Hezbollah-Daesh Deal Has Terrifying Consequences By Baria Alimuddin: New Age Islam's Selection, 04 September 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
04 September 2017
• Hezbollah-Daesh Deal Has Terrifying Consequences
By Baria Alamuddin
• The Continuing Allure of Islamic Finance
By Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady
• Economic Reforms in Saudi Arabia: A Challenging Road Ahead
By Dr. Naser Al-Tamimi
• Iran Must Be Confronted Over Foreign Weapons Factories
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
• Khomeini Or Kim? Khamenei’s Real Teacher
By Amir Taheri
• How Qatar’s Leadership Is Working for Iran
By Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-------
Hezbollah-Daesh Deal Has Terrifying Consequences
By Baria Alamuddin
3 September 2017
Last week saw one of the strangest battlefield exchange deals of recent times, with Daesh releasing several dead combatants — Lebanese soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and one Iranian — in exchange for busing 670 Daesh fighters and families from the Lebanese border zone to eastern Syria.
It is bitterly ironic that just as Iraq announced the liberation of Tal Afar and Nineveh province, hundreds of new Daesh fighters are being brought into this same locality on the Syria-Iraq border. Unsurprisingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi was among those protesting loudly, describing the deal as an “insult to the Iraqi people.”
US forces likewise wanted to prevent these Daesh militants from reversing hard-won progress in Iraq and eastern Syria, but were constrained by the presence of women and children in the buses, who were acting as human shields. However, American airstrikes against a key bridge and vehicles associated with the convoy forced these Daesh fighters to seek refuge in regime-held territory, rendering their ultimate destination an open question.
This deal casts a spotlight upon interactions between Daesh and Iranian proxy forces, particularly Hezbollah which brokered this deal, with its leader Hassan Nasrallah having travelled to Damascus to win Bashar Assad’s support. As a US spokesman observed, “Their claim of fighting terrorism rings hollow when they allow known terrorists to transit territory under their control.”
Many Lebanese are furious that instead of being confronted and forced to face justice for murdering hundreds of citizens and at least nine soldiers among 30 kidnapped in 2014, Daesh terrorists are loaded onto tourist buses and transported to the location of their choice. Furthermore, Nasrallah’s deal-making occurred over the heads of the Lebanese army and state, epitomizing Hezbollah’s drift toward behaving as Lebanon’s de facto government with the final say over war and peace.
There is more than meets the eye to the Assad-Daesh relationship. After 2003, Syria’s regime funnelled thousands of foreign jihadists into Iraq, with Syrian intelligence even facilitating attacks against Iraqi targets to inconvenience the Americans. When these jihadists mutated into Daesh, the regime stayed in touch. After protests erupted in Syria in 2011, the regime sought to discredit and divide the opposition by releasing hundreds of Syrian jihadists in a “general amnesty.” These elements constituted the core of Syrian jihadist groups, from the Al-Nusra Front, now known as Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, to Daesh.
When Daesh emerged in Syria in 2013, it was not through capturing regime-held territory, but by pushing out other rebel groups, doing the regime’s work for it. In this symbiotic relationship Assad gave Daesh hard currency in return for exports from oilfields under their control. When the overstretched regime no longer had the capacity to hold parts of central Syria, Daesh stepped into the vacuum — with Palmyra changing hands several times. Sky News published leaked documents proving this amicable transfer of territory between Daesh and the Syrian regime. Both sides also coordinated assaults against rebels.
Families of the deceased Lebanese soldiers may gain comfort from burying their loved ones; but how many more people will lose their lives as a result of hundreds of Daesh militants being transferred to a new battlefront?
The agreement comes in the context of systematic efforts to flush out Sunnis — fighters and civilians, moderates and extremists — from the Syria-Lebanon border region. Throughout 2016 and 2017 there have been numerous agreements to evacuate rebels from this zone. One such deal transferred around 20,000 Sunnis out of Homs. In another complex arrangement, Iraqi militias released a group of abducted Qatari royals in exchange for up to $1 billion from Doha, according to press reports. The same deal stipulated the removal of Sunnis from western Syrian villages, with Shiite occupants (including Iraqis and Afghans) ferried in, engineering a population loyal to Iran.
