Saudi Arabia’s Fresh Rhetoric By Ghassan Charbel: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 October 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
28 October 2017
• Saudi Arabia’s Fresh Rhetoric
By Ghassan Charbel
• States Make War, But War Will Not Make New States
By Sinem Cengiz
• Why The Us Can't Afford To Lose Iraqi Kurdistan
By Ranj Alaaldin
• The Consequences Of Iran’s Regional Dominance
By Diana Moukalled
• The Ultimate Multidimensional Iran Strategy
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
• When Will The Yemeni War End?
By Mashari Althaydi
• Amr Moussa’s Memoir Stirs Up Debate And Discussion
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
• Iraqi Leaders’ Visits A Prelude Toward Internal Reconciliation, Regional Calculations
By Shehab Al-Makahleh
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
Saudi Arabia’s Fresh Rhetoric
By Ghassan Charbel
27 October 2017
In a horribly fragmented Middle East, no two persons can meet without despair being the third in company. Distress haunts most platforms.
Public rhetoric is charged with fear mongering terms warning against civil war, militias roaming free, shaky geography, and failing economies.
Paralyzed with concern, countries and people are slowly being chewed up with anxiety. A step deeper into quicksand, statistics show rising unemployment and devastating poverty ensuring that the opportunity to board the train to the future is lost.
Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative, which concludes its activities today, has set sail against the current.
It is no exaggeration when saying that thousands of partakers from 70 different countries, international companies, investment and financial giants have had their expectations challenged and were presented more than what their thoughts had conceived.
For all those who had wondered as to when a new Saudi Arabia will be born and how long it would take, have found that they were standing before a novel Kingdom using a fresh choice of words.
Such a transformation was further emboldened by the interactive answers given by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman at a session with ambitious partners looking forward to recreating the Saudi way to communicate with its citizens and the world. And this goes beyond reshaping a few terms to achieve an image face-lift—it broaches a comprehensive vision around moving the kingdom forward into the future.
What is more is that this vision is backed with matching figures.
The impact of such a transformation has sent a pulsing wave of hope. A wager placed on Saudi youth which makes up to 70 percent of the kingdom’s population. Clearly, this new Saudi Arabia has successfully established a strong line of communication with the slice of society under 30, which will drive this initiative forward and guard it against cultural stagnation, fear and hesitation.
Saudi youth has, in turn, responded positively, creating a national wealth to access and merge with other sources of riches. All of which steered by strong political management and the powerful will of the people.
"This place is not for conventional people or conventional companies, this will be a place for the dreamers for the world," Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said, speaking on a panel at the FII conference.
"The strong political will and the desire of a nation. All the success factors are there to create something big in Saudi Arabia," the Crown Prince added.
The business of building the future is a venture aiming at protecting stability with prosperity. Creating jobs, sustaining a vivacious economy and an open society all are part and parcel of a preemptive action plan to protect youth from despair and frustration playing bait to push them a step closer to radicalization and anti-world nihilism.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had made a clear-cut statement that the Kingdom will not waste time humoring extremist philosophy but has rather put in motion a series of arrangements that will guard the future.
“We will eradicate remnants of extremist dogma sooner than later,” said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Extremism will not have its way with this new Saudi Arabia, nor will it hold the Kingdom’s relationship with the world held hostage by dread, hostility, and conflict.
“We are simply reverting to what we followed – a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions. 70% of the Saudis are younger than 30, honestly we won’t waste 30 years of our life combating extremist thoughts, we will destroy them now and immediately,” Crown Prince Mohammed said.
Moderation fosters acceptance, expanding common ground for deeper cooperation and partnership in producing progress—leaving a positive reflection worldwide.
It also fights off intolerance, ruling out all that is different as a threat, and prevents erecting isolating walls among societies.
This novel rhetoric counteracts isolationism. The world will leave behind anyone refusing to participate in the industry of building the future.
There is no solution for those who wish to save themselves a place and protect their interests other than to engage in progress.
Actively engaging in progress means making maximum use of scientific development, and not dealing with technology as a strange infiltrator that threatens to corrupt society.
Technology is an opportunity to accelerate progress and make up for time lost in futile discussions over old files.
More so, it is an opportunity to double capacity and improve revenue.
The ability to turn technology into a weapon in the battle for progress depends on the existence of advanced education, modern universities, and open programs.
"Change" no longer stirs concern or suspicion. The world is constantly changing with the impact of scientific and technological revolutions.
