck in to Syria in the belief their actions would hasten the end of the Ba'ath government of Bashar al-Asad, and they failed. It is also the case that as Qatar withdrew its support from the rebels, Saudi Arabia did too, deciding to attack the Yemen instead, and leaving the field clear for Asad and the Russians to mop up. As for the GCC, it has been no more effective than the Arab League so when al-Thani complains the GCC has violated its own rules in its dealing with Qatar that surprises noone and ought not to surprise him.

The question that has bothered me since this began is -why has the USA taken sides with Saudi Arabia against Qatar? In an earlier post I suggested it was because the President was given a simple problem with a simple solution -Qatar is Close to Iran. Iran is the enemy, we need to do something about Qatar, -and it does look odd with that hugely important base in Qatar and the fact that Qatar is not just close to Iran, for obvious reasons, but also Turkey with whom the USA could have a fractious relationship as US troops embedded with the Kurds attempt to liberate Raqqa in Syria, a move which may end one component of the conflict but create another as any Kurdish success is seen as a loss by Turkey.

And let us not excuse Qatar just because it has al-Jazeera, so hated by the Saudis; Qatar was home to 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed when his nephew, Ramzi Yousef carried out the first attack on the Twin Towers in NYC, and was involved in some financial support for that operation. At the time, 1995, he was working in the Water Department and when the US came looking for him, it was the government of Qatar that helped him leave the country, and in subsequent years the CIA had enough information to prove that bin Laden has his supporters in Qatar. But that is also true of Saudi Arabia which in the same year, 1995 hosted supporters of bin Laden who attacked a National Guard Training Centre in Riyadh financed by the USA, killing seven. And, even after 9/11 when the Saudi government rounded up thousands of Imams, froze bank accounts, shut down 'charities' and even pulled a lot of their own literature used in schools that promoted their version of Islam, the security police the Mahabeth was receiving help from the FBI to track down al-Qaeda fans yet it was estimated 80% of the Mahabeth supported bin Laden's aims, and that is not counting Saudi Arabia's connections to the ISI in Pakistan and through them to various terrorist groups in Pakistan and Kashmir, and of course the Taliban (the Mahabeth claim is in Abdel Bari Atwan's book The Secret History of Al-Qaeda,2006, page 165).

Today it is reported there is another reason for the USA taking sides: the President and his son-in-law have both made attempts to develop business interests in Qatar and been rejected. Crude as it may sound, it does sound more accurate to argue that as the President has no understanding of politics, let alone the Presidency as political office, but does understand money, notably his own, Qatar presents itself to him as a loss, and he doesn't like losing.

Specifically, the claim is that the President and his daughter arrived in Doha seven years ago in search of financial assistance to shore up a 'distressed real estate fund', but got nowhere; and that Jared Kushner and wife also went to Qatar that year to seek financial assistance in the management of 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, and that although talks carried on for some time, there has been no deal. The story -first published in the Huffington Post- is here-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7788151.html

There is a serious crisis in the Arabian peninsula -Qatar is being isolated and suffering as a result, and one wonders if the long term aim of Saudi Arabia is to annex the Emirate, given that the Kingdom's founder, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud believed the whole of the Middle East (including what is now Israel) should be part of a revived Caliphate based in Mecca and Medina. It may not be possible right now, but absorbing Qatar must be part of the plan, and why should the USA care about that? The base will stay, and right now it doesn't seem likely that Qatar will make the situation worse by throwing the US out and inviting the Russians in. As for Yemen, the country, with the help of the USA and the UK is being destroyed; what was never a properly integrated state is fast becoming a failed state, if it is not that already,

and for what? A business deal that went bad. In business you win some, you lose some. In politics, that is people's lives, their homes, their future. You cannot run the USA as if it were a business, and until someone gets a grip, the USA will dance to a tune played -and paid for- by Saudi Arabia, and no good can come of that. And that is before we get the low-down on the bribes that have been paid for those handsome deals. Because business often stinks too.

[Stavros]

Here is a curious situation:
The US has sold Qatar $12bn (£9.4bn)-worth of fighter jets just days after President Donald Trump accused the country of being a “high-level” sponsor of terrorism.

The deal was signed off by the US Defence Ministry and reportedly included 36 F-15 combat aircraft.

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis and Qatari Minister of State for Defence Affairs Khalid al-Attiyah met on Wednesday to seal the agreement, according to one source familiar with the deal.
...“Qatar and the United States have solidified their military cooperation by having fought together side by side for many years now in an effort to eradicate terrorism and promote a future of dignity and prosperity,” Mr al-Attiyah said in a statement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7790956.html

-Does this mean the USA is now in partnership with "the nation of Qatar" that has "historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level"; or does it mean that the White House has its policy on terrorism and the Middle East, and the Defence Department has its own policy in terrorism and the Middle East, and that neither talks to or co-ordinates with each other?

[Stavros]

The US state department has issued a stinging rebuke to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies saying they had failed to come up with a justification for the embargo they imposed on Qatar earlier this month.
The public and blunt criticism of Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates marked a sharp about-turn from Donald Trump’s wholehearted backing for the embargo, and his accusations of terrorist funding against Qatar. It follows a increasing pattern in which the state and defence departments have pursued policies abroad that are far removed from Trump’s rhetoric.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-embargo-trump

Perhaps we should accept that there are no contradictions in US policy on Qatar, but that the White House has its policy, and the State and Defence Department have theirs, and it doesn't matter if they are opposed to each other, they are just different, a sort of 'separate but equal' status.

The more worrying thing, is that this comes at a time when the Commandante is no longer the Commandante, as he has abdicated responsibility for military matters by handing it to the Generals, and like most Generals, they see opportunities for troop involvement in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan that others see as major risks.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/...rump-goes-AWOL

Odder still is that in November 2015 the candidate bragged, "I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.947c54f10c88

Maybe the truth is that shifting money from other people's pockets (mostly American ones) into his own is taking up so much of his time that the 'other stuff' is just not considered important anymore. Or it could be that he is bored with the job, but won't admit it is beyond his intellect. Whatever, dude.

[Stavros]

The latest twist in this confrontation is the ultimatum that has been issued to Qatar by Saudi Arabia and its alliess Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE, which calls for the Emirate to

-shut down al-Jazeera and its affiliated tv channels;
-reduce ties with Iran to basic trade, expel members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard;
-close a Turkish military base;
-cut its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, 'Islamic state', Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham;
-hand over all documentation on its links with opposition groups in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE;
-pay reparations to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE;
-stop interfering in the domestic and foreign affairs of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE;
-the agreement to be monitored at regular intervals over the next 10 years...
-Qatar has 10 days to comply with the ultimatum in order for the countries affected to lift their boycott of the Emirate.

Once 10 days has lapsed and if Qatar does not comply, the ultimatum will be withdrawn. What happens next?

The USA has yet to respond, although Rex Tillerson, who is one of the two people in control of US foreign policy -the other being the Commander-in-Chief, James Mattis- has in the past said the demands had to be reasonable and actionable.

Doesn't look good, as Mohammed, son of Salman is not the kind of man to sit back and let it ride. He authored this crazy policy for a reason, so we await the next move, but one wonders if full annexation is now on the cards, for who is going to stop Saudi Arabia from doing it? And if it does go ahead, who is going to reverse it?

Two sources more or less the same:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...o-end-blockade
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...eera-cut-ties/