In Iraq, the pro-Iranian Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi militias have faced pressure to demobilize. Following the liberation of Mosul and Tal Afar from Daesh, Iraqis claim these paramilitaries are simply a menace. Al-Hashd leaders claim they must now fight in eastern Syria, ensuring the continuation of their salaries and weapons from the state. Precisely on cue, their allies inside Syria sent them new batches of Daesh fighters to justify their existence. Iraqis are furious that their security is jeopardized by this deal, which Al-Hashd leaders like Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis have vocally defended. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki condemned the criticism as a “systematic campaign against Hezbollah.”
For Iran and Assad this is all about who fills the post-Daesh vacuum, with Iran seeking to dominate a contiguous territory across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Population swaps, sectarian massacres, arming proxies and displacing civilians are different methods toward the same objective.
The media now talk about the prospects of a strategic victory for Assad. Yet this would be the hollowest of victories, having surrendered sovereignty over his shattered state to those who bankrolled and masterminded this war. The proliferation of Russian and Iranian military bases, missile sites and foreign militias demonstrate that Syria will remain a pawn for exacerbating regional instability, exporting terrorism and meddling in neighboring states.
Deals between Hezbollah, Daesh and others are being brokered under the noses of Western diplomats who have largely lost interest in Syria. In past peace negotiations, Iran was not permitted to participate. Now with the Astana rounds of talks driving the agenda, objectives are set by Iran and Russia before others even come to the table.
For all of US President Donald Trump’s anti-Iranian rhetoric, he is turning a blind eye to the emergence of a new pan-regional Persian empire. To those on the ground it is obvious what is happening: The Hezbollah-Daesh deal is simply another step toward major geopolitical transformations. If this sounds alarmist, it is because the consequences are almost too terrifying to contemplate.
The international community is discreetly disengaging from Syria at the very moment at which there must be maximum diplomatic input to shape the endgame both there and in Iraq — and prevent Iran benefitting from the logic of winner-takes-all.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1155391/columns
-----
The Continuing Allure of Islamic Finance
By Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady
3 September 2017
With the total Islamic finance industry estimated at around $ 1.9 trillion in assets for yearend 2016, this market segment pales into insignificance compared with traditional finance.
However of particular interest is the growing popularity of Islamic finance from both Muslim and non-Muslim financial institutions and investors.
Islamic assets are heavily concentrated in the banking sector which holds $1.5 trillion of the total, with Islamic bonds or Sukuks worth $320 billion, and investment funds and insurance or so called Takaful worth $56 billion and $25 billion respectively.
The majority are purchase and sale or Murabaha and leasing or Ijara transactions. Major Gulf companies are turning to the Sukuk market to raise funds, with Saudi Aramco and the Government of Saudi Arabia both successfully launching Sukuk tranches which were heavily oversubscribed.
Two Main Regions
Globally, the Islamic finance market is concentrated in two main regions in the Muslim world – Malaysia and in the Arabian Gulf, where Bahrain set a precedent in supervising and granting of Islamic banking licenses but with Dubai now becoming a global hub for the sector.
Other financial centres, especially London, have been vigorous in trying to capture a part of the growing Islamic finance business and the UK is far ahead of other Western countries, with 20 banks in the UK offering Islamic finance services, compared with 100 in the US and four in Switzerland.
Some western banks like Citibank and HSBC have been in the forefront of Islamic finance and established Islamic finance subsidiaries, like HSBC Amana even before fully owned Muslim Islamic finance institutions were set up.
Of the 20 UK banks, five are fully Sharia compliant – Abdu Dhabi Islamic Bank, Al Rayan Islamic Bank, Bank of London and the Middle East , Gatehouse Bank and QIB UK. According to some estimates, there are more than 100,000 Islamic banking retail customers in the UK and even non-Muslim retail investors are also opting for Sharia compliant Children Trust Funds in screened ethically investing companies.
London has also been active to promote itself as the centre of choice to issue Islamic Sukuks to non-Muslim corporates and since the first listing in July 2006, some $49 billion has been raised through 66 issues of Islamic bonds on the London Stock Exchange and as of July 2017, there were 21 of them worth $23 billion being traded.
Destination London
Successive UK governments have sought to promote London as a natural location for Islamic finance and the UK hosted the 9th World Islamic Economic Forum in 2013.
This was the first time the Forum met outside the Muslim world, which underpinned the UK’s own interest in accessing Islamic financing in parallel with traditional borrowing, the UK raised £200 million in a heavily oversubscribed sovereign Sukuk in 2014.
In 2015, the UK’s Export Finance Agency, the government’s export-credit guarantee arm, underwrote an Islamic bond in March 2015 for a $ 913 million Sukuk issued by Dubai’s Emirates airline.