All must board the development-bound train in order to grow their economies and communities-- miss it, and the next train may take too long to arrive.
The ticket is paid for with modern management, planning, accounting, good use of resources, adaptability, credibility, and investment-friendly environment.
Establishing ‘Neom’ along the borders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan brings into physical reality the newly adopted mindset.
“Neom will attract private as well as public investments and partnerships. The zone will be backed by more than $500 billion over the coming years by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, local as well as international investors,” Prince Mohammed said.
Some want to build the world’s largest solar panel networks, employ more robots than humans, Prince Mohammed added.
Prince Mohammed’s speech invoked audiences’ thoughts— for decades now, the Middle East was perceived as a zone drenched with chaos. What the Prince was saying redirected that reality.
It eschews from the impression that Arabs have lost the battle for progress, and are left only with the option of cutting loss. To bear with living in a world they do not participate in making.
A new Saudi Arabia. Driven youth, strong will, thought-through planning, rightly invested capacities, moderation, openness to new interfaces, a competitive spirit, innovation, and mutual interests and partnership all spell out the overview of this transformation.
This shining success will have a ripple effect across the Arab and Islamic worlds, given Saudi Arabia’s great regional role and its far-reaching influence in close and far away countries.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/27/Saudi-Arabia-s-Fresh-Rhetoric.html
-----
States Make War, But War Will Not Make New States
By Sinem Cengiz
28 October 2017
American political scientist and sociologist Charles Tilly argued that “war made the state, and the state made war.” He was referring to Europe’s violent history and the impact of war on state-formation on the continent.
Tilly’s argument has started to garner renewed interest in recent years amid turbulence in the Middle East. Syria and Iraq have become failed states, bringing the issues of terrorism, refugees and foreign fighters to the fore. There are also attempts by some actors to create new states by taking advantage of regional chaos.
War has become the region’s defining feature, but Tilly’s work on the relationship between war and state-formation does not, and will not, work in the context of the Middle East. This is because the Western experience is different, and because wars are jeopardizing state-building in the Middle East. Moreover, the adverse effects of war on state-formation are far greater than its constructive effects, as recent developments in the region have shown.
This is the main reason why, today, both regional and international actors are against Kurdish independence from Iraq. Neighbouring countries such as Turkey and Iran fear it could fan separatism among their own Kurdish populations. The Kurds’ independence referendum in September was received harshly by regional and international actors, and has further destabilized Iraq.
Kurds have dreamed of independence for 100 years, and are now challenging borders that were drawn up by colonial powers after World War I and the collapse of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire.
The issues of state-formation and borders in the Middle East have been debated for years, but a change in the borders of Syria and Iraq would open a Pandora’s box. This is a common fear of all actors that have a stake in the region, so they prefer the status quo.
Today, global, regional and local actors have spheres of influence in Iraq and Syria. That is why US-Russian agreement is no longer sufficient to resolve regional crises. We are no longer in a bipolar world.
Today, regional states can limit the room for maneuver of global powers, which now cannot decide the Middle East’s fate without consulting Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others. It could be helpful to see the Kurdish referendum, as well as global and regional reactions to it, in this context.
Uprisings and conflicts have exerted pressure on the region’s state system. Some analysts even predict that borders will soon be redrawn given the situations in Iraq and Syria, where proto-states have already emerged. But new borders do not seem to restore stability. Rather, they will lead to the emergence of unprecedented threats, plunging the region into bloody wars with catastrophic results.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1184326/columns
------
Why The US Can't Afford To Lose Iraqi Kurdistan
By Ranj Alaaldin
27 October 2017
US relations with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq took a major blow in recent weeks. In the aftermath of the Kurdish referendum for independence, Iraq's security forces, alongside the Shia militias of the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMUs) launched an offensive against the Peshmerga in the disputed territory of Kirkuk, with US acquiescence.
On Tuesday, these forces went as far as launching an offensive on Fish-Khabur area on the Iraq-Turkey border, where Iraqi Kurdistan's most important oil hub is located. Peshmerga forces managed to repel the attack. On Thursday there were further clashes after Baghdad deployed additional forces to the area.
Highly dependent on oil for both economic and political stability, the Iraqi government naturally went after Kirkuk, a strategically vital province with estimated 9 billion barrels of oil reserves, which has been under Erbil's control since 2015. But its push to capture Fish-Khabur risks escalating the conflict into a civil war - something the US cannot afford to allow.
US officials had previously warned the KRG against holding the referendum but failed to convince the Kurdish leadership that they could broker a compromise between the KRG and Baghdad over long-standing disputes. They warned that the referendum would carry risks that the US could not control.
Kurdistan's leadership has expressed disappointment at what it perceives as US indifference and negligence, as the White House asserted that it was not going to take sides. For the general Kurdish public, Washington's acquiescence was a betrayal.
Despite Washington's decision to back Baghdad, it still needs the KRG as an ally in Iraq and the region. Without its help, it risks losing its positions in Iraq and allowing Iran to strengthen its grip on the country.
The Precarious US Policy In Iraq
Washington's decision to back Baghdad in its dispute with Erbil was based on its strategy to help Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi consolidate power and curb Iranian influence.
But by acquiescing to Baghdad's offensive on Kirkuk, the US inadvertently empowered the Iran-backed militias, which have dominated Iraq's security sphere since the 2014 collapse of the Iraqi armed forces.
The PMUs are supported by large segments of the Shia community in Iraq and will almost certainly alter the political map of the country in forthcoming elections in 2018. While in their ranks there are a number of state-aligned units that do not answer to Tehran, the PMUs are led and dominated by two Tehran-linked militias: the Badr Brigade and Ketaib Hezbollah.
The former was established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in the 1980s, and the latter has been designated a "terrorist" organisation by the US. Within the PMUs, there's also Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which was established and armed by Iran and which has launched countless attacks on US military personnel since 2006.
The US does not have many choices for partners in Iraq: factions within the political elite willing to work with Washington are either too weak or too insignificant. The strongest parties and factions tend to be aligned with Iran. The only strong anti-Iran faction is led by the anti-US cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He leads the powerful Sadrist movement that has traditionally adopted a strong Iraqi nationalist discourse, but the movement is too malevolent for US purposes and is responsible for countless atrocities and attacks on American citizens.
Washington has stuck to al-Abadi, who lacks a sufficiently strong popular and political base, with the hope that Iraq's military gains against ISIL will remedy his shortcomings. But this strategy is fraught with challenges and could unravel even before the elections if his rivals continue to challenge his premiership and build on their own ascendancy.
Al-Abadi on his own cannot stand up to Iran, which is where the KRG comes in. If Washington is serious about wanting stability in Iraq, it has to repair its relations with the Kurds. To do that, it has to ensure the KRG has a stake in the Iraqi state and participates in the Baghdad government, despite recent events. Since 2003, no government has been formed without Kurdish participation.
Baghdad has suffered a credibility and legitimacy deficit because of Arab Sunni disenfranchisement and marginalisation at the hands of the ruling Shia political class. It cannot afford to also lose the Kurds, who have generally enjoyed the role of kingmaker as a consequence of the diffuse nature of power and politics in Iraq and the resulting confessional power-sharing arrangements.
If there is no Kurdish engagement to bolster al-Abadi's position, hardline Iran-aligned factions will almost certainly dominate the government and consolidate their hold on state institutions. To make such an arrangement work both in the short and long-term, equitable, just and sustained power-sharing arrangements must be firmly installed within Iraq's political system.
As it has done historically, the KRG provides the US with strategic depth in a country that is becoming increasingly dominated by actors hostile to its engagements and values. Abadi may not even be in office this time next year. The Kurds can bolster US influence in Iraq but only if Washington prevents continued advances from Baghdad aimed at putting the KRG under economic siege. If this happens, the situation could escalate into another civil war.
Source; aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/afford-lose-iraqi-kurdistan-171026135421497.html
-----
The Consequences of Iran’s Regional Dominance
By Diana Moukalled
28 October 2017
In a speech broadcast on Iranian TV a few days ago, President Hassan Rouhani said his country is now stronger than ever. “No decisive actions can be taken in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa and the Gulf region without Iran’s consent,” he added.
The speech provoked many parties in Lebanon, especially Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri and his political allies. Others remained silent, mainly President Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, which is headed by Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil.
Iran is waging wars to expand its power via armies including Iraq’s and Syria’s, and via Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese militias. International indifference has allowed Tehran to score one victory after another and contain its opponents’ worthless anger. It has undermined Iraqi-Kurdish ambitions by seizing Kirkuk, and dominates the governments of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Rouhani may be right in saying no decisive actions can be taken without Tehran’s consent. But its victories have paved the way for the imminent rise of a monster similar to Daesh. We would be stupid to expect anything else. A regional sectarian power won the war against Daesh, and the international coalition seemed to be affiliated with Iranian forces, just like Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Tehran’s victory leads us to a fate that is more miserable than the one faced with Daesh. A monster will be born amid destroyed cities and camps of hunger and disease. Iran triumphed over Daesh, Hezbollah won in Lebanon, Bashar Assad won in Syria and the PMU won in Iraq. Are there more favourable conditions for the imminent rise of a violent group?