So what has made the Islamic finance market more alluring? The global financial crisis of 2008 was certainly a contributing factor when it was noted that the contagious domino effect of the crisis did not seem to affect Islamic banking with its asset based financing criteria as opposed to leveraged debt financing, but there is still a long way to go to match the traditional finance market.
To put this in perspective, the total Islamic asset base is about the same size as the balance sheet of one big international bank, while the global bond market is around $100 trillion, while the numbers of UK retail bank customers are nearly 50 million compared with the 100,000 Muslim retail clients.
As the old saying goes ‘from a small acorn a mighty oak tree grows’, Islamic finance took roots from the early visionary days of HRH Prince Mohammed bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz. He launched Dar Al Maal Al Islami (DMI) Group in Geneva, Switzerland in 1981, as a parent vehicle for over 50 Islamic banking institutions, many of whom are still growing strong today.
To ensure long term survival, there are now Islamic Accounting Boards and Sharia Advisory Board fatwa or rulings convergence on what is Islamically acceptable and what is deemed prohibited in Islamic transactions.
As this had been a major criticism of some Islamic banks who were either seen as being too “liberal” or too “rigid” in their interpretation of Islamically acceptable instruments.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/03/The-continuing-allure-of-Islamic-finance-.html
-----
Economic Reforms in Saudi Arabia: A Challenging Road Ahead
By Dr. Naser Al-Tamimi
3 September 2017
Economic diversification is defined by the UN as a strategy to transform the economy from one source of income to multiple sources across different sectors, and with the participation of large segments of the population.
In this context, economic diversification can be measured by determining how different sectors contribute to the gross domestic product (GDP), the concentration of exports, the extent to which the country relies on certain commodities and the share of labor across different industries. However, export concentration is still widely used as a measure of economic diversification.
The World Bank has classified the various factors affecting economic diversification into three categories. The first is economic reform, which can include trade liberalization, investment promotion, cutting red tape, and providing financial credit lines for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The second area involves structural factors such as demographics, human capital, institutional development, infrastructure and quality of education. Then there are the macroeconomic variables, such as the real exchange rate, inflation, net foreign direct investment inflows and terms of trade.
In addition, there are factors such as competition, monopolies, the distance between markets, and the size of markets.
International examples show that diversifying the economy away from oil is a difficult and time-consuming strategy that may take at least two decades. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) cites three countries — Malaysia, Indonesia and Mexico — as among the best examples of those that have successfully diversified their economies away from oil or natural resources.
All the countries that have, to some extent, succeeded in diversifying their economies or exports have enjoyed three main advantages: The availability of cheap labour, which has supported labour-intensive industries such as agro-industries and textiles; a domestic political framework, featuring political consensus, power sharing or democratic transition; and a regional or international environment that encourages further diversification.
Saudi Arabia lacks some advantages that have facilitated economic diversification elsewhere, such as cheap labour, favourable regional or international conditions and, most importantly, the implementation of economic reforms before the decline in oil prices.
Although numerous international institutions — including the IMF, World Bank, and credit-rating agencies — have welcomed economic reforms in Saudi Arabia, many agree that it is a long, difficult, and challenging road ahead. Others are even more pessimistic and argue that economic reforms will eventually not succeed.
Certainly, government-led plans cannot achieve everything, particularly given the Kingdom’s economy, which has relied heavily on oil exports for nearly eight decades. In addition, the Saudi government is dealing with complex and changing issues such as private-sector development, restructuring the education system, and addressing the imbalance in demographics and labour market, which will take years to reform.
Moreover, there are no economic reforms free of pain. There are winners and losers. Here lies the role of the Saudi government in developing an effective social safety net that relieves the burden on low-income groups or those in need of governmental support, such as SMEs.
Thus, the coming years will be the most critical in the reform process, as goals are translated into policies, responding to the changing local or regional economic and political environment, and dealing with people’s shifting expectations. Importantly, there is a need for an efficient, independent, credible, and transparent administrative agency or institutions that have the necessary tools to move forward with economic reforms.
Importantly, the reforms in Saudi Arabia will be implemented under different conditions compared to most global examples of economic diversification. Riyadh is racing against time and is up against an unfavourable external environment that includes low oil prices, weak global growth, escalation of protectionist measures and a volatile regional order. All these conditions, if they persist, are likely to dampen economic growth and ultimately affect the implementation of reforms in Saudi Arabia.