These parties — as well as Arabs who have given up, Turks who have opened their borders, and the retreating West — share responsibility for this. The West has not learned what this sectarian victory over Daesh will mean, and has not realized that it will not remain immune against this colossal imbalance. Rouhani’s speech showed arrogance, but he was speaking the truth. It deserves a stronger reaction than mere angry expressions.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1184316/columns
-----
The Ultimate Multidimensional Iran Strategy
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
28 October 2017
Many governments and institutions have failed to implement a successful Iran policy because they do not examine the whole picture. An effective policy should not just focus on one of Iran’s activities, such as funding and arming terrorist groups.
It should be a broad, multidimensional strategy that includes, among other things, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, regional interventions, terrorist-related activities and human rights abuses. This comprehensive strategy emphasizes the use of soft power and prevents a war with Iran.
The ballistic missile program, which is a pillar of Iran’s foreign policy and is directly linked to the nuclear program, should be restricted and part of any nuclear deal. States should urge the UN Security Council (UNSC) to impose sanctions on Tehran if it continues to test-fire ballistic missiles, in violation of UNSC Resolution 2231.
The resolution “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” It has fired more than 10 ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal.
An effective policy recommendation would be to make any agreements with Iran contingent on respecting human rights and freedoms, as well as a full moratorium on the death penalty for children. Iran is the world’s leading executioner per capita.
Governments should impose political and economic sanctions against Iranian officials who are responsible for human rights violations, just as the US previously did against affiliates of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Washington recently designated a terrorist organization. More importantly, the international community should bring to justice those who committed the 1988 massacre of thousands of political prisoners in Iran.
Countering Tehran does not mean going to war with it. It means change from within by relying on the Iranian people and the organized opposition. Officially and publicly supporting them would be the strongest blow to the mullahs’ rule, which is an aberration. Tehran fears this soft power more than regional and global hard power.
In addition, the US should create a united front with regional powers to counter Tehran’s hegemonic ambitions. Many countries in the region would welcome this initiative.
Iran’s military sites should be inspected as part of the nuclear deal. The current agreement paves the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, as there is no efficient enforcement or monitoring mechanism. In addition, the deal’s sunset clauses, which lifts restrictions on the nuclear program after 14 years, should be removed. There should also be inspectors from various countries, not just from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Tehran has been able to expand its influence so remarkably and repress its own people via a multidimensional policy. Thus a multidimensional counterstrategy is required.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1184336/columns
-----
When Will The Yemeni War End?
By Mashari Althaydi
27 October 2017
Many have been asking, either for good reasons or due to ill intentions, when the war in Yemen will end, particularly ever since the Decisive Storm Operation has been launched in mid-2015 to protect Yemen from the Khomeini invasion via the local Houthi agent.
Will Saudi Arabia and the UAE in particular bear the cost of the expensive war on the political, media and economic levels? Will they tolerate the human cost of war? Hasn’t the war been on for long? Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
There’s nothing wrong with asking. It’s normal to ask as who loves war anyway? However “fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you.”
In an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the war in Yemen is ongoing in order “to prevent the Houthis from turning into another (Hezbollah) on our borders.” He added: “We’re pursuing until we can be sure that nothing will happen there like Hezbollah again, because Yemen is more dangerous than Lebanon.”
These statements address the people and guide the confused. Does a Saudi or anyone who loves Saudi Arabia or cares about Arab and rather global interests accept that the Khomeini Iran creates a Houthi cancer, which clones the Lebanese cancer Hezbollah, on the Saudi southern borders and on international navigation paths in Bab el-Mandeb and the Gulf of Aden?
If the war in Yemen only had this objective, it would’ve been enough to grant the war full political, practical, legal and moral legitimacy as war with the Khomeini project, represented in its Yemeni tool Abdulmalik al-Houthi and his allies, is not just a war or borders but a war of existence.
Not fighting some wars means neglecting responsibility and leadership. Signs of a real country are a strong will and solid nerves. Who said wars cancel states’ and societies’ other tasks? They can fight and build at the same time. Most recently, Saudi Arabia launched a very ambitious and exceptional path that includes investing in the future, as seen in the massive NEOM project.