It is certainly a long and difficult road ahead — and the policymakers in Riyadh need to clarify this matter to citizens in a transparent and frank manner.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1155406
-----
Iran Must Be Confronted Over Foreign Weapons Factories
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
3 September 2017
In the modern world, many countries set up factories in foreign nations in order to manufacture goods such as technological devices, automobiles, cell phones or aircraft.
The Iranian government is also stepping into this line of business, but with an important caveat: Its products involve hard-power capabilities.
Based on the latest intelligence reports, Iran is manufacturing advanced weapons in foreign nations including Syria and Lebanon, a claim denied by the prime minister of the latter country.
Tehran is more than likely planning to expand its weapons manufacturing to other countries as well. There is a widely held belief that Iran has weapons factories in Yemen too.
Some of the arms that Tehran is producing in Syria and Lebanon include precision-guided missiles, which are built using advanced technology to strike specific targets.
It has become crystal clear that Iran is in direct violation of UN Resolution 2231, which was adopted as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. The resolution stipulates that all states are to take the necessary measures to “prevent, except as decided otherwise by the Security Council in advance on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer of arms or related materiel from Iran by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.” By directly setting up weapons factories in foreign nations, Iranian leaders are attempting to achieve several short-term and long-term objectives.
First of all, Tehran has been caught repeatedly smuggling weapons via the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Most recently, several Iranian ships carrying weapons to Yemen, specifically to be delivered to the Houthis, were intercepted.
Producing weapons in another country eliminates the risk of Iran facing international condemnation, or even losing its weapons, when it is caught smuggling them.
The second issue is linked to the cost. Iran is haemorrhaging billions of dollars on the Syrian regime to keep Bashar Assad in power. Since 2011, Tehran has been assisting Assad with weapons supplies. Since Iran would be violating the UN resolution by sending weapons to Syria, it has been covertly doing so through its commercial airplanes — which is an expensive exercise. It is much more cost effective for the Iranian leaders to directly produce weapons in Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.
Third, the other major beneficiaries of Iran’s weapons are Shiite militia groups including Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi, Hezbollah, and Syrian militia groups. Producing weapons in Syria, Lebanon or Yemen significantly strengthens the Shiite crescent and militias across the region, which acts as Tehran’s proxies.
In addition, this can lure other militia or terrorist groups that are willing to serve Iran’s interests in exchange for weapons.
The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently pointed out that he would make sure that the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, completes its mission of preventing Hezbollah’s arms stocks building up. He stated, “I will do everything in my capacity to make sure that UNIFIL fully meets its mandate.” But words are not sufficient. The UN needs to take concrete action against the main provider of these weapons: The Iranian government.
Fourth, it is worth noting that Iran sends intelligence, military, and training teams when it sets up weapons factories in other countries in order to facilitate the sale and use of these weapons. This will provide Iran with the opportunity to better influence and control the security, intelligence and political systems of a foreign nation.
Fifth, Iran’s foreign-based weapons factories give it advantageous military capability for waging wars or striking other nations through third countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen. As a result, Iran’s ruling clerics would not need to be directly engaged in the war and jeopardize their hold on power; rather, they would exploit third parties to pit other nations against each other.
Sixth, Iran is literally creating a gigantic military presence in Syria and Lebanon, which would make it easier for Iranian leaders to totally occupy and take over Arab nations. This is part of Iran’s long-term hegemonic ambitions and pursuit of imperialistic pre-eminence in the region.
In closing, Iran is significantly extending its influence and expanding its reach in the Middle East by escalating the establishment of weapons-production facilities in foreign nations. The international community needs to hold the Iranian government to account for the further militarization, radicalization and intensifying of violence in the region, as well as for violating UN resolution 2231 and international law.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1155396/columns
-----
Khomeini Or Kim? Khamenei’s Real Teacher
By Amir Taheri
3 September 2017
According to the initial narrative of the Khomeinist ideology, the “perfect state” which Muslims should aspire was the brief period during which Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb exercised the Caliphate against a background of revolts and civil war. However, it now seems that Khomeinist zealots have found another “ideal model” outside the world of Islam.
That model is the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, better known as North Korea, which Khomeinists present as living paragon of heroic resistance against the American “Great Satan.”
The daily Kayhan, believed to reflect the views of “Supreme Guide” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently ran editorials praising North Korea’s “brave defiance of Arrogance” by testing long-range missiles in the face of “cowardly threats” by the United States. In one editorial last month, the paper invited those who urge dialogue with the US to learn from North Korea’s “success in humiliating the Great Satan.”
The editorial provoked some critical responses from the “reformist” wing of the ruling clique with President Hassan Rouhani’s unofficial spokesman expressing regret that Iran was being asked to downgrade to the level of “a pariah in a remote corner of Asia.”
Visit to Tehran
Nevertheless, last month North Korea’s nominal “president” Kim Yong-nam whose official title is Chairman of the People’s Assembly was given red carpet treatment during a 10-day visit to Tehran at the head a 30-man military and political delegation.
The Khomeinists claim legitimacy in the name of the Hidden Imam who is believed to be preparing his return at an unspecified date. The Kimists, on the other hand, base their legitimacy on the “heroic victories” of Kim Il-sung, the proto-Communist leader who, with support from the Soviet Union and Communist China, carved out a fiefdom in part of the Korean Peninsula.
He was granted a rare two-hours long audience with Khamenei. During his stay, he inaugurated North Korea’s new embassy, which includes an expanded military cooperation section. At first glance, the Khomeinist “republic” and the Kimist regime in Pyongyang seem to have little in common.
Also at first glance, it might appear that the only thing the two regimes share is a primitive version of anti-Americanism, an affliction that affects many others even in Western democracies, albeit in milder forms.
Seen by Khomeinists, who pretend to be sole custodians of “The Only True Religion”, the Kimists, who regard religion as “confused mumbo-jumbo”, must be regarded as adversaries if not outright enemies. And, yet, such is their mutual attraction that the little matter of religion seems to have had no effect on their love fest. The Kimists have even allowed the Khomeinists to set up a mosque in Pyongyang provided they do not try to convert North Koreans.
In the spring of 1979, Kim Il-sung, the founder of the dynasty and grandfather of the present Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, was among the first to congratulate Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini on the seizure of power by mullahs.
A few weeks later, Khomeini, then stationed in Qom, broke his rule of not talking to foreign emissaries by receiving North Korean Ambassador Chabeong Uk for a long session during which the ayatollah dictated a message of friendship to Kim Il-sung, in which, he invited “the masses of Korea” to expel the Americans from the peninsula.
Advisory Mission
When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in September 1980, Kim Il-sung was the first to offer assistance to the Islamic Republic by supplying its version of the Soviet SCUD missiles. In January 1981, invited by Iran, the North Koreans set up a military advisory mission in Tehran to help the newly created Islamic Revolutionary Guard Crops (IRGC) develop tactics and strategies in the war against Iraq.
One tactic quickly adopted by the Iranians was the sue of “swarm attacks” by masses of teenagers sent to clear Iraqi minefields at the cost of thousands of lives, a tactic that Kim Il-sung had developed in the Korean War against the Americans. North Korea became one of only two nations to sign a military pact of sorts, including joint staff conversations, with Iran. (The other is in Syria which signed in 2007.)
Iran’s top contact man with the North Korean military mission was Khamenei then a mid-ranking mullahs operating as Deputy Defense Minister. The new friends started “military cooperation” in 1982 with special emphasis on helping Iran develop a range of missiles.
Getting to know the North Koreans, Khamenei developed a profound admiration for their “discipline and readiness to sacrifice for their struggle”. But it was not until six years later that Khamenei, by that time named President of the Islamic Republic, could express that admiration directly in a state visit to Pyongyang.
According to those who accompanied Khamenei in the visit, the future “Supreme Guide” saw North Korea as the “ideal state” that only lacked religious faith.
“Khamenei was impressed by how everything (in North Korea) worked like the clockwork,” says Hassan Nami, a member of the entourage. “The fact that in North Korea the individual was dissolved in the collective symbolized by the Supreme Leader overwhelmed Khamenei.”
Khamenei’s visit to North Korea, in May 1989, was the first to give him the feeling that he was the rising leader of a rising new power on the world scene. The North Koreans declared a holiday for schools and factories to mobilize a million people to line the streets to greet Khamenei.
A Rare Gesture
In a rare gesture, Kim Il-sung himself went to the airport to greet the visitor. The North Korean despot then chaired a special session of the People’s Assembly to hear Khamenei’s speech which included a thinly disguised invitation to Koreans to return to religious belief.
In the end, however, the North Koreans adopted nothing from Khomeinism while Khamenei adopted much of Kim Il-sung’s ideology. Kim’s “juche” (self-reliance) shibboleth became Khamenei “eqtesad muqawemati” (Resistance Economics).