Take South Korea, one of Asia’s tigers, as an example. The state of war or semi-state of war with the nuclear North Korean neighbour did not obstruct it from enthusiastically developing its economy. South Korea has lived through this situation for around half a century and not just two years like the case with the Yemeni war is.
There are also massive Saudi and Egyptian projects on the Red Sea. The Red Sea’s security must thus be guaranteed, which means the Houthis must be defeated and expelled from Yemeni coasts.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman highlighted the significance of Yemen and Bab al-Mandeb when he said: “If something happens there, that means 10 percent of world trade stops.”
In brief, one can fight a war and seek development at the same time.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/27/When-will-the-Yemeni-war-end-.html
-----
Amr Moussa’s Memoir Stirs up Debate and Discussion
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
27 October 2017
The furor whipped up by the publication of the first part of the memoirs of Egyptian leader Amr Moussa refuses to die down. The memoirs, which claims to provide behind-the-scenes account of over half a century of political events is replete with exaggerations and egotistical flourishes. However, the narrative style remains captivating as it covers specific set of events that follow a method explained by the narrator in the introduction to the book. The level of interest created by the book keeps varying and rises when it deals with stories related to Sadat, the author’s meeting with Abdel Nasser, the October War of 1973, events of the Gulf War and the peace process, as well as the diplomat’s stances during the Madrid Conference of 1991 when he talks about his encounters with James Baker.
The Madrid Peace Deliberations
Amr Moussa speaks of his rhetorical exchanges on meeting with Baker wherein he linked any progress in the peace process to the immediate suspension of Israeli settlement activities. He also emphasizes Egypt's centrality in any peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. In the book titled The Prince by William Simpson, Prince Bandar bin Sultan has referred to Moussa’s position in a chapter dedicated to the Middle East peace process. In it, Prince Bandar refers to an incident when Baker asked him: “Will Amr Moussa try to lecture us after I have met with his president?” Prince Bandar answered in the affirmative and Amr Moussa acted as predicted. His speech on meeting Baker was both long and stridently nationalistic. In the end, Baker had to bang a leather file on the table to bring Amr Moussa back to senses (p291).
Apart from his literary indulgences, especially those related to the question of Palestine, Moussa’s account deals with another important topic: the nature of relations between Egypt and Qatar, particularly between Amr Moussa and the former Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa and his Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim. He talks about strains in relations following Hamad bin Khalifa’s assumption of power but then adds: “There is a great deal of cooperation and mutual friendship between me and Hamad bin Jassim; I have a lot of respect for him and I appreciate his efficiency, his activity and his openness. I used to tease him by saying: “Stop accumulating wealth,” to which he responded: “I want to be the richest man in the Arab world.” The author then goes on to say: “The relationship between President Mubarak and Hamad bin Khalifa was very good, despite the many problems that appeared at intervals.”
The Joke on Qatar
Among the jokes that the Prince would repeat using Mubarak's words was the story of Hamad bin Jassim's plane, which the Emir of Qatar had facetiously ordered to be given to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saleh had seen this plane during his official farewell at the Doha airport. The Emir of Qatar then offered this plane to Saleh, even as its owner Hamad bin Jassim looked on clueless. The Prince used to joke about this incident whenever Mubarak met Hamad bin Jassim. Mubarak would then ask him: “How could you give your plane to Ali Abdullah Saleh?” To which he replied: “It was a joke, Mr. President.” At this, Mubarak would say: “Well! The joke was on you.”
These jokes illustrate the lack of seriousness among Qatari politicians. Still Amr Moussa has mainly ‘nice words’ for Qatar. He speaks of an instance when the Late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia got angry over al Jazeera’s attack on Egypt and then observes: “Qatari politics still tried to please him as much as possible," which is not at all correct. Although Moussa's memoirs were printed at the height of the crisis between Gulf countries and Qatar, the author pays no attention to the country that tried to violate Egypt's sovereignty. It is not true that Qatar has worked hard to please any of its neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia, because it continues to disrupt the security and stability of countries in the region.
Moussa describes the former Emir of Qatar in the following terms: “I would like to add here a summary of the Emir Sheikh Hamad. He is a Nasserist and a Wahhabist. He either practices both or does not practice them at all.” This first part of Moussa’s memoirs covers more than 600 pages. Despite certain issues with the book, one cannot totally negate the political and diplomatic history presented by the veteran Egyptian minister. However, the details presented remain subject for discussion and debate with respect to the information, descriptions, people and stories contained in the biography.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/27/Amr-Moussa-s-memoir-stirs-up-debate-and-discussion.html
-----
Iraqi Leaders’ Visits a Prelude toward Internal Reconciliation, Regional Calculations
By Shehab Al-Makahleh
27 October 2017
The visits of Iraqi officials to some Arab capitals in the past few months until recently with Iraqi Shiite cleric leader, Moqtada al-Sadr who paid a visit to Jordan on October 22, 2017 represent that Iraq is heading toward internal reconciliation before moving to playing a bigger regional role.
On his visit to Amman, Al-Sadr touched upon several issues of concern to Iraq and to the Middle East region including Iraqi reconciliation and the future of Iraq after the demise of terrorism in the country with a united Iraq. His visit to Jordan which came upon official invitation of King Abdullah II, has coincided with the arrival of Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi who held talks with the Jordanian monarch on Sunday in Amman before Abadi’s departure to have talks with Saudi Arabian officials as well with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who urged Iraqi and Saudi leaders to unite to confront Iran's growing threat in Iraq and the region.
The visit of Tillerson and his meeting with Iraqi officials show that there is an American green light to Jordan and Saudi Arabia to play a role not to end the Iranian role but for somehow freeze Iranian influence in Iraq which has been escalating since 2003.
Al-Sadr has a moderate stance towards establishing balanced relations with the Arab countries in particular, amid growing Iranian influence. He has already called for disbanding Iran-supported Shiite troops in Iraq. The Shiite leader had earlier made two visits to Jeddah and Abu Dhabi in August 2017 followed later in October by a visit to Lebanon where he discussed the role of a new Iraq in the Arab region.
Al-Sadr leads the “Sadrist Movement”, which holds 34 seats in the Iraqi parliament, and heads an armed faction called "Saraya al-Salam", a branch of the “Popular Mobilization Units” or the so-called “Al-Hashd al-Sha’abi”, which is fighting alongside the Iraqi forces against Daesh.
Al-Sadr's visit is regarded as a shift in relations between the new Iraq and its direct Arab neighbors, especially with some important news coming from Amman revealing that the talks with both Abadi and Al-Sadr focused on the reconciliation process as most of the Sunni Iraqi leaders reside in Amman.
Jordanian sources disclosed that the Jordanian capital is preparing to host meetings for Iraqis months before war on Daesh in Mosul which started October 2016 and that such meetings are expected to be announced soon where Iraqis of all political spectrums will be represented.
Jordanian observers believe that such important visits of Iraqi officials, especially after the opening of the crossing border between Jordan and Iraq, show an Iraqi attempt to find a balance in relations with neighboring countries, to reduce sectarian tensions in Iraq, and to strengthen Iraqi leading position as before 1991 era when Iraq was a military and political leader for the Arab region.
For Jordan, a stable Iraq is very important for many reasons. The first is to stop attrition of Jordanian forces which were involved to counter Daesh nearby the Jordanian-Iraqi borders for many years. The second is that Amman needs to expand its economic and trade cooperation in a way that serves the common interests of both countries and peoples. The third is to regain Iraq to Arab umbrella where Baghdad with unified Iraq would boost Arab strategic defense policies and state of deterrence against Iran or any other enemy.
This has been reiterated by King Abdullah II who stressed on the importance of giving priority to the language of dialogue to preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq in line with the Iraqi constitution, pointing out that the region cannot tolerate any new conflict, where the only beneficiary would be terrorist factions who thrive on further bloodshed. However, the sole concern in Jordan is regaining full security and stability to Iraq in order to boost bilateral relations further. It has been noticed in Amman that Jordan has been calling on Iraqi leaders to sit and talk to achieve national unity and reconciliation to build a stable, unified and strong Iraq that meets the Iraqi people’s aspirations for a better future.
Such visits of Iraqi officials to Arab countries would help bridge the gap between Iraq and Arab brethren who will help Iraqis regain their leading position in the region after being isolated due to the terrorist activities for many years that have badly affected the country’s stability and security and aggravated its social fabric. Such visits would indicate that Iraq is heading to direct Arab neighbors as a safe haven away from any sectarian influence in order to keep the country stable and unified for the Iraqi generations to come as more than 75 per cent of Iraqi population is under the age of 35.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/27/Iraqi-leaders-visits-a-prelude-toward-internal-reconciliation-regional-calculations.html
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/saudi-arabias-fresh-rhetoric-ghassan/d/113047