Khamenei also adopted Kim’s reliance on missiles, caused by the fact that North Korean had no access to modern warplanes, as the main plank of his defence doctrine. The revival of the Shah’s nuclear program, scrapped by Khomeini but revived under Khamenei, was also inspired by Kim who believed a weaker nation enhances its position by owning “the ultimate weapon.”
When it comes to Khamenei’s rejection of compromise with domestic or foreign adversaries, again Kim was the teacher.
Kim preached “absolute independence” which meant total disregard for international law, something that Khamenei has made an article of faith for the Islamic Republic.
Going down the list of Khamenei’s beliefs, including his reliance on the military for the survival of the regime, one could see that in many cases the real teacher was Kim Il-sung, not Khomeini.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/03/Khomeini-or-Kim-Khamenei-s-real-teacher.html
-----
How Qatar’s Leadership Is Working for Iran
By Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
2 September 2017
When pride and glory went to Qatari leadership’s head, it gave birth to treason. Perhaps one of the most significant advantages which resulted from the four countries’ boycott of Qatar is that this pushed it to openly take the stance it had held secret for over two decades.
It has not been three months since Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt boycotted Doha and the latter has announced sending its envoy back to Iran. The terrorist and sectarian Tehran, which works to destabilize countries and sows seeds of chaos, lured Doha’s diplomats after Qatari leadership did not allow Saudi planes to transport Qatari pilgrims on the expenses of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Majesty King Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Doha’s Delusions
Thus, Doha decided to abandon Riyadh and choose Tehran. Its iniquity is thus two-faced as the Iran-Qatar axis is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorist murderers and is operating their intelligence cells. The duplicity of Qatari leaders is now thoroughly exposed. Qatari leaders have started destroying their own country. Hamad bin Khalifa is now destroying the very delusions he had himself believed in and promoted.
One of Hamad bin Khalifa’s and Hamad bin Jassim’s delusions was to deprive Saudi Arabia of the leadership of Sunnis, which they considered would pass on to the Brotherhood or to Turkey’s sultan. However, their attempts have yielded nothing them nothing but failure. They had also harboured the idea that they would perhaps inherit Wahhabism but they ended up aligning themselves with Tehran’s politicized clergy and followers of brutal Khomeinism.
Another delusion of Hamad bin Khalifa was to seize Saudi Arabia’s political legitimacy by claiming his lineage to the Najdi tribe of Bani Tamim. He has also claimed his peerage back to Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab, but the Sheikh’s family has clearly rejected his claims.
In The Thrall of Persia
Under Hamad’s leadership, Qatar produced a series about Al-Qaqa ibn Amr. Hamad bin Khalifa even named one of his sons after the Bani Tamim tribe and took pride in its historical role in the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah against the Persians. According to historians, Assem ibn Amr — the brother of Al-Qaqa ibn Amr and a commander during the battle — praised Arabs for defeating foreigners. When the Qatari crisis erupted – and before it had even escalated – Hamad betrayed Arabs and chose to be an agent working for non-Arabs in Persia against them.
Hamad’s propaganda machine, media and movements project him as the architect of the ‘Arab Spring’ and the saviour of Arabs. However, when the crisis first erupted, he presented himself as partner and servant of the Persians and of their fundamentalist mission which opposes Arabs. In fact, he claimed to be capable of avoiding the impact of the crisis by adopting the most foolish approach of running forward towards it!
Qatar Shall Endure In Spite Of the Deluded
What the crisis has clearly shown so far is that the Qatari leadership does not take into its consideration the good of neither the Qatari ruling family nor of the Qatari people. Hamad had become the emir after staging a coup against his father and sought his extradition by getting an Interpol warrant issued against him. He also expelled thousands of Qatari tribesmen. After the crisis erupted, the actions he took were similar to his now familiar approach of rejecting the mediation of Sheikh Abdullah II and his general disregard for the desire among Qataris to perform the annual Muslim pilgrimage. His actions also showed that he does not care about the interests of his own people in Saudi Arabia. He headed towards Iran although it goes against his people’s culture, sectarian affiliations, tribal extensions and strategic interests. This was clearly seen when he publicly embracing Tehran and supported a group of mercenaries which he had gathered around him for years.
Ultimately, Qatar will endure because of the good in its people, the ruling family and deeply entrenched Arab values, in spite of the misadventures of a few deluded men who refuse to re-examine their actions and back down.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/02/How-Qatar-s-leadership-is-working-for-Iran.html
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/hezbollah-daesh-deal-terrifying-consequences/d/112418